George Washington Flowers Memorial Collection DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ESTABLISHED BY THE FAMILY OF COLONEL FLOWERS Maryland Pamphlets 1840-1859 1-14 Report on the Acts of the Assembly Indepentent Order of Odd-Fellows /”% Report on the Gourts of Chancery - Report on the M'Donogh Bequest | Report by the Agents of Baltimore Report and Documents 5 Statement of Francis Thomas” Gowen, Address at Calvert Eaisese Streeter, Maryland , 200 Years ago - Constitution of the Maryland Institute ‘- 11. The Laity of Maryland »°- 12, Johns, Correspondence ¥2v 13, Stewart, Organization of the House: 14, Letters and Speeches 4 (/ HPODONOMNPANE Oee eee ee © @© @ avutlitari eayck —_ * eee oY ™= . .* oq ‘ i & — aionearwsood Pun Py) ue ae ena Hk san beieM iyea¥ a to. AOLING ca fyted 13 shrnocraswvitoo ‘tas finan § ‘(ye palate. \ _ a | _ BY THE COMMISSIONERS , Ss APPOIN'TED TO CODIFY THE LAWS Of THE STATE. weer? ; | =a. 0 ; " c " ie JOHN COX. nie ae + am THE FLOWERS COLLECTION ya Ls Wee Tas | &, 2 4 Ys ; A, A BRBTICLE fPgoD e- LAW OF APPEALS. APPEALS FROM COURTS OF LAW. Src. 1. From any judgment or determination of any court of law in any civil suit or action, or in any prosecution for the re- covery of any penalty, fine, or damages, any party may appeal to the Court of Appeals. 2. Hither party to a petition for freedom may appeal. 3. In cases of issues sent from the Orphan’s Court, or a Court of Hquity, to a Court of law to be tried, exceptions may be taken to any opinion given by the court before whom such issues shall be tried, and an appeal. taken on such exceptions. And such appeal, while pending, shall stay all proceedings in the Or- phan’s Court touching the matter of such issues. 4, Any person interested, may appeal from the decision of the court on any question arising under the insolvent law; Pro- vided, such appeal be taken in thirty days, and bond be given to prosecute with effect, or pay costs and damages. 5. No writ of error shall be sued out, or appeal taken from any judgment or determination of a court of law, after the ex- piration of three years from the date of such judgment or deter- mination, except writs of error, coram vobis, where judgments have been entered by mistake. 6. Upon any appeal being taken in a court of law, or any writ of error sued out, the clerk shall make out and transmit to the Court of Appeals a full transcript of the record of Dr a 7 * > $56554 4 under the seal of the court, within nine months after the appeal has been entered or writ of error produced ; and upon the re- ceipt of such transcript, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals shall enter the case upon his docket, as of the term next after the date of the appeal, or of the writ of error, 7. No appeal shall be dismissed because a copy of the record shall not have been transmitted within the time required by law, if it shall appear to the Court of Appeals that such delay was occasioned by the neglect or omission of the clerk. 8. If any appeal shall be dismissed because of the failure of the clerk to send up a transcript of the record within time, such dismissal shall not prevent a subsequent appeal ; Provided, such subsequent appeal be taken within the time limited by law for appealing from such judgment. 9. All appeals and writs of error shall regularly stand for hearing at the term of the Court of Appeals next succeeding the term to which said appeal shall have been taken, or writ of error shall have been prosecuted. 10. All appeals upon petitions for freedom, in cases of manda- mus, or questions arising under the insolvent laws, on excep- tions taken on the trial of issues sent from the Orphan’s Courts or Courts of Equity, orders granting injunction or refusing to dissolve the same, or appointing a receiver, and all BY god from decisions of the Orphan’ s Courts, and from any judgment on motions to set aside sales, or apply money in the hands of the sheriff, shall stand for hearing at the first term after the trans- mission of the record. 11. All cases where the State is interested, shall stand for hearing at the first term after the transmission of the record. 12. The Court of Appeals shall, in no case, decide any point or question which does not appear by the record to have been raised or made in, and decided by the court below. 13. The court, from whose judgment or order under the in- solvent laws an appeal shall be taken, shall immediately upon the entry of such appeal, certify and state the questions raised in and decided by such court ; and no question, which shall not appear by such certificate to have been raised in said court, shall be considered by the Court of Appeals. 5 14. The Court of Appeals shall have, on reversing any judg- ment or part of a judgment at law, power to give such judg- ment as ought to have been given by the court below, and may, _ in all cases, enforce their judgment by execution. 15. If an appeal shall be taken, or writ of error sued out for several exceptions, the Court of Appeals shall give judgment on every exception, if a procedendo is to be issued in the case. 16. In all cases where judgments shall be reversed or affirmed by the Court of Appeals, andit shall appear to the court that a new trial ought to be had, a writ of procedendo shall issue to the court from which the appeal was taken, commanding said court to try said cause again as if it never had been tried: and there shall be sent with the procedendo a transcript of the re- cord, and the said case shall stand for trial at the first term after the receipt of the procedendo ; Provided, thirty days notice of trial be given to the opposite party. _ 17. When, on the reversal of a judgment, a writ of proce- dendo shall be awarded, the Court of Appeals, upon suggestion in writing by either of the parties, supported by affidavits or other proper evidence, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the court where the judgment so reversed shall have been rendered, shall direct their clerk to transmit a copy of the re- cord to the Clerk of the Court of some other county or city, with a writ of procedendo to such court, directing them to proceed in such action, and to a new trial thereof, in the same manner as if no trial had taken place, and as if such action had been origi- nally instituted in such court. 18. If an appeal or writ of error be dismissed when taken on any order of the court antecedent to final judgment, and no final judgment shall have been rendered, it shall be the duty of the said court, on applicatian of any of the parties, to order con- tinuances in said case to be entered, and the same to be pro- ceeded with in the same manner and with the same effect as if no such appeal or writ of error had been taken or sued out, and either party may make such suggestion and new parties as could have been made if no appeal had been taken in the case; Pro- vided, the court shall be satisfied by the certificate of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, or other proper evidence, that the said appeal or writ of error has been dismissed. 2 356504 6 19. Where writs of error coram vobis are pending in - Court of Appeals, and it shall appear to the court necessary try any matter of fact put in issue by the pleadings in the ¢ ca the court may direct a transcript of the record to the court ~ where the defendant named in the original action may reside, or — to such other court as the parties in the said cause may agree upon, and the court to which such transcript shall be transmit- ted, shall proceed in such action, and to a trial of the facts put in issue. APPEALS FROM COURTS OF EQUITY. 20. An appeal shall be allowed from any final decree or order in the nature of a final decree, passed by a Court of Equity; Provided, such appeal be taken within nine months from the time of making such decree or order, and not afterwards, unless it shall be alleged on oath that such order was obtained by fraud or mistake. 21. An appeal may also be allowed in the following cases, to- wit: From any order granting an injunction, or from a refusal to dissolve the same; or an order appointing a receiver, the an- swer of the party appealing being first filed in the cause; from an order dissolving an injunction; from an order for the sale, conveyance, or delivery of real or personal property, or the pay- ment of money, unless such delivery or payment be directed to be made to a receiver appointed by such court; or from an order determining a question of right between the parties, and di- recting an account to be stated on the principle of such determi- nation. 22. On an appeal from a final decree or order, all previous orders which may have passed in the cause shall be open for revision in the Court of Appeals, unless an appeal under the next preceding section may have puviguey been taken to such order. 23. No appeal from any order shall stay the execution or sus- pend the operation of such order, unless the party praying the appeal shall give bond, with security, to indemnify the other party from all loss and injury which said party may sustain by reason of such appeal, and the staying the operation of such order ; such bond to be approved by the Judge or Clerk of the 7 Court where the proceedings are pending ; and upon giving such bond, the appeal shall stay the operation of all such orders, in the same manner as appeals do from final decrees. 24. In case a party intends, on an appeal from the final de- cree or order in the case, to dispute any previous order, and de- sires to stay the operation of such order, he shall state his inten- tion to dispute the same, in writing, to be filed with the clerk, and shall give bond in such penalty as the court may prescribe, with security to be approved by,the court or the clerk, to indem- nify the other party from all loss and injury which such party may sustain by reason of the staying the operation of such order. , 25. Whenever a Judge of a Court of Equity shall refuse an application for an injunction, he shall certify the same at the foot of the bill: and any person feeling himself aggrieved by such refusal, may present an attested copy of the bill, with the order refusing such injunction, to the Judges of the Court of Appeals, or any one of them, who shall have authority to direct the injunction to be awarded ; and on such injunction the same proceedings shall be had as if the injunction had been awarded by the Court of Equity. 26. On an appeal from a Court of Equity, no objection to the competency of witnesses, or the admissibility of evidence, or to the sufficiency of the averments of the bill or petition, shall be made in the Court of Appeals, unless it appear by the record that such objection had been made by exceptions filed in the Court of Equity. ' 28. No defendant to a suit in equity, in which an appeal may be taken, shall make any objections to the jurisdiction of the court below, unless it shall appear by the record that such ob- jection was made in said court. 29. If it shall appear or be shewn to the Court of Appeals that the substantial merits of, a cause will not be determined by the reversing or affirming of any decree or order that may have been passed by a Court ot Equity, or that the purposes of jus- tice will be advanced by permitting further proceedings in the cause, either through amendment of any of the pleadings, or the introduction of further evidence or otherwise, then the Court of Appeals, instead of passing a final decree or order, shall or- der the cause to be remanded to the court from whose decision 8 shall there be had by amendment of pleadings, or further t the appeal was taken, and thereupon such further proceedings mony to be taken or otherwise, as shajl be necessary for d mining the cause upon its merits, as if no appeal had been take in the cause, and the decree or order appealed from had not been passed, save only that the order or decree passed by the Court of Appeals shall be conclusive as to the points finally decided thereby. And it shall be the duty of the Court of Appeals, in its order remanding the cause, to express the reasons for the re~ manding, and also to determine and declare the opinion of the court on all points which may have been made before the said court, or which may be presented by the record. 30. No execution upon any judgment or decree in any court of law or equity, shall be stayed or delayed, unless the person against whom such judgment or decree shal} be rendered or passed, his heirs executors or administrators, or some other person in his or their behalf, shall immediately, upon praying an appeal from any such judgment or decree, or suing out a writ of error upon any such judgment, enter into bond with sufficient securities in at least double the sum recovered by such judgment or decree, or in double the value of the matter or thing in controversy, which shall have been recovered or decreed, if a moveable chattel or chattels, to be estimated by the court, from whose judgment or decree the said appeal shall be made or writ of error directed, with condi- tion as follows or to the following effect: That if the said party appellant, or party suing out such writ of error, shall not cause a transcript of the record and proceedings of the said jugdment or decree to be transmitted to the Court of Appeals within the time required by law, and prosecute the said appeal or writ of error with effect, and also satisfy and pay to the said party in whose favor such judgment or decree was rendered or passed, his execu~ tors, administrators or assigns, in case the said judgment or decree shall be affirmed, as well the debt, damages and costs, or the damages or,sum of money or other matter or thing, and costs adjudged in the court from which the appeal is taken, or writ of error sued out, as also all damages and costs that may be award- ed by the Court of Appeals ; then the said bond to be and remain in full force and virtue, otherwise of no effect. 31. The clerk or judge of any court of law or equity shall ap- prove any bond under the preceding section. 32. The filing of am appeal bond approved as aforesaid, shall stay any execution which has been issued on any such judgment 9 or decree, whether the same has been in part executed or not ; and the sheriff or other officer in whose hands the execution may be, shall, upon the exhibition to him of satisfactory evidence that an appeal bond has been filed and approved, and upon the receipt of the costs which have accrued in said execution, stay all further proceedings, and deliver up the property ; Provided, that this section shall not extend to appeals from courts of common law ren- dered by confession, or to any judgment rendered on verdict, un- less a bill of exceptions has been taken, or a motion in arrest of judgment has been over ruled. 33. The courts of law and equity and the judges thereof, in va- cation, shall have full power and authority to examine into and determine on the sufficiency of the sureties to any bond filed in the offices of the said courts respectively under this article, and the said courts may from time to time make such rules and or- ders for the justifying or proving the sufficiency of such sureties, and for requiring additional security in any case, as they may deem proper. ‘ 34. In case any such bond shall be rejected, the court or judge rejecting thes ame shall have a discretionary power to grant further time to the party to fileanother bond; and if wpon such indulgence the party shall file a new bond, which shall be ap- proved, the supersedeas thereupon granted shall have a relation | back to the day of the filing the first bond. 35. No bond required by this article to be executed for the purpose of staying or delaying execution upon any judgment or decree, which shall be approved, shall be avoided for any matter of form. | 36. Any judgment confessed before two justices of the peace for staying execution, on any judgment or decree in any Circuit Court, or the Supreior Court, or Court of Common Pleas of the city of Baltimore, may be appealed from, or a writ of error thereon may be brought in like manner, and there shall be the same pro- ceedings to stay execution thereon, as herein prescribed in rela- tion to judgments rendered in courts of law; and the bond en- tered into on making the appeal or suing out the writ of error, and the sureties therein, shall be approved by the clerk of the court in which the judgment or decree was rendered. © 10 APPEALS FROM ORPHAN’S COURTS, . ial hs 37. In all decrees, orders, decisions and judgments made by any Orphan’s Court, the party who may deem himself aggriev- ed by such decree, order, decision or judgment, may ovr the Court of Appeals; Provided, such appeal be made within thirty days after such decree, order, decision or judgment. 38. If the decree, order, decision or judgment shall have been given or made on a summary proceeding, and on the testimony of witnesses, the party shall not be allowed to appeal, unless he shall immediately notify his intention and request that the tes- timony be reduced to writing, and in such case the depositions shall be at the cost of the party in the first instance reduced to writing. ¥ 39. The register shall make out, and transmit to the Court of Appeals, a full transcript or record of the whole proceedings of the court in such case, under the hand of the register and the seal of the court, within sixty days after the appeal, or to the next Court of Appeals after said appeal is entered, and upon the re- ceipt of such transcript by the clerk of the Court of Appeals, he shall enter the case upon his docket as of the term next after the date of said appeal. 40, The Court of Appeals shall either affirm the decree, judg- ment, decision or order of the court below, or direct in what man- ner it shall be changed or amended, and the decision of the Court of Appeals shall be final and conclusive, and when certified under the seal of the court, and transmitted to the Orphan’s Court, the Orphan’s Court shall proceed according to the tenor and direc- tions thereof. 41, An appeal from the Orphan’s Court shal] not stay any pro- ceedings therein, which may with propriety be carried on before the appeal is decided; Provided, the said Orphan’s Court can provide for the conforming to the decision of the Court of Ap- peals, whether the said decision may eventually be for or against the appellant. é 42. If upon an appeal being entered in the Orphan’s Court the parties shall mutually agree, and enter their assent in writing to be filed by the Register of Wills, that the appeal shall be made to the Circuit Court for the county, or Superior Court for 1] Baltimore, the Orphan’s Court shall direct the transcript of the proceedings to be transmitted to the Circuit Court, or Superior Court for Baltimore, whose decision shall be final. 43. It shall be the duty of the clerk or register transmitting a record to the Court of Appeals, to mark upon the record the amount of the costs taxed against the plaintiff and defendant respectively, to the time of the appeal. 44. When any instrument of writing has been once transcrib- ed into any record intended to be transmitted to the Court of Ap- peals, #shall not be necessary to copy such instrument a second time in such record, but it shall be sufficient to refer to the same and the page of its first ititroduction into the record generally ; and if copied a second time, the parties concerned in the cause shall not be charged for the second copy. APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OFFICE. 45. All parties aggrieved by any judgment, final order or de- termination in any case affecting the title to lands made by the Commissioner of the Land Office, shall have full.power and right to appeal from such judgment, order or determination to the Court of Appeals; Provided, that such appeal shall be made within nine months from the date of such judgment, order or determi- nation, the party appealing, filing at the time of such appeal, his reasons therefor ; And provided further, that no such appeal shall stay proceedings, unless bond and security be given in the manner herein required in appeals from Courts of Equity. APPBALS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 46. All appeals made from any decision or order of the County Commissioners, shall be made to the Circuit Court. APPEALS FROM JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. 47. Any party aggrieved thereby may appeal from any judg- ment of a justice of the peace to the Circuit Court for the county, or “ Court of Common Pleas” in Baltimore, at any time within sixty days from the rendition of such judgment. « 12 48. If either party die after the rendition of a judgment by a justice of the peace, his executor or administrator may app within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment. 49. On the party signifying his intention to appeal, it sell be the duty of the justice of the peace to enter the appeal, with the date thereof, upon his docket, and to transmit the papers in the cause to the clerk of the Circuit Court, or the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas. 50. All appeals shall be docketed, and summons fomghe ap- pellee issued by the clerk of the Cireuit Court, or Court 6 Com- mon Pleas, immediately upon the filing the papers in his office, and no petition shall be necessary in any case. 51. If the summons shall be returned summoned, and the pa- pers shall have been filed ten days previous to the commence- ment of the then next term of the court, the case shall stand for trial at the first term ; but if the papers are not filed within that time, the case shall not stand for trial until the next term: 52. No appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace shall stay execution unless an appeal bond, with approved and sufficient ssecurity, be filed with the justice, with condition that if the party appealing shall not prosecute his a ppeal at the next Cirenit Court for the county, or the next term of the Court of Common Pleas with effect, and also pay and satisfy the party in whose behalf the judgment of the justice shall be given, his executors, admin- istrators or assigns, in case the said judgment shall be affirmed, as well the debt, damage and cost, adjudged by the justice from whose judgment such appeal shall be made, as also all costs and damages that shall be awarded by the court before whom such appeal shall be heard, tried, and determined, then the said bond to be and remain in full force and virtue, otherwise to be of none effect. 53. When an appeal bond shall be filed with sufficient secu- rities, the said appeal shall operate as a supersedeas to any ex- ecution on said judgment, notwithstanding a levy may have been made; Provided, the said appeal shall be taken and the bond filed within sixty days after judgment, and the party, appellant first pays or tenders payment to the officer making such levy, all legal fees which shall have accrued on said levy. ato tree 13 54. If the justice of the peace rendering any judgment appeal- ed from, goes out of office by death or otherwise, before an ap- peal bond has been executed by the party appealing, such appeal bond may be executed before any other justice in the same county or city, and such bond shall have the same effect as if executed before the justice rendering the judgment appealed from. AMIS? OR ACTS CONTAINED IN Pt Cl, APPEALS. 1785, ch. 72. 1829, ch. 236. 1842, ch. 27. 1785, ch. 87. 1831, ch. 68. 1842, ch. 28. 1791, eh. 68. 1826, ch. 200. 1843, ch. 41. 1796, chg 67. 1830, ch. 185. 1843, ch. 73. 1798, ch. 101, sub. ch. 2, and 1832, ch. 197. 1843, ch. 73. sub. ch. 15. 1832, ch. 208. 1845, ch. 7. 1800, ch. 69. - 1832, ch. 302. 1845, ch. 91. 1802, ch. 1. 1834, ch. 105. 1845, ch. 132. 1806, ch. 90. 1834, ch. 248. 1845, ch. 367. 1807, ch. 151. 1834, ch. 296. 1849, ch, 88. 1811, ch. 171. 1835, ch. 346, 380. 1849, ch. 453. 1813, ch. 62. 1836, ch. 305. 1849, ch. 78. 1814, ch. 94. 1837, ch. 217. 1849, ch. 517. 1818, ch. 88. 1840, ch. 232. 1852, ch. 155. 1818, ch. 193, 1841, ch. 11. 1852, ch. 239. 1818, ch. 204. 1841, ch. 46. 1853, ch. 374. 1825, ch. 68. 1841, ch. 263. 1853, ch. 416. 1825, ch. 117. —Tndependent Order of Odd-Fellows, LAR RAARRARAR RAR AAAS 4 FRIENDSHIP, LOVE AND TRUTH. a ee ANNUAL COMMUNICATION GRAND LODGE OF THE UNITED STATES, Held at the City of Baltimore, September, 1849.. RRA ARR AAA ARR AAA AA ARR nen Monpay, September 17, 9 o’clock, A. M. The R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States convened this day ‘at Odd-Fellows’ Hall, City of Baltimore, being the regular Annual Communication, when the following were present: HORN R. KNEASS, - - - - M.W.G. Sire. NEWELL A. THOMPSON, - R. W.D. G. Sire. JAMES L. RIDGELY, - - ~- R.W.G.C.and R. Secretary. ANDREW E. WARNER, - - R. W.G. Treasurer. Rev. Bro. E. M. P. WELLS, °- R. W. G. Chaplain, p. t. SMITH SKINNER, - - - - R.W.G. Marshal. JOHN E. CHAMBERLAIN, -_ - W. G. Messenger. SAMUEL L. HARRIS, - - - W. G. Guardian. The Grand Secretary proceeded to call the roll, when the follow- ing members responded, viz: Reps. Allen, of Pa.; Anderson, of Ga.; Ballou, of Vt.; Burr, of N. C.; Cole, of Mass.; Dibblee, of N. York; Davies, of N. Y.,; Dickson, of Del.; Fritz, of Pa.; Green, of Ohio; Knight, of R.I.; ° Marley, of Md.; Moffet, of Missouri; Mott, of La.; Parmenter, of Mass.; Parker, of N. H.; Sessford, of D. C.; Silsby, of Ala.; Smith, of Maine; Theobald, of Maine; Treadway, Mich.; Wakefield, N. J.; Zimmerman, Md.; P. G, Sires Wildey, Kennedy. The Grand Secretary, haying reported a quorum present, the De- puty Grand Sire examined the representatives, and reported them 1 Wi : ae 9 ~ duly qualified; whereupon, by order of the M. W. Grand Sire, hé proclaimed the Grand Lodge open for the transaction of business. Prayer by Rev. Bro. E. ‘M. P. Wells, R. W. G. Chaplain, p. ¢. The chair named the following as the Committee on Credentials: LA a Parmenter, of Mass.; Sessford, of D. of C.; Zimmerman, of “Rep. Parmenter, of Mass., presented the Credentials of Rep. Elli- son, of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. Rep. Cole, of Mass., presented the Credentials of Rep. Frost, of the Grand Camp, of Mass. Rep. Wakefield, of N. J., presented the Credentials of Rep. Read, of the Grand Lodge of N. J. Rep. Treadway, of Mich., presented the Credentials of Rep. Fol- let, of Grand Lodge of Michigan. Rep. Mott, of La., presented the Credentials of Rep. Strawbridge, of Grand Lodge of La. Rep. Fritz, “of Pa. presented the Credentials, of Rep. Wells, of the Grand Lodge of Pa.. Rep. Allen, of Pa., presented the Credentials of Rep. Rtakes,, of the Grand Camp of Pa. Rep. Davies of N. Y., presented the Credentials of Rep. Hale, of the Grand Lodge of New York. Rep. Dibblee, of N. Y., presented the Credentials of Rep. Taylor, of the Grand Camp of New York. Rep. Anderson, of Ga., presented the Credentials of Rep. Cohen, of the Grand Lodge of Georgia. Rep. Green, of Ohio, presented the Credentials of Rep. Olds, of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and also the Credentials of Rep’s Clark and Spooner, of Grand Camp of Ohio. Rep. Burr, of N. C., presented the credentials of Rep. Manly, of the G. Lodge of N.C. Rep. Moffett, of Mo., presented the credentials of Rep. Forbes, of the G. L. of Mo.; also, of Rep. Crane, of the G. Camp of Mo., of Rep. Barrows, of Grand Lodge of Miss., of Rep. Brown, of G. Lodge of Indiana. Rep. Treadway, of Mich., presented the credentials of Aia.. Thomas and Lockwood, of G. L. of Conn., and Rep. Sanford, of G. Camp of Conn. Rep. Parker, of N. H., presented the credentials of Rep. Brown, of G. L. of N. H.; also of Rep. Currier, of G. Camp of N. H.; also of Reps. Wakeley and McDonald, of G. L. of Wisconsin. Rep. Silsby, of Ala., presented the credentials of Rep. Shaw, of G. L. of Ala. Rep. Knight, of R. I., presented the credentials of Rep, Webster, « of G. Camp of R. 1.; also of Rep. Marshall of Grand Lodge of Ky. Rep. Dickson, oF Del., presented the credentials of Rep. Smith, of » G. L. of Del.; also of Rep, Askew, of G. Camp of Del. Rep. Sessford, of Dis. of Col., presented the credentials of Re e- Moore, of G. L. ‘of D. of C., of Rep. Towers, of the G. Camp of LUNN UE er he, Po APleee Sani Bei . 3 of C.; also the memorial of P. G. M, E. C. Robinson, of Va., contest- ing the seatof the Rep. elect from the G. Camp of Virginia, Ps Cy Pi Brunet, and claiming to be the rightful Rep. of the said G. Encamp- ment. Rep. Zimmerman, of Md., presented the credentials of Rep. Tewksbury of G. C. of Md., and of Rep. Hunt, of the G. L. of Md. Rep. Smith, of Maine, presented the credentials of Rep. Haines, of the G. L. of Maine. Rep. Torre, of S. C., presented the ceesdens thle of Rep. DeSaus- sure, of G. L. of S. Ci: also of Rep. Colfax, of Grand Camp of In- diana. Rep. Parmenter, of Mass., presented the credentials of Rep. Phil- lips, of the Grand Lodge of Va., also of Rep. Brunet, of the Grand Camp of Va. > P. G. Sire Kennedy, presented the credentials of Rep. Potts, of the G. L. of Tlinois, of Reps. Peacock and Wilson, of the G: ie of Tenn., of Rep. Morton, of G. Camp of Tenn., of Rep. Hastings, of G. Camp of Miss., and of Rep. Garritt, of the GL. Arkansas. The G.Sec’y. presented the credentials of P. G. M. Montgomerie, special Rep. from the Grand Lodge of British North America, All of which were referred to the Committee on credentials. On motion of Rep. Treadway, of Mich., P. G. M. Kelloge, of Mich., Deputy Grand Sire elect, was invited to a seat within the Hall. Rep. Parmenter, of Mass., from the Committee on Credentials, vabinitted the following report: y, To the R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States: The Committee on Credentials Teport the certificates of election of the following Representatives as in due form and properly authenti- cated: P. G. JOHN W. HUNT, Rep. of G. L. of Maryland. P. G. M. WM. ELLISON, of Massachusetts. P. G. JAMES W. HALE, i “ “of New York. P.G. WILLIAM A. WELLS, m “Pennsylvania. P. G.M. EDSON B. OLDS, ° ds ‘of Ohio. P. G. JAMES STRAWBRIDGE, bs ‘* Louisiana. P. G.M. BENJAMIN FOLLETT, « ‘Michigan. P. G. JOHN H. MANLY, i ss Sai Carolina. Pp. G. M. SAMUEL READ, “ New Jersey. P. G. M. D. N. BARROWS, x “Mississippi. P. G. GEORGE BROWN, My ‘ Indiana. P. G. LUCIUS A. THOMAS, _ P. G. S. LOCKWOOD, Jr., vice ie i Gbihaotidli. J.T. Minor, resigned, J P. G. STEPHEN BROWN, ed te NY Hampshire: P. G. GEORGE W. WILSON, a ey P. G. JAMES, PEACOCK, vice vat ‘“«-- Tennessee. G. P. Smith, resigned. J Me G SOLOMON COHEN, af ‘Georgia. 4 P, G. E. WAKELEY, a P. G. DAVID McDONALD, é ‘Wisconsin. to fill vacancy, J 1 P. G. M. ROBERT O. SHAW, is ‘© Alabama. P. G. M. JOHN G. POTTS, 4 ‘« J)linois. P.G. M. W. W. MOORE, i « ~T). of Columbia. P. G. M. JOHN F. SMITH, ‘i “ Delaware. P. G. ALEX. K. MARSHALL, ay “ Kentucky. P. D. G. M. ISAIAH FORBES, a “Missouri. P. G. M. ALLEN HAINES, s « Maine. G. M. W.G. DeSAUSSURE, & ‘South Carolina. P.G. M. W. F. PHILLIPS, a ‘“« Virginia. G. mice FRED. 8S. GARRITT, 4 ““ Arkansas, P. C. P. GEO. D. TEWKSBURY, Rep. of G. Encampment of Md. P. H. P. JOS. B. FROST, “Massachusetts. P. G. M. JOHN W. STOKES, 24 ‘““~ Pennsylvania. P. G. P. JOSEPH R. TAYLOR, s ““ New York. P. G. M. JOHN T. TOWERS, “ ‘© D. of Columbia. P. G. WM. E. SANDFORD, - “Connecticut. PC. P. H. NELSON CLARK, ts e P. G. M. THOMAS SPOONER, $+* ‘© Ohio. vice John Brough, resigned, . M. H. F. ASKEW, + “Delaware. . Sec. T. ELIJAH MORTON “ “ Tennessee. JOHN G. HASTINGS, s ‘« Mississippi. one . P. HENRY L. WEBSTER, . P. AMOS B. CURRIER, . P, BENJ. F. CRANE, Ps a ig idiots oS mEAIIAR: ar Rhode Island. N. Hampshire, pe “Missouri. H. PORTER ANDREWS, & «Louisiana. S. COLFAX, ms «* Jndiana. he Committee have the satisfaction of reporting the credentials of P. G. M. Huen Epmonstone Montcomenris, as Special Grand Representative from the R, W. G. Lodge of British. North America, as duly authenticated by the signatures of the officers, and the seal of that R. W. Body. The Committee also report, as correct, the certificate of P. G, James M. H, Brunet, as Grand Representative from the Grand En- campment of Virginia. They have, in their possession, a memorial from P. G, M. BE. C. Robinson, claiming the seat on the ground of a miscounting of ballots at the election. No evidence has been pre- sented to ihe Committee, beyond the certificate; but the memo- alist sets forth certain facts, and his readiness. to verify them, which, as he claims, controls the certificate as evidence of the election of the Brother presenting it. The Committee return the memorial to the Grand Lodge for such further pore as may be expedient. Respectfully submitted, WM. E. PARMENTER, JNO. SESSFORD, Jr.,. 8. F. ZIMMERMAN. 5 ‘Rep. Ellison, of Mass., asked for a division of the question, pre- sented by the report, when on his motion, so much thereof as re- lated to the uncontested seats in the Grand Lodge, was adopted; the question being then on the residue of the report, Rep. Cole, of Mass., moved to refer it again to the Committee on Credentials. . Rep. Ellison, of Mass., moved to amend the motion of Rep. Cole, by referring the subject under consideration, to a Special Committee. The chair ruled the motion out of order, upon the ground, that a motion to refer could not, under the Rules of Order, be amended. Rep. Marshall, of Ky. moved to amend, by admitting Rep. Brunet, of the Grand Encampment of Virginia, to his seat, and referring back the memorial of Rep. Robinson, to the Committee on Cre- dentials, The chair ruled the amendment to be out of order. Rep. Cole, of Mass., asked and obtained leave to withdraw the motion to refer back the second branch of the report of the com- mittee. Whereupon, on motion of Rep. Sessford, of the D. of C., the re- mainder of the report of the Committee on Credentials was adopted, and Rep. Brunet, of the G. E. of Va., was admitted to his seat. On motion of Rep. Ellison, of Mass., the memorial of P. G. M. E..C. Robinson, of Va., was referred to a special committee. The chair named Reps. Moore, of D. of C., Burr, of N. C , and Spooner, of Ohio, as the committee. On motion of Rep. Allen, of Pa., the following resolution was adopted: Resolved, That P. G. Secretary W. Curtis and Peter Weikel be pertnitted to visit during the session of the Grand Lodge. On motion of Rep. Davies, of N. Y., the following resolution was adopted: Resolved, That a special committee of three be appointed to report the tnfin- ished business of last session. The chair named Reps. Davies, Treadway and Ballou as the com- mittee. On motion of Rep. Green, of Ohio, the following resolution was adopted: _ Resolved, That Past Grand Representative B. C. True be allowed to visit this Grand Lodge during the session. On motion of Rep. Allen, of Pa., the following resolution was adopted: Resolved, That five hundred copies of the Journal of Proceedings of this Grand Lodge be printed, from day to day, for the use of the members, omitting from said daily publication such documents as the members may be furnished with in aprinted form. ~ } | On motion of Rep. Burr, of N. C.,the following resolution was adopted: 6 Resolved, That P. G. James G. Cook, of North Carolina, be invited to witness the deliberations of this body. of Hi The Chair announced the appointment of the following standing Committees. Committee on the State of the Order—Reps. Smith, of Maine; Stokes, of Pa.; Manly, of N C. Legislative Committee. —Reps. Cohen, Georgia; Parker, N. H.; Merrick, Ky. Committee on Correspondence.—Reps. Silsby, Ala.; Thomas, Conn.; Wakeley, Wis. pias Committee on Finance.—Reps. Read, N. J.; Dibblee, N. York ; Wells, Pa. , Commmittee on Ippeals.—Reps. Ellison, of Mass.; Morton, of Tenn.; Brown, Ind. ~ Commitee on Constitutions.—Reps. Mott, of La.; Davies, of N. York; Moffet, of Missouri. Committee on Petitions. —Reps. Marshall, of Ky.; Dickson, of Del.; Shaw, of Alabama. Committee on Returns.—Reps. Potts, of Ill.; Fritz, of Pa.; Web- ster, of R. I. : Committee on Grand Lodges not Represented.—Reps. Askew, of Del.; Clark, of Ohio; Phillips, of Va. Committee on Printing. —Reps. Moore, of D. C.; Allen, of Pa.; Garritt, of Ark. P. G. Sire Kennedy, moved the following resolution, which was not agreed to— Resolved, That the Grand Lodge meet, during the present session, at 9 o’clock, A. M., and take a recess daily from 2 to 33 0 ’clock, P. Rep. Torre,fof S. C., moved the following resolution: Resolved, That the Grand Lodge do meet daily, during the session, at to o’clock A. M., and adjourn at 34 o’clock P. M. Rep. Mott, of La. moved to amend by substituting the hour of 9 o’clock A. M., which was agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, was adopted. The M. W. Grand Sire submitted his Annual Report, which was read, and on motion of Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, was referred toa Special Committee, for the purpose of distributing the subjects there- in referred to, to appropriate committees. The chair named as the committee—Reps. Spooner, of Ohio; Brown, of N. H.; Hale, of N. Y. On motion of Rep. Allen, of Pa., 1000 extra copies of the Crane Sire’s Report was ordered to be printed. Rep. Fritz» of Pa., presented the Constitution and By-Laws of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylv ania, which was referred to the Committee on Constitutions. c Rep. Dibblee, of N. Y., submitted the amended Constitution of the, Grand Encampment of N. Y., which was referred to the Committee on Constitutions. se Rep. Strawbridge, of La:, presented the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, which was referred to the Committee on Con- stitutions, Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, submitted the following proceeding of the Grand Camp of Ohio, which, on his motion, was referred to the ‘Committee on the State of the Order: “Resolved, That the Grand Scribe be and he is hereby directed to respectfully petition the Right Worthy Grand Lodge of the United States, at their next ses- sion, in behalf of this Grand Encampment, to make such alteration in the Con- stitution or Laws of the Order, as will permit State Grand Encainpments to.con- fer the Subordinate En¢ampment Degrees upon Scarlet Degree members, to qualify them for being petitioners for Subordinate Encampment Charters.” Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, submitted the following proceedings of the Grand Camp of Ohio, which was read and ordered to be spread upon the Journal: No. 1. Resolved, That this Grand Encampment is in favor of having a dona- tion made from the Treasury of the Grand Lodge of the United States, to Ex- celsior Lodge, No. I, at Honolulu, (Sandwich Island) to assist in erecting an Odd Fellows Hall for their use. ; No. 2. Resolved, That the Grand Scribe be and he is hereby directed to re- spectfully petition the R. W, G. L. of the United States, at their next session, in behalf of this Grand Encampment, to make such alteration in the Constitution or Laws of the Order, as will permit State Grand Encampments to confer the Sub- ordinate Encampment Degrees upon Scarlet Degree members, to qualify them for being petitieners for Subordinate Encampment Charters. ; No. 3, Resolved, Thatit is the opinion of this Grand Encampment, that the in- terests of the Order call for an Annual Statistical Report of the state of the Pa- triarchial branch of the Order, and that our Grand Representatives are hereby di- rected to call the attention of the G. Lodge of the U, States to the subject. No. 4. Resolved, That this Grand Encampment is in favor of the adoption of 8 the plan osed by G. Rep. Spooner, for paying the expenses of Grand Repre~ Sehtheysnator pttonding thickesnisus of the G. L. of the U. S., and for the ey! ment of the officers salaries, or of some essentially similar plan. “ No. 5. Resolved, That this Grand Encampment most cordially approve the course of her G. Rep. Wm. B, Chapman, in voting and protesting against the attempt of the G. L. of the U. States, to provide uniform Geisntntibas tor State G. Encampments and State G. Lodges, and of his votes against the donations to P. G, Sire Wildey, and that the thanks of this G. Encampment are due, and they are hereby tendered to G. Rep. W. B. Chapman, for the satisfactory discharge of his duties generally, at the late session of the G. Lodge of the U. States. \ On motion of Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, the following resolution was adopted: a Resolved, That the first resolution from the Grand Encampment of Ohio, be: referred to the Committee on Finance. That the second resolution be referred to the Committee on the State of the Order. The third to the same committee. The fourth, fifth and sixth be laid on the table, Rep. Davies, of N. Y., moved the following resolution, which wrs agreed to: Wueneas, by Art. 10 of the Constitution, a Representative to this Grand Lodge is required ‘‘to have attained to the R. P. degree,”’ therefore, Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on the State of the Order, to report, whether it is requisite to be duly qualified for a seat in this body, that a Representative should be a contributing member in good standing of a subordi- nate Encampment. Rep. Hale, of N. Y., presented the seal of the Grand Lodge of New York. Rep. Clark, of Ohio, rose and addressed the Grand Lodge as fol- lows: To the R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States: M. W.G. Sire anp Broruers:—It has become my painful duty to announce the death of P. G. Rep. Albert G. Day, of Ohio, late a member of this body. The intimate acquaintance of many years which subsisted between the deceased and myself, imposes the obligation upon me of calling your attention to this bereavement and of asking that this public tribute to his worth be placed upon your records. For several months previous to his decease, Bro. Day, had been suffering with a severe attack of inflammatory rheumatism, accompa- nied in its latter stages with a hemorrage of the lungs. To recruit his shattered health, he left his home a few weeks ago for the East. But alas! he returned only to surrender up his spirit into the hands of him who gave it. Thus on the 11th inst., passed away in the meridian of life one who by his many noble qualities had en- ar "es Me) : « ¥\ : >). 9 deared himself to allthose with whom he was associated in the va- rious relations of life. Bro. Day was born in the City of Cincinnati, July 18th, 1814.— and become connected with our society in the year 1836.. By his zealous and untiring devotion to the duties which the Order imposes upon its member, he secured the confidence and esteem of those with whom he was associated, that they have confided nearly every trust within their gift to his care; the records of his Lodge and Encamp- ment will show that he has served in nearly every office, while the G. Lodge and G. Encampment of his state have bestowed their highest honors upon him. : Those who were acquainted with our brother, knew him but to re- spect and love him for his goodness of heart, his nobleness of mind, and his gentlemanly courtesy to all. The philanthropic principles in- herent in his nature prompting him at all times to every good and noble deed made him almost unknown to himself the friend of and and sympathiser with his kind. « His loss is one that will long be remembered, and deeply deplored by his associates jn his native state. By his fellow members of this body, and by all’ who knew him well, whether united by the ties of the Order, or those only which bind together the human family. I therefore respectfully submit the following resolutions as the best tribute of respect that we can pay to his: memory: WuereEAs, it has pleased Divine.Providence to remove from us our brother, Albert G. Day, of Cincinnati, late a Representative in this body from the state of Ohio: Therefore be it. Resolved, That while we bow in humble suhmission to the will of Him who ruleth Heaven and earth, we can but mourn and regret the death of our former associate. Resolved, ‘That we sincerely sympathize with the relatives and friends of the deceased in their severe afflictions, the irreparable loss they have sustained. Resolved, That our sympathy is extended to the brotherhood in the state of Ohio, in their heartfelt sorrow for the death of our friend. ' Resolved, That the members of the Grand Lodge wear the usual badge of mourning during the session. Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing be transmitted by the Grand Secretary, to the Graud Lodge and the Grand Encampment of the State of Ohio; and, also, to the father of the deceased, Elias Day. The resolutions were, on motion, unanimously adopted. Rep. Knight, of Rhode Island, addressed the Grand Lodge as follows: é Trise with regret, Most Worthy Grand Sire, to perform the me- lancholy duty,of announcing to this Grand Lodge the death of P. G. Wm. Simons, late representative from the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, to this Grand Lodge. His death was universally regretted by all who knew him, and Odd-Fellowship has lost one of its brightest ornaments, in the State of Rhode Island. _ As an Odd-Fellow he was true to the principles of our Order. His hand was ever open to relieve the distressed, and his warm heart sympathised with the suffering and afflicted. 10 His, gentlemanly deportment and social qualities were appreciated, and will be long remembered by the officers and representatives. to this Grand Lodge, at the session of 1847. I beg leave to submit the following resolutions: eer Wuerras, Our late brother P, G. Wm. Simons, late Rep. in this body oes ie Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, has been removed from us by death— Resolved, That the members of this Grand Lodge do sympathise with their brethren of the State of Rhode Island, and with the friends of our deceased broth- er in the loss they have sustained. Resolved, That the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, and the family of our de- ceased brother, be furnished with a copy of the above preamble and resolutions. The resolutions, on motion, were unanimously adopted. __ s Rep. Torre, of S. C., moved the following resolution, which was _ adopted: Resolved, That Article 15th of the Rules of Order be amended so as that a mo- tion to refer shall be debatable. ‘ Rep. Davies, of N. Y., from the committee on that subject; made the following report: To the R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States : The Committee appointed to examine and report what per eo business of the last session requires to be acted upon at this com- munication, respectfully report, that upon examination of the pro- ceedings, they find the following, viz: /Imendments to the Constitution. Proposed by Rep. Holmes, of Mo, to ear Lily on Page 64 tt Forman, SO. NA ee 8, “ i tc “ 66 Thorington, 6 Towa, “e ‘“c 8, Coed 7d ve ‘e Chapman, 6c Ohio, te “ce 8, a4 79 162 “c “c 6c Torre, 6c > &,, 1818) ) {138 “ “983 & 1784, 58 “ “193 «1834, 6 “ 1785, “ 72 1819, “144 305 «“ a aS “« “ 183 1835 “346 1845 1786, “ 49 1820, “* 161 7 6 364 the tt UG 53 a “© 19] be '¢¢ 380 1846, O 1787 “ 30 1824, 133 1886 “ 198 « a agaus a ears 1789, © 46 1825, * 103 wt 949 (chet) Sql capa 1790, a3 38 oe y Ce hiheg i ce 269 1847, “ 150 Peay “ u 69 «= 1826, #4157 “* 1837, «116 * 1e@agiauey 1791, “c "9 uy ‘159 a3 ‘999 “ “ 945 ~* y W792,“ 41 “ “178 1888, = * 308 « “499 ; 1793, “75 «“ jeg ieso, «93 = ae 1794. «60 a ito” 1840, $1 98 “ 4393 © 1795, ~< 88 1828, 26 fo” A is nig « «13 eigey,. tt 43 “ “184 1841,Mar.ch.22 1853 ‘ 38 u 114 ~—-:1829, ~~ **:159 “Dec. “11 “ “9990 1798 “« g4 it “ 999 “ chapter 163 ie “ 344 wei ae tol) 1g80, 185 “ “216 “ “ 3r4 agen 79, 1891, = Al “ ‘© 959 “ 3y5R 1800, ce 67 (lie “« 309 “ ‘ 962 ins ce 412 ; er 1804, co TOR “ “ 37] “ “© 303 1854, “ 230 the 1807, ‘© 140 “ “315 “ “315 1856, “ 140 The two following sections to be inserted in their proper places : Where, in a bill of interpleader, some of the defendants are non-residents, and non-residents fail to answer. the Court may order the answers filed by the other de ants, to be taken as the answers of such non-resident defendants, or may as to such defendants issue an ex-parte commission to take testimony; Provided, notice of the substance and objects of the bill and answers be given, as in other cases of non-resi~ , dents. This to apply to one or more defendants. pply 5 te ys a,” Where an infant defendant is returnedg the clerk may issue a commission to discreet person, to assign a guardian for and take the answer of such infant. we ae , » ' } <% “ y ae 7 ; A ee hod PO: RT | COMMITTEE ON THE WDONOGH BEQUEST, — EN ORDINAN OE Agents of the Estate of John MWeDonogh va AND Trustees of the MeDonooh Institute. it a ALSO t, PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF THE LATE JOHN McDONOGH. é ____ i || BALTIMORE: PRINTED BY GEORGE W. BOWEN & CO. ' ) Corner of North and Baltimore Streets. Bi 1858. RARPORT OF THT COMMITTEE ON THE WDONOGH BEQUEST, WITH AN ORDINANCE KOR THE APPOINTMENT OF Agents of the estat of John stlcHonogh AND Trustees of the MeDonogh Institute, ALSO PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF THE LATE JOHN McDONOGH. BALTIMORE: SN in ae BY GEORGE W. BOWEN & CO. er of North and Baltimore Streets. 1858. * 2) 20) ee ‘ Se , ao ped at copay : ; . ie? ye ‘ bine A ‘ | Gad Ne OW 7A GP ‘The Supreme Court of Louisiana having decided all contro- versies as to the division of the McDonogh ‘estate, and ratified the partition of the property between New Orleans and Balti- more, made in May, 1857, by the Honorable Theodore G. Hunt, on the part of New Orleans,.and Mr. Brantz Mayer on -the part _ of Baltimore, our city now enters on the full possession of its share of this large bequest, and further legislation is required to control the management of the property, and the destination of the fund that will accrue to Baltimore, if it shall be sold. Much misapprehension has existed in regard to the amount of property actually left by Mr. McDonogh. ' Exaggerated ideas have prevailed as to its value, as well as to its supposed depre- ciation. The joint committee of the Councils considered it their duty to examine the large mass of papers and accounts possessed by this city relative to the estate, and they deem it due to their constituents to state the result of their investigation. By this means they hope the Councils and the public will not only ob- tain exact information as to the character and value of the pre- perty, but will cordially assent to such a destination of the fund as may effectually carry out the beneficent scheme of Mr. Mc- Donogh—stripped as it is by the. courts, of its eumbrous ma- chinery. Mr. McDonogh died in the fall of 1850, when his estate was immediately taken into the hands of five of his testamentary ex- ecutors. It was administered by them until April, 1855, when 4 it passed into the control of the commissioners and agents of New Orleans and Baltimore, appointed under ordinances of those cities. During the period of administration by the exe- cutors, most of the debts of the estate were paid, and a large share of the litigation occurred—especially, the important suit brought by Mr. McDonogh’s heirs at law, who sought to over- throw the will entirely—and the almost equally important one of the States of Louisiana and Maryland, which was intended to divest the interests of the cities in favor of those States. Mr. McDonogh, so far from being ont of debt at the time of his death, appears by the accounts to have owed $121,720. This sum, together with the commissions of the executors, counsel fees, costs of litigation, taxes, repairs, maintenance of negroes, &c., &c., in the five years of the executors’ administration, ab- sorbed a large portion of the cash and income of the estate. At the time when the transfer of the estate took place, from the testamentary executors to the commissioners and agents of © the two cities, the latter received from the former :— TG CAS... 00c0k =. oe pp cand eapadeee hese tenes as a neee - $59,112 53 Orleans Theatre property asia value)... 16,762 00 Ten years of 81 negroes (estimated value)..... 20,000 00 Real estate, per inventory of 1851............... 1,783,374 58 Bills receivable and book debts collectable..... 50,000 00 $1,929,249 11 The bulk of the property, it will thus be seen, consisted of real estate, valued in 1851 at $1,783,374. In the course of 1856, the commissioners and agents of New Orleans and Balti- more, on a careful examination of his papers, discovered that Mr. McDonogh died possessed of property in two more parishes than had been comprised in the inventory of 1851, to wit:—of $303,000 worth of real estate in the parish of St. James and $500 worth in the parish of St. Charles. This sum, $303,500, added to the previous inventory of $1,783,374, (without a new pi lig made a total valuation of the real property $2,086,8 This monn of course, continues undisposed of in any way, except that the city of New Orleans expropriated by law $40, Pa 5 000 worth for a public park, and $7,200 worth for opening streets; one-half of which amounts, with six per cent. interest, New Orleans is accountable to Baltinore for, upon the final liquidation of accounts. The reports of the agents and commissioners of Baltimore, with their accompanying documents, have all been passed upon by the Councils of 1855, 56 and 57, and the undersigned take pleasure in stating that the accounts of our city’s agents and their colleagues of New Orleans, have been in all respects sys- tematic, and accompanied with the fullest explanation and vouchers for their disbursements. These vouchers are deposited in the office of our City Register. The property, as left by Mr. McDonogh at the time of his death, was in an extremely dilapidated condition, and all the administrations of the estate have necessarily been obliged to expend considerable sums in repairs, in order to keep it tenant- ed; yet, it is an evidence of discreet and judicious management, that the income of the estate has been nearly doubled since the testator’s death. In the spring of 1857—the time having arrived, under the laws of Louisiana, when an estate owned jointly could be parti- tioned between the proprietors—the city of New Orleans filed a bill against the city of Baltimore to effect such a division. It was deemed best, by counsel, that a judicial partition should be made, so that all legal questions as to the absolute right to di- vide; as to the titles of property; and as to the nature and value of the particular legacies bequeathed by Mr. McDonogh to the two cities—to the American Colonization Society, and to the Society for the Relief of Destitute Orphan Boys—might be definitely settled by a final decree of the highest tribunal in Louisiana. In May, 1857, the experts appointed by the Fifth District Court of New Orleans to make a partition, filed their report, (a long and minute account of this estate and its divi- sion) which will be found printed at page 523 of the appendix to the proceedings of our last Council. This report was very soon ratified by the judge of the Fifth District Court; and, on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, after full and elaborate argument, it has been entirely confirmed. From this document it appears that the real estate of Mr. Mc- 6 Donogh was considerably over-valued by the appraisers in 1851, under the executors of the will. In 1857, the experts, prior to partition, called to their aid a number of persons skilled in the valuation of real property in New Orleans and in the State of Louisiana,. and, after consultation, affixed new valuations to each piece of property, as will be seen in the inventories accom- panying their report. The appraisement of the property in the city of New Orleans and in the parishes, which the experts have apportioned between MRS CILIES 15. sehr fe acess. cos +0 cages eoeneiian ett en $1,408,880 Value of what the experts have not apportioned, for the reasons stated in their report.............. ss aoe 56,800 ph, aE tt ch RG) vevevttsees $1,465,880 From this, we have the following difference between the ap- praisements a 1851, (with the added parishes in 1856) and the appraisement of 1857: re Fitstiappraisoment .....5..0. 7a sna $2,086,874 Second appraisement ..............cceeecseeeeseeapeeeeennens 1,465,880 aitieren ce 0.03.0. OR ets ae $620,994 Thus, it appears that the original value of the estate as ap- praised, (which was frequently exaggerated by common report to be $5,000,000) never reached more—for its real property— than $2,086,874; and that this over estimate has been reduced _ by the second valuation by $620,000. Accordingly, the sum. of $1,465,880 is properly to be taken as a just present valuation of the estate, forming the basis of the Council’s future calculation and action. It is understood that the estate is likely to be hereafter entirely free from litigation, as it is believed that no actions are now pending against it. The only outstanding liabilities are for $100,000, on a judgment under a will lately produced by one Francis Pena, of which $24,000 have been paid in cash, and the two legacies, under the will to the American Colonization So- ciety, and the Society for the Relief of Destitute Orphan Boys, on account of which about $25,000 have been already paid. 7 Two matters only remain, for our consideration—first, the future course of Baltimore in regard to the management of this property, and secondly, the destination of the fund if we resolve to sell the real estate. In regard to the first, the committee are decidedly of opinion that it should be economically administered, until a sale can be effected at the earliest moment without a sacrifice of our city’s interests. The share selected for Baltimore was doubtless judi- ciously chosen, and is productive of sufficient income to pay taxes, repairs, costs of administration, and perhaps to leave a small revenue for the city; but Baltimore should not undertake to build, improve, lease, and become an extensive property holder in another and a distant State. These are purposes foreign to our corporation, and cannot be prudently carried on by any civic body.. Accordingly, the committee cannot doubt that it is their unquestionable duty to recommedd the realization of ovr share of this estate, in money, as the best means of deriving an ad- vantage from the testator’s bequest, and’ of carrying out his philanthrophic purposes. The communication from Mr. Brantz Mayer, printed at page of our journal, points ont the ne- cessary legislation. The committee is equally clear as to the destination of the’ fund which may be realized by a judicious sale. The late mes- sage of his honor the Mayor of Baltimore indicates and elo- quently enforces the educational designs of our benefactor, and your committee would consider the city dishonored, were it not, with its first legislation, to devote this fund, separate and apart from all the city’s moneys, to popular instruction. When our Mayor and City Council accepted the bequest, at Mr. McDonogh’s death, they solemnly pledged themselves ‘‘to abide by and comply with his wishes and directions.’ In order to effectuate this resolution and redeem this siete, your committee beg leave respectfully to recommend the passage of the ordinance accompanying this report. That ordinance embraces the temporary administration of the estate, its'sale, the disposal of the funds, the care of the negroes, and the formation of a permanent board for the investment of the proceeds of the real property. It also provides for the es- tablishment by the same board of trustees of an institution, in He en ferts Page? te he eabdenler tr’, Bee 8 accordance with the recommendation of his. for the maintenance and education of —— g as directed by the will of the late John McDonogh All of which is respectfully submitted. — waved Per ; Cuarues H, CLARK, Joun J. Stayton, JosHUA Drvyven, r Joun T. ‘Forp, A. B. Gorpoy, Joun R. Ketso, f SamueL Kirk, — th hel: J. ‘Bz SRIDBNSTRICKHR, | iw q Ss : ; wht ' : : ron é } ify Se fase re r oi - patie : i 14) , ‘¥ ‘ ne rr! 7 inh ae A . fre > wags Tie of « : he i ' ' * ¥ . ‘ > ‘ * 4 y ew as eed y it Nis 4 4 ‘ a ith me om me ed cele teriee ota cd ITN ORDINANCE. An ordinance for the appointment of agents to represent the city of Baltimore in the receipt, administration, sale and liquidation of Baltimore’s interest in the estate of the late John McDonogh, of Louisiana, deceased; and for the appointment of a Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute. Section 1. Be it enacted and ordained by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, That Brantz Mayer, William 8. Peterkin and Thomas L. Emory be and they are hereby appointed agents of the city of Baltimore for the receipt, administration, sale and liquidation of the portion of the estate of the late John Me- Donogh, of Louisiana, deceased, to which Baltimore is entitled by virtue of said McDonogh’s will, and by virtue of the decree for partition of said McDonogh’s estate between the cities of New Orleans and Baltimore, rendered by the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana ; but before entering upon the duties of their office, each of the said agents shall give bond, with security, in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, for the faithful discharge of the duties hereinafter described and defined—said bonds to be approved by the Mayor, Comptroller and the Presidents of the two branches of the City Council, and to be deposited with the Comptroller of the city of Baltimore. Section 2. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, That the powers and duties of said agents shall be the following, to wit:— 2 mm : Ist. The said agents are hereby directed and empowered to receive from the agents and commissioners of the cities of New Orleans and Baltimore, now jointly administering the estate of the said McDonogh, deceased, by virtue of ordinances passed by the said cities, all the portion or portions of said John Me- Donogh’s estate, real and personal, movable and immovable, to which the said city of Baltimore is entitled under said MeDon- ogh’s will, and by virtue of the decree for partition heretofore referred to. They are authorized and empowered to give receipts and acquittances for the same to the said board of agents and commissioners, and if necessary, to the city of New Orleans; and to make all settlements in liquidation of accounts with said city of New Orleans, for taxes, expropriated property and their several interests in said McDonogh’s estate. 2nd. The said agents are hereby further directed and em- powered, after the receipt by them of the city of Baltimore’s share of said McDonogh’s estate as aforesaid, together with all the books, papers, plats and evidences of title requisite for the separate administration of the property—to do and perform all necessary acts for the care and management of the same, as fully and entirely as if the property were under the immediate control, in this city, of the Mayor and City Council of Balti- more ; taey are directed to lease and repair property, collect rents, pay taxes, claims, judgments, costs of administration and to settle with and make payment or satisfaction to the American Colonization Society, and the Society for the Relief of Destitute Orphan Boys, (beneficiaries under said McDonogh’s will) ac- cording to the principles settled by the Supreme Court of Louis- iana in its confirmation of the decree for the partition of the McDonogh estate; and to perform all such other administrative acts as shall be needful for the guardianship and economical management of the property until it is sold. 3d. The'said agents are hereby further directed aud empow- ered to advertise for sale and to sell at public sale, if advisable, ' and if not deemed by them advisable, then to sell at private sale, at the earliest favorable period, and on such terms as to credit and purchase money as in their judgment shall be most advantageous for the interest of the city of Baltimore, all and every part of the real and personal estate, movable and immovable property, ii belonging to said city of Baltimore, under and by virtue of the will of the said John MeDonogh, and of the decree of partition aforesaid, recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of said State. Express and special powers are hereby given to and vested in said agents, appointed by this ordinance, to effect such sales of said real aH personal, movable and immovable pro- perty, and, in the name of and for the city of Baltimore, to give full and complete titles to the purchaser or purchasers, ac- cording to, and in compliance with, the terms of sale, so as, under the laws of Louisiana, to convey to said purchaser or purchasers, the title of the said city of Baltimore in each and every part of said property sold by the said agents. All obliga- tions, bonds, mortgages, notes, guaranties or securities from said purchaser or purchasers, in said sales, shall be given to the agents and received by them in their capacity as agents for the city of Baltimore under this ordinance. 4th. The said agents are hereby directed, and it shall be their duty to remit to the Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Edu- cational Fund and Institute, created by the fourth section of this ordinance, all proceeds of said sales, in cash, notes, bonds, - mortgages or other securities, and all moneys collected:by them, as soon as received, and to take receipts therefor from said board of trustees;. and semi-annually, during their continuance in office, to send asworn report of their action under this ordinance, and of their financial accounts, to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore; and, as soon as practicable, to liquidate the whole of said: city’s interest in said McDonogh’s estate. 5th. The said agents are hereby directed and empowered, in connection with the city of New Orleans, or, with such agents as said city may authorize to act for it, to provide for the slaves belonging to said John McDonogh’s estate, according to the designs of his will, either by transporting them, or a portion of them, as soon as practicable, to one of the colonies of free negroes in Africa, or by their liberation, or the liberation of portions of them, from servitude. Tor this purpose, the agents are hereby authorized to apply such sums of money as will be ‘sufficient, with similar co-operation by the city of New Orleans, to fulfil in spirit the humane purposes of the late John McDon- ogh, in regard to his slaves, 12 Section 3. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, That the agents of the city of Baltimore, in compensation for their services, travelling ex- penses, salary of a clerk, and all other extras in discharge of their trust and duties under this ordinance, be and they are hereby authorized to receive a compensation of four per cent. on the amount received from the sales of tle city of Baltimore’s share in the estate of John McDonogh; the said four per cent. to be divided as follows:—one and one-half of one per cent. to Brantz Mayer, one and one-half of one per cent. to William 8. Peterkin, and one per cent. to Thomas L. Emory. Section 4. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, That, whereas, it is considered an object of primary obligation to keep the legacy of the late John McDonogh separate and distinct from the general funds of the city of Baltimore so that while it accomplishes the leading object of the testator, it may stand as a monument of his liber- ality and public spirit—a board of trustees consisting of twenty persons, of good standing, who shall be citizens of Baltimore, shall be appointed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, as other city officers are appointed—one to be taken from each ward of the city—who shall annually appoint a president from their own body, and who are hereby constituted a board for the receipt, safe keeping and investment of the funds and proceeds of sale which shall be received from the agents of the city of Baltimore, according to the fourth clause of the second section of this ordinance. The said board shall be styled ‘‘ The Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute,” the income of which fund shall be forever sacredly devoted to the purposes of education. Section 5. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, That the members of this board shall be appointed to serve for six years; provided, however, that of the members of the board first appointed under the pro- visions of this ordinance, one-half to be designated by the Mayor, shall be appointed for but three years, so that the term of one-half of the members of the board shall expire alternately every three years; but the members of the board of trustees may be removed at any time by the Mayor and City Council of Balti- 15 more for mal-administration of their ofticial duties; and on such removal, or on the death, resignation or removal from the city of Baltimore of said trustees, or of any of them, the Mayor shall proceed, at once, to the appointment of a successor or successors to such removed, deceased or resigned trustee or trustees. Section 6. And be it further enacted and ordained, ‘hat it shall be the duty of the trustees of the McDonogh educational fund and institute, to establish within the corporate limits of the city of Baltimore, or adjacent thereto, an institution for the maintenance and education of poor boys, to be styled the ‘‘ Mc- Donogh Institute,’’ said institute to be under the control and direction of said board of trustees, Section 7. And be it further enacted and ordained, That the proceeds of all sales of property, or rents of property, until the same shall be disposed of, growing out of, or in any way apper- taining to the estate of the late John McDonogh, shall be in- vested in the public securities of the city of Baltimore or the State of Maryland, for the purposes of this trust, and on no condition shall any part of the principal of the same be disposed of or alienated for any purpose whatever. Section 8. And be it further enacted and ordained, That said institute shall be free from all sectarian influence. Section 9. And be it further enacted and ordained, That whenever the funds arising from the proceeds of the sales of the property now held by the city of Baltimore in the McDonogh estate, shall, in the judgment of the trustees of the McDonogh educational fund and institute, be sufficient, they shall proceed to procure a site for the erection of buildings suitable to the ob- jects and purposes of said trust, making such provision as shall accord with the character and probable magnitude of the be- quest. Section 10. And be it further enacted and ordained, That the intention of the Mayor and City Council being to preserve intact the principal of the legacy of the said John Mc- Donogh to an extent of five hundred thousand dollars, should so much be realized, in order that the same may stand as a per- petual memorial of the noble legacy bequeathed to the city of Baltimore, said board of trustees shall not be limited as to time in the securing of a site and erection of suitable buildings, but 14 shall appropriate only the accruing interest upon said fund, un- less the same shall exceed five hundred thousand dollars, when. the surplus, or such part thereof as may be necessary may be appropriated towards said object. : Section 11. And be it further enacted and ordained, That the architectural design of said buildings shall be plain and sub- stantial, and constructed with the strictest eye to use and economy. Section 12. And be it further enacted and ordained, That said institute, in its educational plan, shall comprise a prepara- tory and collegiate department, and no boy shall be received in said institute under the age of eight years. Section 13. And-be it further enacted and ordained, That all appointments to said institute shall be. made by the board of trustees, and that every ward of the city of Baltimore shall be entitled to an equal share in the benefits of said institute; pro- vided, that should the quota of pupils to which any ward is en- titled not be filled, by want of suitable applicants from said ward for the space of three months, then the board of trustees may fill the said vacancy or vacancies by the appointment of applicants from the city at large Section 14. And be it fur thik ain and ordained, That all boys received into said institute shall, from and after the period of entrance, be supported and maintained at the exclusive cost of said institute. Section 15. And be it further enacted and ordained, That said trustees shall have power to adopt and establish all needful plans and regulations connected with the establishment and working of said institute for the maintenance and education of poor boys, not inconsistent ‘with the general provisions of this ordinance, and to do such other acts as may be necessary to bring the same into practical operation, at such time as may be found convenient and advantageous to the interests of the city. Section 16. And be it further enacted and ordained, That no trustee appointed under this ordinance shall be in any manner connected with or concerned in any contract for the building or maintenance of said institute; nor shall any member of the board, either directly or indirectly, receive any compensation for his services, 15 Section 17, And be it further enacted aud ordained, That all - ordinances or parts of ordinances which may be inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. JNO. T. FORD, President of the First Branch. JNO. B. SEIDENSTRICKER, President of the Second Branch. Approved May 28, 1858. THO: SWANN, Mayor. 16 PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF THE LATE JOHN McDONOGH. Whereas, in the ‘‘ metmorandaof instructions’’ left with his will by the late John McDonogh, he desired that his remains might be deposited in a burial place of the city of Baltimore, together with the remains of his parents, and that a suitable vault be erected for their reception; and whereas, the wishes of the de- ceased in this respect, have not yet been complied with; Therefore, be it resolved by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, That the agents of said city, appointed by ‘‘an ordinance for the appointment of agents to represent the city of Baltimore in the receipt, administration, sale and liquidation of Baltimore’s interest in the estate of the late John McDonogh, &c. &c.,’’ be and they are hereby authorized to unite with the authorities or agents of the city of New Orleans, in removing the remains of said John McDonogh to Baltimore, and in ful- filling, as far as practicable, the wishes so earnestly expressed by him in the memoranda aforesaid. Be it further resolved, That should the city of New Orleans decline uniting in the costs of removal and erection of a tomb, but should not object to the accomplishment of Mr. MeDonogh’s desires by the city of Baltimore, then the agents of Baltimore are hereby empowered to perform the duty, alone, in behalf of the city they represent; and are authorized to expend all neces- sary sums of money—not to exceed two thousand dollars—out of the city of Baltimore’s share of the McDonogh estate, for said removal of remains, and for the erection of a suitable tomb and memorial of the deceased. Approved June 9, 1858. THO: SWANN, Mayor. SECOND REPORT | i. \ | Brantz Mayer, Win. S. Peterkin & Thos. L. Emory, | i] ' AGENTS OF BALTIMORE FOR THE H LIQUIDATION OF THE CITY'S INTEREST [N THE ESTATE OF JOHN McDONOGH, Dro’p., ’ PRESENTED TO THE Cg | | MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BATIMORE it ON THE 5rx OF JUNE, 1860; A LETTER FROM THE AGENTS, REPORTING THE REMOVAL OF MR. McDONOGH’S 4 REMAINS TO BALTIMORE, BALTIMORE: BULL & TUTTLE. _ 1860. BES RG ESE SP SECOND REPORT OF Brantz Mayer, Wm. S. Peterkin & Thos. L. Emory, AGENTS OF BALTIMORE FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF THE CITY’S INTEREST IN THE ESTATE OF JOHN McDONOGH, Dec’p., PRESENTED TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BATIMORE ON THE 5rx OF JUNE, 1860; A LETTER FROM THE AGENTS, REPORTING THE REMOVAL OF MR. McDONOGH’S REMAINS TO BALTIMORE. BALTIMORE: BULL & TUTTLE. 1860. Wiad eae / ‘ ’ a hvq, n { f j { i j - v re { - ie } > ‘ ~ t ’ 2 ay = “_ H e Ce a) Pleas ‘ \ 4 j * Thi». ’ ( ‘ : i _ } i 2 y hy hy . 1 S / a, ‘ A ” ‘ Wy i i i R 2 Te f He - . 4 / | t & 7 * ey 2 ge ied ee ha tek i ' eh 1 TRO, f cd pee vy oad! ley yee e } Cee th es r Bas a ia i mo) (Le THE FLOWERS COLLECTION LETTER FROM THE HON. THOMAS SWANN, MAYOR OF BALTIMORE, TRANSMITTING A REPORT AND COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY’S AGENTS FOR THE McDONOGH ESTATE. Mayor’s Office, Baltimore, June 5, 1860. To the Honorable, the members of the , First and Second Branches of the City Council: GENTLEMEN— I have the honor to transmit herewith a communication from Brantz Mayer and Wm. 8. Peterkin, Esqs., in relation to the remains of the late John McDonogh, of New Orleans, together with the Report of the Agents of the City of Baltimore in the McDonogh Estate, and the accounts, vouchers and copies of deeds of sale and mortgage. With great respect, Your obedient servant, Tuos. Swann, Mayor. 6 REPORT OF THE AGENTS The notes maturing to May 5th, inst., have all been met with the exception of $1,586 14, a portion of which are in the hands of Messrs. Mott & Fraser, attornies, for collection, and the resi- due will also be placed for immediate collection by suit, if not promptly met. A list of the notes unpaid marked N, is sub- mitted with this report. The conditions of purchase, for a small part of the property sold last year, not having been complied with by the purchas- ers, we have availed of the proper period this season to resell, at public auction, such portion of this property as we considered it judicious to dispose of. Of the rural property belonging to the city of Baltimore, we have sold to Colonel Wm. L. Wynn, of Assumption, one half, as nearly as it could be divided, of a large tract of land in the parish of Ibberville, containing, according to the original survey, two thousand six hundred and forty acres, at fifty dol- lars per acre, payable one fifth in cash, the balance in one, two, three and four years, with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, on the credit payments; subject to resurvey and division, by a surveyor to be mutually agreed on, at the joint expense of buyer and seller. Under this arrangement, the nomination of a surveyor was submitted to W. J. MeCulloh, Esq., formerly of Baltimore, Surveyor General of Louisiana, and the work assigned by him to Mr. 8. C. Hepburn, a gentle- man of high standing in his profession, and one whom we could rely, would do justice to both parties. The resurvey, de- ducting reservation for roads, calls for 1,316 31-100 acres, and upon this our basis for settlement has been made. Reservation for roads 13 12-100 acres. This sale results to Baltimore, in the handsome sum of $73,713 30-100 including interest, and one half the tract is still unsold; whereas the entire tract was taken by Baltimore in partition at the valuation of $75,000. The property in ques- tion is situated one hundred miles above New Orleans, on the right bank, and some four miles back from the Mississippi river—the soil is good and it is heavily timbered, its value being well indicated by the rate of sale, which is as high, taking into consideration the extent of tract, and distance from navi- gation, as any unimproved lands, similarly situated, have as yet realized. The remaining half is also valuable for the quality of its soil and timber, although its distance from the river exceeds that of the tract sold by the length of its front line, along which a road for the use of the portion unsold has been reserved. OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. bg We consider this sale as a judicious one, as it has been effect- ed directly by ourselves, without the expense of auctioneer’s fees or property agents’ commission, and at a favorable rate— interest is also now accruing to Baltimore and future taxes on the property saved. We have also sold at private sale in addi- tion to this property, an isolated tract of 80 60-100 acres, situa- ted in the midst of the adjoining estate of Cyprian Ricard, at fifty dollars per acre. This last tract is also in Ibberville, and the purchaser is Doctor P. R. Stone, of that parish. The property now remaining to Baltimore, consists of about one half the large and valuable tract in the parish of Ibber- ville, containing by resurvey 1,311 27-100 acres; five small tracts, principally low, swampy lands, in the same parish, and in the neighborhood of the above, containing together by origi- nal survey, about 800 acres, and a large body of land in the parish of St. James, some fifty miles above the city, and con- taining about 10,000 acres. This large tract is of low swamp land, probably of no great value. We consider it injudicious at this moment to force sales of this remaining property, but would recommend a disposition of it whenever a suitable offer presents. Of the colored people hired with the Allard Place until the 31st October, 1860, we have to report since our last communi- eation, the death of Johnson, an aged man, and nearly blind, who expired on the 17th March last; and there are now attach- ed to this place fifteen of various ages, a list of which, marked M, we beg to annex hereto. Such portion of these as are proper for colonization, can be delivered over to the American Coloni- zation Society, or to their attorney here, upon the expiration of their term of service, for transmission to Liberia, in accordance with the will of Mr. McDonogh. The remaining slaves whom we have considered it improper to send to Liberia, are fully and particularly named in our last report of May 30, 1859. The suit of the city of New Orleans against the city of Balti- more for a claim of $50,000 with interest, since June Ist, 1854, having been determined against Baltimore in the lower court, has been carried by appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and was argued by our counsel in that court, on Tuesday last, the first day of May, but no decision has yet been rendered. You have already been advised of the appearance of an alleged codicil to the will of Mr. McDonogh, bequeathing 8 ' REPORT OB THE AGENTS $300,000 to a certain Moses Fox, claiming to be a nephew of the testator, and attested by Cass, a flat-boatman. This docu- ment we have no hesitation in believing entirely invalid, and although the defence of the case requires care and attention, we have no doubt whatever of our success. In the citation of the agents of Baltimore, in this case, it was erroneously stated that the codicil had been admitted to probate in the Second District Court, which we find is not the case; but a commission for the examination of testimony in Illinois has been taken out by the plaintiff, to sustain the credibility of the witness Cass, whilst all necessary measures have been adopted, by our counsel for the protection of the interests of Baltimore. This action of the claimant will serve to delay proceedings in the case, which will not be reached until after the summer term of court. We have associated Robert Mott, Usq.,a lawyer of experience and ability, with Mr. Roselius, in these suits. ; On the 16th of April, ult., a communication was received from John W. Randolph, Esq., President of the Board of Trus- tees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute, dated Baltimore, April 11, 1860, demanding, under a resolution of the Board, the assets in the hands of the agents, as provi- ded in section No. 4, of an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, approved May 28, 1858, and which it has given us pleasure promptly to comply with, by forwarding to Mr. Randolph, on the 17th ult., an order for these assets on James D. Denegre, Esq., President of the Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, where they are deposited; reserving, however, the cash in Bank, and sundry notes to meet a possible judgment against Baltimore in the suit of the city of New Orleans, with interest and costs since June Ist, 1854, costs of defending the suit brought by Moses Fox on the alleged codicil, and any other claims against the estate which may hereafter appear. * This reservation was necessary and unavoidable, as the assets of Baltimore, in the hands of her agents, had already been attached by the city of New Orleans, and Mr. Thomas Poindex- ter, who united with Mr. Peterkin, one of the undersigned, in the appeal bond given in the case, for the sum of $100,000, was personally assured that an ample fund would be reserved under all circumstances to cover that responsibility. In conformity with the wish expressed by Mr. MeDonogh in his will, that his remains should repose in his native city, we have caused them to be placed on board the schooner Mary Clinton, destined for Baltimore, in special charge of Captain OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 9 Ryan, of that vessel, for such honorable reception as may, in consideration of the noble charity he has bequeathed our city, and in respect to his memory be deemed expedient and proper. In making the necessary arrangements for the discharge of this solemn duty, we have received the kind aid and co-operation of J. B. Walton, Esq., Secretary of the Board of Commissioners of the McDonogh School Fund of this city, which we thus take occasion to acknowledge. We beg to enclose statements of sales, as follow: No. 8, of property made in 1859, but not closed until after our report of May 30th, of that year; Nos. 9, 10 and 11, of property made this year, the proceeds of the three latter appearing to the credit of the McDonogh Educational Fund of Baltimore, in accordance with the ordinance already referred to, as per exhibit of our account with the Board. The entire summary of the estate is exhibited in the follow- ing accounts current, accompanying this report, viz: I.—Embracing all transactions of the agents of the city of Baltimore up to April 17, 1860, when a transfer of bills receiv- able was made to the McDonogh School Fund of Baltimore, in accordance with the ordinance above referred to, and in con- formity with instructions from John W. Randolph, Esq., Presi- dent of the Board. Supplement I, which is simply a continu- ation of our account with Baltimore to this date; K, account current with the McDonogh School Fund to same period; L, statement of assets on hand to the credit of Baltimore, through her agents, as a reserved fund, to meet possible judgments, and other liabilities, and assets transferred to the School Fund, the aggregate amount of both being $579,715 53-100. We respectfully submit this report, with the accompanying documents, as a statement of our action to this date. We have the honor to remain, Gentlemen, Your most obedient servants, Wm. 8S. Pererrn, Tos. L. Emory, Brantz Mayer. 10 REPORT OF THE AGENTS LIST OF DOCUMENTS Transmitted herewith, as part of this Report: Document I—Agents’ account current with Baltimore to April One 17, 1860. [—(2d) supplement to do., to May 7, 1860. K—Agents’ account current with the Board of ‘l'rus- tees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute. L—Statement of net assets realized for Baltimore from her share of this estate to May 7, 1860. M—Statement of slaves hired with Allard Place. N—Statement of notes from sales of McDonogh ‘pro- perty, part due and unpaid, May 7, 1860. No. 8—Statement of bills receivable for portion of sales of 28th April and 2d May, 1859. No. 9—Statement of cash and bills receivable for sales of March 5th, 1860. No. 10—Statement of cash and bills receivable for sales of May 4, 1860. No. 11—Statement of cash and bills receivable for sales of May 5, 1860. package copies of ten certified deeds of sale and mortgage ce a3 of property sold. bills and vouchers, for payments to 17th April, 1860, from No. 1 to No. 26. bills and vouchers, for payments subsequent to 17th April, 1860. OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 11 State of Lowisiana, City of New Orleans, sct.: Be it remembered, that on this ninth day of May, A. D. 1860, personally appeared before me, a duly authorized Com- missioner of deeds of the State of Maryland, Wm. 8. Peterkin and Thomas L. Emory, two of the authorized agents of Balti-* more, for the receipt, administration, sale and liquidation of Baltimore’s share of the McDonogh estate, and being duly sworn, made oath, that the facts contained in this report are true. In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and seal of office, on the day and year above written. [L. 8.] Watrer Henry, Commissioner for Maryland, in New Orleans, Louisiana. State of Maryland, City of Baltimore, sct.: Be it remembered, that on this fourth day of June, A. D. 1860, personally appeared before me, a duly authorized Notary Public of the State of Maryland, in the city of Baltimore, Brantz Mayer, agent of said city for the sale, liquidation, &c., of the estate of John McDonogh, deceased, and made oath that the facts stated in the preceding report are true. In testimony whereof, I hereto set my official seal and sub- scribe my name, on the day and year first above written. [L. 8. ] Lewis Surron, Notary Public. Amount carried forward .............00. $1,570 11 12 REPORT OF THE AGENTS ‘ DOCUMENT Dr. Crry or Baurimore, In Account Vouchers | To paid Bouny & Theard, Notaries, for copies of acts of sale............... , .$119 00 ey nal Edward Barnett, for same.......... | 87 50 a a N. Vignie, charges on sales at) | BUCHON...0..0.4seeer seneeet cen emg 32 86 ae oe taxes in parish of Orleans.......+. 94 88 ee for box, for DAPPTS.)..0%.....:-..0eeeee ) 6 75 nine paige Hon. H. M. Spofford, arbitration fees in settlement of legacies to Orphan Boys’ Asylum and Colo- nization BOciety.....4 6d. Sieve 250 00 J ls taxes on property in Carrollton for ‘LBGD:: J: fash, bores. ee 37 30 8 “f Post Office, for box rent............. 4 00 ) a Adams Express Co., carriage to! | Baltimore on agents’ report..... L560 Alle ean New Orleans Insurance Co., for' insurance on property............ 49 32 beta ome Clerk of United States Court, for . / copy of record used by counsel for | Baltimore, in suit brought by city | of New Orleans,....sjien..vs ase 75 00 een ee W. J. McCulloh, for services and expenses to country parishes for reduction of taXe$8.........cesseere0 62 00 13 4 Mott & Fraser, retaining fee in suit city of New Orleans......... 750 00 OF THR M’DONOGH ESTATE. 13 [—(Continued. ) CURRENT WITH THE AGENTS. Cr. By balance per supplement to general account H, dated June 12th, 1859, in bills receivable in| Citizens’ Bank. 214..& pve. ae $503,471 48 BY CAB... ... cs stmaeiwewtenn een savesanas 189 58 $503,661 06 By cash from Thomas L. Emory, for contingent: fond. returned A}... UAe 4 UNOS. sR... 500 00 By cash for protests and interest on notes laid over, collected with amounts of notes from YAWETS......eeceeeeeee decors eee ener ee tge eee ee ee terres, Tl 64 By cash recovered for rent due and unpaid in 1889.45... 0 A AOR AO eae. Fe add. | 25 50 By cash from sales of property in 1859, collected! since last account was rendered......... $596 00 By bills receivable for sales of property — | in 1859, since collected, statement WG: 8... DORE AG, 0it.. MARTA ...4,531 40 $5,127 40 Less agents’ commissions........ 9980073 $4,896 67 Amount carried forward..:......ccisecseescvees $509,154 87 14 Dr. Vouchers. 14 15 16 | 18 19 20 REPORT OF THE AGENTS DOCUMENT Account To amount brought forward.............sec000. $1,570 11 [To paid Thomas L. Emory, an agent for Bal- timore, on account of his com- PATSSTONS, cn scen eer saree 600 00 13 J. & J. C. Davidson, for portion of taxes on their purchase, from Ast January, 1859, to day of sale.... 26 90 bs ‘Taxes in parish of Iberville. ....... loot B12 19 e Bee newspaper, advertising sundry notices to purchasers..............+ 25 00 “ Picayune newspaper, for same....... 28 00 < Police Jail expenses on Paul, a slave hired with Allard Place, assigned to Baltimore.:..i....+ woes 5 edeeniny 6 40 ms Sheriff and Clerk of Court’s fees in suit vs. D. M. Elmore, for rent 6 00 ‘¢ . Adams Express Co., forwarding books to Baltimore.......... $2 75 a Corson & Armstrong, station’y10 00 & Postage staMps.......s.csaseeseee 1 05 4 For sundry stationery .......... 5 00 ds Telegram to B. Mayev.......... 2 25 S of tom. PE SN 2 25 i For reeord ‘books :.<.:ss pipreres 3 50 + Sundry stationery and postage 3 00 Cab hire, in releasing slave Paul dom Pails. 26 aciza 1 60 — 31 40 Amount carried forward.........++s+00 $2,806 00 OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 15 I—(Continued. Current I—(Continued.) Cr. By amount brought forward.......ccccecseeeee ree eeees $509,154 87 Amount carried forward........c.ssesccersesese $509,154 87 16 REPORT OF THE AGENTS Dr. AccouNT CURRENT To amount brought forward....... ween fo $2,806 00 The following notes for property purchased, due, and unpaid placed with Robert Mott, Esq., counsel, for collection, being part of assets handed over to the Board of Trustees of the| - McDonogh Institute, Baltimore: — Henry Kelty, due March 31, 1860........ 29 68 Nicholas Durn, G ae PRR ee 364 64 L. Munier, 0 a 4 RR. teste 38 16 E. Houillion, en ae AS: 445 09 Nicholas Glasser, ‘‘ April 8, 1860...... 22 26 Hu Mitchell, a Re se ca de 10 18 910. 01 Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute, for amount of notes for, sales of property in 1859, not yet due, handed over to the Board, as provided in section 4 of an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, approved May 28, 1858, amount- TNE LO ss00... dente cteens RRM rks cos ane 442,524 02 Less notes, particularized below, re tained to meet possible judgments, costs of suits, and other expenses, 18,715 20) 423,808 82 Amount carried forward... ru. .s«+.asevecumeenman: ane $427,524 83 OF THE M DONOGH ESTATE. 17 I.—(Continued. ) ConTINUED, Cr. By aggount, brought forwards......+..ayasaseomsardudan | $509,154 87 Amount carried forward...............5. vahaea | $509,154 87 Dr. REPORT OF THE AGENTS DOCUMENT To amoune ‘brought forwards sy... 00. .ss0s teem To error overcredited in the following bills receiv- able, for sales of property in 1859: G, Lobrane @-Obe 3). Nuk ays anes stow eeee 40 To balance returned by agents, and deposited in Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, to cover expense of possible judgments, costs of suits, and any other expenses of the estate, occurring, viz: | KORN... cage ct take eeMieE ouny termes eee sae $62,914 14 Bills receivable, viz: Massey, Huston & Co., due March 6, 1860, sAicctegneee« ahewanss ete s ees a J. & P. BO Brien, same date... 7,056 00 Jas. Rainey and others, Ce oe T. R. Brady & Oo., EO ees Oy ee Geo. Patterson, BE igs, ye EK. V. Fassman, aglialin be 909 44 Account CURRENT $427,524 83 70 81,629 34 $509,154 87 OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 19 I. I. ConTINUED. Cr. By amount, brought forward........ssenssiennraespoeeee $509,154 87 $509,154 87 New Orleans, April 17th, 1860. Wo. S. Pererxin, Tos. L. Emory, Baltimore, 21st May, 1860. Brantz Mayer, 20 REPORT OF THE AGENTS [SUPPLEMENT TO Dr. Crry or Banrmorn, IN Account = ee ee Vouchers, } To cash paid as follows: | 'To C. T. White, clerk of 2d District Court, for transcript of appeal in the Supreme Court, in suit of City of New Orleans......, 310 16 To Wm. Bloomfield, Jr., printing briefs....; 9 25 To C. Roselius, Esq., argument in _ _ Supreme Court, in suit of City of | NewADrioane') 2785.00.28 $1,000, | 2,600 00 21 22 23 To Mott & Fraser, their bill for same service) 2,500 00 To Mott & Fraser, services arranging sale | of Ibberville property, and professional advice in regard to same ...,.. ..0....s.s0e00s 100 00 26 |To Thomas L. Emory, for contingent funds to meet taxes yet unpaid, We................- | 800 00 To balance of assets as follows: in Citizens’ Bank ot Louisiana: ‘Cash on ROME, ey. do $61,519 75 [Bills receivable......... ..cccceens 18,715 20/$80,234 95 1$86,454 35 t \ OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATR. DOCUMENT I.] CURRENT WITH THE AGENTS. 21 Cr. By balance of account I, dated April 7 Casiiiemen seated sorpserainar sc spa 62,914 14 Bille TEVENVAWIE,:. 2... ;ccsenerseeteea 18,715 20 —_—_: By amount reserved from collections since April 17, 1860, to meet additional commission al- lowed Thomas L. Emory, per act of City Council of Baltimore, subject to fulfilment of conditions contained therein ...........sseceeseees By amount received from T, L. Emory for com- missions advanced him per account I, subse- quently deducted from sales of property......... By also for excess of commissions paid him in pales of Sti Maven, LS60..... 2... .+.scnnneheaenceemee $81,629 34 4,199 37 600 00 25 64 $86,454 35 Wm. 8. Pererxry, New Orleans, May 7, 1860. Txos. L. Emory, Baltimore, May 21, 1860. Brantz Mayzr. 22 Dr. REPORT OF THE AGENTS DOCUMENT Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund Agents of Baltimore in Vouchers. me co Ort To cash paid as follows: Expenses removing remains of Mr. MeDo- nogh to Baltimore, viz: P. Casanave, undertaker............ $183 00 Captain Ryan, transportation to Baltimore, per schr. M. Clinton, per his acknowledgment forward- edto J. W. Randolph, Hsq......... 50 00 N. Vignie, auction charges on sales and ad- vertising property for Sale. .....4.:ee0-as dems Edward Barnett, for sundry copies of acts of SALE dod entebd ues deity ole on sae acke- ots ea S. C. Hepburn, half cost of surveying pro- perty; and for plans. eis: iss. seo Sees a S. C. Hepburn, compensation, and expenses to Ibberville, in reference to property sold W.. . Wap k. uae ies a Fund reserved in Citizens’ Bank, transferred to Baltimore agents, to meet additional commissions allowed T. L. Emory, per act of City Council of Baltimore, approved Sept. 20, 1859, subject to fulfilment of con- ditions contained therein............s..sscceee OF THE M DONOGH ESTATE. 23 K. and Institute of Baltimore, in account current with the Cr. the McDonogh Estate. By bills receivable transferred to your credit in Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, viz: | Due May 1 and May 5, 1860......... $6,817 64 W.P. Wessel’s note, May 1, 1860... 181 21 Due at various periods in 1861, 1862 Pepsi atid 1868 .. wwuind CONN ae Me ee 416,809 97, $423,808 82 By sundry notes due 31st March and 8th April, 1860, unpaid, with Robert Mott, Attorney, for collection, per receipt forwarded,........-......4 910 O01 By amount received in cash and bills receivable for sales of property, per exhibits: MN IRB, HEY. Pil. o ns snccseaee. $9,933 60 Si Ag eee iG SG See a 4,513 60 MEL. sdctutpiodereind Yes sleaadke nists 73,713 30 Less agents’ commissionus........ 3,246 42 Fe rete han G98 Nagoumt carried fotwartd.....cicesesscersnndnae $502,632 91 24 REPORT OF THE AGENTS DOCUMENT. Dr. Boarp or ‘TRUSTEES OF McDonocu Tp amount brought over.........:.5:seenmdstieaie $5,138 27 To amount deposited in the Fell’s Point Savings’ Institution of Baltimore, as a Tomb Fund, sub- . ject to the draft of the agents of the city of Baltimore, or either of them, according to the resolution of the board of joint administration of the agents of the city of Baltimore, and the Finance Committee of the city of New Orleans, | on 20th May, 1859, [see printed report of agents of Baltimore, June, 1859, page 35,| $3,752 94, (costing to remit from N. Orleans 3 premium) 3,767 00 Amount appropriated for tomb........ $4,000 00 Less cost of removing remains.......... 233 00 $3,767 00 To assets on hand in Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana: Cash in Citizeni’ Banke iii $11,589 90) Bills receivable, transferred April | 17, 1860 5.6.5 Feu cate URE 416,809 97) Bills receivable from exhibits of sales i 9D, BOs A 12 ec. cecleee. RS. See 66,056 40 Bills receivable, due and unpaid, with Mott & Fraser, Attorneys, | for collection :...5.3sindeueeee. eee eer 1,271 BF $495,727 64 $504,632 91 | OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 25 K.—(Continued.) EpucationaL Funp, &c., ContTINuen. Cr. By smote brought. over). .%, iis joss .daasedl denne ont $502,632 91 By cash from J. B. Walton, Esq., Secretary of McDonogh School Fund of New Orleans, for half contribution towards removing remains of Mr. McDonogh, and cost of a tomb in Balti- $504,632 91 New Orleans, May 7, 1860. Wo. 8. PETERKIN, T. L. Emory, Baltimore, May 21, 1860. Brantz Mayer, Agents City of Balt. McD, Estate, 26 REPORT OF THE AGENTS DOCUMENT L. Statement of assets from proceeds of sales of McDonogh estate, remaining on Ith May, 1860. To credit of agents of city of Baltimore in the Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, to meet possible judgments, further expenses of suits, &e. OCT) Mes Mime a | $61,519 75 PRs mpceiva ble. «x issneenains wai orotic 18,715. 20 To credit of Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund, &c., of Baltimore— Gash in Citizens’ Bank........,...0A.»0 11,589 90 Bills receivable im oy 0.4 ssscpinesan ney 482,866 37 Bills receivable, due and unpaid with counsel for collection..:... Commissioners for N. Orleans. P. KE. BONFORD, BRANTZ MAYER, WM. S. PETERKIN, ¢ Agents for Baltimore. THOS. L. EMORY, New Orurans, May Ist, 1855. ¢ \ Avi % ihe iho avery d beer meen nao 8 eel eae Si -anihbonvie odtdadk hagloeor ylorianaa al) an eawtuailt te kéok ad nt faliyiie4 hiss ir af? Yoo col icicle: kai determi oy st uy 1 et ai 6 Oval ee ee .. a 1h eR nC f heme eave yo ¥ Ah RO ARR: Moet sa He i id et Oa | i] : bs ‘ - At Hi rh £ aa: FT hb Bo ? i a Ws a ve a Bil ¥ Eh : r a way : { ri v Bi { it ' e WA's } #| $2 wey . | \ & Paden ue po eee i - FRANCIS THOMAS. © fe ye. F ea we / WieRTSdep rine eemendre eA hea emesis oe alliemae attic aaa ate eke pe ‘ oe e : ‘ - a? 5 é at ; ', ie , 1 if 7 M ty ae! Bs i 4h aay ) 4 by ‘ a by o iat a yeteig : : fi * ll it } i atti i) %, 1 os ©. ‘ al? N _TO THE PUBLIC. F ‘ — ™ ~~ “ss Monravée, Freperick County, Maryianp, February 19, 1845. Conspicuous calumniators, who have labored to forestall and pervert public sentiment, have left me no alternative but this, to me exquisitely painful, publication. Sensible of the partial success of their contrivances, for a long period of time I submitted almost in silence to the shocking and disgusting slanders of me, which they disseminated. For a woman was invyoived; and even if I had not tenderly and desperately loved her, sex alone was sacred in my consideration. If not my wife, even if a stranger, I could not, without infinite reluctance, expose her frailties, or soil her character. Never have I taken a liberty with, spoken ill of, or given umbrage to any virtuous female. At now past life’s meridian, I can with perfect truth aver, that the chastity, privacy, or society, the name or character of a woman, of any woman of character, never was invaded or disparaged by any act or word of mine. Having lived, until somewhat advanced in years, a life of study and ambition, little familiar with female society, I may have seemed wanting in that respect and attention for ladies which no doubt refines and improves man. ’ But to degr ne, as has become the stern duty and only alternative of “il es a ba tion, is a resort to which I could be driven only by the daggers of the men of her family, aimed at the only portion in life I have left, dearer to me than life itself—a character till now unblemished, and which must and shall be vindicated, at whatever cost. When the horrible doubts of Mrs. Thomas’ fidelity flashed on my mind, lacerated my. affections, disordered, distracted, un- manned me, even my reproaches were never harsh—my conduct was not cruel or arbitrary—I exercised no overruling authority, I did not repudiate or drive her from my dwelling. _ I did not, could not, even yield positively my belief to the evidences against her. I still alternately doubted, hoped and confided, and long felt the excruciating agony of one who doubts, yet doats, and fondly loves. During several months of anguish, my constant endeavor was to prevail on her to leave me and return to her father’s house, without public scandal ; to separate at least till we might, if pos- / P$3461 4 + sible, come together again, with my belief in her fidelity r her proofs of it made good. I dreaded public scandal for and for mine too. I desired, that her parents and friends might interpose, and either reconciliation or separation be brought about, without the world’s malign intermeddling. To her and her family alone were my distrusts intimated.. The public saw no outbreak, they had no evidence of estrangement. She continued apparently unconcerned and sociable in the world as ever. I repressed bitter feelings by, at any rate, no act or word of violence, betrayed them to others. I sought her family and besought their mediation. With great difficulty I prevailed on them to take part in my dis- tress. They avoided ; I insisted on interference. I offered every explanation and facility of intercourse with Mrs. Thomas and with myself. I unbossomed to them, and to them alone, my griefs, which, though unavoidably teproachful, were never uttered in indignant or reproachful language.. They cannot: deny, that my expostulations were often in tears; and that I earnestly entreated a domestic investigation and family judgment, of the complaints I was constrained to prefer, and proofs I submitted. One of the calumnies attempted to be fastened on me, is harsh treatment, violence of conjugal sway, debarring Mrs. Thomas from the liberties of a wife. ‘This mere calumny is without even pre- text. I never confined her or deprived her of any liberty she could claim ; and defy proof of it. Never did I upbraid her with any such terms, as the following disclosures will satisfy every one, I might have justifiably used. On the contrary, I treated her uni- formly with tenderness. In the presence of her parents in Balti- more I claimed the right to make this solemn averment; she did not even contest it. In all the fitful moods of distracted affection, which I own almost unsettled my understanding, nothing violent, cruel or ungenerous ever marked my deportment, or fell in the ut- most orgs grief from my lips. For I repeat, I am inca- pable of ly wounding any woman; and the one whom this narrative expose, I have had the misfortune to love with the fondest, truest, best devotion. I own therefore anxiety, that they to whom this appeal is ad- dressed, wrung from me by dire necessity, when all other redress is denied, I own much anxiety that it may be received as my only alternative from a life of dishonor, worse than death. I premise this statement with the assurance, that it never would have been published if any other resort were left for me, After mildly en- treating an infatuated wife to return to her parents for domestic trial’ of my accusations, surrounded and supported by her best friends ; after explaining to them that accusation, and repeating my prayer for’such a trial, and consenting to herJeaving me and going home, as will be hereafter explained, I still and constantly perse- vered in a reserve as near as possible to absolute silence ;, waiting and hoping for refutal of my fears.and restoration of my wife. In anguish and ill-concealed distraction I waited, if not patiently, at ag 5 * least forbearingly in silence, till roused from it by the infernal ca- lumnies of the men of her family, who have endeavored to acquit ‘her by defaming me. Mrs. Thomas left me and returned to her father’s house with the fruits of marriage in her bosom; yet did members of her family propagate gross and false imputations against me, which, if true, branded her with adultery and her child as ille- gitimate! Yes; while I was living alone in the solitude of the large Governor’s mansion at Annapolis, shrinking from all associa- tion with the world, chief magistrate of the State of Maryland, for many years before a faithful and not an unknown member of the Congress of the United States; a man till then of fair report,. whom even party violence had not attacked in his privatg charac- _ ter; living thus in such miserable constrained silence, and subja- - gation of feeling, as affected me at times almost to insanity on one subject, the cunning and savage champions of a rash wile, filled the ears of all who would hear them with vulgar, blackguard asper- sions on my person, character and reputation. They defamed not me alone, but the woman they were to vindicate by their vile tac- tics, and even assailed the child she bore in her bosom, by the most detestable and intolerable of alldetractions. ‘They mortified and distressed my venerable and venerated father, with whose name dishonor, during a life of near eighty winters, has never been con- nected; a father who received the portionless daughter of Gov. McDowell as his own, and provided for her every comfort. The disgusted and dismayed my excellent and irreproachable sisters in their unobtrusive spheres of respectable life; my brother, my nephews, my nieces; a large family to whom till then, I had been familiar only as a man worthy of that which it had been always m ambition to gain, their esteem and affection. ‘They tried to blast the public and private hopes of one not unambitious of, or unknown to public distinctions, or indifferent to individual esteem. They tried to make a monster of me, by that common rule of aggressors to anticipate attack by being assailants; and have d possi- bly that false pride would forbid me to expose themij@nd defend myself. f Thus goaded, I yet preserved so much self-possession as to seek for justice in a form that would have less exposed the parties con- cerned, than that to which I am now about to resort. By sending to Governor McDowell two copies of the following circular, I in- vited judicial investigation: Awnnapouis, December 5, 1843. His Excellency, James McDowe tt, Richmond: Sir: It is painful to me after all that has passed, to address to you this letter. I understand that in Richmond, as well as elsewhere, letters written by you have been circulated in order to make known the circumstances, which you state led to the separation of my wife from myself, and which were of course calculated to make me ap- PS3461 6 * pear the party offending. Although I have not been able to inform myself what were the contents of those letters, yet I must take it for granted that the matters which you have thought proper to mention in them, justified, in your opinion, the separation; and if so, they must justify, if not imperiously require, that measures should be taken to obtain a judicial investigation thereon. I write to inform you that in Maryland either the High Court of Chancery, or the county courts as courts of equity, have power to grant divorces, and to express my anxious desire that in behalf of your daughter you will take steps to have a judicial investigation of the subject. ~ It is mot for me to say to you, how innocent I deem myself to have been of any act, which authorised the separation to be brought | about. All that I will allow myself here to say in regard thereto is, that I shall not shink from any investigation of my conduct and character: will throw no difficulties, technical or otherwise, in the way of a fulland fair investigation, or in any way delay a decision. Without such an investigation, suspicions, injurious it may well be supposed to both parties, will exist, and therefore the innocent party must most cruelly suffer. - Tearnestly request you to give an answer to this letter, so soon as you can, and let me know whether you will institute any such proceeding, or what course you would suggest, in order that all who have a right to feel an interest in the subject may be able to know the truth, and the whole truth. The Act of Assembly of Maryland, giving jurisdiction in such cases, will be found in the laws of December session, 1841, chap. 262, which were forwarded to your department. Your obedient servant, FRANCIS THOMAS. I have never feared the utmost publicity on my own account. But I have preferred judicial investigation, because in courts proof may be taken under solemn obligations of oaths and affirmations, and in s@jfijseclusion from public scorn. I sought domestic trial. When thattemed to be hopeless, as the next best tribunal, I asked for judicial arbitrament. . I was reluctant to print and publish the abominations that must stain this paper. I respect too much and sincerely, the sanctity of the sex, I did love too fondly, even an unfaithful wife. I hugged, let me confess, too sensitively my own pride, to appeal to public determination, while any chance or hope, without that, remained of either private or judiciah scrutiny and decision. And I yield now to the necessities that constrain me, much more on account of respect for the rights and wishes of others, than from any considerations affecting myself alone. Finding that Gov. McDowell would not notice my invitation for an appeal, by all parties, to the justice of the courts, in a mo- ment of irritation, which may be perhaps pardoned, provoked at such a man as Col. Benton, gravely volunteering, as he did in his Texas letter, to teach the public, morals, I addressed to him, on the 3rd day of May, 1844, a note, intended, if possible, to proyoke, if 7 nothing else, at least, the measure Gov. McDowell. had declined. _ Ashe gave me no reply, I sent to Gov. McDowell, in print, a copy of the same. ) » Several months have now elapsed, and no notice has been taken of this letter. Iam thus inevitably brought atlast to astage in this most painful affair, when all must see, that dishonored and dishonor- able life, or this appeal to public justice, are the only alternatives I have left. I have understood, and believe, the eminent and reckless defamers of whom I complain, deterred by the general abhorrence at their first main charges against me, now shelter themselves, and the woman they have undertaken to justify; under the more decent, as well as more compendious assertion, that I am only insane. I am, it is said, an honorable man, but labouring under a monoma- nia. My assailants are therefore not bound to notice me. _They would now leave me to the contempt of the world, instead of its execration. J was insatie, it is said, When married; went armed to the marriage couch; and with maniac suspicions took pistols to bed with my wife; designed to take the lives of some of her family. This story, fabricated by one with whom she was too inti- mate, and then put in circulation by her father, part of the shield they now throw around her, will be shown clearly to be false when- ever it assumes such a shape as to be entitled to further notice. Whether | am bereft of reason, will appear in the vindication of my much abused conduct, which I am with infinite reluctance about to undertake—disclosing not all the particulars, they could not be put on paper, but under the solemn injunction in a court of justice, to tell the whole truth—but such ontline of them as I flatter myself will carry conviction, that I am not so insane but that I ean be forced to convince all right-minded persons, that I haye been a true-hearted and faithful husband. Since Mrs. Thomas has joined in attempts to destroy me, I feel less reluctance to vindicate my own character at her expense, Far, however, from the intention of passing judgment against, or the most distant desire of establishing the actual guilt of one I have loved, the first wish of my heart still is, that her innocence, if possible, may be made clear. I wish to vindicate myself with- out condemning her. In this publication, therefore, I shall go.so. far only as my own vindication requires. Let her crafty counsel- lors, if they dare, afford the opportunity I seek, to unveil all I know, and all I have heard, and they shall look upon it all. Let those who craftily put aside the domestic forum, and haughtily dispise judicial appeal, now take their course. I am prepared for any alternative they or any of them may think proper to choose. In the spring of the year 1836, when I had been many years, and had attained to a respectable station in the House of Repre- sentatives of the United States, boarding in the same house with Col. Benton and his family, the eldest daughter of Gov. McDowell, then a promising young girl of only fifteen years of age, was sent 8 to Washington in order to be put to boarding school at George- town. The young lady instead of going to school, for which purpose she was sent from home, spent the whole of te session of 1836 which transpired after her arrival, and nearly the whole of the session of 1836-°7, in the mess at the same boarding house where we were; and at a very early period of our acquaintance, I quote her own words, told me, that ‘* she had set her cap for me.” Being then thirty-seven years of age, without having ever seriously turned my attention towards marriage, I answered, with perhaps too much plainness, but with perfect sincerity, ‘‘it will be time enough for you to think of such things two years hence, after you have completed your education.”’ In saying this, 1 spoke like an older brother, who, disliked mixed boarding houses for young ladies, would have spoken to an interesting and inexperienced sister. This, it is to begobserved, occurred after others of the mess had said to me, tha®€hey had discovered, that Col. and Mrs. Benton were anxious to make a match between their niece and myself. With this, I was flattered, and at that early day was perhaps more pleased than I was conscious of, with the prospects of such a destiny. _ Nevertheless, at her tender age, I felt it would be ungenerous to take advantage of the influence of her friends, and desired to see her go to her boarding school. Her uncle and family, however, had determined otherwise. I cannot lengthen this narrative by introducing proofs of their extreme solicitude, to prevent any occurrence that might unfavorably interpose with their design to promote our union. ‘These could be adduced in abun- dance, in the course of a courtship frequently interrupted on my part, and as often renewed by the immediate interposition of Col, Benton and her other friends. On one of these several occasions, when the niece, as she frequently did, made to me the declaration, “JT have set my cap for you,” and I gave the usual reply, her aunt, Mrs. Benton, encouraged the advance by remarking, that, at St. Louis, she ‘‘ had seen girls of fifteen married and leading sweet little children along the streets by the hand.” Col. Benton, too, repeatedly exercised his good offices to encourage and pro- mote the connexion, and remove all interfering obstacles. On one occasion, after his niece had returned to her father’s, in No- vember, 1839, he invited me to his office, and there urged me, with great earnestness, to visit her at her father’s, assuring me, that her parents, as well as the daughter, desired the match. I have now in possession three of his letters addressed to me, con- taining each a sentence or more devoted to this his favorite pur- pose, and urging me to go to Virginia and court his niece. No one was more conspicuous than Goy. and Mrs. McDowell at some stages of the affair, in the furthering, as far as they could, what seemed to be to their daughter and her friends a favorite purpose. Imputing, at the time, these proceedings to generous attempts to overcome my extreme diffidence, and guard against my want of addresss, they had the effect to create in me for the daughter and. 9 niece a most passionate love, and for her friends a devoted attachment. In the summer of 1841, all arrangements being made for the marriage, it took place on the eighth of June of that year, at Gov. McDowell’s residence in Virginia. After a few days, passed at her father’s residence, she was confided to me to be taken home to the residence provided for her in Maryland. Young and inex- perienced as Mrs. Thomas was, I solicited her sister and her cousins to accompany her to her new home. Not one of them could be prevailed upon to be of our party, and she came amongst strangers without a female friend, to whose society she had been accustomed; and no one of the many young ladies of her large family connexion, ever entered my dwelling during the five months she was an inmate. To repel one of the impudent charges after- wards made against me, that I had not furnished her with a suita- ble wardrobe, I must be excused here for declaring, that Gov. McDowell’s daughter came from her father’s house to mine, with a wardrobe so scanty as to afford me ample opportunity to gratify, as I did gratify, my affection for her, by adding liberally to its variety, exceeding her own wishes in that respect. During our stay at her father’s house, she told me of her having kissed a young man of her acquaintance at one of the parties we attended. I made no comment, but on our way home, in conse- quence of this communication, in connexion with other occurren- ces, I took care to make her understand she was about to be intro- duced into a society, where such familiarities were not customary. In the same conversation, I condemned the conduct of her cousin, which had come under my own observation in Virginia—a young man whom at her instance, I had, before our marriage and after our engagement, invited from his residence there, and established in Maryland. I had seen him attempt what I deemed gross liberties with a young lady, who was entitled to his particular re- spect. This slight circumstance is here mentioned because it had an influence in subsequent occurrences. linge yoy Ce L y e oO}, f, 17 & iu re A | A ite “ we + ae TEM OU ay 98} igamaiie: YE inka, wh of 10] i on) i - naaawe aps} a “uh ey s i, Fae | Al Kacke aanptaonk, heater? at Sate Be " eogjal re dayaz 2 ie hie a, ‘fete vel 2 a J : a pe, £ MP we ceotabenregers rit nadie, Moetiyces / ae sy , RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, granting an Annuity of $500 to the In- stitute,—adopted February 8th, 1850. By tHE Hovst or Soe ane February 8th, 1851. Wuereas, the Legislature of the State of Maryland has evinced a disposition to encourage Agricultural labor, and has, by the appointment of a State Chemist, awarded to that branch of industry, the advantage of its aid in discoveries promotive to its profitable pursuit ;—and whereas, the improvement and extension of the Mechanic Arts equally deserve the countenance and patronage of the State, and are alike conducive to individual happiness and State prosperity ;—and whereas, acting under the influence of an enlightened spirit, the Legislature of Maryland at its December Session, 1829, by resolution No. 45, did contribute through its Treasury to the promotion of Mechanic Arts, which contribution was continued until by disasters the Maryland Institute, the then object of her bounty, ceased to exist:—and whereas, the Institute has been revived and is now in advance progress, and it is proper that its utility should be enlarged,— Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the Treasurer of the State of Maryland be and is hereby directed, to pay annually to the President of the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Me- chanic Arts, within one month after said Institute shall have held its an- nual exhibition, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars; provided, it shall be shown to the Treasurer that the said Institute is in efficient operation at the time of such payment. By Order, G. G. BREWER, Clerk. State of Maryland, to wit: Be it remembered, and we hereby certify, that the aforegoing is a true copy of the resolution in favor of the Maryland Institute for the Promo- tion of the Mechanic Arts, which passed both branches of the General Assembly of Maryland, at December Session, 1849. .Given under our hands at the City of Annapolis, this 23d day of April, 1850. GEORGE G. BREWER, Clerk House Delegates, Md. JOS. H. NICHOLSON, Clerk Senate, Md. Officers for 1853-'54. PRESIDENT. JOSHUA VANSANT. VIGE-PRESIDENTS. ADAM DENMEAD, GEORGE R. DODGE. RECORDING SECRETARY. SAMUEL SANDS. CORRESPONDING SECRETARY. WM. H. YOUNG. TREASURER OF THE INSTITUTE. THOMAS I. CLARE. TREASURER OF THE HALL FUND. JAMES W. ALLNUT. MANAGERS. WM. PRESCOTT SMITH, JOHN F. MEREDITH, N. H. THAYER, B. S. BENSON, JOHN DUKEHART, THOMAS CARROLL, W. 8S. THOMPSON, ANDREW FLANNIGAIN, THOMAS STOW, EMERSON AMES, THOMAS TRIMBLE, JAMES McNABB, CAMPBELL MOREFIT, WOOD. ABRAHAMS, WM. BAYLEY, JOSIAH REYNOLDS, T. J. LOVEGROVE, CHAS. E. WETHERED, W. A. BOYD, EVANS ROGERS, WENDEL BOLLMAN, JAMES 8. SUTER, C. W. BENTLEY. WM. W. MAUGHLIN. (> Nore.—The seven chief officers are also Managers ex-officio, and with the twenty-four others, constitute a Board of thirty-one Managers. Actuary—JOHN S. SELBY. Professor of Drawing in School of Design—WM. MINIFIE. Professor of Chemical Department—Da. A. SNOWDEN PIGGOT. Standing Committees for 1953-54. On The Exhibition. THOMAS TRIMBLE, Chairman. ADAM DENME4D, JOHN Tf. MEREDITH, EMERSON AMES, GEORGE R. DODGE, THOMAS STOW, THOS. J. LOVEGROVE, C. W. BENTLEY. THOMAS I. CLARE. On School of Design. C. W. BENTLEY, Chairman. W. ABRAHAMS, JAMES McNABB, W. BOLLMAN, THOMAS STOW, WM. W. MAUGHLIN. JAMES S. SUTER. On Lectures. CAMPBELL MORFIT, Chairman. N. H. THAYER, “EVANS ROGERS, WM. H. YOUNG, W. PRESCOTT SMITH. On Library. WM. I. YOUNG, Chairman. THOMAS CARROLL, WM. A. BOYD, JOHN DUKEHART, B. S. BENSON. On the Ifall. WM. BAYLEY, Chairman. W.S. THOMPSON, GEORGE R. DODGE, JOSIAH REYNOLDS, SAMUEL SANDS. On Chemical Department. WILLIAM S. THOMPSON, Chairman. A. FLANNIGAIN, N. H. THAYER, CHAS. E. WETHERED, THOS. J. LOVEGROVE, On Finance. JOSHUA VANSANT, Chairman. JAS. W. ALLNUT, CHAS. E. WETHERED, A. DENMEAD, A. FLANNIGAIN. On New Inventions, &c. JAMES MURRAY, Chairman. EMERSON AMES, JOHN RODGERS, JAMES McNABB, F. W. KING, JOHN JONES, JOHN RYAN, GB HUND, HENRY POLLOCK, Sec’y. COMMITTEE ON AWARDS, ANDREW FLANNIGAIN, Chairman. WM. H. YOUNG, JAMES MURRAY, N. H. THAYER, HENRY SNYDER, JOHN DUKEHART, EMERSON AMES, WENDEL BOLLMAN, WOODWARD ABRAHAMS, THOMAS CARROLL, WM. PRESCOTT SMITH. roa} “sy ’ iy hel ye Aaa: hd 11) he wh Aine ey is AMA fon Mat i ai CNSR! ORGS ve leyimaail, Oa ae ACIS he bs are 5 . a ee) eee Ohana ao” ties viv ante’ uy eee oe es pig ‘ if a abe HG & if , k me bepremned | ‘ka ity ed aD ‘by _ ebsieeden Reape. Ae TARE 24 U Laie MEE CED not later than the third week in November, and continue it open four months. They shall employ competent teachers to take charge of the School ; establish rules and regulations for its government, and have the entire contro] thereof. They shall be personally present as much as possible during the session, see that the rules and regulations are observed and enforced, and afford such aid to the officers of the school as may be required. They shall make written reports to the Board at each stated meeting held during the time they are arranging for and conducting the School, and also a full re- port at the close of the session, detailing the results of their op- erations, for the year, and showing the progress made in that Department. Sec. 3.—Duty of the Committee on Lectures. It shall the duty of the Committee on Lectures to make arrangements for, and to conduct a course or courses of Lec- tures, to commence in November, to be delivered at such 26 times and place as they may determine, and make monthly reports in writing upon their preparations and arrangements. Sec. 4.—Duty of the Committe on the Library. It shall be the duty of the Committee on the Library to purchase all suitable books, maps, &c. to the extent of the funds appropriated. They shall see that the Librarian per- forms the duties required of him. They shall make such rules and regulations, for the government of those who visit the Library rooms, as they may deem expedient and proper. They shall see, from time to time, what books are out of or- der, or require re-binding, and have the same put in order. They shall make monthly written reports to the Board, of their operations, and upon the condition of the Library. Sec. 5.—Duty of the Committee on the Hall. The duty of the Committee on the Hall shall be, to take charge of the Institute’s Building, to adopt the necessary means for keeping it in repair, and rent it from time to time, as demand may be made for it. They shall report to each meeting of the Board all the rentals of the Hall, and present monthly a written statement of the same, with their receipts and expenditures. :, Sec. 6.—Duly of the Committee on the Chemical Department. The Committee on the Chemical School shall extend a general supervision over its affairs, and confer at all times with the professor in the management of the Laboratory, re- porting to the Board monthly the operations and condition of their Department Sec. 7—Duty of the Actuary. It shall be the duty of the Actuary to attend at and take charge of the Hall of the Institute, see that it is kept in pro- per and comfortable order, and opened and closed at such hours as the Board of Managers or Committee on the Hall may direct. He shall have charge of the Library, the Cab- inet of Minerals, Models, philosophical and mechanical Ap- paratus, &c. and be responsible for the safe keeping of the 27 same. He shall also have charge of the books of the Insti- tute and Hall, and under the direction of the Board or the Finance Committee, keep them in such manner as will at all times show the exact state of Institute and Hall Funds, and make monthly reports of the same to the Board of Managers. He shall keep a correct record of all the members, alphabet- ically arranged ; receive and credit each with the amount of dues annually paid ; issue the annual tickets, and notify all new members of their election. He shall pay over to the Treasurers from time to time, as the Board of Managers may direct, all moneys by him received, and make monthly reports to the Board of the same. It shall be his duty at all times when called upon by any of the special or standing commit- tees, to confer with them, and render them as far.as lays in his power, all information and assistance in the arrangement or settlement of the affairs of the Hall or Institute, and at all times, as circumstances may arise, in view of which he has not authority to act, shall apply to the next meeting of the Board for instruction. He shall give Bond in the sum of Five Thousand Dollars for the faithful performance of his duties, with two or more sureties, to be approved by the Board. He shall perform all other duties required of him by the Standing Committee or the Board of Managers. AT vii Ww end” Hill Titre, adh 3 rh #4 ae ern. ore [Bide fiw ex ronan: it hosel ort ae Gry A, has hi The fe. ti Ab ‘BA *" } Ver to riot ae ot wont 4 i ah t cities ‘odi. i le ae j 4 iy ‘tong dibor? bea, biti Koveok Taalecia, ‘ is : of) a indy vad bade Sie Ree ribet ortinMt Yo moet Wily fd ns POST yea Chait bin, be “990 ia earths Lbs ty i if af Mirtle W Minis pilus NG fest Shops ul 1H Of Onl aad Bie Kia tatitas Bil ee Nearer torptay ott AY ohicieteie baie Line bones; aden ined Wy TAY ii ae tit WSs fii’ (aulies (ete off} We gible oot re oF rte Ita syn tact tte avi We cee oA of F ov Wnwl Hive’ xi italy aieh Ye moe Ile sseait aay Thads ot Byneerwy val 1h ogo Peppa i pater ae 7 Se — Yo te é ’ WAT i poeple oa oe i A hu os city yh Mit ai \¢ Ute ey ‘ y nr My, | woe (pened en ebbing * a ee RULES OF ORDER. RULE I. The following shall be the order of business at each meet- ing of the Institute: 1. The President shall take the chair at the appointed hour and call the meeting to order. 2. The minutes of the proceedings of the last preceding meeting read and considered, except at special meetings, when the business for which the Institute was convened shall be first in order. (Same as to minutes of special meetings.) 3. Proposal of candidates for membership, and election of the same. A. Reading of correspondence. 5. Announcement of donations. 6. Report of Board of Managers, Treasurers, &c. read and considered. 7. Reports of special committees read and considered. 8. Disposition of deferred or unfinished business, 9. Resignations considered. ;' 10. New business. RULE II. Should the foregoing order of business not be completed at any one meeting of the Institute, the order shall be resumed at the next meeting, where it stopped at the previous meet- ing, except that the first five branches of the foregoing order shall be called at each meeting. 30 RULE IIL. The President, while presiding, shall state every question coming before the Institute, before suffering debate thereon, and, immediately before putting it to vote, shall ask, “Is the Institute ready for the question ?”” RULE IV. When the decision of the President on points of order is appealed from, he shall state his decision, and the reasons therefor, from the chair. The party appealing shall then briefly state the reason for his appeal. 'The question, when taken, shall be put thus, ‘Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the Institute ?”’ RULE Y. Every member, while speaking, shall confine himself to the question under debate ; and avoid all personality and in- decorous language. RULE VI. Should two or more members rise to speak at the same time, the chair shall decide who shall have the floor. RULE VII. No member shall disturb another in his speech, except to call him to order. RULE VIII. If a member, while speaking, shall be called to order, at the request of the chair he shall cease speaking, and take his seat until the question of order is determined, when he may again proceed, in order. RULE IX. No member shall speak more than once on the same ques- tion until all the members wishing to speak shall have an op- portunity so to do, nor more than twice, without permission. of the Institute. 31 RULE X. All resolutions shall be reduced to writing, if required, be- fore the President shall state the same to the Institute. RULE XI. When a blank is to be filled, the question shall be taken first upon the highest sum or number, and the longest time proposed. RULE XII. Any member may call for a division of a question when the sense will admit of it. RULE XIiIl. ~ When a question is before the Institute, no motion shall be received, unless to adjourn, to take the previous question, to lay on the table, to postpone indefinitely, to postpone to a definite time, to refer, or to amend ; and they shall have pre- cedence in the order herein arranged, the first four of which shall be decided without debate. RULE XIV. If a motion to adjourn be adopted, and the Institute has not previously resolved on the adjournment, to meet at a par- ticular period, the effect of the motion shall be to adjourn to the next regular meeting. RULE XY. The motion to take the previous question, may be made by any two numbers, and shall be put in this form, ‘‘shall the main question be now taken?’’ and if adopted, the effect shall be to bring the meeting to a vote upon the question pending at the time the previous question was called for. If such question was an amendment to an original proposition, the vote shall be taken upon the amendment first, and next upon the original proposition as amended, or not, as the case may be, and if the question pending is an amendment to an amend- 32 ment, the question shall be first taken on the last amendment, and so down to the orignal proposition. RULE XVI. ; “ The effect of the motion to lay upon the table, if adopted, shall be to prevent the question being taken up again on the same evening without a two-third vote. . RULE XVII. No resolution which has been rejected, shall be renewed at the same meeting, unless reconsidered as provided for in the 18th rule. RULE XVIII. Any question which has been indefinitely postponed, shall not be renewed at any time before the next monthly meeting, and then only upon the condition as explained in the next rule. RULE XIX. All votes, other than on amendments to the By-Laws or Rules of Order, or indefinite postponement, may be reconsid- ered at the same or next regular meeting, upon a motion made and seconded by two members who voted in the majority, provided the Institute agree ; but after a motion to reconsider has once been lost, it shall not be renewed. RULE XX. Every member present shall vote on all questions before the Institute, unless incapacitated under the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws. RULE XXI. A motion to excuse a member from voting shall be put without debate. RULE XXIl. When a motion has been declared carried or lost by the usual manner of voting, any member, before the Institute proceeds to other business, may call for a count. / 33 RULE XXIII. All reports of committees shall be in writing, and when read to the Institute, shall be considered as accepted, without a vote, unless objection be made thereto. * * ‘his a Me hie hn ak % Golly Dan sniiiew at od Coal a6 iwathin by goose en harehigass od | bs Sm = 4 > s RH { i Shuded ed enh a, (es 4 4 a i ‘ . , r. i Fe ; [7 oe ay ‘i ' & : wv hy ti ' . #By 1 Pets ; 11 Bei. 3 f J Y oP en "4 a halminad Say ul reg RULES OF ORDER, FOR THE GOVERNMENT THE BOARD OF MANAGERS. Ist. The times of Meeting of the Institute, shall govern the meetings of the Board. 2d. The President of the Institute shall be Chairman of the Board, and in his absence a chairman pro tem. shall be chosen. - 3d. Nine members shall constitute a quorum at all stated and first adjourned stated meetings—but at other meetings thirteen shall be necessary. Ath. At the appointed hour of stated meetings, the chair- man shall call the Board to order ,when the roll shall be call- ed, and all absentees fined 12} cents. 5th. Members who shall appear within ten minutes after roll call, shall be exempted from fine—all others appearing after that time shall be fined 6} cents. 6th. The first business after roll call shall be the reading and approval of the proceedings of the previous meeting— hen Unfinished Business—Correspondence—Donations—Re- ports of Standing Committees—Reports of Special Commit- tees—and New Business. 7th. No member shall speak more than twice on any sub- ject, nor longer than 5 minutes at any one time, without spe- cial permission of the Board. 8th. When a member is addressing the chair on any sub- ject, the members shall observe silence. 36 9th. When a subject is under consideration no motion shall me made, but to adjourn, lie on the table, postpone, to amend, or.the previous question. 10th. A motion for the previous question, to adjourn, or to lie upon the table shall always be taken without discussion. 11th. In voting on any question, the chairman shall always give the casting vote, if there is a tie. 12th. The funds collected for fines shall be safely kept by the chairman, and the Board shall, at its last meeting previous to a new election, dispose of them as it may please to deter- mine. 13th. Absence from the city, or personal or family sick- ness shall be a sufficient excuse for non-attendance. 14th. The Board shall be governed by the Rules of Order of the Institute in all cases unprovided for herein, and in cases where no rule of the Institute has been provided, the ordinary parliamentary usage shall prevail, as collated by Cushing. THE INSTITUTEH’S HALL AT BALTIMORE. The site of the Hall is a very eligible one, fronting as it does on Baltimore street, and within two hundred yards of the Merchants’ Exchange, Post Office, and City Hotel. The lot is that on which the head section of the old Centre Market stood, and has a sixty foot front, with a depth of three hun- dred and fifty-five feet to Second street. The basement story of the building, isa Tuscan Arcade, having seventy pilasters, with capacious archways, affording free access to the market, to the purposes of which this story is still devoted. _ The Halls of the Institute, though over the market, and supported by the same foundation, are entirely separated from it. So well, indeed, has this been done, that a stranger might enter the Institute many times without knowing that there Was an extensive market house beneath it. The main en- trance to the Institute, is a large archway in the centre of the building on Baltimore street, where you ascend a double flight of steps, fifteen feet wide, to the first floor. On a broad plat- form, half way (ten feet) up this flight, there are ticket offices on either side. A spacious vestibule is reached at the head of these stairs, on either side of which, is a large office or dress- ing room. ‘The grand stair hall, on this floor, is twenty-five feet square, at the back of which, is the Lisrary Room, fifty-five by thirty-six feet, with a fourteen foot ceiling. — Directly in front of the the landing, at fifteen, feet distance, is a doorway twelve feet wide, opening into the grand saloon ; this room, ‘‘in the clear,’’ is two hundred and fifty, 38 by fifty-five feet, with a thirty-two and a half foot ceil- ling. It has twenty windows, ten on each side, which are each seventeen and a half by seven; and a grand promenade gallery, seven feet wide on the sides, and ten feet at each end of the room, runing entirely around it, at a height of fourteen feet from the floor, and supported by eighty strong and beau- tiful iron brackets, set into the walls. Thus the necessity of obstructing the main floor by pillars or columns, or of using suspension rods, is entirely avoided, and the floor is left en- tirely free and clear—the largest clear floor in America. This great room is finished in a simple but really beautiful style. The fresco painting upon the ceiling and walls, is one of the most artistic specimens of that kind of work that can be found any where. 'The design is chaste and architecturally appro- propriate, and the colors are rich and well blended. In or- der to render this room fit for concerts or public speeches, due care has been taken. A beautiful cove is placed in the cor- nice, which has much improved its acoustic properties. Though not containing as much ornament as some of our public halls, it is thought that, asa whole, this is the finest Ball or Exhibi- tion Room in the country. Some two thousand persons may promenade the handsome galleries, while four thousand more may be seated, or six thousand could easily stand upon the main floor, making its capacity, in any event, very great. On a level with the floor of the grand saloon, there are, in each of the end buildings, large rooms, and above them are other rooms, on a level with the gallery floor of the grand saloon. ‘There is, on each of the end buildings, another floor still, with rooms equally as large as those below them. HONORARY MEMBERS. PELL Las ve Joun G. Morris, D. D., Epwarp STABLER, Wm. F. Lyncn, U. S. N., Wiruram Barr, J. M. S. Causin, Pror. Campsert Morrit Horace GREELEY, Fror. A. D. Bacue, Epwarp K. Couns, Zapock PRATT, G. W. Burnar, D. D., Pror. Samvext F. B. Morse, Pror. Cuaries G. Pace, J. H. B. Latrose, Ricuarp Fuirer, D. D., Wma. D. GaLiacuer. Pror. JosrrpH Henry, Gerorce Peagopy, Pror. M. F. Mavry, S. Teackie Watts, Epwarp Gray, Cuarces F. Sranspury, Joun P. Kennepy, W. W. Szaron, Tromas Swann, Dr. E. K. Kane, U.S. N. Jony W. Grirrirus, Baltimore. Maryland. do. Maryland. do. do. New York. Sup’t U. S. Coast Survey. New York. do. Baltimore. New York. Washington. Baltimore. do. Cincinnati. Smithsonian Institute. London. National Observatory. Baltimore. do. Washington Baltimore, Washington. Baltimore. Philadelphia. New York. LIFE MEMBERS. A. Emerson Ames, Simeon Alden, Geo. W. Andrews. B. N. F. Blacklock, Zenus Barnum, Chas. W. Bentley, Jos. L. Bonnett, Edwin Bennett, John W. Ball,: J. N. Bonaparte, Hugh Bolton, Mrs. William Browne, Richard Bishop, John Burris, Wm. Geo. Baker, William F. Bokee, James R. Baylis, William Bayley, William Bridges, William L. Brown, Thomas Balbirnie, John H. Barnes, B. S. Benson. C. H. D. G. Carroll,. Thomas Creamer, Elias Clampitt, Wm. Crane. A. Fuller Crane, James Cooper, Wm. Cordray, Walter Crook, Jr. Archibald Campbell, Richard B. Chenowith, Joseph R. Codet, EB. S. Corkran, John Campbell, William Chesnut, T. A. Cunningham, Mrs. Deb. Cromwell, Robert Craig. William Coughlan, Lewis G. Curlett, James E. Cochran. D. George R. Dodge, John F. Davis, Hugh Devalin, Thomas C. Dunlevy, Charles W. Davis, Joseph Daiger, Jr. John Dushane, John Dunlap, Adam Denmead, Benjamin Deford. E. Richard Edwards, Jr. Robert Eareckson, Henry English, F. Andrew Flannigain, Dr. Richard Fuller, Francis A. Fisher, L. W. T. Flannigain, Peter Fiamm, Leon Frank, George Frick. John Feast. GC. James B. George, James D, Gilmour,. William Gilmor, | John R. Giles, Isaac S. George. William Garrott, Edward Gray, Mrs. John Glenn, Israel Griffith. H. James S. Hagerty, Aaron Hoffman, Ephraim Hoffman, Mrs. Daniel Holt, Isaac Hartman, James W. Heron, H. W. Heird, William Hooper, James Hall, A. V. Houck, F. W. Hoffman, Thomas J. Hand, Johns Hopkins, George H. Hickman, Dr. F. E. B. Hintze, Kaufman Hamberger,. Orville Horwitz, David W. Hudson. J. Asbury Jarrett, Wm. Henry James, Basil H. James, W. Henry Johnson, Allen L. Innes, Reyerdy Johnson. K. George V. Keen, William. Kennedy. L. Ephraim Larrabee, George A. Lovering, Thomas J. Lovegrove, James H. Luckett, Milo Lewis, William Linton, James Logue, Amos Lovejoy, J. M. Laroque, John H. Lange. M. Andrew McLaughlin, William Minifie, Thomas Mullen, Jr. Horace Magne, R. McEldowney, A. C. Miskimmon, Alex. McComas, J. Howard McHenry, James Mitchell, John Murphy, J. W. Middleton, John B. Morris. A. G. Mott, William MeCann, Richard C. Mason, Robert Moore, Richard Mayger, John F. Meredith. N. J. Crawford Neilson, J. R. Niernsee, Edward Needles, Al Tsaac L. Nicholson, C. J. Nicholson, Thomas N. Neilson. oO. Charles Ogle, John M. Orem. Le Enoch Pratt, Jonathan Parker, Jr. William B. Perine, George C. Penniman, Charles H. Pitts, George Page, George F. Page, R. H. Pennington, Jeseph W. Patterson. R. William H. Rose, Joshua Regester, Samuel i. Rice, Sam’1C. Ridgaway, Pp. E. Reiley, Miss Henrietta Randal} Henry R. Reynolds, Josiah Reynolds, William H. Reasin, John G. Reaney. s. Samuel Sands, Wwm. Bell Sands, J. H. Stickney, Alex. L. Spear, Dr. Jos. S. Stevenson, Thomas Swann, Henry C. Sultzer, N. Stocksdale, Jas. E. Stocksdale, David B. Smull, Richard P. Sherwood, Hugh Sisson, Lawrence Sangston, John J. Snider. 'B: Jacob B. Thomas, Joseph Thomas, John H. Tucker, Dr. J. H. Thomas, Richard H. Townsend, John.T. Thompson, Jacob Trust, Thomas F. Troxell, Wm. S. Thompson, Thomas Trimble, Jos. J. Turrer, Francis Turner, Edwin 8. Tarr. W. T. Yates Walsh, Alex. P. White. Wr. (Ce Wait, Marcus Wolf, Noah Walker, Peter Wilcox, Samuel G. Wyman, Charles Webb, David H. White. i a-dotdh 42 ee 46 tied vated? delve atl veeorcr 00 ae of cr : ih ato < | ¥ ev r j PFs ot | dav Th une) caddis, ; aa ciel, aa os ae ag? bb WE a) joes atcripeeh 2 vyraatd HB palol | ween Hy aot adl i “*t C att ie hana ‘ “o wethihh: . | one D pietel any peed. fae Pwiguaes) to = V Gey * eoatvat ih a We spot’! ih ' 7 oe } hl tajoth t t : al 7 ’ ew ant Aad Hi edlihe ert c itt sgwA gudedhiai ih 2 AD A aemess ew opmab OT wet re a 1. } bi es et)! ped al. 7 ¢ fom / ea ae el ‘ ‘ 4 aa | we oe lt J ) j Loe. Gee tae ait cf Vey r Po ee ey | revlon é v9 PO Py ry nety ey *Z Pv a eel a |} qt itp: at ANNUAL MEMBERS, A Senior Members. Albaugh, Hy. C. Achey, Charles F. Allnut, James W. Ames, Hudson N. Acton, Samuel G. Allen, G.S. Allison Philip S. Allnut, E. S. Arnold, John Armiger, John Arnold, George Anderson, Thomas D. Addison, William W. Anderson, James Atkinson, Samuel Afflick, James Aitkin, Alexander M. Airery, George W. Allen, Janies Abrahams, Woodward Addison, George C. Anderson, Wm. E. Anderson, Col. Jas. M. Adair, John Arnold, S S. Alward, William H. Atkinson, George Adams, Samuel H. Armstrong, James Abbett, Samuel R. Adams, James C. Abbott, E A. Atkinson, Thomas T. C. Amos, Dr. Corbin Arnold, G W. Addison, George M. Adams, Revd. Geo. F. Addison, Samuel S. Atwell, R. FI. Adkinson, Wm. Abbott, Horace Andrews, R. Snowden Asche, Julius Ayres, Charles C, Adkins, Dr. J. L. Junior Members. Allen, Robert J. Ash, John M. Amos, John Applegarth, John W. Akers, Joseph Ashlager, Wm. Adams, John A. Armstrong, Jas. Jr. Arnold, T. F. Allison, Robert H. Addison, John A. Adams, George Allen, Samuel Adams, C. Columbus Austin, Alex. R. Allen, L. Byron Atkinson, Thos. F. Adams, Charles S. Armstrong, James H. Auld, Edward Ashton, Wm. C. Armstrong, R. Dorsey Armiger, Jas. R. Arlow, John F. Ashton, J. M. Addison, Samuel T. Anderson, W. Scott Anderson, Clifford C. Adams, G. T. Ash, George T. Applegarth, G. W. Anderson, J. T. Armstrong, H. L. Allen, William, Jr. Addison, G. C. of S. Adams, A. M. J. Armstrong, John, Jr. Anderson, Oliver, Jr. Airey, Wm. F. Ash, Charles J. Senior Members. Benson, William Balderston, Jacob Bangs, Charles Bayley, J Finley Brashears, John P. Bolgiano, John Browne, L. B. Barry, George E. Baker, Wm. A. Barton, Wm. N. Buchwalter, Gen. Burt, A. P. Benner, Hy. S. Barnes, Winston Barnes, J.H (Painter) Bosley, BE. M. Burden, Furgus Barstow, Joshua Benson, Samuel H. Brown, Wm. T. Banks, Robert T. Bouldin, Augustus Brice, G. A. Baylies. Nicholas Barling, Joseph Barrett, John L. Bond, John H. Burgess, Chas. H. Buck, J. F. Bollman, Wendel Brown, Jehu Beehler. Hy. S. Boyd, Philip T. Bennett, Wm. J. Brown, Wm. D. Burgess, Caleb W. Becker, J. A. H. Bibb, B.C. Brooks, Wm. Blackburn, Cyrus Brown, Albert M. Barrett, Francis O. Brannan, John Boyd, Wm. A. Barlow, Joseph Benson, John P. Boyd, Wm. G. Barrett. John P. Blake, Charles Baughman, F. M. Brouzhton, P. W. Bender, Eimund C, Bidison, Zachariah Ballard, Thos. J. Brinkey, J. B. Burrough, Jacob Bump, J. L. Beatson, John Bowen, Joseph M. Barling, Joseph, Jr. Bilson, Samuel Bealmer, Thomas Rishop, W. T. Baughman, Joseph Burford, C. C. Bennet), Thomas S. Brown, Thos. M. Boone, Robert Braidwood, G. K. Bines, Robert Brown. Edward Boyd, J. W. Brown, M. J. Brown, Wm. A. Bassett, G. T. Butler, Samuel Bankard, N. D. Baker, R, J. Brent, R, J. Barger, Deeter Boyd, George S. Brown, Geoge W. Brian, Jas N. Bier, Jacob Boston, John E. H. Blake, Joel N. Brownly, Joseph Brewer, Nicholas Bool, D. W. Buesh, Hy. Brewvr, George Brune, John C. A4 Bruce, John M. Brunner, Wm. T. Butler, Thos. Bond, Jas. H. Burnett, Samuel Ballard, L. E. Bonn, Anthony Bandel, Samuel L. Berger, John Bevan, R. A. L. Beacham, John S. Brady, Edward Boyle, Edward A. Brown, Robert Brown, C. F. Barton, J. J. Blass, Win. A. Boyd, Joseph C. Baker, F. S. Bennett, Benj. F. Boyd. F. H. B. Beacham, Wm. Billmyer, Joseph Baynes, Thos. Boyd, Wilson R. Brashears, J. B. Brown, John Bailey, Edwin Berg, Revd. John Baynes, James Bokee, George M.. Bonsal, Louis Bull, Isaac Briding, Ek. W. Boyd, J. Howard Beckett, Wm. Brown, Thomas Bevan, John Balderston, Isaiah Brown, Isaac Bailey, L. K. Baruleit, D. L. Bantz, I’. S. Beit, bugene N. Beacham, Silas Burbower, L. Burn, James M. Belt, Hic kinan Brown, Kovert, Jr. Bruce, Robert Barber, W. E. Barber, 5S. W. Betton, Thos. W. Buchanan, W. C. Bolton, Henry Bankhard, Joseph J. Battee, R. N. Brice, Win. N. Burchale, Thos, W. Brice, N.C. Baird, Prof. T. D. Bradley, Wm. C. Brown, T. J. Bickell, Phillip T. Burke, Wm. T. Brown, Levi K. Bartol, James L. Bevan, Thomas Beacham, Jas. A. Brien, John V. Bragg, Wm. F. Burnett, Joseph Burke, Jas. H. Boyd, Joseph H. Bech, F. W. Boyd, Andrew G. » Brett, C. K. Blair, L. P. Brodie, James Bobeth, Charles Burnes, John Bokee, John C. Blanchard, D. H. Bowers, Thos. M. Beary, John Beatty, Jas. Bolton. Hugh W. Byrn, Wm, H. Junior. Members. Benswanger, Simon Zenthall, T'. W. Beaston, J.C. Bolgiano, Joseph Ault Bolgiano, Francis W. Baker, N. R. Baker, Wm. S. G. Baynes, John B. Bullock, John Bixler, Daniel, Jr. Barton, Phi ip A. Bothman, Fred. Bothman, Gustave Burgess, Chas. R. Bancroft, Chas. F. Bixler, Benj. M. Babb, John, D., Jr. Blessing, George Broom, Daniel Byrne, James Bruning, H. H. Bouis, Robert G. H. Bowly, Samuel Boyd, Wm. A. Jr. Banks, Chas. W200 © Bridge, Stephen L. Barker, George T. Bringham, Vinton D. Brown, Jas. M. Buck, Edward D. Bayle, James Burke, John O. Bryding, George W. Bennett, John J. Buchta, John C. Bodensick, Chas. F. Brown, G. W. Byrn, Thos. Beehler, David E. Bower, Lewis M. Bartholow, L. L. Bartholow, J. M. Betts, Solomon, Jr. Brady, George W. Bancroft, John D., Jr. Birch, Jas. H. Benthall, Wm. M. R. Betts, T. J. Bridges, Wm. J. Baer, George Botterell, John Bowersox, Theodore K. Brown, Geo. W. Beard, George R. Bennett, Geo. A. Barron, John M. Browne, C. C. Bonn, S. G. Bonn, H. R. Bonn, D. W. Boult, Thos. H. Boult, John Wm. Boyle, John P. Beaman, Wm. A. Boston, Chas. H. H. Boggs, Robert J. B. Buchta, George P. Brachen, John Burrough, Samuel G. Brawner, Daniel W. Beurey, Wm. O. Baer, Chas. W. Brooke, Ballard S. Beal, Wm. Blair, C. E. Bell, Geo. W. C. Boggs, A L. Jr. Beaman, M. R. Barker. Joseph H. Bedford, John R. D. Bailey, Josiah Barnes, Robert, Jr. Boyce, Jas. T. Burnett, Wm. T. Bandel, John, Jr. 45 Burruss, Hy. Buckmiller, Wm. P. Burgess, Benjamin T. Burnham, John W. Baney, Chas. E. Bixham, Thos. Brunner, Andrew Bond, B. A. Brown, James Burke, Joseph Bandel, Geo. W. Baynes, Geo. B. Bayley, Wm. Bennett, L. B. Beatly, Geo. Ball, Samuel Bartholow. B. F. Bryan, M. A, Bailey, Philip Boyce, Edward Bennett, G. R. Burgess, Caleb W., Jr. Bennett, John H. Black, Finley Brown, James Bantum, John Bokee, Howard Brooks, G. W. Buckler, L. H. Binson, Thos. Birch, Charles Bell, Wm, Blair, Chas. W. Barneit, Jas. V. Bowerman, fH. Broadfoot, Wm. J. Boyd, James Bennett, Samuel E. Bracco, Edward Beale, Wm. T. B. Bartleson, A. D. Byrn, W. W. Bryan, David A, Bowers, Hy. A. Bankard, Chas. H. Bankard, Hy. N. Bennett, Thos. F. Buckingham, Jas. R. Boston, Chas. G. Bartrow, Joseph Bush, G. W. Bush, Wm. Henry Bryan, John H. Bond, J. Bosley, Jr. . Bouis, Stephen Bond, Edward S. Briscoe, Wm. Bollman, Jas. Jr. Bryan, John Barclay, J H. Bratton, Edward Boulden, Wm. Bedford, Chas. H. D. Bouchet, Joseph A, Beck, Francis Brewer, Daniel Blake, George Boyd, A. McK. Bordly, Edwaid C. Boone, Wm. H. Brown, John W. Betts, Chas. H. Bolton, Hy. Baker, John Bayly, John Billups, Chas. H. Bartroff, Lewis Bayley, Jas. S. Baster, John Ballard, G. Edward Brown, Stewart Baiker, E. Williams Bair, Wm. A. Behrens, Barnett Brown, Samuel, Jr. Beall, Theodore Brookings, Robert J. Black, John Brady, Thos. Bowles, John R. Banks, Andrew Byrne, Terrance Brown, Wm. H. Black, B. F. Brown, A. D. Beucke, J. P. Brown, Jas. A. Benson, Joseph E. Bevan, G. F. Bay, Nathan Betts, Edward, Jr. Brown, Wm. D. Blakeney, Wm. Bredfelter, M. Senior Members. Clark, Jas. Creery, Wm. R. Carlile, Jas. H. Cropper, Thos. J. Cross, Richard J Clautice, George Cairns, Samuel Cowles, Henry M. Cochrane, John Cochrane, Richard Clackner, G. F. Carner, A.S. Coggins, Robert Cunningham, C. R. Camp, Jas. L. Coggins, Chas. Cunningham, W. Amos Carson, S. R. Catheart, W. H. Cathcart, Robert Caskey, Robert Cole, Wm. H. Campbell, John Chamberlin, O. K. Cornelius, N. Conaine Lewis Carvel, Chas. F. Coon, Wm. Cappeau, Joseph, Jr. Carter, Clement Cross, John H. Campbell, John FB. Clark, James G. Cornell, Theodore Chappell, Samuel M. Crawford, Wm. H. Codd, Wm. H. Corbit, Emanuel Cobb, Josiah Chestnut, Capt. Samuel Creamer, David Corkran, B. W. Carroll, Edward Caughy, Benjamin Coale, Nathan Carroll, Thos. Clark, Ashur Cunningham, Geo. A. Coles, Wm. Cowan, Wm. H. Clackner, Joseph Cockey, S. Owings Cole, Jas. W. Childs, Jas. W. Carroll, Chas. C. Chambers, John Carroll, T. G. Clotworthy, Wm. P. Carson, C. H. Carson, David Carson, Joshua Carver, John W. Cook, Revd. Isaac P. 46 Caldwell, Jas. A. Chandlee, Edwin Cunningham, M. Cummings, John Cowles, John W. Cariss, Samson Cassard, George Craft, Wm. G. Cline, A. Coale, S. Robinson Cole, A. C. Caster, Robert J. Cushing, Joseph, Jr. Calder, Robert Cropper, Z. H. H. Cox, Nathaniel Cowman, 8S. 8. Cottrell, Clark Cole, Wm. P. Cole, Wm. R. Culberston, C. D. Cox, John R. Crocker, C. W. Clendennin, Dr. A. Carson, D. E. Craighton, A. W. Coupland, Richard Chadbourn, Chas. Coleman, Geo. A. Child, Samuel Cohen, Dr. J. J. Cortlan, Jas. Cook, Geo. Carroll, Chas. R. Crook, F. A. Carrico, Wm. Clare, Thos. J. Cruser, Isaac Clark, Geo. Cleveland, J. S. Clark, Jas. Caldwell, Wm. Q. Cohen, Jacob I. Cook, John F. Codd, Edward J. Chiflelle, Thos. P, Cohen, Israel Caughy, J. H. Crane, Dr. W. B. Carroll, Hy. J. Cowan, Henry Champlain, J. Bond Christy, Robert Chappell, P. S. Childs, Samuel, Jr. Christopher, Josiah Cooper, Hugh H. Carter, Darus Cummings, Walter B. Cross, Alexander Conradt, G. M. Jr. Coleburt, Dr. Joseph Crowley, Wm. S. Callis, James H. Coakley, P. H. Clifton, Junius A. Carroll, James Clarkson, William Clark, John P. Cornelius, N. Cole, John W. Junior Members. Crawford, Andrew A. Carroll, John W. Cobb, Edward R. E. Cockey, John Cowman, S. S. Jr., Cole, George B. Cousins, Wm. J. Cook, George W. Coonan, Michael Craig, J. Morrill Clark, Gabriel D. Jr. Cathcart, Chas. H. Cook-ey, Wm. N. Carson, Wm. H. Cole, C. M. Jr. Chase, Francis Chesney, Jesse D. Castine, Emanuel M. Crawford, Jas. B. Carrier, Matthew A. Crawford, Wm. Coleman, Joseph Chalfant, Edward J. Cole, Lewis H. Covington, Jas. H. Cappeau, J. T. Cook, J. M. Chew, Jas. W. Clarkson, Edward H. Cullison, Jas. Cassell, Thos. D. Craig, Daniel B. Clark, Stephen N. Coleman, Geo. Clark, Edward L. Clautice, Wm. F. Cornell, Mark J. Cole, Wm. H. Chambers, Geo. L Campbell, Robert, Jr. Crout, John E. Coggin, John Clark, Wm. E. Cox, Wm. H. H. Cook, Richard B. Coburn, J. W. Coffield, Eugene Cathel!, Jas. R. Claypole, Jas. Y. Cook, John Jas. Chrismer, J. Campbell, John C. Connolly, Thos. F. Connolly, John B. Carter, Edwin T. Cromwell, John T. Cromwell, E. H. Conradt, Christian J. Crownfield, H. F. K. Chandler, Kernard Colburn, N. K. Cooper, Jas. J. Crane, Chas, Cox, Wm. P. Coster, B. F. Chappell, P. Edmund Carson, Edward Cushing, John, Jr. Chapin, Chas. P. Cole, Wm. H. Cripps, Wm. W. L. Clark, Francis Cromwell, O. H. Cockey, John R. Chasteau, Thos. E. Chipman, Edward H. Christopher, Z. W. Cockey, Wm. Camper, Chas. Camper, Alexander Cadwallader, S. EK. Cockey, Edward C. Cockey, Thos. Courtney, Wm. Cline, Geo. H. Cook, Frederick Cross, Wm. S. Cross, E. D. Chappeau, Jabez W. Curlett, John G. Councill, Julius C. Cox, Jennings S. Covington, John E. Curry, Wm. P. Coulter, Alexander M. Chesbrough, Andron. Cunningham, Wm. A. AT Cathell, Jas. Covington, H. Crawford, Wm. R. Carr, Francis N. Crawford, John L. Colley, Wm. H. Creager, Geo. U. Childs, Samuel Cook, J. B. Coggins, Jas. Campbell, John Cox, Jas. H. Cox, Samuel E. Chase, Isaac Conoway, Jas. C. Cunningham, Patrick Cochran, Chas. C. Carlisle, Wm. H. Cook, Henry F. Chappell, Kirshaw Colston, F. M. Camalier, Vincent Cook, G. B. Cole, W. R. Crook, Walter Jas. Cassard, Francis W. Cassard, Louis Caldwell, Wm. Q. Jr. Caldwell, A. P. Courtney, David Chatard, P. F. Chase, Geo. I. Cushing, Robert H. Coulter, Thos. B. Cochran, Samuel Cahill, Joseph Clarke, Henry Cline, Wm. H. Clark, Jas. Coulson, B. O, Cumiskey, C. Cruse, John Chase, Henry Collier, Chas. Carland, L. Cook, Wm. F. Clinton, Thos. L. Cunningham, W. W. Corbell, H. Carrick, Thos. Chapman, J. W. Carr, S. I. Cannon, Jas. Henry Cunningham, J. EB. A. Cowman, Henry Connelly, John H. Classen, Henry Clark, R. A. Cowan, Wm. L. Cochran, Samuel H. Crawford, Wm. D. Crawford, Robert N- Cozine, James W. Cornthwait, Robt. H. Cooper, Jas. Connolly, J. Thos. Carroll, Patrick Cannon, Alex. H. Cramblitt, Wm. Cook, Lewis E. Carmine, Littleton Corner, Henry W. Curran, Barnard Coffin, Chas. Cavenaugh, Martin Clare, Wm. H. D Senior Members. Dall, Joseph Daftin, Benjamin DeForges, John P. Dushane, V. Duncan, H. W. Dukehart, Joseph Denny, John Dailey, John Davis, George A. Drury, Wm. H. Denison, John M. Dukehart, John Darling, F. Taylor Dubrec, G. W. Dare, William H. Dobler,George Diggs, James Denison, A. W. Dushane, J. W. Duvall, W. B. Dryden, Joshua Dutton, John, Dixon, James M. Debeet, Duncan H. Decorse, William Daniels, D. B. Day, Wm. S. Davidson, William Dant, Charles H. Danskin, W. A. Drummond, Levin Day, Alford G. Darlington, Howard Dunbar, Dr. J. R. W. Daffin, R. S. Dungan, A. S. Darling, James T. Dashiell, E. D. Davis, W. F. Dugan, Cumberland Dixon, Robert Durens, Mark Deitz, J. B. Deal, George J. Dix, IAT: Dushane, N. T. Dawes, J. S. Daugherty, J. J. Devries, William Donaldson, John J. Doged, Martin Downs, John Denmead, Talbott Davenport. J. B. Day, Jacob Dowling, Edward Denson, Isaac M. Davis, John R. Dixon, Thomas Dawson, Philip T. Daniels, Walter Dunlap, Charles Dunean, Alexander Diffenderffr, Henry Daiger, Mathias A. Done, John H. Dorsey, Wm. H. G. Dellahay, Edward H. Dunham, T. C. Duke, A. W. Dunean, J. L. Dorsett, J. H. Davies, Jacob G. Dentz, A. C. Daugherty, Hugh Junior Members. Dixon, Jas. Alexander Drury, John T. Davis Jas. E. Deets, Frederick Daugherty, J. T. Didier, John D. Dumbolton, Geo. Deale, John Thos. Duncan, Ninian 8. Duncan, Adam Dutrow, E. D. Davis, Richard L, Dodson, Jobn 48 Didier, Eugene L. Davis, Wm. H. of M. Duvall, Jas. H. Davis, W. H. of J. Fy Donnelly, F. A. Denson, Wm. Dailam, Chas. F. Dickenson, John, Jr. Diggs, Samuel Joseph Diggs, Richard H. Dunnett, Wm Dungan, Wm. W. Daugherty, Hugh Doyle, Thos. G. Dale, Samuel, Jr. Devalin, Chas. E. Davis, Geo. M. Dumont, Alphonso Dungan, Henry G. Dobson, Wm. H. Dutrow, Curtis F. Dillehunt, J. T. Dorry, John C. Dobson, Jas. T. Duvall, Wm. Henry Devow, Nicholas Dohning, Edward Daffin, Francis Davenport, Thos. T. Delcher, Jas. A. Diggs, Edward G. Dexter, Cuas. Dryden, Wm. H. Davis, Edward R. Daughaday, John Durand, Thos. W. Dashiells, J. B. Dutton, John R. Diggs, Beverly Day, Samuel G. Dittman, Chas. W. Delaney, Wm, Duvall, John H. Jr. Dungan, H. 8. Diffenderffer, Geo. M. Dunan, Theodore Dittman, Edward F, DeRanceray, Lewis Davidson, ‘I’. H. Dalton, J. Mathew. Davis, L. B. Dallam, Thos. M. Danskin, W. A. Jr. | Deal, Wm. C. Dewling, Asbury Decker, John W. Dennison, Henry C. Daiger, Charles H. Dunean, G. Dewling, Isaiah Dunn, Charles Dunn, James Dawson, John Donohue, L. Dunn, Joseph Dowling, James L. Dougherty, William Denmead, B. F. Dunlap, Chas. L. | Duvall, Edward Delano, Philip Dowling, Michael Dodson, William Daiger, Wm. H. Dashiell, Wm. O. Denmead, Edward. Dukehart, Wm, B. Dillon, L. C. Doize, Lucian Daiger, Edward Dell, John E. Daws, Henry _ Dohme, Lewis = Senior. Members. Ellicott, Wm. M, Eldrige, Robert Eareckson, Thos. B. Eames, Nathaniel Emerick, William H. Elliott, H. A. Emory, Charles M. Eastman, J. S. Eareckson, Chs. C. Emory, Samnel Evans, Join H. Ebaugh, Henry Ely, John N, Edmonson, J. Eareckson, V. O. Evitt, Robert Emory, D. C. H. Emory, A. Ellis, Thomas Emory, John B. Ebaugh, David Eichelberger, E.. M. Emich, David Ehrman, George M. E\licott, Evan 7. : Eiseubrant, C. H. Ellicott, Benjaman H. Evans, George Etchburger, John F. Essender, Dr. James Emory, Wm. H. Edmundson, Dr. Thos. Egerton, Chas. C. Ellis, W. H. Junior Members. Evans, Richard B. Etchberger, Jas. S. Emich, Columbus V. Eliason, John A. Evatt, William J. Eimer, William Elliott, William Elliott, Edward Eastman, Lewis M. Eastman, H. William Evans, Charles W. Ely, John B. Emmart, P. T. Emory, John K. B. Elliott, Wm. H. Eareckson, J. R. Hichelberger, S. E. Eborall, Friedrick Ely, J. Benj. Edmunds, W. E. Eareckson, Chas. F. Evatt, Francis B. Elmore, Chas. A. Jr., Elliott, John T. Ebbert, O. A. Egerton, Wm. A. Ehlen, George W. Edgar, John Emmart, W. W. Enright, Francis Easter, G. W. Early, John D. Erwin, John M. Eyans, Evan Everhart, Wm. H. Kssert, George Emmart, John M. Ely, 8. S. es Senior Members. Fairbank, W. J. Forsyth, David J, Fowler, Francis Fusselbaugh, John 8. Field, A. W. Fenhagen, James C. Farringer, Chries Ferguson, John H. Fowler, John W. 4 » A9 Frick, E. A. Flaherty, Wm. Furlong, William G, Fowler, J. E. Fowble, Abraham Farber, Henry J. Fairbank, Charles Forster, D. KX. Friend, Alfred Floyd, William Fahnestock, G. W. Fonder, Richard Fahnestock, Edward Forster, William Friend, John Forrest, Alexander Focke, Edward L. Fonerdon, Dr. J. Filbert, J. A. Fulton, L. Fitzpatrick, J. G. Forman, Henry Fales, George E. Farquarharson, F. L. Fales, N. D. Furlong, John Fulton, James Flack, G. W. Floss, William Ferandini, C. Fox, H. E. French, Andrew Frank, Austin Fardy, John T. France, Col. Richard Foy, James Falls, R. W. Ferguson, William Fraley, Lecnard Foreman, Valentine Farringer, Francis Fitzgerald, Henry Forbes, James 8. Ford, R. K. Funk, J. W. Junior Members. Forrester, James F. Forrester, Robert Forrest, Theophilus Forrester, Benj. F. Forrest, John Frist, William Fairbank, Thomas J. Flack, J. S. O. Flack, Thomas J. Fisher, Thomas N. France, Ambrose M. Fay, George Folk, Robert Fuller, J. W. Fisher, Reuben Fuller, Joseph H. Foster, James W. Freeman, John Fitzpatrick, Andrew Frederick, Geo. W. Fisher, John A. Frost, Charles M. Freeland, Edwd. H. Fledderman, H. G. Folks, George Flinn, Danl. F. Frush, C. W. Fay, Charles Fuller, C. F. Frazier, Anthony Frazier, David R. Farnum, G. W. Ferrell, Joshua Forman, Jesse C. Foy, R. H. Forsyth, Alexander Foster, John C. Forsyth, Edwd. §. Ferguson, David Ferguson, Hugh Frank, William G. Franklin, S. L. Frederick, William Fuller, James Forney, M. M. Ford, John D. Fowler, J. J. Fishack, John Fulton, T. H. Fulton, Charles Fisher, Chas. H. Flaugherty, Morgan Farsen, G. W. Freeland, George T. Fieldhouse, Chas. Fisher, James H. Fleckeitine, E. Julius Fulton, Albert K. Fluharty, Wm. R. Fisher, Frederick Foy, James H. Fersuson, Joseph Francis, Wm. Floyd, J. F. Frames, George A. G Senior Members. Gosnell, L. G. » Gaddess, Thomas A. Griffin, Robert Gault, Mathew Giles, Hon. Wm. Fell Grogan, Michael Griffith, Wm. A. Grafflin, Joseph Green, Thos. M. Green, Geo. W. Griffith, B. L. Goodman, Thos. S. Gibbons, Wm. H. Grover, Chas. G. Graham, John of D. Gambrill, H. N. Gardner, Alfred S, Green, Joseph D. Griffith, Wm. Gilpin, Edwd. C, Goodrich, Henry Gootee, Geo. S. Gorsuch, Jehu Grove, Francis Greenfield, A. H. Gibson, R. F. Gale, Thomas M. Grinnell, C. A. Getty, Robert Glenn, S Gibson, James Gates, Ezra Griffin, Elias T. George, James Gault, Cyrus Gittings, James Guest, Saml. Guy, Moses Gallibart, Joseph R. Gott, J.C. Gorsuch, Wm. G. Gunther, Conrad Griffith, G. S. Green, Amon Gregory, Joseph Gromley, John Gebhart, John Glanville, W. A. Gray, R. W. Graham, John Gilbert, L. Y. Grape, Jacob Gardner, James Grugan, John Groverman, A. Graham, H. H. Gould, James A. Gogel, C. C. Graham, Wm. 50 4 Gunnison, Wm. Graham, Andrew Getty, D. Augustus Gover, Gerard Glocker, Theodore Gelbach, Geo. Jr., Green, H. H. Gatch, Conduce Gaskins, Saml. 8. George, John B. Grafton, McHenry Godey, Thos. Gibbs, James W. Giese, J. Henry Gill, Geo. M. Golder, Jas. C. Gill, Jabez Gable, John Grice, Edwd. L. Gill, Noah Gilpin, Thos. H. Getty, James Gosnell, Philip H. Griffiss, T. J. Gillingham, Geo. H. Griffin, Thos. L. Glanville, J. W. Green, Chas. B. Gore, John W. Glien, Anthony Guest, J. Wesley Gibson, George Grafflin, J. C. Gehrman, James Grafton, H. Gray, Thomas Junior Members. Galloway, Wm. Gordon, Chas. M. Gilman, John Goldstone, Jacob Gordon, Thos. G. Griest, George Guy, Robt. J. Gill, Riend. C. Griffith, Wm. F. Gallagher, Alex. Gillingham, E. N. Garvey, Wm. P. Gill, Chas. M. Gil), Saml. H. Girvin, Henry 8S. Girvin, Wm. G. Gaehle, Henry Gosnell, Philip H. Greeves, David F. Gaehle, Lewis Griffith, G. S. Jr. Gerding, Lewis George, John M. Gordon, W. Edwin Guyton, B. Franklin Green, Geo. T. Gawthrop, Jas. T. Gosnell, Oliver T. Green, David N. Gwyn, Chas. L. Gatley, John Gesford, John Graham, W. J. Graham, E. C. Griggs, John J. Galloway, Wm. A Gaddess, Chas. W. Gwyn, J. T. Gray, E. Jr. Graham, J. T. Guenste, Frederick Gatch, Chas. H. George, Thos. J. Gale, Joseph Gibson, G. Eugene Gover, Saml. H. Greenwood, W. D. Gettier, Edwd. P. Gardner, George Galloway, Jesse Guyton, Chas. T. Grier, John A. Guyton, Wm. L. Gischel, Conrad H. Gorsuch, Wm. S. Greenfelder, Moses Jr. Graham, J. R. H. Gardner, Wm. G. Gilcrist, Alexander Gemeny, Benj. Greer, Alexander Gifford, Wm. Gengnagel, Jacob Granger, Geo. R. Gieger, Charles Gary, James A. Gracy, Benj. M. Gaston, Henry Gassaway, H. P. Goodwin, T. E. Gunnison, Wm. H. Gray, William Gray, Harry C. Gallup, Thomas Gallup, John Gross, J. J. Gambrill, John W. Griffin, H. C. Grubb, Samuel Grann, George Garrett, James H. Griffin, Robt. B. Jr. Gault, Albert Green, Wm. H. Grant, James B. Gorsuch, Theodore Gaynor, John Gordon, Saml. B. Gaddess, V. Goodman, John H Senior Members. Hill, Wm. B. Holloway, Edward Hunt, G. H. Harris, J. Morrison Harrison, Wm. G. Hooper, Augustus D. Hall) Li besrc: Harrison, Wm. N. Hollins, C D. Holtzman, John D. Hildebrandt, Chas. H. Houlton, ‘thos. T. Hiss, C. D. Haswell, John Hyam, Abram Hughes, Thos. L. Hammontree, H. C. Haslup, Levi S. Hoge, Wm. Holland, Jackson Hank, J. B. P. House, Samuel A. Hull, Wm. Hiser, H. W. Hopper, T. Wright Herzog, John Hughes, J. T. Hindes, Moses G. Hudkinson, John M. Hollins, J. Smith Hess, Dr. Frederick Hays, Robert Hutzler, Moses Hayward, Ely B. Hoen, E. Holloway, Chas. T. Hartt, Hy. N. Hinkley, Willard H. Hann, Jas. H. Hooper, Robert Haine, B. F. 51 Henderson, Jas. Harvey, John H. Hay, Jas. Hansall, Philip Hardesty, John E. Hatch, Jas. G. Harrison, B. H. Hopkins, C. J. R. Hunt, John W. Hahn, Chas. Hart, Samuel Henly, David Hayden, Geo. K. Hart, Wm. W. Heiner, Revd. Dr. E. Hooper, Chas. H. Holmes, R. S. Horn, Matthew Harris, Wm. Hunter, S. Hillen Halls, John Hickman, Gen. N. Hall, Geo. H. M. Hibbard, Israel Hogg, Jas. H. Holloway, John M. Holland, Geo. W. Hartman, Isaac P. Hollins, Robert S. Henderson, Richard Hopkins, Wm. Harrison, Z. G. Harrison, Robert G. Hauser, Jacob R, Hook, R. W. Hamill, Jas. H. Haslup, Rezin Herring, D. Jr. Hoss, John F. Hays, Edward F. Hooper, Jas. Humerickhouse, C.W. Harrison, N.S. Holthause, F. T. Hays, Samuel J. Hambleion, Thos. B. Hunt, Jesse Hindes, Samuel Hosie. Robert Hale, Joseph A. Heizell, John G. Hoke, Henry. Hambleton, T. E. Harrison, Jas. C. Hazlehurst, H. R. Holland, John C. Hindman, Wm. Hawley, R. K, Herzog, Valentine Howard, Wm. Heuisler, John F. Henniberger, Wm. Hawley, Martin Holden, Thos. T. Jr. Hennel, Philip Harlan, Lewis G. Henderson, Jas. H. Hopkins, John L. Hodgkinson, John M. Harris, Jas. H. Hill, Dr. Joseph H. Hergberg, Philip Hall, Richard Hartshorne, Joshua Hull, Robert Hinsley, John Helm, John F. Hooper, J. P. Hendrickson, S. W. Heuisler, Geo. A. Junior Members. Hoopes, Wm. P. Herrlich, Wm. Hackesley, Geo. W. Hoover, Francis W. Henderson, John Higby, Theodore Huster, W. W. Hill, Thos. Hoopman, Chritian A. Husband, Jacob L. Hooper, Wm. J. Hayden, Horace E. Hoffman, John M. Hershey, David B. Husband, Albert Hogg, Jas. D. Hindes, Joseph F. Hulls, Robert F. Herold, Chas. F. Hanna, Jas. Hoffman, Lewis Hurst, J. E. Harrison, Chas. S, Holtzman, E. K. High, John W. Hanna, Alexander B. Haurande, Ker. Jr. Haurande, Wm. Hill, Geo. Helsby, Thos. H. Hedian, Thos. Hopkins, Joseph Henrix, Chas. Henrix, Edward Hurley, Timothy Hayden, M. M. Haslup, G. H. Hutzler, Abram Hess, John Hepperla, Henry Hipsley, Joshua E. Hollingshead, Geo. Harrison, Jas. Hogg, Egenton Houston, Daniel B. Horn, Philip Hale, Geo. E. F. Holtzman, Henry C. Harman, Martin Holloway, Edwin E. Hoopes, Wm. H. Hess, Chas. B. Heilbrun, Joseph M. Hugg, John H. Hall, Wm. H. Handley, Wm. H. Hooper, Theodore Hobbs, Thos. Hook, Edwin Holloway, Geo. N. High, W. G. Hillard, Otis K. Harback, Stephen Hooper, Jas. E. Heverin, Jas. N. Hughes, Thos. S. Hatcheson, Jas. Hagger, Chas. Hampson, Jas. S. Hale, Wesley Hiss, Wm. J. Hecht, Bernard Hess, Emery Harris, H. Going Hollins, Thos. Harwood, E. O. Hawser, G. S. Hollingsworth, Geo. Hart, Chas. T. Hollins, John Houlton, Samuel C. Hull, Jb Je Huntemuller, H. W. Hedderman, Henry Hoffman, Chas. Harrison, John W. Holton, Wm. Hooper, Robert, Jr. Hasson, John M. Hopkins, Wm. L. 52 Hoffman, Wm. H. Hay, John C. Hendrickson, Geo. O. Harrison, Thos. Hopkins, Samuel Happerla, Wm. Hunt, M. Hardesty, Thos. H. Hays, Jas. H. Holmes, A. S. Holmes, John Harrington, J. P. Hopkins, Samuel B. Henderson, John, Jr. Hamman, Michael Heagy, John Holbrook, Martin Healy, Jas. Hildebrand, Henry K. Holland, O. P. Hutchings, Jas. A. Hyde, Jas. J. M. Harrison, Wm. Haughton, Thos. B. Hollingsworth, Rd. Heiner, J. Z. Hull, Henry Hale, David D. Harding, Luther O. Hughes, Samuel Henderson, Samuel Harney, Henry Habberset, J. B. Herring, Joseph E. Hiskey, J Haneock, Francis M. Hysan, Wm. Hooper, Chas. V. Hindes, Jas. Hardesty, Wm. E. Harrison, Wm. H. Hampton, Wm. D. Hall, Thos. Hartman, Geo. F. Hamilton, Francis Harman, John A. House, John A. Hart, Manly M. Hannah, Hugh Bell Hall, Fenwick Hampton, John A. Hughes, Chas. Hall, T..W. Jr. Harrington, D. B. Horner, John Herzog, Maxmillian. Hamilton, Geo. Hurst, Wm. R. Holland, Wm. Hichew, John D. Hall, Hichard H. Jr. Hanlin, Patrick Holland, Robert Hindes, Samuel, Jr. Hamer, Daniel W. Hurst, John T. Howard, Wm. G. Hooper, Wm. Hall, W. E. Huppmann, J. J. Hanks, Wm. H. Harris, C. Senior Members. Jackson, W. R. Jenkins, J. S. Irving, Thos. J. Johnson, J. W. Ijams, John Jackson, James Jones, Atriah Israel, Edward Ijams, John P. Johnston, Wm. Jerome, John H. T. Johnson, Philip Jr. Jones, Hugh B. Jack, Charles E. Jones, Thomas Jones, John Ives, Wm. M. Jillard, Wm H. Johnson, Wm. R, | Jones, Robt. H. Jeffreys, Thos. R. Jenkins, H. Jr. Jordon, J. B. Ijams, G. P, Jaiger, Wm. G. W. Jones, J. C,. Jarvis, R. B. Jackson, James M. Jacobs, James P. Johnson, James Jenkins, Henry W. Jones, Isaac S. Johnson, Wm. M. Jarrett, L. James, Thomas Jackson, Jas. R. Jarboe, Rey. J. R. Jansley, Thos. Jacobs, James M. Ing, John H. Jenkins, Jas. W. Johnson, Wm. Jr. Irons, Emanuel Irvin, John A. Jarrett, Henry C. Jennings, John W. Ing, Charles Johnson, G. W. Jones, D. H. Jenkins, John W. Junior Members. Jones, C. C. Joyes, Edward C. Judefind, John W. Jones, Lewis R. Johnson, Wm. Jones, Wm. Johnson, Charles Jenkins, A. P.! Jean, William . Jones, C. R. Jennings, Saml. T. Jones, O. B. Johnson, Wm. of E. Johnson, Geo. W. Johnson, Grafton Ives, John A. Johnson, Joseph frons, William James, William James, Levi Jr.. Jones, S. Ingraham, J. S. Jordon, Wm. H. Irvine, A. M. Jones, F. W. Jones, Albert Jamison, John Isaacs, C. Jordon, John R. Janney, W. W. Jones, Charles James, John A. R. Janney, Sam]. A. Jackson, James F’. Jones, James E. Jung, Wm. L. Johnston, Oscar D. Senior Members. Kelly, Joseph D. Knox, John D. Kerr, Wm. Kessler, John S. Keys, Benj. C. Kimberly, Wm. H. | 53 Killen, Wm. H. Kilmer, Henry J. Kelso, Thomas Kelso, John Thos. Keighler, Wm. H. Klunk, Francis A. King, F. W. Kennedy, John Krebs, Henry W. Krebs, John W. Kramm, Ephraim Kilburn, Uri Kerr, Robert Kennard, Battis H. Kemp, Dr. Wm. M Kennard, W. H. Kinnaird, Alexander Kemp, Joseph F. Kellinger, W. J. Kobe Wide King, Joseph Jr. Knotts, J. Hanson Kuhn, John J. Keener, Dr. Wm. H. Kroeson, Isaiah Kennedy, Wm. W. Kridler, Jacob F. Kennard, G. J. Krebs, Wm. Kernan, Edward Keirle, Henry Klinefelter, Jesse Klinefelter, O. D. Knighton, Thos. Keener, Chas. H. King, Glendy Kane, Geo. P. Kalbfus, Daniel Kries, G. W. Klare, John B. Kirker, John Kahlert, Henry King, C. B. Krebs, JamesW. King, C. P. Kellenberger, Jas. Kimberly, J. M. Kuhn, Robert M. Junior Members. Kugler, Thos. H. Kimberly, Henry E. Kelly, Washington Knowles, Geo. G. Jr. Kiersted, A. J. Kretzer, C. E. Kaine, Thomas Kreis, Henry Krus, Henry Kennedy, John H. Kochlings, Chas. W. Koffenberger, Henry Keen, Wm. R. Kremer, John T. Knotts, John W. Knipp, Jacob, Jr Knipp, Christian Knipe, Benj. F. Kennedy, lsaac Kidd, James R. Kirk, Saml. E. Kirby, George C. Kleinfelter, Van Vert Kleinfelter, Gartman Kemp, Edward L. Knighton, Wm. T. King, Wailace Knickman, Henry Keene, John H. Jr. Kemp, 8S. J. Keighler, J. C. Keighler, Saml. A. Keighler, W. H. Jr. King, Chas. T. Kirk, Robt. E. Keenan, Jas. E. Kerner, Jobn H. King, Andrew J. Kerr, Robt. J. Kiersted, Geo. King, Thos. H. King, T. F. Kirkland O. Krems, Joseph F. Kaylor, Thomas Kirby, C. L. Knight, Hewiti Kellum, Chas. L. Kemper, Wm. Kimberly, J. M. Knabe, Ernest Krebs, George Krebs, Henry Kemp, Wm. H. Knight, John C. Kirk, Wm. Kirk, Charles Kirk, Edward C. Kemp, Richard Jr, Koppelman, John G. Kline, Francis M. Keen, Edward S. Kenley, Wm. L. Knell, Henry Kraft, Chas. O. Kuhne, Augustus Killen, Mathew Kraft, Fredk. A. Keene, Benj. R. Kubach, Chas. D. Senior Members. Leslie, Capt. Robert Leonard, Amasa Lester, Samuel T. Lefavre, Wm. H. Lamb, F. F. Longbottom, Abram Lawson, Jas. of S. Levering, A. J. Lambdin, Thos, J. Leeke, \\m. H. Loney, Robert W. Larrabee, H. C. Larrabee, Edwd. W. Laws, J. Thompson Lee, John W. Long, Richard D. Lansdale, J. W. F. Lehmann, Robert Lansdale, R. V. Lapouraille, A. P. Littig, Philip Lovejoy, Samuel Luteas, Chas. Z. Levering, Thos. L. Loane, J. W. Loane, Joseph G. Lawndes, James Lusby, E. R. Leakin, Andrew Lantz, Oliver F. Lockie, John Linthicum, W. O. Lambden, Wm.W. Lehmayer, S. Larmour, Wm. B. Lee, Wm. M. 7 Lefflar, Geo. H. R. Lee, Jas. F. Lamb, Thos. P. Linch, John S. Lohse, Wm. H. Lohse, Chas. A. Lycett, Geo. Lamping, Wm. Lueas, Jas. Lambert, Edward Leffler, D. S. Lester, Thos. Lambdin, Edwd. S. Lewis, Stephen Lewis, Martin 54 Lyon, John H. Lyon, C. H. Lawton, John L. Lloyd, B. Rush Latrobe, Benjamin H. Laidlow, John Lucas, Fielding, Jr. Lovegrove, Jas. Logan, Jas. H. Laning Wm. M. Lynch, John S. Lawson, Jas. of R. Lowndes, Jas. Lambdin, John Leonard, Wm, Lucas, Wm. Lamb, Geo. M. Lentz, C. W. Lannay, Lewis F., Lansdale, Francis A. Junior Members. Lovering, Francis J. Lare, Geo. H Lare, D W. Lidiard, Bernard A. Lester, David H. Littig, John M. Linderman, Chas. W. Linderman, Conrad Lepper, Chas. Lawson, Stephen A. Leef, John G. Lynch, Joseph Wm. Lafaivre, F. Lingenfelder, Louis Lewis, Joseph N. Jr. Lester, Joseph W. Lackey, Wm. Lewis, P. S. Leetch, John Larrabee, E. W. Jr. Larrabee, E M. Larrabee, Geo. G. Lambden, Joseph Loane, Edwin D. Lutts, Chas. G. Lefevre, J. W. Littig, N. B. Longley, Samuel T. Long, Thos. W. Larrabee, W. F. Larrabee, E. F. Lowndes, J. A, Lowndes, C. G. Letournau, F. W. W. Lamb, Jas Lawson, John T. | Larkin, A: J. B. Littig, A. W. Lee, R. C. Lyons, Wm. Lybrand, Geo. H. Lilly, Andrew Lilly, Wm. Lloyd, Wm. H. . Lovejoy, Henry Lee, Jesse W. Jr. League, T. J. Lewis, M. H. Linniweaver, Geo W. Leef, Wm. 4 Lampley, N. Lewis Luckett, C. W. Lovejoy, Wm. H. Lemmon, Wm. Long, John Love, Wm. E. Lindsey, Benjamin Long, E. P Levering, P. R. Lewis, Wm. M. Lamdin, Wm. M. Litzinger, Thomas Levering, Thos. H. Lloyd, Thos. M. Lowry, Henry P. List, Jacob _ Lemmon, Wm. S. Lee, John H. Lipscomb, John D. Senior Members. McCeney, J. C, McCausland, W. J. Miller, Wm. H. Magill, P. H. May, Edward McNeal, George Montgomery, Jas. McComas, N. A. Maxwell, John Mann, Ernest’ Montgomery, Wm. S. Moore, J. Faris Magraw, Thos. E. Morrison, Jas. McAllister, Jas. H. Moore, Edward McCartney, Daniel Mackenzie, Geo, W. Mann, Wm. Mitchell, Edward Muller, Dr. J. R. McNabb, Jas: Mathoson, John McCymont, Wm. Jr. McCymont, Wm. Moon, Edward H. McCulloh, Wm. J. McComas, Jas. M. Massie, Dr. Wm. R. Morse, ‘hos. W. Miller, Enoch Matthews, T. R. Jr. Muller, Philip H. Markland, Wm. W. Merritt, Jacob McCafiry, T. Morgan, E. J. McShane, Henry McAllister, Richard McWilliams, D. J. Mace, C. V. MacPherson, Samuel Mellvain, Wm. Miles, Richard D. Millis, Laertis O. Malloy, John May, Wm. H. Martin, David Miller, Lewis Matthews, Joseph Manahan, J. F. Moore, Daniel M. Miller, A. H. Milborn, R N. Mohler, Edward Martin, D, A. Marshall, Thos. B. McCann, Edward Maygers, Rd. R. Muller, Jas. N. Marley, Richard Millholland, R. D. Macomber, Gideon Mathews Samuel H. Morgan, Dr. G. E. McNeal, Lloyd Marston Joseph R. Marston, S. W. Miller, John F Martin, Samuel Matthew, E. L. Miller, Wm. J. Murray, Jas. Murray, Wm. J. Mahaney, John Moore, Wm. W. Mullen, Wm H. Marden, Jesse Magill, R. G. McCandless, Geo. S. 55 MacNeal, A. L. McClernon, John Montague, D. P. Miller, Wm. Hof W. Murray, Jas. Morris, Chas. T. Markland, Wm. T. Mylander, Henry McMachen, John McEldery, Hugh Mason; Wm. Jr. Maslin, Thos. J. Myers, John W. McCay, Jas. G. Miller, John H. McCourt, Arthur Mathiot, A. McMullen, John Morrison, H. Mills, Samuel S. Merrill, J. H. Merriman, Dr. G. McKim, John S. McHenry, Wm. Murdoch, Chas. Matthews, A. C. Murdoch, Richard McLean, Arthur J. - Moody, John B. McKim, Haslett Miller, Wm. Morris, J. T. McClellan, J.S. Maffei, Angelo Medcalf, Vhas. Morton, Washington Macall, Dr. Moran, Dr. John J. Marshall, Henry Mercer, Chas. H. Mankin, Henry Muller, Louis MeDonald, Alexander Mince, David Martin, W. E. Matthews, John McCullough, J. A. McLear, Philip Martin, John W. McCreary, Wm. B. Matthews, R. S. Merritt, Geo. A. Martin, T. H. McKim, Wm. Mathiot, Augustus B. Metz, Richard A. McKew, E. J. Martin, T. H. Merchant, Joseph A. Maughlin, Wm. W. Martin, John Musser, Wm. R. Mitchell, E. T. Martin, John J. Mathers, Jas. McDonald, C. S. Martin, Thos. H. McClellan, Wm. W. McPhail, William McMillen, Geo. G. Montgomery, Samuel Millholland, John G. Milnor, John P. Jr. Moke, George W. McHenry, James Milliken, James Mankin, Rinaldo T. Matthews, Thomas J. Moore, John H. Munroe, D. 8. Meacham, Randall Junior Members. McCaddin, Andrew McLaughlin, Charles Myers, A. M. McAllister, James McCahan, Davis Murphy, Wm. S. McCaddin, J. F. Merritt, George W. Morrow, John H. Moir, James Miller, Jacob Henry Moulton, J. Duhamel MeJilton, W. D. McCornica, James D. Moore, George W. Manro, Wm. E. Manro, Rd. W. Morrison, H. W. F. Moore, R. T. McFee, Wm. Marriott, Geo. H. M. Michael, Jas. H. Meakin, Nathaniel Morrow, Robert G. May, E. Ferdinand Mettee, Leonard McBride, D. H. McClymont, Alex. Moore, John McPhail, Wm. L. Michael, Lewis D. McCollam, Daniel Martin, Henry T. MeNally, Henry Mulliken, Chas. E. Myer, Frederick Makibbin, Thos. A. Maitland, B. Jr Morling, FL. McClenahan, Robert Metzger, Franklin Mitchell, John J. McBride, Henry McCurley, Isaac Mowbray, James H. Myers, John Magers, Juhn M. Moffitt, Edwin W. Myer, C. A. McClintock, John A. Mitchell, A. David Mortimer, E. L. Martin, George A. Meads, J. H. Mitchell, Wm. Maitland, Burgin Millholland, Thos. T. McKenna, James Maynard, G. W. Mass, E. A. Manson, John Mitchell, James T. Mitchell, R. M. Mabel, Wm. F. Maloney, James Miller, George W. Moxley Thomas D. Murphy, Francis P. McKeever, James B. Myers, Daniel A. McLennen, W. F. Maidwell, Wm. H, Miller, Wm. H. Moreton, Alfred Miller, Edward J. Miller, Benjamin F, Maffei, Angelo Mason, Wm. A. Milliken, Wm. H. Miller, Adolphus H. Mott, James, Jr. Murray, Wm. Mason, Thos. M. McComas J. L. Maughlin, James Most, John T. Miles, H. C. Mattingly, John F. Miller, David R. Miles, Charles M. 56 Miller, William C. McLaughlin, Daniel Mitchell, Thomas J. Medinger, H. G. McMillan, Wm. D. Minifie, Wm Ernest McKewen, T. F. Major, John R. Mitchell, Alexander McKewen, Thomas McKubbin, Wm. L. McWilliams, John McGreoy, Solomon Morton, George C. McManus, Daniel Merriken, Francis M. Moss, Livingston Maguire, J. L. Mayer, James McClure, Wm. Moody, Wm. McCleery, R. W. Martin, Luther R, McGraw, J R. Michael, Augustus Morris, Levin Milburn, John . Mansfield, James T. Miller, Jolin Maxwell, David McGarretty, B. W. McGee, J. W. Muirhead, Wm. McClintock, John Middlemore, Saml. S. McOahan, G L. Murray, Edward Milborn, James R. Mathew, Richard J. McDonald, D. H. Moreland, George Mitchell, John N. Mathews, Hinckle Marcellus, C. M. W. Maulsby, P. H. Muller, James N. Jr, McCartney, R. BH. Mason, Charles H, Mortimer, George E, Magruder, R. Miller, Edward D. Martin, R. T. Mason, Henry McE roy, M. Moltz, Henry McElroy, Wm. D. Marden, Jesse, Jr. Marden, George W. Maxwell, Wm. Mathews, Thomas Myers, Augustus G. Meredith, Daniel Mattison, S. J. Morrison James H. McLaughlin, George Miller, Allen McCauley, William Morrison, L. McAleer, Charles Mass, William McKewen, Francis Morse A. C. Merryman, Henry N. McBriety, Wm. G. McManus, Felix S. McCaffray, Henry McCaffray, George Mayer, Alfred M. Mattingly, Joseph A. MeDonaid, James McLean, Thomas B, Moale, Frederick McSherry, James W. Merker, Wm. A. Miller, John M. McClenahan, J. M. McLaughlin, Andrew McCarty, Patrick McCoy, Wm. E. S. Murphy, Edward MeAleese, James Mister, W. C. Mu ler, D H? Moore, Joseph Moore, George Mathiot, James H, Senior Members. Needles, John Ninde, Col. Jas. -C. Nalls, B. F. Nichols, Warren Needles, Chas. E. Norris, James Nizer, Thos. A. Newell, Peter Newman, Wm. W. Northerman, John Nogues, Joseph Norbeck, Wm, Naylor, A. J. Norman, J. R. Neilson, George Nicholls, R. H, Neal, Geo. H. C. Northerman, C. Nichols, Wm. J. Nicolay, Jules Junior Members. Nicholson, C. G. Nicholson, J. H. R. Newlin, Allen H. Nicholson, J. K. Neidhamer, John G. Nolen, John Nixdorff, Harrison Newman, Benj. Needham, Asa Jr. Navy, George W. Nicolai, Henry A. Norman, Joseph Nizer, Saml. H. Jr. Nutling, Henry N. Nail, George Noggla, James Nolen, Watson Newman, Geo. L. Noyes, Edward Norris, Edgar J. Nicholson, Jas. A. K. Noble, Henry Nicholson, James Needhamer, Wm. Norris, John C, 0. Senior Members. O’Donnovan, J. H. Jr. Orrick, John C. Orrick, Edward G. Oettinger, Moses O’Brien, Mathew Owens, James Orndorff, John H. Onion, Edward D. Junior Members. Oberndorf, Julius Oldham, Joseph D. Ogle, James O’Laughlin, S. W. Otter, Joseph Osburn, Henry Oliver, Joseph L. Orrick, Wm. K. Jr. Orrick, Keener Ould, Perry O’Laughlin, Michael 57 O’Leary, William Owens, Thomas O’Conner, John O’Neill, Henry Onion, J. H. O’Neal, Thomas Osborn, Joseph O’Brien, Michael O’Connor, Paul Orndorff, Wilson H. b = Senior Members. Penrose, E. G. Pearson, Henry Proctor, S. T. Prentice, Sumner Plummer, John F. Pope, George A. Price, N. C. Peregoy, Caleb Perkins, Dr. E. H. Perry, Elijah Perine, Maulden . Perine, M. David Prettyman, E. P. Perry, Albert A. Porter, R.B. Pennington, Josiah Pyfer, Philip H. Peregoy, Robert H. Parks, James H. Parkenson, J. B. Perry, B. A. Patien, Wm. Jr. Phippen, George, Jr. Pouder, George W. Peregoy, John H. W. Powell, Charles R. Phoenix, Thomas Perry, Allen A. Patterson, Thomas Posey,)o: ab. Phillips, A. Phelps, J. B. T. Parkhurst, S. Parkhurst, G. T. Pearce, G. H. Price, John H. Porter, George U. Preston, Wm. P. Phillips, John B. Packie, Alexander Perine, Oliver Pitt, Thomas J. Perkins, P. L. Parks, Lloyd B. Palmer, B. Frank Percell, John J. Parr, James L. Pollock, H. Parkhurst, J. Peters, William Poole, Robert » Pope, Franklin F. Phillips, Solomon H. Payne, James Placide, Henry Peters, William H. Palmer, George M. Piet, J. B, Purden, Furgus Primrose, Wm. G. Potter, James Page, William Patten, Richard Picker, John C. Palmer, Wm. C. Junior Members. Pollack, Herman Pollack, Uriah A. Plummer, Wm. James Patterson, Benjamin Price, Frank Page, Albert C. Price, Francis A. Patrick, B. F. Pitt, William T. Purdy, Wm. H. Price, Norman Parker, Edward G. Powell, Wm. H. Parrish, Lewis E. Placide, Henry F. Pope, David 8. Pope, Daniel F. Passano, Leonard, Jr. Passano, Joseph Peerce, Alfred A. Pindle, E. A. Perry, Elliott Perry, Leonard B. Ploughman, Augustus Park, Joseph L. Pearce, James H. Perine;, 1. P: Perine, John Thomas Powell, Thomas M. Petherbridge, Wm. Patten, Charles Perry, Ansel Phelan, James Pentz, A. P. Presstman, Thomas R. Padget, Robert Post, E. Howard Piper, John Plummer, Nathan Porter, B. B. Palmer, Edward L. Pierce, John C. Patterson, John Phillips, James H. Preston, Wm. G. Parran, James Purvis, A. Pendergast, C..C. Pentz, James M. Price, Alfred A. Park, Samuel S. Phillips, Thos. N. S. Pamphillain, James Pedrick, George Price, Richard Peck. A.J. Price, A. D. Phelps, D. W. Penniman, Thomas Placide, H. B. Poe, Nelson, Jr. Placide, Paul D. Phillips, James Parkhurst D. Poole, Henry Pitt, C. Phillips, B. F. Price, A. H. Phillips, James B. Pearce, Mathew C. Jr. Paul, Jennings Paine, Leander Parkhurst, A. R. Q. Senior Members. Quail, George K, Junior Memsers. Quail, Robert R. Quinlin, L. G. Jr. R. Senior Members, Rogers, James S. Robbins, H. R. 58 Reddish, John H. Rennous, Edward G. Rhoads, W. Rupp, Reuben F. Rose, S. L. Rupp, Wm. H. Ratios, Charles H. Reip, Lawrence J. Rodenmayer, F. T. Robinson, E, W. Reese, Edward Roberts, Alfred Roberts, J. McClain Rast; L: Roulett, Richard Reynolds, V. DeWitC. Richardson, Geo. J. Ryan, John Reynolds, Jesse K. Richardson, Edwd. A. Reed, R. W. Ringrose, C. J. Rigney, Charles D. Richardson, Wm. E. Roche, John A. Reese, Andrew Reese, Henry Rogers, Wm. F. Rieneker, J. F. Reese, Thomas M Rohrer, M.. H. Rosenfeld, Simon Rodgers, John Rodgers, William Rodgers, G. H. Richardson, S: MeD. Randolph, James P. Reynolds, B. R. Rothe!!, Thomas Reindollar, J. T- Roberts, H. T. Redgrave, Wm. B. Richards, Isaac Robb, John A. Robb, E. T. Rowe, Spencer Reynolds, Charles A. Rea, John FE. Rea, Charles H. Ringgold, John P. Root, Henry R. Rosensteel, Ambrose Richardson, John W. Ross, Charles H. Ross, Edward C. Richardson, James W. Russell, John Robinson, Thomas H.} Rosenswig, E. Randolph, John W. Robinson, Benjamin Rogers, G. D. Robb, James A. Roberts, Dr.G.C. M. Russell, Alexander Robinson, William Robinson, Francis Rogers, Evans Reeder, Charles, Jr. Reitz, Philip Robb, John A. Jr. Rooney, Patrick Rhodes, Henr Rencher, William Robins, Benjamin Raymo, Lewis Rhein, Josiah G. Russell, Michael Roche, Michael Roney, John Russell, John A. Robinson, Charles Richardson, Wm. H. Ring, David Roberts, Joseph Rush, Thos. Jefferson Remly, George W. Reed, Edwaid W. Ropes, Archer Rowe, Joseph Rothwell, Elijah Reaside, Miss Mary A. Junior Members. Raborg, Christopher Reeves, Jo-eph F. Jr. Roche, C. H. Rutter, Robert H. Reilley, Robert M. Rich, Wm. Reifsnider, Wm. E. Reip, Joseph Henry Remare, Richard A, Readell, C. W. D. Richstein, William Reitz, Lewis H. Ramsey, John Robinson, John G. Retan, Charles P. Robinson, James Reitz, Wm. H. L. Ruff, John P. Rasin, Robert W. L. Rasin, Alfred R. Robins, Augustus Ricketts, Charles Roach, George J. Jr. Ryan, John J. Rowe, Joseph T. Roszel, S. George Redding, Wm. H. Richardson, F. A. Reifsnider, John R. Richardson, Geo. T. Richardson, Wm. Ross, Wm. W. Reynolds, Wm. G. Richardson, Chas. M. Reese, J. E. Jr. Richardson, Jas. P. Rutter, Thos. C. Reilly, Wm. P. Raymo, Chas. M. Ross, Wm. Kk. Wyatt Rothrock, Joseph Rhodes, John F. Robinson, S. W. Rozel, D. B. Rey: olds, Samuel Royston, E. B. Robinson, J. G. Richardson, J. O. Ryan, Peirce Royston, John W. Rhodes, George R. Reese, Henry D. Redgrave, Samuel T. Rose, Chas. H. Roberts, George R. Ruth, Joseph Reynolds, John Reed, Nelson 8. Ross, John W. Reynolds, James A. Ricketts Thomas Richard, Thomas S, Ridgaway, Jumes Richem, Henry Ringgold, ©. F. Reese, Joshua, Jr. Rooker, Josiah O. Reilly, Francis Royston, Joshua D. Reese, Daniel W. Riordon, John Robinson. E P. Rodewald. Frederick Ray, Nicholas’ B. Robinson, James Reynolds, Wm. Henry Radeche, Harman Radeche, John Rollins, F. H. Reynolds, Joseph P. 59 Read, Edward Senior members. Shephard, Moses Simpson, James T. Sanders, Beverly Stevens, Robert A. Shultz, Samuel Smith, Charles R. Sylvester, Thomas H. Sanders, Robert T. Startzman, David Saunders, J. Mowton Simms, Joseph Stuart, Glendy Sharer, Wm. G. Stauf, Henry Sutton, James L. Shaw, Mathew Summerlock, John F. Shoemaker, W. 8. Smith, Dr. Gideon B. Stubbs, Edmund H. Scott, John Thomas Savage, Joseph R. Snow, E. J. Shakespeare, Edwd. Sweany, John H. Steiner, Dr. L. H. Smyth, Wm. Smith, R. H. Small, William H. Sherwood, Wm. 8. Selby, John S. Smyth, William Sheets, James M. Stow, Thomas Shipley, Charles L. Sumwalt, A. W. Smith, Wm. Prescott Street, Thomas Slater, James Seyler, Frederick Shaw, Wm. S. Streeter, J. F. Stewart, J. V. D. Steliman, John Stincheomb, John A. Smith, J. Christian Schaeffir, Geo. A. Starr, B. F. Stabler, Edward H. Stockbridge, Jason Strohmenger, John Smith, George Spilman, Henry Shannon, J. P. Shipley, L. G. Street, J.C. Showacre,H C. Stewart, Henry D. Schofield, B. Slicer, Henry W. Simpson, Wm. A. Stockes, Wm B. Slack, Wm. B. Sauerhoft, G. T. Schwatka, Charles A. Sullivan, John C. Sprague, E. R. Stewart, Charles J. Stincheomb, Wm. W. Stewart, Thomas Suter, James 8. Simpson, John R. Stevens, George G. Sandys, Edwin Shakespeare, B. F. Smyser, Henry C. Spedden, G. A. Shultz, A. Slack, John Schultz, E. Sparklin, B. J. Shaeffer, Frederick L. Simpson, Geo. B. Stevens, William Staigerwald, Myer Smith, G. D. Starr, Wm. M. Stockton, Rev. T. H. St-wart, Joseph W. Smith, Samuel, Jr. Smith. J. Irwin Shipley, Charles E. Stewart, George Spencer, Jervis Stansbury, Elijah Schuller, J. A. Soper, Samuel J. Spilman, A B. Sherwood, Richard Sanders, Wm. A. Shoemaker, Jonathan Segers, Francis Spedden, Major Edwd. Sheets, George T. Spies, John G. Shurtz, W. D. Scribner, J. Seeger, Jacob Stabler, Francis Slaughter James C. Sitler, Morris Shanks, Thomas Sloan, James Sharp, A. P. Slaney, John M. Sr. Slaney, John M. Jr. Sarsfield, S. J. Shipley, L velace Sharp, S. J Summers, Joseph G. Sank, Joseph H. Stran, Wm. H: Sparhawk, S. Schoolfield, L. A. Smith, Henry C. Stanley. John Slade, Edward Smith, Thomas T. Smith, Henry M. Searley, Charles R: Shoemaker, S. M. Starr, Joseph Swift, M. C, Short, John H. Steifel, Julius Stone, James H. Spies, Charles L. Stewart, John Super, Daniel Stewart, W. A. Schwartz, Julius Stewart, Wm. C. Sehmayer, S. Summer, John 8. Sloan, George F. Snow, E. J. Slicer, Wm. Slade, James Stromberg, John Hy. Small, John Henry Siarr, W. G. Stone, James H. of EH. Simmonds, Dennis Stinehofer, Christian Spencer, Compton Sank. Joseph W. Stouffer, Jacob Scott, Eli Spilker, Wm H. Stites, Dr. William Junior Members. Stevenson, Wm. W. Stephens, J. £. Schmidt, Jacob Savage, Charles E. Swoyer, Frederick Swoyer, Samuel Snyder, Daniel Simon, August 60 Snavely, Joseph Simonson, Wm. C. Swain, Wm. H. Snyder, John M. Spencer, Oliver J. Sylvester, Edward C. Stine, Wm. W. Sparl, John Henry Schnibbe George Schultz, L. H. Sauerwein, Chas. D. Stallings, Wm. H. Smith, John D. Street, Edwin A. St. John, James Shaw, Samuel T. Stewart, John M. Stauf, Charles Sitler, Morris, Jr. Sumner, W. Henry Shane, William Shaw, Marshall G. Scherar, Frederick Sanderson, F. Henry Sparhawk, John J. Skillman, George Sullivan, T E. Sollers, Wm. Shoemaker, Wm. Stewart, J. S. Shutz, Christopher Steer, Lewis W. Super, Wm. H. Sutton, Maltier Shaw, James V. Spear, P. Forney Spear, James Otis Stevens,S A, Stevens, Charles B. Scott, Joseph P. Spedden, Oliver W. Shoemaker, E. B. S. Smith, Frederick C. Shryock, Wm. H. Simpson, George L. Southerland, Geo. A. *hehan, George A. Stewart, Ebenezer \ Stewart, Charles Simpson, Robert Savin, Marcus D. Schoolfield, Wm. H. Seibert, Edward Schwartzhaupt, C. Smith, J. Stewart Schnenner, John Hy. Schwartz, A. F. Savage, John W. Stewart, Albert V. Sweeney, Lewis D. Slicer, Philip M. Sharp, Charles E. Stewart, John M, Snyder, Walter Smith, Wm. F. Smith, John T. Stapleton, Edward Stubbs, Richard B. Staylor, George W. Stephens, Thos. M, Stinchcomb, Joshua Sudman, Hy. Sewell, Charles A. Sadtler, C. C. Smith, Wm. P. of S.A. Sauerhoff, F. O. Stran, Richard B. Shipley, B. E. Shanley, John J. Sheckells, Charles Stalford, John H. Sherwood, James H. Stemmer, Lewis E. Searley, Jas. E. Jr. Shamer, Theodore Stow, Lewis S. Shipley, Francis L. Smith, Henry Secombe, Edward, Jr. Sturgeno, Henry D. Stembler, J. A. Schoolfield, Geo. A. Schoolfield, L. H. Setlen, Daniel Stauf, Alexander Stoane, J. F. Shannon, William’ Sumwalt, Henry W. Seidenstricker, A. B. Smoot, Albert Sutton, S. Stevenson, H. S. Slofer, Frederick Skinner, John C, Sparhawk, Saml. H. Snead, Robert Shorey, Wm F. Spencer, Thos. M. Steinhofer, Christian Stow, Charles Stuntz, Charles Small, Bruce Scott, G. L. Sloan, Wm. J. Sanders, Frank Shaney, Joseph Scott, Wm. G. Straw, Frederick Sentz, George P. Scott, James J. Seidenstricker, Hy. A. Simon, Frederick W. Stith, W. W. Scott, L. C. Smithson, James Suter, James W. Sutherland, John M. Stewart, Wm. Brewer Sunderland, Chas. H. Scotti, P. Shell, James H. Sinclair, Wm. Slinkman, John H. Stewart, C. H. Snyder, James S. Spencer, Wm. Slaughter, J. G. Slaughter, Wm. Shorey, N. B. Smadley, Wm. L. Sheck, Adolphus Stylor, Lewis Spear, H. G. Shipley, F. M. Stewart, James S. Street, Isaac Sickel, Edward Strohm, H. F. Starr, John, Jr. Stone, Charles H. Stack, Garrett Sichle, Jacob, Jr. Sloan, James Simpson, Theodore Smith, Elijah B. Sellman, H. D. Sawkins, Frederick Selby, Nicholas R. Selby, Joseph Sanders, John Smith, Thomas H. Sultzer, Wm. H. H. Spedden, Edward Starr, EK. G. Sanders, John M. Scott, James S. Smith, Wm. S. Skinner, Wm. Sloan, Chas. H. Sapp, Jacob H. Stewart, Jas. C. Sankin, A. H. Simms, George Slade, F. Stieff, Chas. 61 Stoops, Wm H. Spence, James C. Slater, W. H. Smoot, Wm. Stokeley, Wm. Starr, Wm. H. Simpson, Thos. B. Sanders, Geo. W. Supplee, Wilbur F. Stier, Upton Sharp, George, Jr. Sanders, George W. Stansbury, J. W. Shultz, Frederick Skinner, G. H. Sturman, J. F. Simpson, R. B. Slicer, Chas. H. Scott, John W. Sands, Joseph E. Shaffer, Augustus Stevenson, Chas. C. Scarff, G. W. Smull, Jacob B. Stockes, John R. Scarff, Wm. Thomas ie Senior Members. Thayer, N. H. Timanus, John T: Thomas, H. Mifflin Tischmeyer, L. Taylor, Wm. S. Tennant, Thomas Thurston, D. T. Taylor, George Thompson, Capt. H.A. Tysinger, Lewis Tyson, J. P. Tewksbury, Geo. D. Thomas, John Trimble, Jas. M. Torney, Leonard J. Toland, Wm. Townsend, Samuel Taylor, H. W. Thomas, Jas. P. Tall, Washington Tall, Wm. Thomas, Philip F. Jr. Taylor, Samuel G. Turner, Joseph Trego, Wm. Thomas, John F, Turner, Chas. Tillyard, Alfred H, Trump, Chas. M. Tyler, G. K. Taylor, G. W. Trotton, Thomas Taylor, Henry Taylor, Levi Trimble, David B. Towson, J. T. Taylor, R. Q. Titcumb, B. Thomas, Wm. G. Turner, John C. Tustin, Wm. Tanner, Benjamin Trump, C. Thomas, J. S. Tegmyer, John H. Tull, Thos. J. Thompson, Arthur D. Turner, Robert Thomas, Joseph A. Thomas, Joseph B. Thomas, Dr. John C. Tabb, J. T. W. Trought, John T. Turner, John M. Thomas, Dr. R. H. Trump, Newbold C. Tyler, G. C. Torney, P. J. Thorpe, W. W. Tyson, George Taylor, Wm. Talbott, W. M. Thompson, Thos. J. Tongue, S. D. Turner, Thos. V. Taylor, Robert Tansby, Thomas Towson, Obediah Junior Members. Torney, John H. Torney, Edward C. Turner, Wm. L. Tucker, Joseph, Jr. Taylor, Jas. Jr. Thomas, Samuel W. Thomas, Edwd, GC. Jr. Torney, G. W. Townsend, Joseph C. Tyson, Joshua H. Thomas, Sam]. Drew Thomas, R. P. Thompson, Joseph, Jr. Thomas, Lawrence A. Townsend, L. W. Taylor, Major S. Tyler, John A. Tyler, Joseph Trull, George, Jr. Tyler, Wm. 8S. Terral, James Thomas, Wm. Taylor, Howard Tewksbury, Chas. 8. Teal, Jas. R. Tull, Wm. T. Thompson, G. Z. Trego, John Tilyard, John P. Tilghman, Wm. Thompson, Geo. B. Thompson, Alfred W. Thomas, Richard Thater, Philip Thomas, Wm. Henry Tucker, Samuel T. Toner, George W. Thiemyer, Lewis Taylor, Wm. H. Taylor, T. L. Thomas, Samuel Tripp, Andrew C. Truitt, David J. O. Trilley, Joseph Tyler, Daniel Trayser, Philip S. Taylor, James Todd, John Tyler, George T. Tyler, Chas. Thomas, Philip E. Jr. Twilly, Henry C. Trotton, Ferdinand Thompson, John A. Jr. Tipton, Joshua A. Tucker, George W. Travers, Thos. B. Turner, Jas. B. Taylor, John Tudor, G. R. Tucker, Jas. Hugh Turner, Geo. W. Taylor, Wm. H. Trimble, Robert M. Thomas, Joseph B. Jr. Treulieb, Peter Tydings, R. E. Tibbals, Walter B. Thomas, Wm. H. U Senior Members. Upshur, James M. 62 Uhler, Erasmus Junior Members. Ubert, John P. Ublhorn, F. A. Uhihorn, J. H. K. Vv Senior Members. Verlander, Joseph Vansant, Joshua Volkmar, Charles Vansant, Richard Junior Members. Valentine, John ‘| Vincente, Edward P. Vogt, Frederick Vinson, S. J. Volkmar, Chas. Jr. Vinson, Geo. H. Vickery, Edward Vallette, G. E. Vansant, Joseph Voneiff, John Vanness, John J. Vogt, John H. w Senior Members. Watson, James Wilkins, William Willis, B. F. Wolf, Jacob Wise, R. J. S. Wetherald, Thos. Warner, A. W. Winter, Wm. P. Weitzell, John Watson, Jas. T. Wallace, Wm. A. Warren, E. B. Watt, J. G. Weishampel, J. F. Jr. Williams, G. A. Wiison, Wm. H. Wheeler, J. Columbus Woodward, Jas. G. Ward, James Watkins, Joseph P. Webb, James Webb, Albert L. Waugh, A. T. Wolf, Adam Wilson, John H. Wilson, Saml. Wheeler, Darius Wonderly, John Williams, W. J. Wentz, Saml. H. Walker, J. W. Webb, Geo. D. White, Wm. G. Wright, John W. Welsh, Alexander Wylie, Jas. H. Wallace, Geo. F. Williamson, Angus Winn, John T. Weaver, John H. Wilson, James Wince, Daniel Wheeler, D. A. Welsh, J. B. Warner, Andrew Sr, Watson, Wm. H. Woodward, John H. Watkins, Evans Wiiliams, N. F. Woodworth, F. Wilkins, Bartus Webb, Geo. W. Winchester, S. G, Woodward, Wm. Waltham, C. S. Waters, H. G. Warden, James Ward, William Wright, Alfred Woodside, Wm. 8. Wethered, John Welsh, Mrs. John Walker, Joseph White, Thos. P. Warden, Hugh Winter, Samuel Woodward, Geo. P. Warner, A. E. Jr. Walker, Wm. Wilson, Thomas Wheat, J. B. Wethered, Chas. IE. Waite, R. C. Walter, Geo. K. Whitman, E. Wier, Robert Wood, James H. Warford, R. C. Wilson, J. Baynard Worley, Adam Watson, Charles Walker, John M. Waskey, Benjamin Weitzell, Thomas Woodward, D. A. Wetherald, S. B. Whittington, John Williamson, C. Wright, Joel West, Charles Washington, John Witman, George Warder, George A. Welch, Warren Whittney, Thos. M. Webb, Chas. H, Ward, Nathlaniel Walsh, Thomas' Watson, John H Wenkelman, H. Wright, Daniel Wilson, James B. Webb, George Wood, John P. Williar, A. J. Williams, Nathaniel Ward, James R Williams. Wm. Wells, Bejamin N. Williams, H. S. Wheeting, M. C. Whitelock, W. Wiler, Samuel Junior Members. Wonderly, William Wells, Clinton G. Willis, William Walsh, Wm. Geo. Wilson, N. Wenn, Geo. W. Wagenschwautz, F. Wehrhame, Charles Wiley, Alexander Webster, Geo. H. Wells, William H. Whitehouse, James Walsh, James Warner, George T. Williamson, James J. Working, William Wylie, Saml. S. . Wallace, Joseph H. Wallace, Richard M. Wain, Wm. L. Williams, Edward Waters, James K. Watts, Nathaniel S. Ward, John T. Weber, Wm. F. 63 Weber, J. H. Winn, William H. | West, George Wilkinson, W. H. B. West, William W. Wheedon, Eugene Ward, Wm. E. Warfield, Lewis M. Wheeler, Jerome Woldman, John H. Williams, A. A. Whitelock, Saml. R. Winchester, Oliver A. Wilcox, Thomas J. Wix, Henry Webb, Chas. H. Winn, Jas. Power White, Jobn S. Warfield, Joseph Wild, Lewis Winneberger, John i Watis, Thomas D. ~~ Webster, P. A. Webb, Lewis S. Wilson, Wm. T. Weliener, Joseph W. Wehn, Philip Webb, John Webb, Thomas N. White, Robt. Wilson Wharton, B. B. H. Wheeden, James B. Wheeden Thomas J. Wentz, Charles Welsh, Samuel Warner, Wm. H. Whitehead, James J. Wolf, Alonzo L. Wallace, James Webb, George H. Watkins, John M. Wylie, George Wible, J. T. Warrington, Lewis Ward, Joseph A. White, John Wilson, William Woodward, Wm. Jr. Wivel, William Weaver, Charles Williamson, S. J. Wright, Charles E. Wheeler, Chas. A. Wheeden, Edward Wells, Peter F. Woodsides, Jas. I. Williams, J. B. Wherheim, J. Philip Wells, Chas. Wesley Watts, James B. Walker, Geo. W. Wilkison, Richard Watkins, Wesley Westwood, Wm. P Worley, William N. Wingate, Sam]. B. Woodsides, Edward Watts, Benjamin Waters, Wm. J. H. Weatherby, Charles White, John Wm. Wood, N. L. Jr. White, Joseph Warring, Thomas Wedge, William S. Waters, M. E. Wright, John Williamson, C. F. Winsett, John R. Watts, John M. White, J. Chas. Wilson, James Thos. White, Greenbery Woods, Robert Ward, Wm. H. Ward, Joseph Webb, John T. Wildey, Augustus Ward, Ross Wallace, Wm. S. Weber, Henry Wills, Joseph F. Wilkens, Geo. Thos. Wightman, Wm. T,. Watts, P. A. Warfield, J. A. Waters, C. E. Wild, John F. Wilson, Arch. Jr. Wilson, Samuel Walker, Noah D. Walker, P. H. Wagner, William Wilkins, Edward Wilson, Geo. W. Williams, J. A. Weems, George Warfield, Thomas Woolsey, Wm. B. Wamaling, R. L. Williams, William H. Wales, James Welner, EF. L. Ward, James E. Wells, Wm. A Weems, John Whitiridge, John A. Waters, T. C. Sidney 64 Wilkinson, Saml J. Walter, James Wild, George Wright, James R. Watkins, J. W. Jr. Wentz, Henry C. Walker, R. J. J. West, Wm. H. White, W. P. P. Welmore, Edward H. Wethered, L. ata Wrizht, G. W. T. Williams John of J. Waite, Samuel R. Wolf, Nicholas Young, Wm. H. Wonn, Alfred Young, Joseph A. Watkins, M. S. Young, David Winter, Francis B. Wilson, James M. Weiss, Wm. Fredk. Whitman, Lewis M. Whitworth, Chas. W. Wilbur, David C. Wheeler, Joseph Wetherby, J. K. Young, James Yates, Dr. John L. Younger, Francis A. Young, Wm. J. Yager, A. J. Young, Wm. G. ' Young, H. H. oung, John Senior Members. Yarrington, John Junior Members. Yoe, Benjamin R. Young, Alexander Jr. Yeatman, William a Senior Members. Zentmyer, W. C. Zimmerman, Geo. J. Zerkel, Charles Junior Members. Zimmerman, Charles Zimmerman, Wm. H. AN Wrrpat TO THE LAITY OF MARYLAND, AGAINST THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPAL DESPOTISM, AN APPEAL THE LAITY OF MARYLAND, AGAINST THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPAL DESPOTISM, . ULRIC VON HUTTEN. (\- Ad populum provoco. WASHINGTON : PRINTED BY JNO. T. TOWERS. 1850. Try se Andes ics tei bite a LP " i us i} 7 Maat a) t ae WA x ver 1 ENN VE MAMA ‘ : Yeh Gee Bite bi ” BE TH i 7 : Lani hehe PUR MS le ‘ ta ‘ pat = “i o AN APPEAL TO THE LAITY OF MARYLAND AGAINST THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPAL DESPOTISM. The Right Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham, D. D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland, has not a little disturbed the quiet of the Diocese by the setting up of novel pretensions, unknown to his predecessors, defended by more novel principles, and threatening, by the proselyting vigor with which they are propagated, to obliterate the ancient landmarks of the Church. Among these new pretensions is the claim to be entitled, “on occasions of canonical visitations, to control the services, and to take to himself such portions of them as he may think proper.” Such is the conclusion of the obsequiously devoted committee charged with the consideration of that portion of the Bishop’s communication to the Convention relating to the case of Dr. Johns, of Christ Church. The case out of which the contest arose is susceptible of a brief statement. The Bishop, on the 15th of January, 1850, gave Dr. Johns no- tice of his intention to visit Christ Church on the 17th of March, at the usual hour of morning service, to celebrate divine service, preach, and confirm such candidates as the Rector should be then ready to present; and that he shouid be glad then to have preparation made for his celebration of the Holy Communion, and to have the devotions of the people, collected at the offertory, appropriated to the Diocesan Board of Missions. Dr. Johns replied on the 22d of January, 1850, expressing his readiness to have due and canonical preparation made at the ap- pointed time, to afford the Bishop every facility for examining the state of the Church, inspecting the behavior of the Rector, and administering the apostolic rite of confirmation. He declined to accede to his request touching the Holy Com- munion, and the devotions of the people at the offertory, because the rubrics assigned the former exclusively to the Parish Priest, and the latter were expressly placed by the canon in the hands of the Minister of the Parish, to be by him applied to such chari- table and pious uses as he thought fit. He conceded as a courtesy the privilege of reading the prayers, and preaching on the occasion, ij The Bishop of Maryland, on the 1st of February, 1850, revoked his notice of the 15th of January, as Dr. Johns declined to comply with his request to have preparations made for his administration of the Holy Communion. The issue is presented in these three letters. The first resolu- tion is the theoretic statement of the principle of law on which the Bishop of Maryland rests his claims and his justification ; and the “report” must be considered as the formal statement of the proof that the resolution embodies the law. It is observable that there is some apparent shrinking from the assertion of all the rights at first claimed. The notification involves the claim of right, Ist, to celebrate divine service ; 2d, administer the Holy Communion ; 3d, the rite of confirmation; 4th, and to collect and dispose of the devotions of the people at the offertory. Though the celebration of the Holy Communion and the dis- position of the devotions of the people at the offertory are ex- pressly denied to the Bishop of Maryland, and the right to read prayers and preach is impliedly denied by the conceding its ex- ercise as a favor or a courtesy, yet the withdrawal of the ap- pointment is apparently rested solely on the refusal to make pre- parations for the Holy Communion. . This may have been through inadvertence, or it may have been a politic narrowing of the assailable point in anticipation of a conflict ; not at all abandoning, but only holding in reserve till a more convenient season, claims less defensible than their com- panions, in the day of battle, but useful positions, inevitably fol- lowing victory on the other point. The committee, inspired by their deep sympathy with their Episcopal head, perhaps uncon- sciously tread in his footsteps ; and while reasoning out, and de- fending chiefly, if not exclusively, the asserted right to preach and administer the communion, imbody the result in a resolution em- bracing in sweeping language ail the pretensions of the Bishop of Maryland in the particular case. In staying their conclusion mid- way in the career pointed out by their reasonings and premises, their moderation is not a little more apparent than their logic. The positions of the report were assailed in argument by Mr. Gassaway, before the Convention, with a power of logie and pro- fusion of learning, whose best eulogy is the silent confession of his ablest adversaries that it was unanswerable. They chose to bear down by weight of disciplined numbers on positions where a conflict of reason could only thin their ranks, and adroitly silenced by a vote what it would have been unsafe to attempt to meet in argument. But such a speech could not be suffered—if only for the looks of the thing—to pass without an attempt to reply; and yet a viva voce answer was a hazardous experiment from the opportu- nity of sifting interrogatories and unmerciful interpellations not admitting of evasion or of answer, to which the speaker is ne- 5 cessarily exposed before a popular body. Recent experience had read them a lesson on the dangers of such a contest on doubtful ground in the signal overthrow of the Rev. Mr. Pyne and the Rev. Mr. Atkinson in their attempts to entangle Mr. Gassaway. The Editor of the Church Advertiser seems to have been so be- wildered by the rapid cut and thrust of this gladiatorial display, as very simply to remark “that Mr. Pyne put several very perti- nent questions, to which we did not understand the reverend gen- tleman as giving very positive replies ;” yet the querists were pro- bably satisfied with them, and perhaps in a cooler moment in read- ing the speech the Editor may understand how positive they were. Thus prudently guided, the friends of the Bishop of Maryland, after the lapse of a due period of gestation, produced vicariously by Mr. Hugh Davy Evans, “An Examination of Mr. Gassa- way’s Argument.” It presents, it is to be presumed, in their most elaborate and finished shape, the principles on which the report and the first resolution of the committee are to be defended. It must be con- sidered as the deliberate embodiment, in an authorized form, of the principles which preside over the Episcepal administration of this Diocese by its right reverend head; and by its reasoning and authority his policy must stand or fall. It is the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Maryland speaking by the mouth of Hugh Davy Evans, Esq. I mean to estimate, with becoming respect for our right reve- rend head, and his reverend and learned defenders of the faith, the validity of the reasonings and results of the report and the reply; and regarding a large majority of the clergy as deaf to the voice of reason and of law when invoked in opposition to the pretensions of their Bishop—the veritable representative of the Apostles, to the eye illumined by the inner light of the succes- sion—I appeal to the people, the body of the Church, for a hearing on matters vitally touching the organization and interests, the permanency and well-being of the Church government their fathers saw best to adopt. When the nature of the question is considered, the course of argument of the report and reply are sufficiently significant. The question relates solely to the laws of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland, considered as a , Diocese of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The report and the reply both assume the existence of legal rights inherent in the Bishop of this Diocese, flowing from some other source than the canons and constitution of this Church, and susceptible of being enforced in this Diocese canonically, though not conferred nor recognised by any of the canons, con- stitutions, rubrics, or forms of our Church. Mr. Evans quarrels with Mr. Gassaway’s statement of his prin- ciples ; but I must invoke the aid of his metaphysics to see the difference between them. 6 Mr. Gassaway states their principle to be “that a Bishop may do everything not prohibited by the canons.” Mr. Evans com- plains that it was a dexterous change of the true principle “that a Bishop may do everything which is within the scope of his office, when it is not prohibited by law;” yet on his view what is not with- in the scope of his office? Did Mr. Gassaway say a Bishop may do anything without the scope of his office, not prohibited by the canons? and if he did not, Mr. Evans’ qualification was equally needless and unfair; for it implies that Mr. Gassaway had so stated the principle he was opposing, by implication, if not ex- pressly. No one could be so simple as to suppose Mr. Gassaway to as- sert that his opponents maintained that a Bishop could literally do everything not prohibited; but, the language must be taken according to the subject under consideration, and that being the distribution of ecclesiastical and spiritual power and jurisdiction between the various orders of Ministers, he asserted the principle of the Bishop of Maryland and his supporters to be, that a Bishop may do every act appertaining to ecclesiastical and spiritual power and jurisdiction—every function of any order of the chris- trian ministry, as an inherent right, when not prohibited by a can- non or law of the church. And such I understand to be Mr. Evans’ position, and that of the report. Mr. Evans’ qualification is no qualification at all, for he is careful to inform us “that in the early period of the Church there were no such things as Par- ishes, and the Bishop was, therefore, the only person who had ju- risdiction within the Diocese, and might minister the word and sacrament when and where he pleased, within that Diocese.” Of course this means that in the early Church the Bishop could “do everything,” and others only acted by his license, and only exer- cised his authority by his permission—that the Bishop was the sole ecclesiastical authority, having jurisdiction in the Diocese. And he further states “that the institution of parishes altered this so far as it related to the Priests,and gave them a righi to minister the word and sacraments within their own parishes—but not to the exclusion of the Bishop.” J venture with becoming dif- fidence to interpret this statement. The Bishop of our Diocese retains his original, universal, and spiritual power and juris- . diction, except in so far as this, that Presbyters now have a right to minister in their respective parishes, independent, but not ex- clusive of the Bishop; that the Presbyters now minister, not when and where the Bishop pleases and at his will, but by law and as of right in certain parishes, but not to the exclusion of the Bishop’s right also there to minister the word and sacraments, in virtue of his original, inherent, and universal right of ministration throughout his Diocese. [respectfully suggest that the theory of Mr. Evans means this or it means nothing. If any law of the Church—and a canon, or rubric, or form of service, or an article of faith is sup- posed to merit that title—prohibit the exercise of any of those 7 original, inherent powers of the early Episcopate, Mr. Evans con- cedés with some hesitation, that the power cannot be exercised ; and I presume it is from the canons or laws establishing parishes that the right of the Priest to minister in these, independent of the Bishops permission and by a tenure other than his will, flows. Now from this theory a single step of logic leads us to a curi- ous conclusion. The Presbyter has a right to minister in his parish; but not exclusive of the Bishop’s right to minister the word and sacraments there also. The Bishop retains his original right to minister in every parish of his Diocese, and that original right extended to all times and places; but he cannot exclude the Presbyter, for he also has a right. Since then neither can exclude the other, and both have the same right, we have the right of the Bishop and the Presby- ter, at the same time and place, before the same congregation, with adverse lungs, to read the same prayers, preach different ser- mons, and double the same sacraments—which is absurd, as Euclid says at the end of a reductio ad absurdum. Of course our reverend instructors and learned respondent felt the pinch and strove to remedy it. The early Church avoided © the absurdity—I mean of course on their statement of what the early Church was—for to my readings of Church history there is in it more of fancy than of fact; it made the Presbyter the mere curate of the Bishop, ministering in his place and at his will only. Our modern ecclesiastical architects attempt to escape the dif- ficulty by asserting that the Church reconciles these conflicting rights, “by confining the Bishop in the exercise of his [right to ad- minister the sacraments and to rule in his whole Diocese and in every part of it,] to those comparatively rare occasions on which he goes officially, in his very Episcopal character, in visitation of a Parish.” But will my reverend and learned friends point to the law of the Church which thus limits the Episcopal prerogative? The theory goes a great way further—the logic points onward, and refuses to be thus arbitrarily arrested in mid career; and if the law of Episcopal right, derived from the early Church and inhe- rent in the character of our Right Reverend Fathers be as the report and reply maintain it to be, I insist on the Jaw which thus ties down their universal and absolute right to preach and minister , the sacraments, to those “ comparatively rare occasions” of Epis- copal visitations. We have the assertion of the report and of the reply that the right originally existed ; and that Episcopal prerogative survives in its pristine plenitude, unless where limited by law. I call for the production of the law which imposes this limitation. The au- thors of those documents have produced none; the report breaks out into eulogy of “the admirable system of the Church” in thus confining the Bishop; but it refers to no law nor to any au- thority for this serious invasion of the primitive right of Bishops; 8 and Mr. Evans is equally silent. I assert that no such law exists ; and therefore, if their theory of Episcopal power be assumed as true, the contradiction and absurdity above expressed is inherent and ineradicable. It clings to the theory and invests it with the air and mantle of falsehood. It is a reductioad absurdum, and so proves its falsity. But is the Church really guilty of such folly, or have the cham- pions of Episcopal prerogative, in their eager obsequiousness, en- tangled themselves in these contradictions by their daring attempt to deduce what the law 7s, from what according to a certain theory no where enacted into a law, they infer it ought to be? Both the report and the reply are directly amenable to that charge. The former, with courteous candor declares, that in reasoning with church men, it is lawful, at is indeed only respectful to them, to take as axioms those truths which the Church clearly main- tains, “however they may be doubted or denied by those out of her pale.” “Among such truths,” the report proceeds to assure us are the following : 1. That Bishops are successors of the Apostles in the ordinary powers of their office. : 2. That they are, therefore, enjoined to go into all the world to teach and disciple all nations, &c. 3. That, consequently, Bishops, as such, have the right to preach and administer the sacraments, as well as to rule the Church. 4. That these Episcopal rights are to be exercised in their Dioceses—these being their appointed fields of labor. 5. That, consequently, the Bishop has a right to preach and administer the sacraments in his Diocese, independent of any parochial cure, and in every part of his Diocese. The conclusion follows from the premises beyond a doubt; but it follows in its full generality or not at all. If it is proved by these principles that the Bishop may at any time preach and ad- minister the sacraments in all parts of his Diocese, it also proves that he may do it at all tames, and at his will and pleasure. But this they are anxious not to maintain; and their process for restraining their too vigorous and fruitful logie is not a little curious, They deal with their conclusion as they had previously dealt with their premises, and arbitrarily curtail them of their fair proportions to fit the exigencies of the occasion. The true conclusion from their premises is, that though the Priest has now a right to minister in his parish, the Bishop retains his original right to minister there also at his will and pleasure; and so either both have the right, since the Bishop cannot remove the Priest, nor the Priest exclude the Bishop, or the supposed ancient system is only so far modified that the Priest has a right to min- ister in his parish to the exclusion of the right of the Bishop to remove him from it, to send him elsewhere, or to put another 9 ever or with him in it; but that the Bishop, when present, at any time and at all times, retains the right himself to resume the con- duct of the worship and the rule of the Parish, in virtue of his original right. This is the logical result of the principle asserted. This is plainly the doctrine maintained by Taylor in the extract inserted by Mr. Evans in his appendix, from the “ Episcopacy Asserted.” But openly to maintain so wide a doctrine was dan- gerous as yet; it was an esoteric principle which might break out hereafter; but for the present, though proving more, he was content to take less, and stop at the occasional right of supersed- ing the Priest on occasion of visitations only. It is an axiom, we are-reminded, which courtesy requires should be assumed in arguments between all churchmen, “that Bishops are the successers of the Apostles in the ordinary powers of their office.” When this axiom was elevated from the regions of doubtful disputation to its serene height of acknowledged truth, we confess our ignorance. We had innocently supposed that Whately, Goode, Sparrow, and Meade, had some pretensions to the title of churchmanship; but to attribute to them cencur- rence in any such axiom would savor rather of contempt than courtesy; and we are at a loss whether most to admire the cool- ness or the arrogance of this sect of yesterday in thus quietly as- suming the disputed and repudiated mystery of the apostolical succession as a conceded and recognised axiom of the Church. Whether true or false historically, our Church has never, in any of her formularies or laws, so defined the Episcopal charac- ter, nor based on it any right whatever. But ifthey be enjoined and authorized in virtue of this commission and by this succession/to go into all the world, and this by divine authority, will my learned and reverend friends explain how all the world becomes suddenly, in their fourth proposition, narrowed down to “their Dioceses?” for most Dioceses, except the supposi- titious one of the Bishop of Rome, are somewhat less than the whole world. If God has authorized a Bishop as such, simply in virtue of his being a Bishop, to go into all the world, by what impious arrogance do they dare to fetter the freedom of God’s Apostles, and forbid them to exercise in all the world, everywhere, and at all times, powers which they say God has enjoined and authorized them to exercise everywhere? The article limits the legislative power of the Church by the qualification, “so that no- thing be ordained contrary to God’s word.” The canon forbids a Bishop to minister or assume jurisdiction beyond his Diocese. But the Bible, say the committee, “ enjoins and authorizes them to go into all the world.” So the canon forbids what the Bible com- mands. Is it wrong to conclude that this theory of the report is not the law of the Church? And if the canon can take away this right and duty of the Bishop, will they please to put their finger on the function it cannot arrest, or suspend, or deny ? 2 10 I respectfully suggest that the limitation or the divine origin of the power must be abandoned. I leave them the option of a choice—indifferent in its results, whichever horn of the dilemma be chosen. If the divine origin be given up, the whole edifice crumbles to dust. Ifthe limitation to the Diocese cannot be maintained, then our whole ecclesiastical system is at once in fragments; there are no dioceses, parishes, nor special jurisdictions, but each per- son ministers when and where he will; there is no law, all is confusion, contradiction, and tumult; and, therefore, not the sys- tem of the Bible, which requires all things to be done decently and in order. No one can be arraigned for violating a diocesan’s rights, since no Diocese exists. If gentlemen insist on resting their rights on a theory, they must take its logical fruits. But not content with these arbitra- ry limitations of the premises, the conclusion is still too fruitful. It is clear that in this modern world theological theories will not be swallowed when they involve practical absurdities. The rea~ soning, then, proving a Bishop’s right to minister always and any- where in his Diocese, and that being plainly in conflict with the right of each Presbyter to preach and minister at all times in his respective Parish throughout the whole Diocese, the question is to reconcile them. And this notable expedient of a limping logic is the misshapen makeshift of an urgent necessity. The Bishop is confined in the exercise of his rights to the occasions of his going officially in his very Episcopal character in visitation of a parish; for which the sole proof is, “if he have it (i. e. the right) not then, he never has it.” But surely the reasoner has lost his head, or perhaps this is a specimen of reasoning in a non-natural sense. He has already proved a general right on his theory; but a general right involves an absurdity, and is a reductio ad absurdum of the whole theory, because in conflict with the parochial system which is established by express law, and so cannot be ignored. The difficulty now is, not to prove the right on oceasions of visitation, but to rescue the whole theory from overthrow and refutation, by proving that the general right is, from its own inhe~ rent nature confined, and bound down inseparably to those occa- sions of visitation. Surely for this purpose the remark, that “if the Bishop has it not then, he never has it,” is merely impertinent. The reasoning flounders on through assumption after assump- tion to an impotent conclusion. The Report says, if the Bishop have not the right to exercise the powers in controversy, then he never has it, and one of two conclusions must follow. (I bespeak the earnest attention of the reader tothe marchinto the Caudien forks.) “ Either the Bishop, as such, is not authorized to preach and administer the sacraments, er being so authorized, his author- ity is afterwards taken from him by the rubrics and canons which regulate that office.” il The argument is like a man in a bog—his struggles to get out only sink him the deeper. We now have the concession, that if he cannot exercise these so-called Episcopal functions at a visita- tion, he never can. I agree in that proposition; but what is the proof that he can then exercise them? Why, nothing less than an impotent attempt to show the absurdity of the contrary con- clusion. It is said to follow, either that the Bishop has no authori- ty as such, to preach, &c.; or having received it, he is deprived of it. But it has not yet been shown that the Bishop has, as such, the right to preach and administer the sacraments in another's parish, except on a theory which proves him to have it, not. on this occasion only, but always. And that involves as great an absurdity as the giving him the power to preach and administer the sacrament, and then take it away; for that is just what the Church is made to do, on that hypothesis, to the parochial Minis- ter ; the very power of ministration given to him, is also given to his superior—the Bishop. There seems little choice in the alter- natives, and little chance of escaping from both. The difficulties spring from their theory, not ours. We do not maintain any general power in the Bishop to preach and minis- ter in the parishes of his Diocese—which he is forbidden to exer- cise; least of all do we rely on the word “ Priest,” in the commu- nion service to prove it. We say that as Bishop he only receives the prerogatives peculiar to the Episcopate, to be exercised throughout his Diocese. The other capacities he received at or- dination; and now retains the capacity, to be exercised, not any where he may choose, but when and where the laws of the Church provide for theer exercise, and not elsewhere, to the invasion of the parochial rights of the other clergy. We have now traced the reasoning of the report to its conclu- sion, and found it empty and worthless. It starts with the assumption, as an axiom, of an ineffable mys- tery, disputed and denied by the carnal minds of at least a con- siderable portion of the Church—not recognised in her formularies, canons, or articles—and so no source whence the laws of the Church can be inferred. It arbitrarily limits the conclusion to which the first and second propositions necessarily lead—(i. e.) the universality of the Epis- copal power—for that conclusion would be in direct conflict with our established system of Dioceses; and so is proved not to be the law of our Church, however true. It then deduces the universal right of the Bishop to minister in in his Diocese, and in every part of it—legitimately from the pre- mises narrowed as above stated. But this is in dire conflict with the parochial system; and so false, as the statement of the laws of our Church, unless some principle of limitation can be discovered. Such a limitation is asserted to exist in the confinement of these general rights to the times of visitation; but no Jaw so con- 12 fining it is shown, no reason is stated why, from the nature of the thing they should not be exercised at other times; and in the ab- sence of such reason, it is not competent, arbitrarily, to say the exercise of the right, proved to exist generally, is so confined. It may be very proper that the Bishop should have the right of ex- ercising these powers when on a visitation; but its propriety and expediency do not tend in the most remote degree to prove its ex- istence in point of fact, still less do they prove it to be confined by law to those occasions. The argument then, has signally failed in every thing—except in refuting itself. That result flows from the fact, conceded by the committee, ap- parent on the face of the written laws of the Church, and known as a fact to every intelligent layman in the Church, of the existence of Parishes, and of the right of the parishioners to select their minister, and of the right of that Minister to manage and control the minis- tration of the word and sacraments on all occasions of publie pa- rochial worshp in his parish; and the consequent inconsistency of the existence of any right in point of law, in any other person to do the same thing in the same place, at the same time, to his ea- clusion. But the parochial system and these rights of the paro- chial Priest so to minister, are expressly set down in the laws of the Church. The right claimed for the Bishop is not so set down and expressed in any formal enactment. If it were so, we might be bound to receive it, and get along as we could till the evil of conflicting laws should be remedied. But it is attempted to be deduced from a doubtful theory of Episcopal rights, and a histori- eal disquisition on the Episcopacy of the early Church, bound into an argument by the assertion of the identity of our Episco- pacy with that, except so far as limited by the parochial system. The theory is not affirmed in any law or formulary of the Church ; and the inference from it is entirely inconsistent with the paro- chial system which ts plainly set down in our laws, and known to exist in fact among us; and by virtue of that inconsistency we are bound, judging the unknown by the known, the theory by the con- flicting fact, the supposed and hypothetical law by the plainly written and recognised law, to adhere to the parochial system, and pronounce the conclusion from an historical theory, which is inconsistent in its results with that known law, to be false and unfounded as a proof, or a statement of the law of the Church,— as a rotten foundation for the right rested on it. But where is the fallacy of the argument? Has the Bishop no powers in his diocese! and if he has any, what are they, whence derived, and how defined ? The fallacy consists in adroitly or blunderingly confounding the capacity or competency of order, or, as Taylor calls it, “a capa- city of possibility,” to perform certain functions, with a right to perform them at a given time or place. The error is aggravated by attempting to deduce from the capacity, thus confounded with the right, and an assumed necessity of time and place for its ex- 13 ercise, that it is to be exercised at a particular time; when the same elements would equally well prove a right to exercise the capacity at any other time and place. The argument proceeds on an entirely erroneous view of the theory and nature of our Church government, as laid down 1n its articles, canons, rubrics, and formularies of service and worship. It is vitiated by attempting to deduce from the history of other Church societies, supposed to be similar to ours, the laws of our own, instead of turning to our written laws for their declarations, and trying the historical hypothesis by them. The argument paiters in a double sense with the “ Apostolical suecession”—true, in so far as it imports that Bishops have gov- erned the Church since the Apostles ceased to do so, in part— false, if made to imply that the power so to govern flows through that channel of succession; and it quibbles with the word “Church,” which in our laws means our particular organization, but in the committee’s use of it, involves the assertion of the identity, in point of organization, between our Church and the early Church as one society, and the binding effect of all the canons of all the ancient Churches upon us, with all their contra- dictions and absurdities, and antiquated customs. Now, I repudiate all such double-faced arguments—all claims of mystical descent of Apostolical power—all such histerical hy- pothesis of organic identity, as a basis for an inquiry into the comparatively simple matter, What are the powers which the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, for the Dio- cese of Maryland, confers upon, and recognizes in, her Bishops, Priests, and Deacons? Her doctrines, discipline, and organization, she affirms to be consistent with the Bible; and her discipline and organization are partly deduced from it—partly the result of lawful legislative power. But what her discipline, and organization, and doctrines are, cannot be known otherwise than by her articles, which alone de- fine her views of the meaning of the Bible—by her formularies of worship, which illustrate and embody, in a practical form, the worship flowing from her doctrines—and from her constitution and canons, which contain her mode of vesting and enforcing the ecclesiastical and ministerial powers considered by her pro- per to be established. Now, though this Church may establish or recognize any offi- ces or orders, yet that will not involve, unless it be expressed, any theory of the nature or limits of their authority. For her chil- dren, their authority is what she gives them or declares them to have. She may so give or declare in obedience to a higher law, or sim- ply because she so thinks expedient to organize her government ; but the bestowal does not involve either reason or theory for the act. Her members may view the institution differently—some as divine, others as human, in its origin—as mutable or immutable in its nature; but if the Church has not declared her views in an au- thentic and legal form, they are no part of her laws, no part of 14 the office instituted, no criterion of its powers or its duties in her eye, nor of its right over her inferior officers. The view of our Church constitution and laws is, that her arti- cles contain a full exposition of her creed, for which alone she is responsible; her rubrics and formularies define and exemplify her worship, and distribute to her Ministers their respective shares of those services; and her laws, and constitution, and articles de- fine the powers of her officers. They may not settle the question of the origin. or the nature of those powers or rights; but what- ever the origin or nature, whatever may be the capacity of pos- sibility inherent in the order, or involved in its name, as used in other Church organizations, the right and prerogative she chooses to annex to it can be found, and authoritatively determined by her laws and articles alone. The Church speaks in her law, not in the views and opinions of those of her members who may hap- pen to have passed it. Her articles, as well as the powers she ascribes to her officers, may be erroneous ; but that does not make them the less her law, still less does it authorize what others may think the better view, as her law—till she has changed her arti- cles. The remedy for the evilis not to declare she does teach what she does not teach, because she ought so to teach. The remedy is much easier and more simple. Those who do not like the teach- ings of her communion can get out of az. The illuminati of the succession need not mourn the hardships of the flight, for the road to Rome is smooth, straight, of gentle inclination, grateful to the tender feet of recent proselytes, and very short. Now, what is the capacity of possibility of the Bishops of our Church, and what are their rights to exercise that capacity as to time and place ! The canon Ist says, there shall always be three orders in the ministry, viz: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. But this does not define what are the respective capacities, nor the relative rights of these orders. Congress may declare that the army of the United States shall consist of privates, lieuten- ants, captains, majors, colonels, and generals; but if it stopped there no body could divine their relative right by an inquiry into the military laws of England or of Rome. The canon propounds no theory of the origin or nature of these orders, and the article is equally and wisely silent ; contenting itself with affirming the doctrine of common sense, that no one can take on himself the office of public preacher or ministering the sacra- ment, unless lawfully called; and it declares a person to be law- fully called who is chosen by men who have public authority given them zn the congregation to call and send Ministers. If called or chosen by persons having public authority in the congregation, it suffices, and the Church has not tangled itself with the questions of Apostolical succession, nor with any theory as to where the power resides to make the call. The next step, after declaring the number of orders and the principle on which public authority should be conferred in the 15 Church, was not to say that the Apostolical succession was pait of the law of the Church; but simply to declare that a complete order of Bishops existed de facto in this Church, in the persons of Bishops White, and Seabury, and Provost. Having declared them to be Bishops of this Church, did the Convention of 1789 stop there, and leave their powers to doubt- ful disputation, to theoretic deductions from a fabulous succes- sion, to mysterious effusions from Episcopal fingers in the pro- cess of ordination, or the saintly and patriarchal moderation of our right reverend fathers? Oh, no! more explicit than even the Constitution of the United States on the Executive power, they carefully declare the competency of those Bishops to every pro- per act and duty of the Episcopal office in these United States, (and then proceeding to define and enumerate those acts and du- ties,) as well in respect to the consecration of other Bishops and the ordering of Priests and Deacons, as for the government of the Church, according to such rules, canons, and institutions as Now ARE, or hereafter may be duly made and ordained by the Church IN THAT CASE. Nothing but perversity and blindness, or vaulting ambition, can, through or round, or over that canon, deduce any r7ght in our Bish- ops to perform any act or duty of the Episcopal office not enume- rated in that canon, or in some other canon of this Church, then or since passed. They derive the right to ordain in this Church, not from their consecration, for that would equally entitle the Bishop of Rome to impose on us his Priests,—for surely hzs orders are un- questionable ;—but from the first resolution which adopts them as the persons to fill the first of the three orders which the Conven- tion had declared should always exist in our Church; and from the second resolution which enumerates the “capacities of pos- sibility ” of our Bishops, and defines the rule according to which alone that capacity should develope itself into act, according to the existing or future canons, rules, and institutions made and or- dained by the Church ; not according to the canons of the “early church ;” not according to the inherent claims to be minister of the word and sacraments and rulers of the Church; from no such sources, by no such authority, but according to the canons, rules, and in- stitutions made and ordained by the Church in that case. Without a law they were powerless, They could not ordain unless it were according to a law made and ordained by the Church in that case— that is, for that express purpose; for till the law existed no one could act according to it, and they had no right to act but accord- ing to it. “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” said the Constitution. Executive power was a term as well known as Episcopal power; it was coeval with government, and essential to civil society ; but no- body thought of ascertaining the President’s powers from the Executive power of the Roman Republic or the English Mon- 16 archy. Yet our Government, as well as those Governments, were civil societies, and quite as analogous in form as our Church and the Nacine or the early Church. And the connexion of our coun- try and government with that of England, and that of England with Imperial and Republican Rome, was quite as close and clear as that of our Church with that of England, and hers with those of Rome, Constantinople, or Antioch ; and these Na- tional Churches are the bodies our articles recognise as having the powers of independent legislation. It was plain that as the canon declared what should be the orders and grades of Minis- ters to exercise the powers to be conferred by the Church, so here the Constitution defined the person who should wield the powers that might be vested in the Executive. The second resolution vested the Bishops with a right they had not before—the right to act as Bishops of this Church, and bound ‘them to act according to law—the laws of this Church. The Constitution of the United States, less suspicious and cautious, said the President shall see that the laws shall be faithfully exe- cuted; but how? According to his will and pleasure, by virtue of metaphysical deductions from the nature of government and Executive power? Might he bastinado a refractory chargé, or bowstring an insolent clerk? For in either of those modes he might see that the laws be executed. No! he could only execute the laws by the laws, in the mode and with the powers they point- ed out. He was declared commander of the army and navy ; he thus had a capacity of possibility ; but it did not follow that there must be an army for him to command, nor if there were one, that he could command it to suppress a rebellion, though rebellion was preventing the execution of the laws, unless Congress gave him by law the right so to exercise his constitutional capacity to command the army for that purpose. Maryland was even more explicit to the same effect. She, while yet destitute of a Bishop, and while resolving that she would have one, carefully declared what powers he should have. She declared it one of her fundamental principles that the office of a Bishop in this Church shall be to ordain Priests and Deacons, to administer the Apostolical right of confirmation, to have pre- eminence in ecclesiastical affairs, to preside in conventions, and to have the right of visiting and superintending the parishes with- in his diocese or district. This was finally adopted in 1790, and was a slight modification of the fundamental principle of 1784. The question I am now discussing is not the quantity of power conferred on the Bishops or recognised as proper to be held by that order, but where the order derived its rights in the American Church? Whether from any inherent right flowing from conse- cration, or from the laws and canons of our Church? And it is perfectly plain that while all our laws and constitutions are silent as to any such inherent capacity of possibility, they are all explicit in defining the nature of the officer called by them Bishop ; 17 and they all confer his powers by law, expressly defining and enu- merating them, leaving nothing to flow from any inherent reser- voir of Episcopal power supposed to be filled up through the long and leaky drain of Apostolical succession. They were justly sus- picious of the purity of any stream whose only channel for cen- turies had lain through the cloace of Papal Rome. They some- times speak of and define what they considered to be the true model of the Episcopacy as they supposed it established by the Apostles ; but they never leave the powers of the office to be de- rived by succession from that source, nor hy any undefined and inferential analogies, but setting down what they considered to have been the powers given the Bishops by the Apostles, they give similar powers to their Bishops. Having thus defined the nature and powers of the Episcopal office, we must turn to the canons, and rubrics, and formularies of worship, to ascertain how each of the orders was disposed of, what were their relations, and how their “capacities of possibili- ty” could legally be exercised. We have seen that Bishops were the persons in whom our Church vested the capacity to ordain exclusively; the right to ordain, that is the right to wield the power bestowed zn this Church, flowed from and could only be exercised according to the canons. The Bishop had also a capacity of possibility to confirm and to preach, and to minister the sacrament, and to rule, and the Presbyter had likewise a capacity of order, or of possibility, to perform the three last functions of ministerial power ; but till the laws, the canons, had given them a rule according to which, and a place in which, they could act, they could not act at all; the law of this Church recognized no inherent right to exercise any function by any rule, and from any source of authority, other than according to her laws made in the case. We have seen the Maryland Church asserting in her funda- mental principles, her right to define, and actually defining, the powers of her Bishops; and on the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, of which Maryland be- came a Diocese, that Church defines in analagous terms that office, and expressly confines the exercise of the powers it recog- nizes and allows, to a strict conformity to the laws of the Church in the particular case. A general and supreme constitution was established in 1789, but no theory of the nature, or origin, or lim- its of the ministerial functions, according to which they were to be expounded or deduced, was adopted or enacted as that of the Church. The most opposite and irreconcilable views are known to have been held by the persons who formed, and the States which concurred in, the general constitution of 1789. They agreed on the orders they would recognize, but not why they did so. They concurred ina given distribution of spiritual functions, but were diametrically opposed as to the reasons of it. They agreed in the expediency of obtaining ordination and consecration of their 3 18 Bishops from England, but not on the reasons rendering it expe- dient, still less did they agree with the theory which asserted, or assumed, the necessity of Episcopal consecration to the existence of a perfect Episcopate. They agreed in allowing the Bishops to have certain exclusive capacities, and also in not allowing those capacities of order to be exercised otherwise than according to the canons and constitution of this Church: but they did not assert, or admit, that those functions could not be otherwise vested. ; . To ascertain the canonical rights of our Bishops, we must there- fore look to the canons and constitution. Though the Bishops of the English Church are certainly regu- larly consecrated Bishops, and so have the capacity to ordain or confirm, yet they have no righé to perform those functions in our Church. But our Bishops, having only the same capacities of order, have also the right to exercise them within our Church ; and our constitution assumes the right to allow the one and to forbid the other. It is therefore because the canons of our Church authorize our Bishops to exercise their functions in our Dioceses, that they can do so; and not by reason of their order. It may be—I do not say that it is—but it may be that it is not compe- tent for a Church to vest even a competency to perform certain acts in persons not ordained in a certain way; but it is certain, beyond dispute, that the possession of that “competency of possi- bility” does not involve, nor does it bestow, the right to exercise it in our Church. That flows solely from our canons giving the right ; and consequently the right to exercise the power stops with its source, the canon law of the Church. The declaration of the powers, or capacities, of Bishops in the American Church, and especially in the Diocese of Maryland, lay at the bases of the whole ecclesiastical structure; they are the fundamental principles on which rests the edifice. The Bishop is to exercise the functions which our canons recognize as within the scope of its idea of the Episcopal office, “according to such rules, canons, and institutions, as now are, or hereafter may be, duly made and ordained by the Church in that case.” The only question that remains, is, what canons, rules, or insti- tutions, have been duly made by the Church in this case? The constitution and canons have first arranged the territory of the Church into Dioceses and Parishes. To the former, it has assigned Bishops as the corresponding officer; to the latter, Pres- byters. The capacities of the Bishop are first limited territorially. He is required to confine the exercise of his Episcopal office to his proper Diocese. Const., Art. IV. The officiating of the clergymen—that is, the right to put in action their “ capacity of possibility,” in the awkward but accu- rate phrase of 'aylor—is territorially limited to his parish or parochial cure. Canon xxxi, 1832. 19 But a Parish or parochial cure is a part of a Diocese in our system. Every Parish is contemplated as part of a Diocese. The Bishop is the Church officer for the Diocese, the Priest for the Parish. The question is, to solve the relations between them. Parishes were unknown in the early Church; it is therefore folly to seek in its history any solution of the problem. The early Churches settled the rights of the Bishops to exercise their powers or capacities of order, with reference to the Diocese con- sidered as an unit, and to his powers as exclusive and absolute. Our Church has adjusted the rights of the Bishop with a view to the rights and duties of the Parish Priest; and whatever it has bestowed as a right on the one, it has necessarily excluded from the other. It does not even contemplate reghts as vested in either Bishops without a Diocese, or Priests without a Parish. It never assigns duties to either order, unless possessed of a cure within which they may be exercised. It has nothing to do with Priests at large ; it forbids their creation.—Canon xix, 1832. The relative rights and duties of these two orders, and these two jurisdictions of the Diocese and the Parish, are defined with the utmost precision in the canons, and in the formularies and rubrics adopted by them. The Presbyter having a Parish has the sole and exclusive right to perform the functions of a Presbyter in that Parish, according to the canons. But the Bishop has a like exclusive right to exer- cise all his exclusively and peculiarly Episcopal functions or powers of capacity in every part of his Diocese. The Episcopal prerogatives, distinctively belonging to the Bishop, being not pos- sessed at all by the Priest, can never come in conflict with his rights. If the Bishop confine himself to confirmation, ordination, and supervision, according to the modes prescribed by the canons, collision is impossible. But the Bishop has, besides his exclusively Episcopal capaci- ties of order, also the same capacities of order with the Priest, the power or capacity to preach, to minister in the word, and to administer the sacraments. The question is, when, and where, and how has he a canonical right to exercise these capacities. I say, only when and where the canons, and rubrics, and for- mularies give him the right todo so. If they have assigned all times and places for those functions to others, they have excluded him; and if they have not provided him with a time and place, a sphere and opportunity, to exercise those functions which he had while a priest, he has no right, no canonical right, to exercise them. It is to be inferred, that on his elevation to the Episcopate, the Church presumed him to be devoted to, and occupied by, its pe- culiar duties and rights, and substituted in the place he left some other Priest. It did not appoint him Brshop for the purpose of his exercising the functions of a mere Priest. And, indeed, while 20 the canon seems to contemplate the Bishop’s retaining some pecu- liar parochial charge when it can be done, yet in this Diocese it has been found expedient to relieve the Bishop from any special charge, solely for the reason that his Episcopal functions de- mand and absorb his time.—Resolution Md. Con. 1839. But in reality there is no such universal exclusion of the Bishop from the right to exercise all his ministerial func- tions. They are only appropriated to certain times and places, or left to their proper field, the speezal parochial cure which the Church presumes him to have, where not engrossed by his Epis- copal duties.—Canon xxv, 18382. The canons and the prayer book carefully distribute among the different orders of the ministry all the services and rights which the Church has seen fit to recognize or create. The starting point is the office of institution, the formal legal mode of entering on the rights of a Parish Priest in pursuance of the election. ‘Till then the Priest has a capacity of order to per- form generally the functions of a Priest; but he has no right to perform them. Not but that he may, if requested by another Priest having a Parish, exercise them in that Parish, for that is not exercising them by virtue of his right, but by virtue of the right and permission of the other. Upon institution, or some other less formal accession to the incumbency of a Parish, the Priest becomes a Parish Priest, having cure of souls; and to that relation the law annexes the right to exercise the functions for which he became capacitated by the laws of the Church at his ordination. The office of institution, and the letter of institution, are the best expositors of those rights, together with the canons more specifically defining them. [| shall confine my remarks and quo- tations to the letter. The style of the letter is that of a commission toa civil or military office : “ We, by these presents, give and grant unto you, &c., &c., our license and authority to perform the office of a Priest in the Parish of E, and hereby do institute you into said Parish, possessed of full power to perform every act of sacerdotal function among the people of the same—you continuing in com- munion with us, and complying with the rubrics and canons of this Church, and such lawful directions as you shall at any time receive from us.” He is then reminded that he is “faithfully to feed” the flock committed to him, and that he is accountable “to us here,” and God hereafter. It then proceeds: “We authorize you to claim and enjoy all the accustomed temporalities, &c., till a separation by common consent of Priest and people, or at the pleasure of one subject to the arbitrament of the Bishop, with the advice of his Presbyters.” This commission is not an emanation of Episcopal prerogative, but the form of commission prescribed and enacted by the canons of 1804 and 1808, as the law of the Church. The Bishop gets 21 his whole power from that enactment, and without it could not institute at all. It was suggested, with great simplicity, that the language of the letter imported a license and authority flowing from the Bishop, which, it was inferred, he could control or revoke in whole or in part at his pleasure. But “give and grant” import an irrevocable bestowal of the right; the ¢enure is, till a volun- tary dissolution of the relation between Minister and people, which, therefore, cannot be controlled by the Bishop; and the language is just of equivalent import to a civil commission, be- stowing authority on the officers of the United States, whose func- tions the President, like the Bishop, is authorized to bestow, but not to exercise. The Bishop is the officer of the law to give to the Minister instituted the rights which the law had prescribed, and nothing more. To their credit be it spoken, none of the “learned” members of the Convention countenanced, otherwise than by their silence, so preposterous a pretence. “ Every act of sacerdotal function” is expressly set down in the formularies and rubrics of the prayer book, or the canons of the Church. These functions are threefold: the right of public instruction ; the right to conduct the public worship and minister the sacra- ments; the right to govern his Parish, according to the laws. For the first purpose, the law gives him the control of the pul- pit of his Parish. Other modes of instruction are equally open to him and others. The right to preach now in our Church is insep- arable from the relation of Parish Priest. In the early times, after the Reformation, no Parish Priest in England could preach unless by the special license of the Bishop—another instance of the Church’s stultification, in the opinion of the committee, I pre- sume, in giving in the office of ordination these powers, and the moment the ordination is complete, taking them away again by the canons. Entertaining a more respectful consideration for the wisdom of the Church, I respectfully suggest that the stultification, in either case, results from the committee’s confounding power or capacity of order, with a legal right to exercise that capacity. The second is provided for in the various forms of public wor- ship, and administration of the sacraments, explained and applied to their appropriate occasions by the rubrics, all of which are contained in the prayer book ; and this prayer book every Minister is expressly commanded by the canon (xlv, 1832) to use; and he is prohibited from using any other prayer than it contains. Our Church recognizes or has no other prayer, no other form of worship or thanksgiving, no other rite or ceremony, no other cele- bration of public worship of any sort, or on any occasion, than those expressly provided for in the canons, or the prayer book, which is itself prescribed by a canon. If any other form be used, she is not responsible for it; she does not sanction it. She has only confided a special and limited authority to her Bishops to 22 “compose prayers or thanksgivings for extraordinary occasions,” and “forms of prayer to be used before legislative and other pub- lic bodies.”—Canon xlvii, 1832. Whatsoever is more than this is usurpation. The last article but one of the constitution is explicit in its declaration that there shall be a book of common prayer, administration of the sacraments, and other rites and cere- monies of the Church, articlesof religion, and a form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Dea- cons; and that no alteration or addition shall be made in that book, or other offices or articles, unless proposed in one and adopt- ed in another General Convention.—Const., Art. viii. Her forms of worship and sacramental administration are there; the rules which shall guide and control the doctrinal instructions and preaching of her clergy are in her articles; and her offices of or- dination and consecretion define the person and the theatre for the performance of those acts of sacerdotal function. None of her officers are allowed to step beyond that book, and invoke the authority of the Church to sanction the act. The letter of institution confers the right of performing the “acts of sacerdotal function” within the Parish. The ordination service illustrates and enforces it. The candidate is required to promise “always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, &c. &c., “ so that you may teach the people committed to your cure or charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same,” and “to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cure, as need shall require,” &c. These pledges being exacted, the office bestows “ authority to execute the office of a Priest in the Church of God now committed to you,” &c., and then the former clause having bestowed the general powers of a Priest, the Church bestows “authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments, in the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed therete.” Thus, the ordination service vests the Priest, viewed as a Parish Priest, with the authority to minister the word and sacraments m the congregation to which he may be lawfully appointed, and not elsewhere. The institution pursuant to electioa is the lawful appointment to the particuiar Parish, within which he thenceforth has the right to exercise his authority to preach and minister the sacraments ; and the rubrics prescribe what he shall read, what prayer he shall say, what forms he shall observe. And the Bible read by the articles is the rule of his preaching, as the rubrics and formularies are the rules of his prayer and thanksgiving, in this Church. If we turn to the prayer book we find first, certain forms of public prayer and thanksgiving. They are the only forms which any Minister can use for the specified occasions of public worship. But who has the right to use them? That is to say, the Church bo 0 oO having directed public worship to be held on given occasions, and prescribed a form for its celebration, who is the person she has appointed to celebrate it? It isplain there can be but one person so having the right, though thousands be present having the “ca- pacity of order” to celebrate those services. The occasion and the place determine the person according to the canons and the rubrics. There may be several occasions, leading to several and very opposite results. If it be the celebration of divine service in a Parish, and for parochial purposes, and in a parochial church, then the Parish Priest is the only person on whom our canons confer the right to lead the services. When the rubrics direct anything to be done by the Minister or the Priest on such occasions, they mean the Parish Minister—the Parish Priest, though he be a Bishop—for a person though a Bishop, may have the ore and the duties, and the rights of a Parish Hiriese’ If the Bishop formally gives notice that he will hold confirma: tion ina Parish at any specified time, the Rector is required to have his list of candidates, and to present them at the appointed time to the Bishop. Ifthere be none, the Bishop can do nothing. If there be any, he has the right and is bound to confirm them. This rite is to be performed according to the form and the rubrics of the prayer book, appropriated for that rite. He is bound to follow them. He is bound to stop where they stop—he dare not add a word to that service, for it would be in direct violation of the Constitution of the Church. The Church gives him the right to confirm, according to that form, such, and such only as any Parish Priest may have presented, in his Parish and of his congre- gation. But there the order of confirmation ceases, and that is all the canons and rubrics of the Church require or authorize him to do. If the daily prayers of the Parish be read, the Parish Priest is the person appointed to read them; if a sermon is to be preached, the law gives him the right to preach it; if he has given notice for the communion, the law makes him the rightful dispenser of its holy mysteries. That the Bishop may have chosen the time of divine service to administer the rite of confirmation, is no reason why he should oust the parochial Minister’s right to celebrate his ordinary worship. That time is not appointed by the rubric ; the concurrence of the daily prayer and the sermon with the confirmation is an accident, or an arbitrary arrangement. The daily prayer, the sermon, the communion, are not parts of the order of confirmation. They are not required even to be performed upon occasions of confirmation. It may be held at times not devoted to the ordinary public services of the daily prayer, or preaching, or administration of the communion ; and consequently, from their accidental cele- bration on the same occasion, no reason can be derived for depriv- ing the Parish Priest of the ‘right to conduct his own ordinary services as he would were there no confirmation. To take any other view is to add to the prayer book, contrary to the canon ; 24 for it is not more explicit in giving to the Bishop the power to confirm, than it is in declaring the Parish Priest entitled to direct all the ministrations of the word and sacraments—all acts of sacerdotal functions, within his cure or charge. If the canon had said the morning or evening prayer, or the communion shall be part of the order of confirmation, then the Bishop’s right would have been clear. The omission of any such declaration, the pro- hibition of any alteration or addition in the prayer book, and the fact that treating those parts of public worship as parts of the order of confirmation, would, in fact, both alter and add to it, prove that the Bishop has no right to treat them as parts of, or connected with it. It is true the Bishop has cure or charge throughout the whole Diocese ; but he has no parochial cure in any part of it under our system, as Bishop, without election, to a Parish; and therefore nothing in the prayer book referring to Parish Priests as such, that is as Priests having charge of a Parish, has any applica- bility to the Bishop, unless he have a Parish. He may, it is true, have charge of a Parish, and so be a Parish Priest; and then every duty and every right and every rubric appertaining to the Parish Priest, applies to and binds him. But the right to minis- ter in a Parish Church, to read to that Parish the daily service, to administer the sacraments there, is delegated to the person having charge of the Parish—not for any reason common to him and the Bishop—not because he has a capacity to minister in the word and sacraments, in which capacity the Bishop participates—but be- cause he has been elected and instituted as Priest of that Parish, which the Bishop has not been. It is true, as the committee say, the Bishop must exercise his Episcopal rights in his Diocese—his appointed field; his rights and duties are certainly co-extensive with his Diocese, and per- vade every part of it; but that does not prove that his Episcopal rights are to exclude at any time the Parish Minister, nor does it help us to determine what those rights are. Episcopal rights are one thing, the rights of parochial ministration are another. The possession of the one does not involve the other, nor does the ca- pacity to exert both involve the right at any given time or place to exercise either. The institution of a Minister is the conferring of the right to put in action the powers he derived from his ordination in a par- ticular sphere. The election and introduction of a Bishop toa Diocese are the essential prerequisites to his right to put in ac- tion his capacity, obtained at consecration, to perform the acts peculiar to the Episcopal office. The election and introduction to his Diocese does nothing more than give him the right of exercising his Episcopal functions. He is not thereby made Parish Priest of any Parish; he has no right to any glebe or parsonage, still less has he parochial cure of all the parishes of the Diocese. He may have all the capa- cities—he certainly acquires none of the rights of Parish Priest. 25 This is reluctantly conceded. But it is maintained that a “Bishop, 7x order to the exercise of his Episcopal functions, pos- sesses the right on occasion of canonical visitations to control the services, and to take to himself such part of them as he may think fit.” It is difficult to tell which way this cross-eyed resolution looks. If it mean that a right to control the services—that is, the whole services—is necessary to his performance of his Episcopal func- tions, and therefore he has the right, the inference is correct ; but the necessity is an unfounded assumption. In this Church we know nothing of a Bishop’s duties at a visi- tation except what the canon gives us. Prior to the Constitution there was no National American Church, nor any Bishop of Ma- ryland; and, consequently, no Bishop of this Church had any right of visitation. When our Constitution was formed and the canon passed, then the right of visitation existed, and its nature must appear from the law of its creation. The canon says, “ Every Bishop in this Church shall visit the churches within his Diocese, for the purpose of examining the state of his Church, inspecting the behavior of his clergy, and ad- ministering the apostolic rite of confirmation.” ' This is the whole purpose and object of the canonical visita- tion; the only visitation known to our laws. It is required to be made at least once in three years, and the Parish visited is requir- ed to defray the expenses of the Bishop. To enable the Bishop to make the visitation, the clergy are directed, in reasonable rota- tion, to officiate for him in any parochial duties which belong to him, and the Bishop is required to keep a register of his proceed- ings.—Canon xxv, 1882. The next canon defines the duties of the Minister of the visited Parish, in order to the exercise of the Episcopal functions on oc- casions of canonical visitations; and they are the only duties known to our laws which the Bishop can on such occasions exact, and those laws mention nowhere any other rights as essential to the due exercise of what the canons define to be the Episcopal rights at a canonical visitation. These duties are to prepare young persons for confirmation, and, when ready, to present them to the Bishop for confirmation; to give information to the Bishop of the state of the congregation; and when congregations can- not be conveniently visited in any year, the information of the state of the congregation is to be brought or sent to the Bishop a month before the Convention. Will my learned and reverend friends now favor me with a de- signation of the duty of the Bishop at a canonical visitation, to the exercise of which a right to control the services at public worship is necessary? Will it enable him the better to examine the state of the Church, to read prayers on Sunday ? or to inspect the behavior of his clergy, is aright to administer the communion 4 26 himself at all conducive? or is the morning service any part of the order of confirmation ? or has the Bishop any other canonical function at a visitation? If there be any, the Church will feel instructed by its disclosure. The canons, the constitution, the rubrics, the consecration office, are alike and equally silent; and we are a little curious to know according to what canon, rule, or institution of this Church it is exercised. I respectfully suggest that any duty to which a control of the services is essential, or with which it is at all connected, is a figment of the commit- tees’ imagination. If they did not imagine one, then the words “in order to the exercise of his Episcopal functions” are an un- warranted insinuation of what was known not to exist. Or is it pretended that a part of the Episcopal functions, on a canonical visitation, is the administration of the Holy Communion? If such be the hypothesis, I wait for the proof. No canon, no rubric, no part of even the general commission of the consecration service makes it the right or the duty of a Bishop, upon a visitation, to read prayers, or to preach, or to administer the communion; and for the simple reason that the visitation is of a Parish already provided with a person whose r7ght and duty it is, by the express law of the Church, to discharge these very functions. There is no necessity for imposing on the Bishop the burden, nor for con- ferring on him the right to perform, on occasions of canonical visitations, any part of the duties already provided for and as- signed to a parochial officer. The Bishop’s duties are altogether of a different character. He is to confirm—for the Priest cannot do it. He is to inspect the conduct of the Priest, that he may properly rule his Diocese, cor- rect disorder, and watch neglect. He is to examine the state of the Church, that he may know its wants and necessities, its pro- gress or decline, in order to remedy the evil or promote the good. But the mere duties of a Parish Priest are no part of his duties as Bishop, at any time, least of all at a visitation. Will the prayer be uttered with more unction or fervor from his Episcopal lips? Or is it to be supposed, that the holy elements are more efficacious from his apostolic hands? Or is God, in adding his blessing to those his creatures, of bread and wine, for the first time, become a respecter of persons ? The Bishop has certainly a capacity for the performance of these functions; but the question is not as to the competency of his spiritual character, but whether they are part of his Episco- pal right on a visitation, or at any time. My view is, that the Bishop having on his ordination obtained the “capacity of order” to celebrate divine service, and to ad- minister the sacraments, retained that competency on his conse- cration as Bishop. He, then, retaining his former character as Priest, takes the additional character and functions of a Bishop ; but though he has a full competency from his order to exer- cise the functions both of Priest and of Bishop, yet his right to a4 exercise the one or the other, or both, depends upon his being placed in a charge whose duties require the performance of one or the other, or both. The ordination service expressly enumerates and confers on the Priest the power or authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments, where lawfully appointed to do so. These, with the administration of discipline as provided in the canons, are the appropriate rights of the Priest, on institution to a Parish, and not before. The consecration service says nothing about either ; but, assu- ming the possession of those attributes, liable to be called into act by the accession to the cure to which they are appropriate, the service confines itself to a general conferring of the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, and a general injunction—not to preach and minister the sacraments, but to give heed to reading, exhortation, and doctrine—to think- ing on things in the Bible—to administer discipline in mercy. The promises exacted do not in any case relate to the preaching or ministering of sacraments, but solely to his Episcopal capaci- ties, and to the spiritual exercises and cultivation of dispositions fit for his exalted station. He is required to promise to be faith- ful in ordaining, or sending, or laying hands upon, others; to be diligent in exercising such dicipline, as by the authority of God’s word, and the order of this Church, is committed to him; to drive away (not to introduce and foster) all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word—matters appertaining plainly to the office of an overseer of others—the general executive guar- dian of the faith and purity of the Church and the ministry—not to the daily ministration of parochial duty. Thus generally vested with the Episcopal functions, and pro- vided with a Diocese, we turn to the canons and rubrics for the rules by which his powers become rights, his capacities of order are developed into act, by being placed in a charge or cure ap- propriate and necessary to wake them into activity. The only duties we find anywhere specified, are to ordain, to confirm, and to govern; but till a Diocese is obtained, they are all undeveloped capacities; when it is obtained, then the same Jaw which bestows it, and consecrated the Bishop, and exacted a vow of conformity to the doctrine, worship, and discipline of this Church, prescribes the rule in accordance with which alone he acquires a right, under our Church organization, to exercise his “capacities of order.” — First, he is to ordain; but not any body, nor any how, but only persons presented with certain specified qualifications ; and the mode of ordination, its forms, and services, are minutely speci- fied. They seem so contrived as to call into play almost every Spiritual capacity of the Bishop. The ordination services comprise the whole services ofthe Church, from the morning prayers to the sermon, together with the commu- 28 nion and the particular formalities of ordination or consecration themselves. None of the services partake of a merely ordinary and parochial character. They are expressly prescribed as incident to the eminently Episcopal acts of ordination and consecration. The morning prayer is directed to precede the act of ordination as part of that service, without which that service could not be performed ac- cording to the rubric. The communion is directed to be admin- istered on the occasion, and its omission would be against the rubric, and its celebration is essential to canonical completeness of the ceremony of ordination and consecration. A sermon is di- rected to follow the morning prayer, and in the case of ordination, its topics and purposes are indicated in the rubric, and therefore the sermon is a part of the prescribed service and formalities on occasion of ordination and consecration. The rubrics contem- plate the Bishops, or some of them, officiating throughout. Every thing that takes place is an incident to their official duty. It can- not be left to rest upon the arrangements, the convenience, the caprice, the discretion of another. It has no relation to, nor any connexion with, parochial duties, or the rights of a Parish Priest. The Bishop is then not merely present in his very Episcopal char- acter—(I should like to know how he gets out of that character, or is it only lawn deep?) that he carries with him always and every where ; but he is performing an “ Episcopal function,” “in order to the performance of” which the right to control the services is ab- solutely essential; nay, by the prayer book those services, and that sermon, and that communion, are parts of the series of form- alities prescribed by the laws of the Church for the creation and admission of her Ministers. They all together form that high and solemn act of purifying and setting apart a child of earth from the things of the world, that he may exemplify the religion whose purity he preaches. It is this intimate and inherent connexion between all these services and the performance of the Episcopal function of ordination, it is because the Church has prescribed them all as parts of one solemn formality, whose performance is solely delegated to the Bishop, that the Bishop has the right, on this occasion, to exercise and put into act, his power to celebrate the service and sacraments, to control and direct the worship and the sermon. It can with no truth be said, that unless the Bishop have the power of controlling the services at a canonical visitation, the Church has “stultified” herself by conferring capacities whose exercise she has forbidden. For in the consecration service she does not confer any of the capacities peculiar to the priesthood, but only those essential to the Episcopate ; and if no other expla- nation appeared, it would be reasonable to say that those priestly capacities were henceforth left without an appointed field, because, elevated to a higher sphere, and having provided a different order of men for the performance of those functions, the capacity to perform them was left to slumber, without any special Episcopal 29 field to exercise them in, because they did not pertain to any duty of the Episcopal office. If the Bishop should become the incum- bent of a parochial cure, then they would awake into life, within the appointed sphere for their exercise. But this is not the case. There are peculiarly Episcopal func- tions which necessarily evoke these priestly capacities, and then the Bishop has, by the laws of the Church, and in his character of Bishop, and by virtue of his office, a right to exercise his power of celebrating the worship and sacraments of the Church. This is in accordance with his Episcopal dignity and character, within the plain letter of the law, relieves the Church from the imputed “stultification,” and exempts the parochial system from being left at the mercy of Episcopal discretion—or only saved by an illogical and arbitrary arrest of a conclusion short of its legiti- mate end. Stay there it would not. An anomaly is always worrying to logical minds. When the principle is once settled in men’s minds, the tendency of human reason is to develope all its logical results; and so strong is that tendency, that it is to be feared that even the eminent moderation, the reluctance to assume undelegated power, the repugnance to invade the rights and con- trol the discretion of others, which now so adorn the character of our Right Reverend Father, and for which Mr. Evans so justly eulogizes him, might be entangled by the sophistry of the times, and borne on by the current with a multitude to do evil. It is safer to settle the law on valid principles, and then leave it free to run its course and be glorified. This view of the canonical constitution of our Church is illustrated on every page of its ru- bries and its canons. It is not true that the right of the Bishop to take the adminis- tration of the communion into his own hands is denied on the ground, “that in the ordinary communion office the Minister is usually described as Priest.” It is denied because the right is in- cident to a parochial cure, which the Bishop has not. The lan- guage of the office illustrates, but is not the foundation proof of the principle. “The Minister,” is the usual designation of the officiating person in the rubrics. But the question is, what Min- ister is meant. It is sometimes varied, and Priest or Bishop sub- stituted, when their peculiar functions are in question, and it is desired to signify the fact. But whether the word Priest or Min- ister be used, in neither case does it contemplate a Priest or a Minister at large, without a cure. The rubric is the law of the Church speaking, not to wayfarers, or stragglers into her desk or pulpit ; not to Bishops casually and unofficially present at public worship, nor to Ministers preaching and praying for pastime; but when the rubric imposes a duty on “the Minister,” it means the Minister of the Parish having canonical charge of its concerns, be he Priest or Bishop by order. When it speaks of the Bishop, it means the Bishop of the Diocese present on duty, in his very Episcopal character; the law takes no notice of his presence in 30 any other character. If among the crowd of hearers, it would scarcely summon him to the altar to partake in the services. The meaning of the rubric of the communion office is, then, that the Parish Priest—not any Priest—not necessarily one who is merely a Priest—but the person having the functions of the Priestly order, and charged with the Parish or cure where the sacrament is being celebrated, exclusively charged with the right of admission to that holy sacrament, and of repelling the unwor- thy from its participation, is the person who, in the Parish, is alone charged with its administration. The Minister is to give warning of its administration, which implies a permanent incum- bent; the alms and oblations, in a basin provided by “the Parish,” are to be brought to the Priest (i. e. of the Parish ;) for by canon (lii., 1835,) the alms at the communion are required to be deposited with the Minister of the Parish; the Minister is to give notice of the bans of matrimony, of fast and holy days, and other matter to be published, all which relate to the permanent Priest of the Parish, who alone could be informed officially of most of them. Atter the sermon, which of course is supposed to be preached by the Parish Priest, the rubric says he shall return and begin the offertory, é&c., which shows that the same person throughout, the Parish Priest, is meant by the Priest, or “the Mimster.” This would seem to settle the question. If the rubric make no provi- sion for the celebration of the communion by any but the Parish Priest, the Bishop, not being such, cannot have the right, by vir- tue of any presence, to take it out of his hands; for that would be to prevent the Parish Priest from doing what the law enjoined on him. But the rubric is not silent—it excludes the claim of the Bishop. It contemplates his presence—of course his official presence—for it imposes a duty on him; but that duty involves the right of the Parish Priest, in spite of his presence, to perform his official duty. The final blessing is directed to be said by the Priest—of course the Parish Priest; but if the Bishop be present, the rubric directs that he shall pronounce the final blessing. The language is general—it embraces every presence of a Bishop of- ficially at parochial service; it gives him one right and imposes one duty on him whenever present at the parochial service, and thereby excludes every other; and further to confirm this view, the rubric directs the Parish Priest first to receive the communion himself, and then administer it to the Bishops, Priests, and Dea- cons, and others present. The Priest in charge of the Parish re- tains his precedence and right, in the discharge of his ministry, in spite of the presence of his ecclesiastical superior “in his very Episcopal character,” save in the single instance excepted by the rubric. The committee have entangled themselves in their old ambiguity. They cannot learn that the laws are not talking theories. They cannot remember that the gist of the argument is not, that the words Priest and Bishop designate different or- ders, and that the Priest, in virtue of his order, is appointed by 31 the rubric to administer the communion; but that the Church speaks, without reference to the order, to the person in charge of the Parish as the one only entitled to administer this sacrament there in the regular parochial worship, and calls him Priest as well as Minister, since nothing lower than a Priest has authority to administer the communion; and that phrase would as well in- clude a person who, while Bishop of the Diocese, also had a pa- rochial charge, and so was a Parish Priest. He would need no new form; for it speaks of the Minister and the Priest, meaning in both cases the Minister of the Parish, and such he is as well as Bishop. It is defining him not by his order, but by his relation to his charge. How emphatically the law charges the Parish Priest with the celebration of all public and parochial worship and sacraments, appears very distinctly from the rubrics of the institution. The Bishop has then specific forms of proceeding prescribed, which he must follow; he is present “in his very Episcopal character,” and discharging high duties—actually vesting another with the rights of Parish Priest. Yet so far from considering this official presence as giving him the right to control the services, the ru- bric, at the end of the office of imstztutzon, when the Bishop’s du- ties as Bishop had been completed, and the Minister was znstztu- ted, sets the new Parish Priest, in the very presence of the Epis- copal glory, to the administration of the communion. Usually the Bishop is represented by a Minister; but if present he is authorized to take his place, but his place only. Yet he is then as emphatically present “in his very Episcopal character,” as when on a visitation; and control of the service is quite as ne- cessary “in order to the exercise of his Episcopal function.” It has no connexion in fact, out of the heads of the committee, with either. When the Bishop, in his Episcopal character, is required and authorized to celebrate the communion, not, of course, as mere Parish Priest, but as incident to some exercise of Episcopal func- tions properly and exclusively so called, as in the ordination and consecration services, a form is specially provided, specifying in every rubric, not the Minister, not the Priest, but the Bishop, as the officiating personage. Every thing of a merely parochial character is omitted ; there are no notices of the bans of matrimo- ny, nor of the holy days or fasts, nor of the communion; and the alms are delivered to the Bishop, not to the Parish Priest. Every thing bespeaks the presence of the Bishop, in his character of general overseer of the Church, in the performance of his high functions, and the entire absence of every mark of parochial ministration or service. The remark of the committee, reiterated by Mr. Evans (p. 8) in substance, that the supposed difficulty from the use of the word Priest in the ordinary communion service, may be obviated by his resorting to the order prescribed with the ordination ser- 32 vice, which is not confined by the rubric to that service, “and which no rubric forbids him from using whenever he may think proper to do so,” is frivolous and irrelevant, and involves an entire misapprehension of the true point of difficulty. That does not arise from the want of a form free from the word Priest, but be- cause the Bishop has no right to do the thing ttself. If he have no right to invade the right of the Parish Priest, in administering the communion in his Parish services, the existence of that form cannot bestow it. It is a form which, perhaps, may be used on all occasions of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by a Bishop, in the discharge of his Episcopal functions, whether of ordain- ing a Priest, or consecrating a Bishop or a Church. But the form is provided for the occasions when the Bishop has the right to do the thing itself. If the possession of a form and a capacity of order be alone requisite to settle the right, then the Bishop, armed with this form, and trammelled by no restraining rubric, can apply the form to every occasion his fancy may suggest. With it he may invade every Parish, and oust every Parish Priest from this his most cherished privilege, and utterly disorganize the Church by destroying the discipline and control of the Min- isters resident, in admitting to, or excluding from the communion persons of whose fitness or unfitness they alone are competent judges. So my reverend and learned friend’s argument proves too much, and demonstrates its own worthlessness. The true and plain view of the matter is this: the form exists, and is pro- vided for occasions of celebration of the Supper by the Bishop in that character, and as incident to, and part of, some act of peculiarly Episcopal function. What those occasions are have been above enumerated; they are defined in the rubrics, and whatsoever goes beyond them is usurpation and illegality. The propositions of Mr. Evans (pp. 10 and 11) are possibly very true, but prove nothing to the point. If “they are the basis” of the asserted right, he may relieve himself from the unfounded suspicion that “it is felt” that their overthrow is “impossible,” and quite as reasonable an explanation of Mr. Gassaway’s neg- lectful silence may be found in the unfortunate fact that Mr. Evans’ pamphlets are not, like the laws, presumed to be known by all men; or perhaps because he did not consider them as quite equal in authority to the report of the committee as a foundation for the principles of the Holy Apostolic Church. When a few centuries shall have rolled round, and Mr. Gassaway shall be forgotten, save as a presumptuous and heretical opposer of the successor of the Apostles in his “wise and judicious exercise of a discretion canonically vested in him,” it is possible that argu- ment may be elevated to the rank of the Ignatian Epistles, known and read of all men; and then to discuss the case without refer- ence to it, will certainly imply the felt impossibility of meeting it, weighty in the panoply of truth, and hoary with the authority of ages of silent acquiescence. It is possible that then he may oo be looked back to with a species of kind indulgence for his lenient concession of “the right of the Church to regulate the exercise of Episcopal function,” or perhaps some learned critic may vin- dicate kis memory from injury by the fragmentary condition of his “remains,” and suggest that “canonically” is an interpolation of a later day, and of low and latitudinarian principles. Will he accept as a peace offering my atonement for Mr. Gas- saway’s neglect ? The first proposition, “That the Bishop is a Minister of the word and sacraments, in other words a Priest,” who denies? and what does it prove but a competency to perform the duties of a Priest when the appropriate sphere is assigned him? The second, “That he has jurisdiction throughout his diocese” is alse true; but to do what? to discharge the duty of Parish Priest every where? Is there no parochial cure which the Bishop may not invade? Or is he not confined to the jurisdiction of an Episcopal character, given him by the canons, and to be exercised only in accordance with them; and consequently if existing, yet latent and incapable of exercise, save so far as the Church has provided for them according to law? The third proposition, “'That visitation is an exercise of juris- diction,” is perfectly true; but what is the conclusion from these premises so ostentatiously and triumphantly paraded? Surely nothing more than that the Bishop has the right of visitation through- out his Diocese; and one would suppose that it might have been assumed without such formal proof of what nobody disputes. He cannot have forgotten his admonition to Mr. Gassaway, that “such a change of issue can only serve any cause, by inducing the ignorant to believe that the persons against whom such arguments are produced, really rest their cause” on their denial. Such a mode of warfare it is “ difficult to reconcile with the ninth com- mandment.” “There are minds to which such artifices are natu- ral and congenial, but they are very unworthy of” Mr. Evans. It was not required to prove the right of visitation; the canon gives tt, and says he shall visit the various Parishes for specific purposes. What it was required to prove was, that the control of the services in the parochial Church, contemporaneous with the visitation, is a part of the visitation, or necessary in order to the exercise of some Episcopal function appropriate to a visita- tion. Of this, from beginning to end of his remarks, there is not the slightest attempt at proof, from laws, canons or rubric. That is, there is no law prescribing or allowing it—no rubric mentions it—no necessity is shown for it—no good purpose to be answered by it; and the entire absence of even a claim of the right, is lame- ly explained by saying Mr. Trapnell was the first man in the Universal Church, publicly and personally to deny the right of the Bishop to regulate the services at a visitation. The reply is as valid and as easy as the explanation, that Mr. Trapnell was the first so to deny in the Universal Church, because Bishop 5 34 Whittingham was the first of the successors of the Apostles, whe not content with the courteous and hospitable invitation to his predecessors to honor the Presbyter, and favor his parishioners with his eloquence and unction, grasped as a right, what they had enjoyed as a courtesy. The only formal denial of the right was the consequence of its first open and public assertion. The argument in its support is, in substance, this: that the an- cient Bishops had power to minister (of course it is meant in every capacity) throughout their Dioceses; and the Presbyters, where they were appointed by them, but not exclusive of them.” That the institution of Parishes has altered “ this so far as to give the Priests a right to minister in their parishes, but not to the exclusion of the Bishop; and the conclusion is asserted that our Bishops have the same powers with the early Bishops, liable it is conceded, to be regulated by the Church, but not to betaken away. Hesays “the power is claimed as inherent in the office itself;” and conceding that there is not in scripture “any precise account of the powers of the Episcopal office,” he attempts to “gather what were its powers prom the practic of the primitive Church.” His argu- ment is an agglomeration of miscellaneous opinions and dicta, all in his own vein of argument, attempting to deduce and prove the rights of the Bishops of the modern from those. of the ancient Churches; and when any power is proved to have been exer- eised in the latter, to claim its existence in the former, with an am- biguous and hesitating proviso that it may be regulated, but not taken away by our canon law. Against this view and this proof I enter my solemn and earnest protest on behalf of the laity of this Church, as inconsistent with the constitution and canons of their Church, subversive of their rights, and involving the essence of a spiritual despotism. The very form of the argument is an absurdity. The Bishop of An- tioch or of Jerusalem exercised such a power, therefore the Bishop of Maryland has that power!! Will not my learned expositor of the faith follow his principles a little further—to their grave? Alfred, King of England, sat in judgment in person in his courts, and administered justice by his own hands to his people—the Kings of England have always been the fountain of justice ; there- fore, no statute forbidding, Victoria may preside on the Queen’s Bench!! Alfred first personally judged and then hanged Cadwin, because he condemned Hackway to death without the assent of all the jurors; therefore, if Denman doth the like, Victoria may first judge and then hang him! !—for surely she is the successor of Alfred in every sense that. our Bishops are successors of those of the early Church, and in a much closer sense: she is the Queen of the same Kingdom. The true parallel to the argument is more absurd. The German Emperors were the successors of the Roman Emperors, therefore their power was absolute, ex- tending to life and death, and embracing the whole power of legislation; or is it unfair to urge that, the Roman Empire em- 35 bracing Europe, each Kingdom occupying its soil may deduce the powers of its rulers from the rights of the Roman Emperors. Their Kingdoms are parts of the civil society, occupying the limits of the Roman Empire, as our Church is a part of the Uni- versal Church. The folly is, in confounding organic identity of the particular Church or State, with mere succession in point of time to the regulation of the affairs of religious or of civil con- duct. The Universal Church has never been an organized body prescribing laws, any more than “ civil society” has ever been one government, the ecumenical councils, so called, to the contrary not- withstanding; if it ever was, it is not so now. Our articles as- sert the right of “ each particular or national church” to do what- ever could be done by man’s authority in the Church; and our national Church now stands clothed with as ample and uncon- trolled powers of legislation, as all or any of the earlier Churches. She has assumed the right of defining her articles of faith as in- herent in herself; and I suppose our Right Reverend Father would not venture to prefer io her exposition of any article the opposing declaration of any early council. The Protestant Epis- copal Church looks with respect to the decisions and views of the early Church, especially of the Nicene age; but she does not re- cognize any usage, custom, or canon, of any Church, national or universal, as her Jaw—as the source or rule of any right to any, the least of her Ministers. Different views may be, and are held, of the organization of the apostolic Church, of the extent and origin of the early Epis- copal rights, of their origin from the Apostles, or from the Church subsequent to them, as well as different views of the doctrines of the trinity and the sacraments, and the nature and operations of faith, and its relation to good works. But does this give us the right to hunt up the opinions of the early Church, confused and conflicting, or even unanimous, and then palm them off as the views of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States ? Surely her teachings can only be found in her articles—her di- cipline in her canons—her views of the powers of her officers in her forms of consecration and ordination. They may be errone- ous in theory, but that is not the question—though erroneous they are hers. She assumes and avers the conformity to scripture of all her articles, and ceremonies, and offices; but if, in fact, they do not conform to it, they are not the less her laws and her views. Those who do not like them, can leave her communion; but they are not authorized to substitute their logic for her symbols—to argue that the Episcopal Church says her worship and organiza- tion is conformable to scripture and antiquity; but this form or this canon is not so conformed, therefore it is not her form or her canon; when a glance at her laws will show the canon formally enacted. In spite of such reasoning, the canon continues to be her law. The right to be a Bishop of this Church had no existence be- fore her organization; the right to be her Bishop flows solely 36 from her canons and constitution, else the English or Romish Bishops could rule and minister for her without her authority. And when they become and are admitted to be her Bishops, it is only under the express condition of viewing the Bible as she views it; of ministering according to her formularies; of ruling according to her canons ; of visiting according to her directions. She never refers to tradition, nor to the early Church, nor to the English Church, for any right of her officers, for any rule of law, for any mode of procedure. She assumes and asserts her own perfect independence, her competency to every ecclesiastical act, and puts down in her laws, and rubrics, and forms, her articles of faith, and worship, and rule. She avers the conformity of her Church organization to the Bible and the model of antiquity ; but she has first completed the edifice before she compares it with the august ruins of the early temple, or approves its mature con- formity to the teachings of the Gospel. She is guilty of no such puerility as to declare that her system of government and faith were those of the Bible, without specifying what they were. She says her Bishops are modeled after the Apostolic idea, but she shows in all detail what are the powers and duties of these officers before she affirms their conformity to scripture : and per- haps the power or attribute not specified in her canons, which some of her learned members may think a part, and even an essential part, of the early Church’s view of the Episcopate, she, if questioned, would utterly repudiate. To add to her ennumer- ation of Episcopal functions, is to change her formularies, and to usurp her legislative power. She only affirms the Apostolicity of those specific powers she enumerates, those specific duties she imposes; and if others are supposed equally to inhere in the Episcopal office, yet till she has said so through her only author- ized mouth, her General Convention. her Bishops have no right to wield the power, or to claim the attribute. Her silence is a negation upon the claim as part of the authority of her Bishops, for whose conformity to scripture she stands guaranty. She has entrusted to no man’s logic the settlement of her rules of faith and practice. The early Bishops ruled their Dioceses; so do ours; but our Bishops can inflict no penalty, exact no obedience, prescribe no rule, for which a specific authority is not found in the canons, “according to” which they can alone act. The early Bishops judged and rebuked presbyters and laity, and excommunicated them; with us the judicial power over presbyters is vested in courts, Whose organization is prescribed. Can the Bishop revert to his supposed inherent power of ruling, judging, and rebuking ? Our laws leave the power of repelling from the communion to the Parish Priest. Can the Bishop, without usurpation, forbid ac- cess to any one communicant in his whole Diocese? The early Bishop was the recipient of the alms of the people. Can our Bishop touch a cent of the contributions of the faithful at the 37 offertory? The power of confirmation is conferred expressly in consecration. Can he confirm any one not presented by the Parish Priest? Surely none of these things are deducible from the early Church; but they flow from the fact, that our Church has proclaimed her system of government and laws, and what she has not inserted she has not adopted, nor conferred on, nor recognized in, her officers. And thus is it with the right of visitation. It had no existence in the ancient Church; for there were no Parishes to visit. We are assured that the Bishop was sole and universal incumbent. If he went to a particular congregation, it was his own congrega- tion ; he came to see not how others were performing their duty, but how his agents were performing his duties. The right of visitation, as now recognized, had its historic origin with the rise of the parochial system. But with the history of it, we, as a Church, have nothing to do. Our church knows nothing of visitation, but what her own laws have said of it. She may have moddled it after the English sys- tem. It approaches if more nearly than any other. But she does not refer to nor adopt that system as hers, as frequently our new States adopt the laws of New York or the common law of Eng- land by a simple reference, subject to subsequent alteration. But she has declared according to what rule a Bishop shall visit his Diocese. The Canon xxv, 1832, directs when, and for what purposes, he shall visit his Diocese, and provides for the perform- ance of his peculiar parochial duties while so absent. The next one prescribes the duties of the Minister of the Parish visited. A canonical visitation must be one, according to this canon; for there is no other word in the laws of the Church on the subject. He is acting according to the canon so long as he does what this canon directs; when he does, as part of his visitorial power, any other act, he is not acting according to the canon, but beyond it. He has no right to require the obedience of the Parish Priest ; for he has no power to govern, except according to the canons. As to the Bishop’s right to instruct his people, to admin- ister the sacrament, and the like, his general right of instructing and guiding his Diocese, is provided for by the direction to ad- dress pastoral letters to the people, to deliver at least once in three years a,charge to the Clergy, of his Diocese. In England each Bishop is provided with a Cathedral Church—his proper see— considered as the Parish Church of all the Diocese; and there he ministers as Parish Priest, with such aid as his chapter and and others may afford. We have provided nothing of the kind; but the Bishop is supposed by the canon, though not absolutely required, to have “ parochial duties belonging to him ;” and pro- vision is made for supplying the place of a chapter of the Cathe- dral Church by his Ministers in rotation. The theory of the Cathedral system in England seems to be a relic there of the early condition of the Diocese, before its divi- 38 sion into Parishes, when the Bishop was the universal incumbent of the whole Diocese. But the Church of that age is about as much like ours as the monarchy of Alfred is like that of Victoria. The Dioceses of the age immediately after the Apostolic are about as much like those of the American Church as the Democracy of Athens is like that of the United States. The only light the Bible throws on the forms of the Churches of the Apostolic age is not a little shadowy, flickering, and ob- scure. Mr Evans concedes that there is in scripture no precise account of the powers of the Episcopal office; and we are a little curious to know what sort of an establishment of an office that can be said to be which leaves its powers and duties unascer- tained. Few on whom the mysterious light of the “succession” has not descended can pretend to discover more than the unform- ed embryo of the future official triumvirate ; while many disco- ver no tendency to any definite form, but a plastic susceptibility of such mould as time and circumstances may impress. But, whatever view may be taken of the more or less definite organization of the Church of the Apostolic age, and of the exclusive character of ministerial authority, it is certain that the diocesan system of the early Church is not the model of our own. It had no enduring permanency; but in common with the whole government of the Church, it has sympathized in every age with the varying forms of the civil society in whose midst it has been planted. At first it was the church of a single city, owing allegiance, and having organic connexion nowhere else —a mere Parish (paroichia) swollen beyond the capacity of its single Minister to meet its spiritual wants, and the consequent introduction of others, not to supersede, but to aid him, and act at his will. Such continued to be, even after the Episcopate had assumed all the attributes of a defined and legally absolute office, the nature of the ancient Diocese. But when each Bishop had grasped the reins in his particular city, the necessary tendency to centralization of a multitude of societies animated by the same feelings and belief, the yearning after unity on the part of the people, together with the analogy of the civil government of the empire from provincial centres, the chief provincial cities, the Bishops of those cities obtained at first a certain respect from superior cultivation, then, from frequent consultation, an authori- ty which finally indurated and became fixed into a legal right of metropolitan control, through a provincial synod or council. But the internal organization of the respective Dioceses perhaps remained in substance the same. Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexan- dria, and Rome, were metropolitan centres. The Emperors of the East and the West, reigning at Rome and Constantinople, set the example of a double yet not separate headship of the empire; and the same causes and tendencies which had elevated the metropolitan over the Bishops, still the b9 system of England, now embraced the provinces of the empire in two vast ecclesiastical and spiritual organizations, which, with the decline of the empire, culminated in the two great heads of the Eastern and the Western Church, each claiming but neither achieving universal and exclusive monarchy, but rearing their opposing forms in hostile grandeur through long ages of vigor, till time and war and the corruptions of a despotism, useful in its origin, but outliving its necessity, having sapped their strength, the conquest of Constantinople and the revolution of Luthur re- duced them both to trembling and flitting shadows of their former greatness—at which the world has not yet gotten over the habit of its childhood to tremble. Thus has the Church government always in the long run mould- ed itself on the existing civil system—for the men who wielded the empire worshiped in the Church. Imperial and absolute under the empire, under Hildebrand and his successors it became a feudal monarchy; and the English Bishops now grace the Upper House in virtue of their Episcopal Baronies, and the influence of her form of the monarchical system has left its deep traces on her National Church. Deriving the essential principles of both our civil and ecclesi- astical constitution from England, in each case we cut off the monarchical element, the appointing power of the King and the patron, and the headship of the crown in matters civil and eccle- siastical ; in both we elected our officers ; in both we declared our inherent right to settle our government for ourselves ; in both we embodied our principles of faith and government, civil and eccle- siastical, in “fundamental principles,” in bills of rights, in con- stitutions of government, in government by rules of law, not left to discretion, but written down for the guidance of our officers; in both, after a temporary period of comparative provincial sepa- ration rather than independence, the Dioceses and the States urged by those hidden sympathies and those manifest interests which are the instruments of God to govern the world, respective- ly blended into federal governments on identically the same prin- ciples, leaving local matters to the local elements, but confiding all matters of general interest to the central authorities acting on individuals. On every part of each magnificent structure, within and without, from the foundation to the topmost stone, was inscribed the great principle—of the control of the people over their own affairs, ecclesiastical or civil—relative to faith or practice; and their government by officers in whose selection they should have a voice, and not by arbitrary will or discretion, how- ever paternal—but by laws detining the limits of command and obedience, and the ultimate source of authority to their rulers. The United States may pass laws inconsistent with what some think the “ higher law” of republican principles ; but for her the constitution is the definition of republicanism, and she would scarcely pardon her President for looking among the consular powers for his rule of action. 40 And so the Church of these United States has for herself, on her own responsibility, embodied her views of the true principles of the christian faith and of the organization of the Christian Church in her symbolical articles, her constitution, her canons, her forms of worship, and of commission to her Ministers; and from them, and beyond them, affirming them to contain her inter- pretation of scripture, and her views of the rightful form of Church authority, she recognizes, she allows, she provides for no appeal to the “ early Churches,” nor any evolution of new laws for her government—the offspring of a feeble logic and a fasle history. The attempt of the Right Reverend Bishop of Maryland, and his band of coadjutors is, to make laws for this Church that she has not made, out of materials and by processes she has not sanc- tioned. The result, if successful, is to change our republican and popular Church government for the irresponsible discretionary despotism of the early diocesan system—its only law the divine right of Bishops. Mr. Gassaway was right in recalling the attention of the peo- ple to one attempted usurpation, so flagrant, that the claimant, though triumphing in the particular trial which grew out of it, has been obliged to abandon it. Let it be repeated, the Bishop did assert, that “it pertains to me, by right of my office, to have the privilege of administering the Lord’s Supper in any Parish or congregation of my Diocese, in which, with due regard to cir- cumstances, (thanks for the concession,) and proper notice, J may express my desire to do so. Thws was asserted, but was too palpable a usurpation to be maintained. It has not been abandoned, but is held in reserve, to be gotten quietly and stealthily by “a wise and judicious exer- cise of a discretion canonically vested in him,” for which the committee so obsequiously laud him. When he assailed the rights of Dr. Johns, “to be sure it was done in respectful and decorous language,” for the Bishop is a gentleman and a christian; and the reply of Dr. Johns, asserting his rights under the laws of the Church, was in equally “respect- ful and decorous language.” But again, as in the case of Mr. Trapnell, the Bishop manifest- ed that grasping after more power than was given him, which rendered the Episcopate so suspicious to our forefathers. He did not confine himself to the mere right of administering the commu- nion—the point at last insisted on—but claimed also to preach, and take up and dispose of the alms. He was willing to take the chance of a yielding spirit to get more than hé could main- tain. Resistance instantly narrowed his front to the right to ad- minister the communion. Dr. Johns was reported to the Conven- tion as having undertaken “ to control the services and his minis- trations on the occasion.” The committee’s report proclaim principles which fully sustain the original claim of the Bishop in Trapnell’s case; but they 41 liberally throw away half of the fruits of their logic, and instead of drawing the conclusion, inevitable from their premises, of the universal right of the Bishop to assume at any time the whole of the parochial ministrations, since he is inherently competent to the performance of all, they only maintain his right on occasions of canonical visitations, and thus they claim to the full all the rights enumerated in the Bishop’s notice, even to the disposition of the alms, though in the very teeth of the canon. The principle is not dead, it sleepeth. It is not abandoned, but is held in reserve for a more convenient season, till the path is made smooth, and opposition is removed by gradual quiet, judi- cious and imperceptible advances, step by step, till finally the laity will wake up and find their whole parochial system a sha- dow and a mockery, and the Bishop their universal Parish Priest. And this principle Mr. Evans, with the most engaging faith in Episcopal moderation, calls harmless!! He holds cheap the in- tegrity of our government of laws and canons, or else he is mar- velously ill-read in the ecclesiastical legislation of England, or perhaps he is the victim of that hallucination which attributes something approaching to impeccability to the genuine successors of the Apostles. I would speak with becoming reverence of that unspeakable mystery, yet I hope it will not be considered profane to suggest that the descent of the Apostolic spirit upon their suc- cessors has proved singularly ineffectual to satisfy or conciliate the insubordinate spirit of man. The divine right, whether of Kings or of Priests, has ever been a doctrine which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. No authority, spiritual or civil, ever vested in man, subject to no responsibility beneath the Eternal Throne, and claiming thence its commission, has been found tolerable. The Papal Crown claimed through the Apostolical succession its perpetual inspiration and its divine right to rule the world, and on that foundation reared a superstructure of spiritual des- potism too weighty for the patience of man. It would not be controlled by human authority, and man rose against it and shat- tered its fetters. The Kings of England, on their accession to the headship of the National Church, fell heir to a fragment of this poisonous purple of the Popedom, and “the divine right of Kings,” elevat- ed itself above the obligation of the laws of Church and State, and claiming its descent from on high, grasped at irresponsible power, till the people rose in their wrath, and the head of one King rolled in the dust, and a successor fled from his throne, leav- ing it vacant for one who did not claim by the “ divine right.” This same pestilent heresy now infests our Episcopate. Its mem- bers are proud to decorate themselves in the rags of the robes torn by their fathers from the shoulders of a spiritual despot, and they humbly aspire to some small share of the miraculous inspi- ration of the succession. They would do well to remember that 6 42 they tread on dangerous ground; that once in our history the adoption or rejection of Episcopacy was a serious question set~ tled in its favor with no small misgiving ; and a second discus- sion, arising from any claim to inherent prerogatives by the right divine, may end in the people seeking safety against a power which spurns their control, by dispensing with its existence. There is but one sure reliance for the preservation of the influ- ence and healthful popularity of the Episcopal office—to confine it strictly to the limits of the law. Of this the minority of the committee have set us an example worthy of all admiration in their first resolution: “That on occasions of Episcopal visita- tions the Bishop cannot, as matter of right, claim other than the performance of those functions peculiar to the Episcopal office, as specially indicated by the canons and rubrics relating thereto.” That resolution embodies the law of the Church, to which her true children with cheerful alacrity will conform; and which those who presumptuously aspire to power above her laws, will be com- pelled to obey. The personal imputations on Dr. Johns are entitled to but brief notice. The fling at him involved in the assertion that “it was re- solved that the Bishop should not be suffered to escape from the controversy, and quietly enjoy the exercise of his Episcopal pre- rogatives,” if worthy of an answer, may be disposed of by a re- ference to the fable of the lamb and the wolf beside the stream. It is a poor attempt to defend the Bishop’s neglect when the failure to give an “invitation” the law did not require is attri- buted to a desire “to give an opportunity for getting up an agita- tion.” The motive is the writer’s invention ; and though it would be presumptuous to compare a Presbyter with a Bishop, yet the latter will hardly refrain from accepting the “pre-eminence in ecclesiastical affairs,’ which the history of the last ten years at- tributes to him, in settling the question,—which is the agitator? It is rather cool assumption to expect Dr. Johns to await a re- medy by a legislative body for a wrong already provided for by law; and the suggestion of the General Convention as the arbi- trator, comes with a poor grace from one of the chiefs of the ma- jority which voted down the reference of the matter to that au- gust tribunal. I have not sought the opportunity to compare with Mr. Evans the “manner in which the two men met the question,” but he is mistaken if he supposes his invitation or example will not be followed. The law commands the Bishop to visit his Parishes at least once in three years, for three distinct purposes: to examine the state of his Church, to inspect the behavior of his Clergy, and to administer the Apostolic rite of confirmation. The administra- tion of the communion on that occasion, if a right, is not made a duty, nor is it connected by the Church with the performance 43 of either of the duties specified. The Rector was ready to per- mit the state of his Church and his own behavior to be examined, and was anxious and ready for the celebration of the rite of con- firmation on numerous candidates, and so expressly informed the Bishop. He only declined to prepare for the communion. Now, if duty was the only thing in view of the Bishop—if no favorite schemes of Episcopal aggrandizement were to be fostered—what was the plain course of duty, even if the right to administer the communion existed, as an independent right? His duty as a Bishop under the law was to have been careful to inspect the condition of a Church thus under the control of so insubordinate a Presbyter ; for such contumacy might well raise the suspicion of any thing but a healthy parochial administration. Every mo- tive of prudential care for the purity of the Church and its Min- isters called loudly on the Bishop to see whether this congrega- tion could longer be left under the care of one so regardless of his duties to his superior. Every consideration of christian duty for- bade him to visit on the innocent members of this Church, anx- iously awaiting the Episcopal advent to renew their baptismal vows, the sins of their Rector, and to deny to them and to the rest of the Parish the benefit of the Episcopal ministrations, be- cause their Rector refused to recognise one unconnected portion of the Bishop’s official claims. His clear duty was to have visited the Parish, to have inspect- ed its condition and the conduct of Dr. Johns, to have laid his hands on the crowd of expectant candidates, and then, ir he was well persuaded in his own mind, that the refusal to prepare for and permit the communion, and his receipt of the alms, was a viola- tion of the Jaw of the Church, and contumaciously persisted in, it was his duty to have proceeded to the judicial investigation of the question. But, instead of that, he visited the refusal by Dr. Johns of a part of his claim on his innocent parishioners, and laid his Parish under a virtual interdict. Was there a secret consciousness that his claims would not bear the stress of a legal discussion; for the Ishmaelites of the Bar are sadly deficient in respectful deference for the successors of the Apostles when they are on the other side? Was it that he felt more safe before his Convention—sure of a present tri- umph by a disciplined spiritual soldiery, aided by a zealous and not inefficient lay militia, and with the true instinct of a far-see- ing ambition, biding his time till the contest could be renewed with all the accession of strength sure to flow from a formal vote of the Convention? Was it that, careful to tread in the footsteps of his “illustrious predecessors” in the Apostolical succession of the See of Rome, he sought to reach the crowned head through the subject, and, looking far before, fondly hoped that the congre- gation, yearning for the return of Episcopal sunshine, and weari- ed with the abiding interdict, might lay their distress at the door 44. of their Pastor—accuse his contumacy as the cause of their ca- lamities, and at once rid themselves of the interdict, and the Diocese of an agitator ? ; I leave to Mr. Evans the unpleasant prerogative of divining the motives of his fellow-man. [ put far from me the promptings of a profane curiosity to’ex- plore the mysteries of a bosom illuminated by the emanations of the Apostolical Succession. I confess my incompetency to judge by the ordinary rules of human conduct the actions of a power which claims its source from above. In sorrowing wonder, with my hand upon my mouth and my mouth in the dust, | murmur: Tantaene animis coelestibus irae ! Your loving Brother, ULRIC VON HUTTEN. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE Rt. Rev. WILLIAM R. WHITTINGHAM, D.D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopa: | vurch of Maryland, Rev. HENRY V. D. JOHNS, D. D. Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore, BALTIMORE: JOHN W. WOODS, PRINTER, 1852. ee Te —_—— ill — ——— eS = — Ee Rn c Toe bi ( 4 : a ug : (ud ™ ny ir al ’ “a ; Z » ae a al a i 1 ' unltiee flare me : Nf AY a vi] ey, a eS () tT? mina oe ie es a 14a AER ee PREFACE. } In placing before the public a new edition of the Correspondence between the Right Reverend Witusam R. Wuirtinenam, D. D. Bishop of the Protes- tant Episcopal Church in Maryland, and the Rey. Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D. Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore, in pamphlet form, a few extracts have been made from two of the leading Tractarian papers, and placed as a preface to this edition to show the necessity which exists for the course that the Rey. Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D. has been forced to pursue in self-defence. The Banner of the Cross, of November 1, 1851, quotes the following item: ‘‘A Baltimore correspondent of the New York Christian Advocate, informs its readers, that special meetings have lately been held for upwards of six weeks in that city, to keep up the excitements produced by a recent Camp Meeting in its vicinity ; and that one most pleasing feature of the work, is the union of the ministers of the different denominations, in the large Methodist _ Episcopal Church, in Eutaw street. Among the preachers was the Rey. Dr. J., and the writer well asks, ‘‘what would some of our high toned high church- men at the North, think of a minister of their denomination, preaching at a re- vival in a Methodist meeting house? What indeed!” The Protestant Churchman of New York makes the following note upon the above. ‘The circumstance referred to has led, as we learn, to a correspond- ence between theyBishop of Maryland, and the Presbyter aimed at, which will, when published, give an entirely different phase to the matter. ‘Dr. J.,* un- less we are much mistaken, has done precisely what Bishops, Priests and Deacons (high and low) have done before him. We hope that he will publish the whole case forthwith, and it will then be time enough to apportion marks of admiration, and judge to whom the hint will best apply.’’ ‘*What indeed !”’ Extract from the New York Churchman of March 6, 1852. SEcTARIANISM IN BALTIMORE. “‘Mr. Epiror: Two short articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun, in October last, to which the attention of your readers may, perhaps, with profit be di- rected. The first is in these words : ‘*A week’s meeting at the Methodist Episcopal Church, Eutaw street, is to commence this day, Oct. 6. A prayer meeting, each day, at 9 o’clock, A. M. and half past 7 o’clock, P. M. Sermon on Monday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rey. Dr. Wesster. Sermon on Tuesday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rev. Mr. Srocxrron. Sermon on Wednesday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rey. Dr. Piumer. Sermon on Thursday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rev. Dr. Jouns. The public generally are respectfully invited to attend.”’ The first thing that strikes us in this annunciation is the fact, that for four suc- cessive days, there was in a certain building in the city of Baltimore, usually ap- propriated to prayer, singing and preaching, an apparent union and blending of discordant religious materials. Of the peculiar views, denominational faith, or sectarian bias of Rev. Dr. Wezsrer, I have no knowledge. If, however 4 PREFACE. he possesses only some of the qualities which distinguished the great lexicog- rapher of that name, he may be set down, if not as an Irvingite, at least as one endowed with a gift which will comprehend the tongues of all sects, and em- brace the sects of all tongues. The Rev. Mr. Srocxron is classed, if I mis~ take not, among the anti-sectarians or no denominationists; a respectable though not numerous body, of whom one of our departed Bishops used to say, that they were “neither fish, flesh nor good herring.’’ Respecting the Rey. Dr. Piumer, and the Rev. Dr. Jonns, we cannot be mistaken. The lattera Protestant Episcopalian, will be remembered by all who have read the Jour nal and Debates of the General Convention of 1850. The former, an old school Presbyterian, by all who have heard of the bitterness which character- ized his opposition to Episcopacy during his residence among confessedly ‘‘Evangelical”’ brethren in Richmond, Virginia. ‘ Another noticeable fact is, that while a ‘prayer meeting,’’ (we all know what that means,) while a ‘‘concert of prayer’ was held forseven days succes- sively, no provision was made for the offering up on Thursday, of the “Daily Morning Prayer,’’ which might have been expected of a Protestant Episcopal Presbyter, anxious to set forth the beauties of his Evangelical Liturgy, no less than to worship in the beauty of Holiness. At the institution of Dr. Jouns, the Bible, the Prayer Book and the Books of Canons general and Diogesan were presented to him after this form: ‘Receive these books, and let them be the rule of your conduct in dispensing the Divine Word, in leading the devotions of the people,’’ &c. And according tothe 45th Canon of the General Conven- tion of 1832, the injunction is absolute. “Every minister shal, before all Ser- mons and Lectures, and on all other occasions of public worship, use the Book of Common Prayer, as the same is or may be established by the authority of the General Convention of this Church. And in performing said service, no other prayer shall be used than those prescribed by the said book.”” In additton to this, it may be observed, that Dr. Jouns, who is a warm advocate of the “P. E. Society, for the promotion of Evangelical Knowledge,’’ was one of the reputed authors of the Statement of The Distinctive Principles of that Society, which was _ reviewed in the Churchman a twelve month since. (How many authors it had, or at how often, and at what hands it underwent a revision, I will not pretend to declare,) of ‘‘the worship of the Church,”’ the statement says, ‘‘This is her stated incense of prayer and praise ; and on this point the Society holds, that in order to the highest edification, Public Worship should be Liturgical, simple and Scriptural in distinction from those who would cumber it with human in- ventions, superstitious forms, and corrupting ceremonies. Without saying that our Liturgy is faultless, we freely confess, that we have yet to discover any thing which so fully commends itself to our judgment, taste and religious af- fections. Some are satisfied with modes of public worship which to us appear even too severely simple, while others craving for the sensuous and the showy, have cumbered their ritual with a weight of inappropriate and often puerile ceremonies.’’ ‘‘Our Reformers, guided by a spirit of piety and of wisdom, which peculiarly qualified them for their great work, happily avoided both extremes. They have transmitted to us a Liturgy, sober, solemn, devotional and rich in scriptural truth, sufficiently simple for children in Christ ; yet full and lofty enough for those who have attained the mental] and spiritual maturity of ad- vanced Christians.”’ (pp. 41, 42.) - GORRESPONDENCE. RAR Ree eee Bartimore, Oct. 4, 1851. Reverend and Dear Sir—My attention has been called to an advertise- ment in the morning papers of this day, announcing, as part of the pro- ceedings at “‘A week meeting at the Methodist Episcopal Church, Eu-— taw street,’ “Sermon on Thursday, 103, by Rev. Dr. Johns.” The other names announced are those of gentlemen not belonging to the Prot- estant Episcopal Church ; yet, it is commonly supposed that the adver- tisement refers to you. In view of the publicity of this announcement, I feel bound in official duty, to call your attention to the fact, that the combination of the minis- try of the Protestant Episcopal Church with that of other denominations of Christians in such a series of consecutive services, held in a place of worship, and conducted under a religious authority, not recognised by the Protestant Episcopal Church, is, in the judgment of the Bishop, and a very large majority of the clergy and laity of this Diocese, injurious to the true interests of religion, and not in accordance with the laws and usages of our Church. As the representative of that large majority of your brethren, then, I respectfully and affectionately request you, and in virtue of my office, earnestly admonish you not to give occasion of offence to your Bishop and to a large proportion of the clergy and laity of the Diocese, by such public services as that for which your name is announced in this morning’s advertisement. Your compliance with this request and admonition will only 6ccasion the relinquishment of an extraordinary and unobligatory exercise of min- isterial gift, while it will contribute largely to the peace and good order of our common household, and take away a cause of much dissatisfaction to many of your brethren. Very faithfully and truly, Your friend and brother, WILLIAM ROLLINSON WHITTINGHAM, Bishop of Maryland. Rey. H. V. D. Jouns, D. D., Rector of Christ Church. Nees Battimore, Oct. 8, 1851. - Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir—I have duly received your note of October 4th, and given to it that careful consideration to which itis entitled. It is true, as you suppose, that I am the person referred to as intending to officiate in the Eutaw street Methodist Episcopal Church, on Thursday morning, Oct. 9th. The circumstances of the case are these: Three of the clergy of the denomination before named, called upon me a few days since, and tendered to me an invitation to preach on the day mentioned. They stated that it was an extraordinary effort which they were now making, and that they trusted, with God’s blessing, it would be productive of much good, re : 6 thus to tender this church to several of the clergy of adjacent denomina- tions having their confidence, as holding the great truths of a common faith. ° This in the usual routine of duty, Iam persuaded, it is wise for the differ- ent denominations of Christian people to labor, each in their several lines of service. But, it appeared to me, that here was an extraordinary case, to neglect the improvement of which would be to vacate the charge given us by St. Paul, ““As we have opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith,?? Galatians vi. 10 :—and, again, ‘‘preach the word: be instant in season, out of season,” 2 Timothy iv. 2. Accordingly, in reply, I observed, that with the distinct understanding, that 1 should control the service by using the book of ‘‘com- mon prayer’’ on the occasion referred to, | had no objection to preach at the time and place indicated. To this they cheerfully acceded. Whether your admonition and request, as set forth in your letter, are made with a knowledge of these facts, just related, 1 know not. Butif they are, allow me most respectfully to say, that I feel myself constrained to differ with you. Itis my conscientious conviction, that our clergy are at perfect liberty to accept and improve such extraordinary opportunities of promoting the cause of our common Christianity, and that we may con- sistently avail ourselves of them, in view of the Scriptures above recited, and also of the great command of our ascended Lord to “preach the gos- pel to every creature.” : The relinquishment of the appointment thus publicly made, on the grounds set forth in your letter, would, in my humble judgment, be in- consistent with the Catholic spirit of our Protestant Church, and as inju- rious to the true interests of religion, as you appear to think the fulfilment of my appointment would be. With great respect, Your friend and obedient servant, HENRY V. D. JOHNS, 9 Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore. Baxtimore, Oct. 9, 1851. Reverend and Dear Sir—I received your note of yesterday, this morning at ten o’clock,—too late for reply before the hour appointed for your pub- lic exercise in Kutaw street. t It occasions.me deep regret to learn, that in your judgment, compliance with my request and official admonition, on the grounds set forth in my conmmunication of the 4th, would be inconsistent with your views of duty } and-to be obliged to infer that you, therefore, did not comply. I have no resource in the discharge of official duty, but to Jay our corres- pondence before the Standing Committee of the Diocese, in order that that body may determine whether or not my communication of the Ath was such a “godly admonition” and “judgment,’’ as at your ordination to the Priesthood of this Church, you solemnly declared your obligation “rever- ently to obey” and “witha glad mind and will to follow” and “submit to.” Whatever may be the decision of that body, I have the satisfaction of knowing, that in endeavoring to hinder what a majority of your brethren deem an “offence against the common order of the Church,” my appeal was not to your deference for superior authority, or submission to judg- ments differing from your own, but to the great principle so solemnly en- joined on our observance by our Lord, that needless offence is not to be given to even His “little ones,” and to the charge of the Apostle, that “no man put a stumbling block in his brother’s way.” 7 My admonition was, that in observance of that principle and charge, you should forego an opportunity of usefulness (in your judgment) certainly not within “the line” of your bounden duty, or of the discharge of your office as a Presbyter and Rector of the Protestant Episcopal Church. I am, faithfully and truly, Your friend and brother, ' WILLIAM ROLLINSON WHITTINGHAM, Bishop of Maryland. Rey. Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D., Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore. Bautimore, Oct. 15th, 1851. Right Rev. and Dear Sir—Allow me to acknowledge your note of Oct. 9th, which was duly received. I am now perfectly aware that the eccle- siastical principles, doctrinal views, and entire position of a portion of the clergy and laity of this Diocese, are, and ‘have been, to use your own words, ‘an offence” to yourself and others. At the very first interview which I had with you, nine years since, held at your own request, and in your own house, I was led to apprehend as much. When you adverted to the lecture-room' services of Christ Church, as conducted by my prede- cessor (now Bishop Johns, of the Diocese of Virginia,) and urged me to make a change in the same, and when in reply, I respectfully declined, on the ground that I could not consent to a measure which would be a reflec- tion upon my brother’s ministry, and also upon my own, nor deprive my congregation of a service which I had always found extremely useful and profitable—you deemed it your duty to press the matter of conformity to your wishes, by the declaration that such services as those held in Christ Church lecture-room, where selections from the Liturgy had always been used before the sermon, were irregular. I informed you that in this opin- ion, | could not agree with you, and that I was supported in my convic- tions by the known practice of a number of our bishops and prominent clergy. As an evidence, however, of my respectful consideration for you, and mindful of the fact, that we had been conjointly invited to the Rector- ship of Christ Church, which’you declined, whilst | accepted, I proceeded to give you a standing invitation, whenever you found yourself at home in Baltimore, disengaged from any immediate Episcopal duty, and disposed to preach, to come and occupy the pulpit of Christ Church. Having been informed that you were anxious to remove from Covurtland street, [ also availed myself of that occasion to tender to you the occupancy of the par- sonage house of Christ Church, which was unnecessarily large for me, and I offered to rent a house elsewhere for myself and family. I name these things for the purpose of showing you, that whilst on the ground of principle I was constrained to differ with you, I was disposed in every way in my power to concilitate and accommodate you. It has been my painful experience, however, and that of the clergy with whom in sentiment and practice I sympathize, to discover that, no matter how carefully we have endeavored to avoid it, our mode of serving our heavenly Master, and advancing the spiritual welfare of our Church, sub- jected us to unprecedented Episcopal interference, admonitions and judi- cial proceedings most annoying to us and vexatious to our congregations. The consequence has been, that one after another, a considerable number of the clerical brethren with whom I found myself associated, have re- signed and retired from this Diocese, whilst others are preparing to follow es f - 8 them. Thus we know full well, and from mournful experience, that we are offensive to yourself and the majority to whom you refer; and why ? Because our principles and views of this Church, and of our duty in it, and to it, and to others beyond it, are what they are. But, Right Reverend Sir, can you fail to perceive that the ecclesiastical principles, doctrinal views and practices, in acvordance therewith, of your- self and the majority referred to, are also ‘an offence” to us, a minority of your brethren of the clergy and laity of this Diocese? Have we not respectfully remonstrated, publicly and privately, collectively and indivi- dually, against not a few of your official acts and measures, and those of the majority adverted to, when the same were pressed upon us? Have we not implored to be permitted to serve God and this Church, and others around it, in the enjoyment of our never-before-questioned ‘‘perfect free- dom ?”? And this on the ground, not that we wished to interfere with yourselves, but that we begged you would not interfere with us? 1! do not specify particulars, for that would be manifestly improper, but refer in general to the well-known position which you occupy, and to the princi- ples which you hold and advocate, as distinguished from those which are with equal conviction of duty, held and advocated by the minority to whom | have referred, and among them by him who now has the honor to address you. It is then well known, that two totally distinct and well- defined systems of ecclesiastical and doctrinal views and practices arising therefrom, are now embraced in this Diocese. The immediate occasion of this correspondence is but one instance among many, in which these two systems show their unavoidable offensiveness one to the other. And now] most earnestly call your attention to this plain and obvious view of the case. We are, in our principles and practices, an offence to you and yours —whilst you and yours are equally an offence to us. Permit me then to say, that, whilst I deplore the excitement of a judi- cial trial, and the exacerbation of feeling so apt to grow out of it, yet as you have taken the initiative step, I have no alternative but to meet it, and trust and hope that salutary results will grow out of it in the good provi- dence of God. If it be decided that the principles laid down in your com- munications to me of the 4th and 9th of this month, are to be enforced, and that that moderation for which this Church has hitherto been distin- guished, is now to be abandoned—why, it will follow that the system of ecclesiastical and doctrinal views with which you are identified, must here exclusively prevail, and then, as a certain consequence, it will be man- ifest that terms of communion of a most extraordinary, if not, as we view them, sinful nature, are presented to us, and a most painful necessity will then be before me, and probably before others also, both of the clergy and laity. Ih conclusion, | have only to state, that during a ministry of more than twenty-six years, [ have been in the practice of ‘‘combining with” ‘‘other denominations of Christians,”’ in various, and some of them consecutive services, conducted under no other authority than the law of love to our common Lord and Saviour. During the meetings of the Diocesan Con-. ventions of Ohio—and I believe the Same custom obtains in Virginia—the pulpits of all the evangelical denominations of Christians are occasionally offered to our clergy, in the same spirit of Christian courtesy with which the Eutaw Street Methodist Episcopal Church pulpit was recently offered to me, and has been occupied by our brethren. I have preached in churches of, | know not how many different denominations, and upon one occasion with a Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church by my side. I have officiated in steamboats and public hotels—in soldier’s barracks—in alms- . v houses and hospitals, and even in the public streets of our city, afew years since, when the alarming increase of municipal crime seemed, as now, to call for extraordinary efforts to leven the vast multitudes around us with the truths of the blessed gospel. I have united with my brethren of other denominations, in Bible Societies, and for seven years have been honored . with the office of President of the Maryland Branch of the American Tract Society ; in the service of which, its officers and managers, clergy and laity of different denominations of Christians, combine in consecutive religious services—praying together, and working together in the diffusion of those truths which are equally dear to us all. {am a life member and director in the ‘‘American and Foreign and Christian Alliance,” an asso- ciation of clergy and laity of several denominations of Christians, whose chief object is to maintain, defend and promote, the distinctive principles of the Protestant Reformation: and I here solemnly declare that I have yet to hear of the first instance in which any injury has ever resulted to the Protestant Episcopal Church in particular, or to religion in general, from such combinations. Of the very moderate usefulness which I may have been permitted to render to my fellow men, and to my own several con- gregations, I believe a large share will be found in connection with these, associations ; nor am I willing to forego them, during the short time which my God and Saviour may permit me, his most unworthy servant, to con- tinue in his service. I shall never interfere with others of my respected brethren of the ministry who conscientiously differ with me in these points, but my Christian liberty and obligations must not be abridged by them. Such, Right Reverend and Dear Sir, are my fixed determinations. Pro- ceed, therefore, in the purposes indicated in your letter of the 9th, and with the help of God, | shall endeavor to prepare for the consequences. Your friend and obedient servant, H. V. D. JOHNS, Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore. Baxtimore, Oct. 24th, 1851. Reverend and Dear Sir—Your reply to my note of Oct. 9th, was re- ceived by me last night, on my return to town. I consider it but just to you to lay a copy before the Standing Committee, to be added to the correspondence already sent to that body. The Commit- tee will thus have the advantage of acquaintance with your views of the . case, as now more fully stated. 5 In your communication there are some statements which imply a de- gree of misapprehension of fact to which they relate. ‘ You do not ‘use my words” in my application of them, when you apply the term “offence” to the ‘ecclesiastical principles,”’ “doctrinal views,” and ‘‘entire position” of ‘‘a portion of the clergy and laity of this Diocese.” I have made no such application of that term. Itis entirely and exclusively your own. I used the word “offence”’ of a single public act; and I used it, not in the modern colloquial sense, but in that of Scripture, which can only apply to acts, not “principles,” &c. Your account of an interview had nine years since, does not in all res- pects perfectly accord with my recollections. But that is of the less im- portance, inasmuch as at that time you were not a clergyman of this Dio- cese, and the Rectorship of Christ Church, with all its rights, duties, &c., may be presumed to have been then as much at my disposal as at yours, inasmuch as we had been jointly invited to acceptance of the charge, and that invitation was then still under my consideration. 10 Of the motive which you ascribe to ‘‘a considerable number of clerical brethren,” who have ‘‘retired from this Diocese,” I have received no in- formation from them, and have of course no means of forming a reliable opinion. But I had been led to suppose that the changes to which it is. presumable that you allude, had been occasioned by the reasons ordinarily found operative in such cases. m It appears, from your statement, that they have been dissatisfied that. their remonstrances have not produced changes in my official acts and measures, and in those of the majority of the clergy and laity of the Dio- cese. It is satisfactory to know that such is the case, and not the reverse. Had I, or ‘‘the majority adverted to,’ attempted to produce changes in ‘the official acts and measures” of the clerical brethren alluded to, the case. would have been very different. You speak, indeed, of “imploring to be permitted to serve God, and this Church, and others around it, in perfect freedom ;” but do not specify particulars. It might have been difficult to instance a case in which any clergyman in this Diocese had been interfer- red with in the performance of his ministerial duties by the Bishop or other authority of the Diocese. Certainly, if any such case can be produced, it will be found among those whose leanings are in a very different direction from your own. , Whether the case out of which this correspondence has grown, is one heretofore, and until now, of common occurrence in this Church, isa question of fact, to be settled by appeal to evidence. Not only have { no knowledge of the alleged fact, but I do not remember before to have met with the allegation. All that you recapitulate in the close of your letter, is to be coupled with the fact, that during the last nine years, your Bishop, known by you to entertain very different views of policy and duty, has never, in any way, directly or indirectly, interfered with your procedures. Surely there is more than one inference to be drawn from these facts! _ The question is one of limit to an admitted liberty. There certaioly is such limit somewhere. Very honest and allowable differences of opin- ion may exist as to the fixture of that limit. Such differences, when they result in action, must occasion questions that authority alone can set- tle. In the present case—honestly believing it to be a duty of my office to point out to you a limit, required by considerations which I presented to you—I have acted in all good faith, and, I trust, courtesy You, I doubt not, with equally conscientious adherence to your (as I believe, erro- neous) views of duty, have taken the course that seemed to you the proper one. It remains for those to whom the Church has committed the guar- dianship of her discipline, to say whether that discipline has been in- fringed. To them it has been submitted as a question of fact, with no imputation against character, or impeachment of actual or implied mo- tive. Very faithfully and truly, your friend and brother, W. R. WHITTINGHAM. Rev. H. V. D. Jouns, D. D. Battimore, Dec. 2nd, 1851. Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir—In your last communication to me you observe; “Your account of an interview had nine years since, does not in all re- spects perfectly accord! with my recollections. But that is of the less im- portance, inasmuch as at that time you were not a clergyman of this Dio- cese, and the Rectorship of Christ Church, with all its rights, duties, &c., may be presumed to have been then as much at my disposal as at yours, inasmuch as we had been jointly invited to acceptance of the charge, and. that invitation was then still under my consideration.” i 11 Now, it so happens, that your own written language is the strongest presumption, if not the exact proof, to the contrary of what you assert in the sentence, underscored. In a communication to the Vestry of Christ Church, through their committee, dated July 27th, 1842, “concerning the invitation to the Rectorship of Christ Church,” you observe, “After ma- ture and anxious deliberation, these last considerations have prevailed, and I feel bound, at whatever sacrifice of personal inclination and sanguine hopes, to refrain from a step which might tend to the diminution of that confidence and affection for which I have so much reason to be grateful to the whole Diocese and to every part.” The ‘‘considerations” referred to, you had previously declared to be of such a nature as to produce “timidity and hesitation in the anticipation of ulterior consequences which might result from any change in your rela- tion to the Diocese at large.”? You were here supposed to refer to your maintenance in part by an Episcopal Fund, created with the understand- ing that you were to give your whole time to the general interests of the Diocese, and not to be restricted by any parochial charge. Your letter to the Vestry of Christ Church proceeds: “your offer there- fore’’—the invitation to the Rectorship—‘‘than which nothing could be more liberal, confiding and kind, nor anything more truly grateful to my feelings in every point of view, I must and do, under a constraining sense of duty, gratefully and affectionately decline.” Again, you observe, in the conclusion of the letter: “Although, after what passed between you and myself in our personal interview, I felt bound to wait until I should have communicated with the Rev. Mr. Johns on the subject; my decision has been wholly uninfluenced by such com- munication, and based solely on considerations of official duty.”?_ The decision set forth in this communication of yours to the Vestry of Christ Church, and on the precise grounds here recited, you made known to me orally at the interview held at your house in Courtland street, re- ferred to in my letter of October 15th, when you informed me that you declined, and i informed you that I should accept the invitation to Christ Church, Baltimore. How then, can you say, after such a clear showing of your decisions in the premises—which you tell the Vestry, were wholly ‘“‘uninfluenced by”? your communications with me, at the said interview, but were ‘‘based solely on considerations of official duty,” all of which were operative prior to our meeting, and are by you expressly acknow- ledged as having procured your decision—how can you say that “that in- vitation”” (the call to Christ Church) ‘‘was then still under my considera- tion?’ Your letter to the Vestry shows that your mind was made up on the matter in advance of seeing me, and so you stated to me at the very commencement of our interview. It is true, that you did not notify the Vestry of your decision until after you saw me, but the evidence that it was, “‘after mature and anxious deliberation,”’ formed before you saw me, is set forth by your own words as quoted. Thus it is manifest that your assertions in your favor of October 24th, 1851, relating to this mat- ter, are at variance with your letter to the Vestry of Christ Church, of July 27th, 1842. But you observe: “The Rectorship of Christ Church with all its rights, duties, &c., may be presumed to have been then as much at my disposal as at yours.””? Here allow me to remind you, that ‘‘then,”? which was the 26th of July, 1842, the Rectorship of Christ Church was in the hands of’ the Rev. John Johns, D. D., whose term of service did not ex- pire until the first of the ensuing October. But you now remind me, that at “‘that time” I “was not a clergyman : 12 of this Diocese.””? I greatly regret that you overlooked this fact at the “‘in- terview”’ held between us, at your own request, and at your own house. Surely, Rt. Rev. Sir, it was a singular procedure, thus to hold a confer- ence with a Presbyter of another Bishop, and to admonish him, face to face, on the subject of his official conduct, and to charge him with con- templating irregularities in lecture-room services! I ought to have re- quested you, if I were guilty of violations of order, to have made your communication to the Rt. Rev. C. P. McIlvaine, D. D., my Diocesan. But further, Rt. Rev. Sir, if there had been the alleged irregularities in the lecture-room services of Christ Church, Baltimore, (with which, as I was not at that time aclergyman of this Diocese, of course I had nothing to do, and now am only a witness to the fact that you made such remarks, ) why did you not correct the evil in the practice and person of my predeces- sor, the Rev. John Johns, D. D., now Assistant Bishop in a neighboring Diocese? For month after month, the irregularities complained of to me, had been before you, perpetrated by one of your own Presbyters; and yet, so faras | know and believe, you never so much as even whispered to him an “‘affectionate request,” to say nothing of an “‘official admonition” on the subject ; but, on the contrary, you were, I believe, one of his presen- tors at his consecration to the Episcopate, and did him the kindness to preach the sermon on that occasion. I am-sorry the tone of the expres- sions in this part of your last letter, brought these things again to my recol- lection. In reply to my declaration in the letter of Oct. 15th—that no matter how carefully we have endeavored (referring to the minority in this Dio- _ cese) to avoid it, our mode of serving our Heavenly Master, and advancing the spiritual welfare of our Church, subjected us to unprecedent Episco- pal interference, admonitions, and judicial proceedings, most annoying to us and vexations to our congregations’’—you observe: “It might have been difficult to instance a case in which any clergyman in this Diocese had been interfered with in the performance of his ministerial duties, by the Bishop or other authority of the Diocese.”’ In answer to this declaration, allow me respectfully to present to you the following from a multitude of similar cases : 1. The well-known ‘“‘case” of the Rev. Joseph Trapnell, Jr., late Rec- tor of St. Andrew’s Church, Baltimore, who was presented and tried for defending the point, that the administration of the Holy Communion was no part of the duty to be performed by the Bishop at an Episcopal visi- tation. I know there was sundry questions and specifications raised in this trial, but the main matter originated in a clear case, in which the Pres- byter felt himself interfered with in the discharge of his ministerial duties, and, by informing you that the Lord’s Supper was to be administered on the very Sunday before the one appointed for your visitation, indicated his ‘earnest desire that it should not be so soon repeated, and also his wish to avoid the painful issue to which you forced him. That no authority then existed in the laws of this Church, for the right which you then upheld and pressed, is now demonstrated by the addition, made at the General Convention of 1850, to the Canon relating to Episcopal visitations, grant- ing authority to Bishops to administer the Lord’s Supper at a visitation ; consequently your claim, then urged, even to the trial of your Presbyter, was without law. Case 2nd. Your threat of presentment of the Rev. John P. Robbins, of Snowhill, Eastern Shore of Maryland, to the Standing Committee, made, in your letter to him, dated Baltimore, July, (the figures are illegible,) 1847, on the ground that he had violated the 36th Canon of the General Conven- tion, which Mr. Robbins most emphatically denied. 13 I have before me the’ written statements of this case, given by the ag-_ grieved Presbyter, from which I make the following narrative :— “The Rev. Mr. Kennard, a clergyman of the Methodist Protestant Epis- copal Church, came to Mr. Robbins’ house as agent of the Maryland State Bible Society;?? ‘‘and asked him (Mr. R.) if he would aid him in the cir- culation of the Word of God without note or comment: to which Mr. Rob bins replied, he would.” The agent then asked Mr. Robbins if he would present the Bible cause to his people; Mr. Robbins assented, and on the next “‘preaching day, after the regular morning service, Mr. Robbins ad- dressed his congregation on the Value of the Word of God and the impor- tance of their having it especially in their hearts, and also having copies of the Scriptures in their:houses. After he had concluded, the Rev. Mr. Kennard arose and stated the object of his agency, and then the services were concluded with prayer.” From this statement, itis evident Mr. Robbins was the officiating cler- gyman, and did nothing more than allow an agent of the Bible Society to. give notice that he was in the vicinity, and what was his object in being there. “Mr. Robbins bitterly complained of the act of his Bishop in pre- judging this case, and vouching for the truth of a mere rumor, instead of writing to him for the facts, and giving him an opportunity of a hearing, before you formed your opinion and let him know (I quote your own words) that “in strict discharge of your office, you should be compelled at once to, lay the case before the Standing Committee of the Diocese, in order to the publie correction of a public violation of the order of the Church.’”’? You. then proceed to inform Mr. Robbins, whose guilt you assume without a hearing, that if he will ‘be cautious not again to disturb the order of the Church, you will hold yourself at liberty to take no notice of what has passed, and proceed no furher in the matter.” “But,” you observe, “unless so enabled to stay proceedings, it will be my painful duty to put the matter in the hands of the Standing Committee, and the new trouble and disgrace of another Ecclesiastical trial [mark how frequent such things were] will be brought upon the church.” Strange to say, after having thus shaken the rod of discipline ‘inthe face of your un;, heard Presbyter, you express the hope that he may be able to explaii his. conduet to your satisfaction. Surely, Rt. Rev. Sir, you here have a case which shows that the language of my last letter to you came far short of the reality. What Presbyter of this church, worthy of his name and of- fice (and my Rev. brother Mr.’ Robbins is eminently so) could bear to be so treated? Could he afterwads think of his bishop with those emotions of respect and affection, which we most earnestly desire ever to cherish to- wards our Keclesiastical superior ? Case 3. In May, 1844, you sent a circular of questions to the clergy, wardens and vestries of the Diocese, which so materially interfered with your clergy, that eleven of them addressed to you a respectful remonstrance, dated June 1, 1844, expressive of their deep regret at the reception of such a communication, the tendency of which they held to be to engross and consolidate the rights of the clergy and laity in the hands of the Bishop, and thus endangered, by undue extension, the lawful and salutary power of the episcopate: é Case 4.’ At your last visitation of Christ Church, Baltimore, on March 7th, 1847, more than four years and a half ago, when. after the entire ser- vices of the occasion were over, and you had retired to the vestry rapm, in company with myself and others, you called me to task for not pausing in the “evening prayer, and affording you an opportunity of reading the dec- laration of absolution,” stating that I had forgotten that such was your 14 custom. To this I replied that I had not forgotten what was known to be your custom, but that I felt bound to obey the rubric, and so read the declaration myself; that if, before I had entered the desk, you had expressed a desire to read the evening prayer, nothing would have given me more pleasure, than to have had you officiate in the desk as well as in the chancel, but that, on principle, I could not sanction the custom to which you referred. You immediately proceeded to declare, that you had a right to it and to the whole service also; to which I respectfully stated my ina- bility to accede, pleading conscience under the rubric ; whilst you, in the me earnest manner, plead conscience also, as urging you to insist on your claim. A similar occurrence took place subsequently, at your visitation of All Saints parish, Frederick Town, where you urged the same claim, and when the Rector, the Rev. W. N. Pendleton, for precisely such reasons as determined me, was constrained to differ with you, you deemed it your duty to remain in the vestry room until evening prayer was read, and not until then did you take your seat in the chancel. With these facts fresh in memory, I leave it to yourself, Rt. Rev. Sir, to judge of our amazement when we read, on page 136 of the Journal of the last General Convention, in a resolution offered by Bishop Mead, moved by Bishop Mellvaine, and seconded by Bishop Potter, that the “Bishop of the Diocese of Maryland has declared that the only claim he asserts, is the right of administering the holy communion in each parish at his regular visitations,” &c. if you meant, when you made that declaration before the House of Bish- ops, that you did not intend hereafter to assert the claim which you so ve- hemently insisted upon at your visitations of Christ Church, Baltimore, and All Saints parish, Frederick Town, from my heart I rejoice. But if you intended to deny that you ever raised that claim, I am silent. Shall I proceed, in answer to the invitation made in your last letter, but for which you should never have heard from me again on those melancholy topics, or have I said enough to satisfy you that no exaggeration character- ized my declarations to you, in the communication of October 15th. You ent instances, and I have been compelled most reluctantly to give em. ; f There is but one point more which I feel constrained to notice. In your letter of October 9th, you observe, referring to your former communication, that you had ‘‘no resource but to lay our correspondence before the Standing Committee of the Diocese, in order that that body may determine whether or not your communication of the 4th was such a Godly admonition and ‘judgment,’ as at my ordination to the Priesthood of this Church, I solemn- ly declared my obligation reverently to obey, and with a glad mind and will to follow and submit to.”” I am at no loss, from your action in the premises, to infer what is your opinion in the case. Suffer me here to quote the words of the late venerable William White, D. D., first Bishop of Pennsylvania, who being dead yet speaketh. | refer to his Commenta- ries on the questions and answers in the offices for the ordination of Deacons and Priests, ‘‘recommended to the patronage of all the clergy and members generally of the Church,” by Bishops Griswold, Bowen, Brow- nell, H. U. Onderdonk, Meade, Stone, B. T. Onderdonk, and Ives. (See edit., New York, 1833, page 44.) The author observes: “when the pas- sage speaks of Godly admonitions, it must have respect to some standard by which they should be directed. This standard must be, the various established institutions of the Church, and not the private opinion of the Bishop. It is well known, that the Church, from which this is descended, like the State to which it is allied, is under a government of law, and not 15 of will; and we cannot suppose that ours, professing to follow it in the leading features of its system, should have designed to reject this, so con- genial to the still more moderate degree of authority, which it will be pos- sible, in present circumstances, to exert. [If it should be asked, Who shall be the arbiter on any question which may be raised, as to the fitness of the interposition of the Bishop? The answer is, the question being understood of admonition, out of the line of strict Ecclesiastical proceeding, which ought of course to be governed by a determinate standard, that each party must judge for himself, as he shall answer for this and for every other part of his conduct to Almighty God.” : é : The Bishop puts the very case which has arisen. You, Right Rev. Sir, addressed to me an official admonition, which, for the reasons stated, I could not obey, but in reference to which I felt bound to do what Bishop White supposes in such cases may be done—-judged for myself, as I shall answer to Almighty God. [If a Deacon could do so, much more a Pres- byter—Bishop White supposes the case a Deacon. [ must be allowed then, under the sanction of such high authority, backed by so many Bish- ops, to repel with honest feeling, the intimation of having violated my ordination vows. [t is, moreover, very remarkable, that in your last letter to me, you should seem to think you had gone too far in this matter, and may have indulged language too strong: for you say, alluding to alleged instances of clergy of this Church officiating, as was done by myself in the instance out of which this correspondence has grown: ‘The question is one of limit to an admitted liberty. Very honest and allowable differences of opinion may exist, as to the fixture of that limit.” Why, here, Right Rev. Sir, you yield all I have been contending for: you say there is an ‘admitted liberty,”? and that the point at issue is one about which we may honestly differ. How, then, in such a case, could you think of subjecting our Presbyter to what you call “the trouble and disgrace of a public trial?” hy this prolix correspondence? Why wish to limit the liberty of your clergy to preach the gospel? There are fifty thousand souls in this city, who seldom, if ever, hear the glad tidings of salvation. It is a subject of intense anxiety here, and elsewhere, as I learn from the pages of our Church papers in New York and Liverpool, England, how we shall suc- ceed in carrying the means of grace to the thousands and tens of thousands now flooding our cities and country. O! Right Rev. Sir, this is not a day to shorten the trumpet of the gospel! I wish we had preachers and in- creased facilities within our own communion, to meet this alarming swell of unevangelized population. Alas! we have not. I look beyond our own communion, and perceive the various Evangelical and Protestant de- nominations, differing with us in matters of ecclesiastical organization, but agreeing with us and “teaching apostolic doctrine,” to use the words of Archbishop Sumner, and I rejoice to believe that again, to use the words of the same distinguished writer, “they may yet be owned of God,” and I believe they are, “as faithful ministers of his word and sacraments, and enjoy his blessing on their ministrations.” I thank God for every voice that directs the lost sinner to the Shepherd of Israel. St. Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached even of contention, and shall not we, when we know that he is, by these brethren, preached of love? While we cannotall yet see “eye to eye,” surely many of us are enabled to feel heart to heart. Beau’ tiful is that saying of the late Doctor Archibald Alexander, “Christian love pants after unity with all the real children of God.?”? What would our country be, this day, if these various bodies of Protestant Christians around us were silenced? They are doing a great work, and none more than the Methodist clergy. When we can do them a service, why should we re- 16 fuse it? We shall reach them more effectually by love, than by invective, O! then, Right Rev. Sir, strive not to ‘‘limit”? the liberty which you so kindly admit, to preach the gospel whenever,and wherever we have oppor- tunity and strength to say, ‘Behold the Lamb,of God.” J was happy in being permitted to give my testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus, beforea thousand people, in the Kutaw Street Church, and to receive from my Methodist brethren, on that occasion, such truly considerate kindness as I can never forget. But I now candidly confess the existence of a sorrow, that continually arose in my mind: it was that in preaching the gospel of Christ to an audience gathered trom every section of our city, I could not have had your full and cordial approbation. What would I not have given if your views of duty could have allowed you to be present! I think the spectacle then exhibited, would have swept away your objections, from first to last. ’ Having waited thus long to hear the decision of the Standing Committee on the case submitted to them, and aware of their having met and adjourn- ed since your last communication to me, may I beg to hear from you, and to have acopy of the minutes of the Committee relating to this subject. Your friend, and obedient servant, Pat HENRY V. D. JOHNS. Bartimore, December 3, 1851. Reverend and Dear Sir—I have given to your long letter of yesterday, the serious consideration prompted by respect for the writer, but ae warranted by the tissue of misapprehensions of which it is made up. Coneerning the delicacy and propriety of your resort to my, correspond- ence with the Vestry of Christ Church, [ shall make no remark. The inconsistency which you think you find between my last letter to you, and that correspondence will be apparent, as I conceive, to no mind differently constituted, or under different influences, from yourown. I said lately, that at a certain interview with you, I had the proposal of the Rectorship of Christ Church, still under consideration. In a letter de- clining the Rectorship, I stated that I did it on grounds independent of that interview, and by a conclusion arrived at previously to its occurrence. Now, there was surely some object of the interview. What was it—what could itbe, but to learn whether there were any grounds or reasons for mod- ification of my previously formed conclusion? And what else was such inquiry but ‘‘consideration’”? of the proposal to which it had relation ? Really, the question is too simple for discussion. pays Your apprehension of my conversation at the interview im question, as having assumed the form of an ‘‘admonition” and “charge”? is equally in- accurate. As persons jointly invited to.a cure of souls, we then discussed, as ] thought, in courtesy and amity, the principles on which such cure should be discharged. Had any undue assumption of authority on my part taken place, | should probably have heard of it, before this long inter- ya] had elapsed. As Iam not aware that I have at any time made complaint of the con- duct of your predecessor in the Rectorship of Christ Church, I have no occasion to defend my course with regard to him. ari; You are mistaken as to my haying preached at. the consecration of Bishop Johns. . It isa matter of no importance; but I call your attention to the mistake, to show that you have need not to put too implicit confi- dence in your recollection of things so long past. se 17 To show that I am in error m saying that “it might have been difficult to instance a case in which ‘any clergyman in this Diocese had been inter- fered- with, in the performance of ministerial duties, by the Bishop or authority of the Diocese,”” you allege four cases. Their production is abundant proof of the truth of my assertion. Two of them are cases of interference on the part of Presbyters of the Diocese with the Bishop, in the performance of his official duties—one of them decided so to have been by a competent tribunal; the other by the consent of the very great majority of the clergy in a view different from your own, and the gradual relinquishment of the ground taken in opposition, by those concerned, upon a more thorough discussion of the question. In a third case—that of the Rev. Mr. Robbins—I interfered, in kindness to him, and with success, and to prevent the presentment with which you represent me as having threatened him. He was formally charged with a violation of the Canons, and by my interference I obtained from him grounds to justify me in setting the charge aside. The fourth case, relating to occurrences at Christ Church and in Freder- ick, bears, on the face of your own statement, the evidence that in each instance it was the Bishop, not the Presbyter, that was interrupted in his course. Your allegation of inconsistency between statements made in the Gene- ral Convention of 1850, and the recollections and representations of others, on the subject of certain alleged claims against which you and others presented a memorial to that Convention, induces me now to repeat dis- tinctly the declaration that I have not at any time asserted any official right to read the Declaration of Absolution when morning or evening prayer was said by a Presbyterin my presence; but have uniformly declared that having established and long continued the usage before any opposition was set up, I was willing, (though fully believing the Bishop to have the right to take any part of the service at his visitation,) for the sake of those who pleaded conscientious scruples, to accept it as @ courtesy, and accordingly, asked it as such. ‘The misapprehension of yourself and others must have origina- ted in my assertion of the right of the Bishop at his visitation to read the whole service himself, if he should so choose—a right which | suppose never to have been disputed or doubted. ‘Your supposition that in my last letter I “made an invitation” for further discussion of “these melancholy topics,” “demanded instances,” and yet, ‘‘thinking I had gone too far,” ‘‘yielded all I had been contending for,” are all equally unfounded. A careful reperusal of the letter will, I think, sat- isfy you, that in each particular you have strained its sense beyond the easy, obvious meaning. It is, however, enough for me to say now, that your constructions were not designed by me. Your earnest appeals for my sympathy with your zeal for preaching the blessed gospel were hardly needed. You deceive yourself, and are in dan- ger of deceiving others, if you suppose that I wish otherwise than for the very largest extension of the exercise of your excellent gifts in that voca- tion. The Rector of a congregation possessed of a large commodious Church in the heart of our great city, and of ample revenues, and blessed with a kind and zealous vestry, can be at no loss for opportunities of pro- claiming the gospel of salvation, nor hindered in his work of preaching by anything but the limits of his own physical ability. You perfectly know that if you were to open Christ Church for daily morning, and evening service, and on every occasion take the opportunity to preach awakening sermons, you would have not only my warm approval, but my zealous co-operation were it desired. How then, can you charge me with striving 18 to limit your liberty to preach the gospel, merely because I fail to perceive- the necessity of its being preached specially in Eutaw street, by the Rector of Christ Church in Gay street? There are parts of our city lying.much nearer than Eutaw street, to the sphere of your especial responsibilities and duties as a minister of this Church, in which I most earnestly wish that your zeal might lead you more frequently to preach the Gospel, and should heartily rejoice in your making efforts to extend the Church, for in- stance, the very large section of our city lying north-east of Christ Church, rapidly growing and already densely populated, but as yet amere wilder- ness as regards our form of doctrine, discipline and worship, and very scantily provided for by any form of Christian public ministrations. There, or in the dark recesses of Potter or Orleans streets (still nearer Christ Church,) I could understand and admire the aggressive zeal which should labor in season and out of season in preaching the word; but in the pre- cincts of the Park, almost within a stone’s throw of a Protestant Episcopal Church, open twice every day for public worship, I own I am at a loss to perceive any such extraordinary call for your ministrations as you seem to find pressing upon your conscience. I received the decision of the Standing Committee upon the case, which T informed you I should submit to that body, in a paper of some length, expressing sufficiently decided views of such a course as that which you have deemed it right to take; but as the paper is part of an official corres- pondence, I hold myself at liberty, in the exercise of what I deem a wise and just discretion, to decline being the channel of its transmission to a third party. Should you think proper to apply to the president of the Standing Committee for a copy, he would no doubt, exercise his due dis- cretion in the case, and I can have no objection. Had any action concerning you been resolved on or advised, you would, of course, have had the earliest possible information. Such not having been the case, I have allowed my own doubts concerning the course adopted by the Committee to influence my determination in the premises. Very faithfully and truly, Your friend and brother, r W. R. WHITTINGHAM. Rev. Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D. aan ane ee ead Baxutrmore, Feb. 9th, 1852. Right Reverend and Dear Sir,—Your favor of the 3d of Dee. is before me. Its tone of mingled courtesy, and superciliousness served only to excite a smile, but shall not provoke me to the utterance of a sentence disrespectful to my ecclesiastical superior. The answer which [ now send you, has in part been written some weeks, but numerous engagements have prevented my copying it. Your observation concerning “the delicacy and propriety of my resort to your correspondence with the Vestry of Christ Church,” renders it proper for me to say, that the extracts in my former letter, on this sub- ject, were taken from the public records of the vestry of Christ Church, Bal- timore. Of course, your exception has no force. Alluding to the interview held at your house on the evening of July 26, 1842, you state, “Now, there was surely some object of the interview, What was it, what could it be, but to learn, whether there were any grounds or reasons for modification of my previously formed conclusion As you here admit the very pointfor whichI quoted from the public records 19 of Christ Church, viz. that you had ‘previously formed your conclusion”? and had thus, so far as you were concerned, “declined” the invitation to Christ Church, I have no occasion to say anything further on this head: since, if you had previously to seeing me, formed your “conclusion” to decline, it is not easy to conceive how youcould still have the subject of “acceptance under consideration,” as you stated you had in a former com- munication. But, then, you now tell me, “surely there was some object in that in- terview,””? &c. Mark, how the case stands! Your own “conclusion”? was formed previously to seeing me, for you declare you arrived at it ‘‘on grounds independently of the interview.” What then could have been the object of this interview ? Your refusal of the invitation to the Rector- ship of Christ Church was concluded. You informed me of thesame. I then stated to you that I had concluded to accept the invitation. Then ensued the conversation relating to the Lecture Room services of Christ Church, Baltimore; when you urged your opinions on the same, and when! declined agreeing with you, onthe grounds previously stated, you emphatically charged irregularity. I plead the contrary, and cited practice and usage, and declared that I could not consent to a change which would be a reflec- tion on my brother’s ministry and also on my own. Here your object be- comes manifest. You sought to obtain from me a promise to forego that mode of conducting our Lecture Room services, which my brother, (now the assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia,) had found so useful, and to which you had reasons to suppose I was attached. You were anxious to revolutionize the whole character of these Lecture Room services, and, as you expressed yourself, make Christ Church ‘ta model Church.”” Think- ing this Church was a tolerably fair model already, and not fond of novel- ties, I concluded to follow as nearly as [ could in the footsteps of my pred- ecessor, at least until I saw some better way, which, after twenty-five years of ministerial labor, I have never yet found. I think it is now more thanever apparent that your statements in your letter of Oct. 24th in which you say, the invitation to the Rectorship of Christ Church was ‘‘still under consideration” at the time of our inter- view and the facts, as proved by the records of Christ Church and admit- ted by your letter of Dec. 3d, are utterly at variance ; whilst “the motive’ which prompted you to solicit that interview at your house, on the 26th of July, 1842, is apparent. I now declare that lregard that procedure on your part, in its “‘grounds,”? ‘‘reasons,”’ and character—in its reflections on the ministry of my predecessor and in its attempt to embarrass my own, in contemplation of my transfer within your jurisdiction, as one of the most extraordinary—to say no more—that I have ever known, as happening in the conduct of any Bishop of this church. I feel wounded, even at this distance of time, in having been made the subject of such an attempt, and I must frankly confess, that understood, as this matter now is in the ad- missions of your last letter, [regard your conduct on that occasion ‘at your house, as having been a most ungracious return for the courtesy done you by myself, in thus coming to Baltimore and waiting upon you at your own particular request. You had, in advance, disposed of the call of the Vestry ; I was, however, to be tampered with, and my predecessor struck at, over my head, by the charge of “irregularity” in his ministrations! Strange proceeding—and in my humble judgment utterly unjustifiable, call it by what terms you may. Referring to my letter of December 2d, you correct an impression to which I referred doubtfully as you will see by my language. JVot having heen present at the consecration of the Right Rev. John Johns, D. D., in 20 Richmond, I was not positive as to the exact part you took jn that service, and hence alluded to it as much. My language was, “You were, I be- lieve, one of his presentors at his consecration to the Eipiscopate, and did him the kindness to preach the sermon on that occasion.?? The 3d and 4th words in this sentence—the same which I now underscore—show that this particular statement partakes somewhat of the nature of an inquiry. A glance at my language relieves both it and myself from all anxiety of any injury from your disparaging remark, in reference to a distrust of my recollection of past events. in matters of doubtful belief, I am very care- ful always to express such doubt, especially in cases of reliance upon mere reports from others. Pardon me for being apprehensive that you un- intentionally cause much inconvenience to yourself, by seeming to act on the very opposite rule; as, for instance, in your late correspondence with the Rev. William Goode, of England. I now infer, from your correction of the latter incident, for which | thank you, that you admit the former, viz. that you were one of the presentors of the Rev. John Johns, D. D., at his consecration ; as this, if it be so— and it is presumed that it was—is sufficient for my purpose, I dispense with the other incidents. All I wished was to prove that you co-operated in the consecration of a clergyman to the Episcopate, whom by direct im- plication you charged in my presence with being irregular in his ministe- rial services. Surely, after this, you can never again be so intensely vigi- lant as to extend your supervision beyond the clergy of your own Dio- cese, and solicit interviews with them at your own house, affectionately admonishing them on the subject of apprehended irregularity. Your efforts to evade the facts cited by myself, to show your most un- kind and oppressive interference with several of your clergy, as stated in my former correspondence with you, are only naked assertions of your own views of the course of your official conduct. I have been connected with this Diocese, as one of its Presbyters, something like twenty years, a period of time considerably more extended than your Episcopate. I have lived under two of your predecessors in this high office, and never have I known such extraordinary exercise of authority, and such painful disre- gard of the feelings of the clergy, as I have witnessed during the last nine years. In the instance of the Rev. Mr. Robbins, cited in my last letter, and also in my own case, you have acted asif it were a slight affair to threaten, and also to present to the Standing Committee your unhappy pres- byters who differ with you on points of admitted doubtfulness. It is true, in your letter to Mr. Robbins, you speak of “the trouble and disgrace” of a public trial; but you evidently rush into such proceedings—witmess your late attempt against myself—as if they were of-little consequence. I speak with strong emotion on this subject. Twice have! been thus “har- rassed’? by yourself; and in the last instance, was kept waiting for weeks, ina state of no very agreeable suspense, not being by you apprised of the action of the Standing Committee, and only knowing that you had for- mally presented me. So easily may the character of a minister of the gos- pel be stained, and rumor, with her hundred tongues, set in motion against us, that I regard it as a serious injury, even to appear on the records of a Standing Committee as charged with being a violator of the Godly order of this Church. It is not proper for any clergyman to arrest disciplinary process: but I must avail myself of this occasion to implore you, at least, to acquaint yourself with the facts of the several cases which may come before you, which it is evident, both in Mr. Robbins’ instance, and my own, you did not: and also never to present a presbyter for doing that, =. in your own words is, ‘an admitted liberty.”? To resort to the “trouble “ “21 “and disgrace” of a public trial in’ such ‘cases, merely to fix a limit. to an “admitted liberty,”? as you call it, is a'refinement of cruelty of which I am sure no well regulated or generous’ mind .could be guilty: Ministerial character, dearer to us than life itself, is not, cannot be safe where such practices are permitted. Beneath a government of law we are ‘safe, but not otherwise. Laws ‘constructively extorted by severe judicial pro- cesses—in other words, the decrees of courts obtained as in ’ the'case of the Rev: Joseph Trapnell, may be easily made the very worst instruments of oppression. From ‘such calamities may God in mercy save this Church, and especially from the consolidation of the éxecutive, legislative and ju- dicial power in one man.* The best of men are too fond of power. Wise legislation will not seek to inflate this native propensity, but rather to‘re- ‘strain and abate it. . I now approach a part of your letter, which involves a very grave mat- ter. Alluding to my ‘‘statement,” “relating to occurrences in) Christ Church, and in Frederick,’ you observe: ‘‘your allegation of inconsist- -ency, between statements made in the General Convention of 1850,?? (which were made by you in the House of Bishops,) “and the recollec- ‘tions and representations of others on the subject of certain alleged claims, against which you and others presented a memorial to that Convention, induces me now to repeat distinctly the declaration, that I have not at any time asserted my official right to read the Declaration of Absolution, when morning or evening prayer was said by a presbyter in my presence; but have uniformly declared, that having established and long continued the usage before any opposition was set up, I was willing, (though fully be- lieving the Bishop to have the right to take any part of the service at his ‘visitation,) for the sake of those’ who pleaded ‘conscientious scruples, to “accept it as a courtesy, and accordingly asked it as such: The misappre- hensions of yourself and others, must have’ originated in my assertion of the right of the Bishop at his visitation, to read the whole service himself, if he should so choose; a right which I suppose never to have been dis- puted or doubted.” If this language were not in your own hand-writing and over your own ‘signature, before me, I should be disposed to doubt it, as coming from ‘you. How you can allow yourself so to speak is perfectly unaccountable tome. Observe, then, your inaccuracy-in statement of’ fact, and mark’! not a thing heard from others, and in reference to which you ‘might be mis- ‘taken, but a matter which came before you officially; as a member of the House of Bishops, and which closely and particularly affected yourself! You say, referring to the memorial from Maryland, that ‘‘I/and others presented”? it. Now, turn to your copy of the Journal of the General Con- ‘vention, and find my name, if you can, as one of the signers of that docu- ‘ment. ' ‘ i ) But 2ndly. You say, “the right of the Bishop at his visitation to’read the whole service himself, if he should so choose,”? you suppose has nev- er “been doubted or disputed.” : Why, over and above the decided resistance made'to this claim by you, asserted in the presence of the Rev. W. N. Pendleton and myself, at vis- itations of our respective Churches, as before stated to'you, see you not in the action of the last General Convention on the alterations proposed in the Canon on Episcopal visitations something more’ than a doubt ; yes, ‘a negative of this claim? I copy from page 41 of the Journal. | The following proposed Canon of Episcopal visitations ‘was presented. I quote but the first section :— é i w 22 . “1. Every Bishop of this Church shall visit the Churches within his Diocese, for the purpose of examining the state of his Church, inspecting the behavior of his Clergy, preaching, administering the sacraments, or- daining and officiating in the apostolic right of confirmation. Such visita- tions may be made as often as once in each year to each Church, and of- tener, if the minister of the Church request it. And it is deemed proper that such visitations be made once in three years at least, by every Bishop, to every Church within his Diocese. The control of the public services at the time of such visitations, shall be subject to the direction of the Bishop. At all other times, the minister of each congregation shall control the public services of the Church of which he has the charge, subject to the rubrics and canons of this Church.’ Mark the sentence which I have underscored. Its paternity! who can doubt? This sweeping annihilation of the true and proper position of the Presbyters of this Church, embodies and declares, most fully and faithfully, your idea of Episcopal consolidated power, and reduces the body of pres- byters to a mere deputy of the Bishop. Instead of passing this section, however, we rejoice, on reading on page 185, among other sentences in the Journal of 1850, before cited, the following language, offered by Bishop Meade, moved by Bishop MclIlvaine, and seconded by Bishop Potter :— «Whereas, it is in accordance with the mild spirit of our holy religion and the wise moderation of our Church, not to legislate on doubtful points with- out great and sufficient reasons ; and whereas, there are many who would feel aggrieved by any legislation which would either enforce or deny the disputed rights referred to by the memorialists, and whereas, the Bishop of Maryland has declared that the only claim he asserts, is the right of ad- ministering the holy communion in each parish, at his regular visitations, and that he has ever been ready to arrange his visitations so as not to in- terfere with the known wishes and conscientious objections of those who are opposed to the claim asserted.—Therefore resolved,” &c. Here, surely, the record tells us of ‘‘doubt and dispute,’’ whilst the terms of the proposed canon speak for increased power. You know the result. The Convention struck out of this proposed canon every new clause save to authorize the Bishop “to minister the word, and if he think fit, the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” when he visited the churches within his Diocese. Not Sacraments, but “the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper;” not to “‘control the services, but ‘to minister the word.” Now this decided objection to pass the proposed canon as origi- nally drawn, and this limiting of the added clauses, as above expressed, together with the language used by Bishops Meade, Mcllvaine and Pot- ter, surely do more than demonstrate the existence of “doubts,” in regard to your alleged and asserted right, and claim for the Bishop to not merely “control” the services at a visitation, but actually supersede the Rector Presbyter, for the time being, and engross, not by ‘‘courtesy,’’ but by law, the whole service. ‘ With these recorded facts before. you, the language of your letter of Dec. 3, 1851, is most extraordinary. + J I conclude, by quoting, as coincident testimony, to the close and literal truth of my former statements on this subject, the language of the Rev. W. N. Pendleton, whose case I presented for your consideration in my last communication to you. ‘ «| affirm,” writes Mr. Pendleton, “that he (the Bishop, referring to your- self,) has again and again, relentlessly pressed the points of the Absolution and of the whole service, not only by words, but by actions. And in proof, I refer you in brief to documents published by me in the Protestant Church- man of May 17th, 1851. 23 I here solemnly re-affirm the same declaration, made in my last letter, touching the same subject, and I am ready before any tribunal of this Churth, to give my open testimony to the absolute contrariety of your dec- laration on this point, made before the House of Bishops, and reiterated in this correspondence, with the facts at issue. Sacred truth and ministerial character are now implicated, and ought to be vindicated, or we shall all suffer. This is a painful position between a-Bishop, and two of his senior Pres- byters; but your declarations, oral and written, have produced it. I trust some relief may be found, but fear it is a difficult case. Very respectfully, Your friend and obedient servant, HENRY V. D. JOHNS. P.S. In reply to your allusions to daily services, Potter Street, &c., in your last letter, allow me to say that Christ Church, its Assistant, Missionary and Rector have seven services each week, besides other meetings for prayer and benevolence, and counts about four hundred visits by its clergy each month. Surely this is a full report of duty. But let me tell you what this congregation have not had. We have not had an Episcopal visitation or confirmation for five years, wanting less than one month ; and this, too, while our Bishop has been formally notified, more than a year since, that . a class was waiting for him, and the canon on Episcopal Visitations re- minds him that the uaited wisdom of this Church deems it proper that such Episcopal duties should be discharged once at least in three years. Very respectfully, &c. ~ H. V. D. JOHNS. La te Bes teal ut wi obec Oi eid WO Iiwadit ya Sidtad y ssl 180Y to yolmumiu0s auloade ai botgaatior bag 2qodeid To pat (ehioreiaiad bow dow betes ; Thy ileda Sw 10 .bofn Abaiv ida wat tolnea #16 ow! ban god eT an fio mbar avnd nati * _ 8nd Shout ra ) i eae ragthedy deus le aAROL.0.Y YHAE (It Dee BK me 04 2991 048 ; t lead ant, hovel) 101 egairsd smebiasd lod vgrola esi yd alitiv ‘hobaul 100t 5 Jane doy Kor oun tol 0G “ab Ty ‘coiiatieiv laqoseiq it un best 100 OOF peidt bien ; (lyme outo- cealy a . Yael 990% 169 iv ttnalt Stocer tn pnoitaties Leyooeiqhl no om oma tad wsqorg 1 anneal dod a Buia poly aay Sep Se eda; oer wap i162 odds abt a ao loa dle tinos bus adaal a lait we idl gba tod ovate Has 4iBsy ov il 108 fitsot asad Bed : Fae joi 16a d miobeiw betian an ee ly - now constituted, we are ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. SPEECH OF HON. JAMES A. STEWART. OF MARYLAND, Yi IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 12, 1859. Mr. Maynarp having offered the following res- olution— Resolved, That the oldest member of this House, by con- secutive service, be, and is hereby, appointed to the chair to preside until the election of Speaker— Mr. STEWART, of Maryland, said: Mr. Crerx: It is immaterial whether the prop- osition of my friend from Tennessee be adopted or not. I have no objection, if that be the sense of the House, that we should carry out that reso- lution. I propose, however, before the vote is taken upon the resolution, to submit briefly some suggestions to the House in relation to the state of things now existing. I confess, Mr. Clerk, that I cannot sce any se- rious objection—however necessary it may be to have this House organized—to our proceeding with this discussion in the same courteous manner in whieh it has been so far conducted. . The at- tention of the country is more especially directed to what may be going on here in the present con- dition of the House than it would be if we, pro- ceeded more regularly. We have now within this Hall some two hundred and thirty-odd mem- bers from various States of the Cdifadeaby not delegates from a consolidated people, but embas- sadors from great sovereignties—and it is proper that these high and independent Representatives shall take into consideration, before electing a Speaker of this House—the third officer of the overnment in point of dignity—all the great tens connected with the present state of the nion. ‘Under the Constitution of the United States there is an express authority given to the House of. Representatives to choose its Speaker and its other officers; but as to the mode in which the election is to be made, the Constitution is silent. Therefore we are to be governed by usage, by the essential nature of the case, and by such consid- erations as shall control the Representatives of these States. I concede that when a member gets up to express his views or the opinions entertained by his section or by his constituents, it should be doné in order, with dignity, with firmness. As ere on our parole of honor. If the intervention of your subordinate * | officers cannot be called in to preserve order, the greater the reason for gentlemen conducting them- selves with perfect decorum; and I would hold that man who would indulge in personalities, or in any ungenerous remarks not called for by the occasion, as derelict in the discharge of his high duty. Inthe brief remarks which I propose to make on this occasion, I shall not depart from the piesa me that I have thus laid down, and which recognize to be correct. The Democratic members of this House, al- though in a minority, have proceeded, accord- ing to the ancient usages of that party, to have an understanding, and to present to their fellow- members a gentleman for Speaker whom. they consider perfectly competent to discharge the du- ties of that position. ‘They have offered a distin- guished. gentleman from Virginia, What objec- tions can be advanced against him? He has been long a member of this House, and is acquainted with parliamentary usage. His views and his principles are national. He is here, not the rep- resentative alone of the old Commonwealth of Virginia, but a Representative to take charge, ac- cording to the limitations of the Constitution, of the interests of every section of this great Con- federacy. No objection can be urged against him personally. No fair and legitimate objection, I apprehend, can be advanced against him so far as his political principles are concerned. If he be clothed with the responsible trust of presiding over the deliberations of this House, he will do so with dignity, with firmness, with fairness, in my judgment. On the other side we see the Re- pabican party, a great organization of the North. hey, also, have presented a member of that party for Speaker, and have invoked to his sup- ort the suffrages of members of this House. ow stands that gentleman? Is it not known to this House that, in the various ballots that have taken place, not a single member from a southern State, or from the States of the Pacific, has taken on himself the responsibility of voting for that gentleman? How can theydo it? So far as the tee character.of that gentleman is concerned, have nothing to say against him; but, repre- ‘senting, as I do, a southern constituency—coming 2 from a State loyal to this Union—coming from a border State—I ask, how can it be expected that any gentleman representing a southern constitu- ency can give that gentleman his support? He stands before us and the country, unfortunately for him, as the indorser of this Helper book—that notorious publication. How can he be relieved from that odium? Notwithstanding the apologies made to the House, that indorsement sticks to him as the poisoned shirt of Nessus. He cannot divest himself of it. How can ey expect us, who represent great interests which are recog- nized by the Constitution, to sustain a gentleman thus implicated and thus affected ? What incendiary views does this atrocious pub- lication of Helper inculcate? Here isa brief sum- mary: “1. Thorough organization and independent political action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites of the South. “2. Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders; never an- other vote to any one who advocates retention and perpet- uation of human slavery. «<3. No cooperation with pro-slavery politicians ; no fel- lowship with them in religion; no affiliation with them in society. “4, No patronage to pro-slavery merchants; no guest- ship in slave-waiting hotels; no fees to pro-slavery law- yers ; no employment of pro-slavery pliysicians ; no audi- ence to pro-slavery parsous. “5. No more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders. “6. Abruptdiseontinuance of subscription to pro-slavery newspapers. “7, The greatest possible encouragement to free white labor.?? I have not read the book, and may never take that occasion; and I refer to this brief analysis, without commenting upon other sentiments yet more insurrectionary and diabolical. Enough comment upon such a miserable firebrand; and the candidate of the Republicans has indorsed and recommended it! A gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Hick- MAN] introduced, the other day, a resolution em- bodying the plurality rule. Now, is not that a matter of questionable constitutionality? The Constitution of the United States says that the House shall choose its Speaker. A majority of a quorum can transact business, but can they dele- gate authority to a less number than a majority? Can a measure be passed or become a law unless it meet the approval of a majority? I apprehend not. This plurality rule is therefore a matter of very questionable authority. For myself, I can never consent, under any circumstances, to vote for the election of Speaker by the plurality rule. No, sir; our Federal Government is aGovernment of limited powers, of checks and balances, Within those limitations, it may be said, you have the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, codrdinate branches of the legisla- tive department. You have the President of the United States, who can exercise the veto power; which, looking to the character of this Govern- ment—a Confederacy of sovereign States—is a conservative power. And, sir, if from the con- flicting elements of which this House is composed, no party can command a majority inits organiza- tion, then what is the attitude of the Government? What is the position of this nation? Upon whom does the responsibility rest? Uponall of us. You may say that it is not upon the Republican party or upon the Democratic party, if you please. It may be upon those gentlemen who cast scattering votes; but they have their responsibility also to meet. Sir, I say, for myself, that I cannot recog- nize the propriety of an organization of this House by the adoption of the plurality rule. Well, sir, the district that I have the honor to represent—a part of the State of Maryland—is a district loyal to this Union, under the Constitu- tion; but I owe it to this House, to my constitu- ents, and to myself, to state here, that there is a growing apprehension in my section of the State of Maryland, (and I believe, sir, it is a fair index, perhaps, of the sentiment of the whole State,) that there is danger to the perpetuity of this Union, and to the existence of this Confederacy, and to our immediate interests. And let me say, sir, that this Union is not to be preserved, in my judg- ment, by singing peans and hosannas to it. Tt can only be perpetuated by maintaining, in their full vigor and vitality, all the guarantees of the Constitution. Whenever this Government is under the contro] of an irresponsible and fanatical majority, and the integrity and sovereignty of the States are destroyed, you may cleave down this Union, and demolish the very existence of the Goxernment. The South, therefore, is taking her position and occupying the ground that she does— not alone for her own sake, but as the friend of the whole Union—for the purpose of maintaining the constitutional rights of the people of the North, as well as those of the South. Well, sir, a new kind of doctrine is talked about now-a-days of an ‘irrepressible conflict”’ between the free and the slave States which did not pre- vail in the stormy but patriotic days of the Rev- olution, in those heroic times when our forefathers went into the struggle with mother Country. Of the thirteen States that then existed, twelve were slaveholding States, and but one was a non-slayve- holding State, and a Constitution was formed in the year of our Lord 1789, recognizing the rights ‘of hose slaveholding States, ; How many sovereign States are there now? The southern section alone has fifteen. In place of the thirteen States that went straight through the battles of the Revolution triumphantly with three million people, you have now on southern soil fifteen great and powerful slayeholding States, with a population of some six or eight ea and all the elements of a great people. Can it be supposed that the Representatives of those fifteen slaveholding States are less patriotic, less the friends of constitutional Government, than were our forefathers? They did not go into that great conflict from any new-fangled notion of lib- erty or any of those transcendental views which now actuate a portion of the people of the North. They lived under charters from the mother coun- try—all the colonies had such charters—and they went into that struggle with the mother country in defense of constitutional liberty and their char- tered rights. ‘There were cool and sedate men in those days who thought that the patriots who em- barked in the Revolution were too hasty in their action; they said that they had lived under a good Government, and that perhaps the mother country would change her policy; but George Washing- ton, the father of his country, and his compatriots thought otherwise, and they deliberately involyed themselves in that great revolutionary effort with three million people composing the entire popula- . tion of the colonies. There were men in those 3 days, both North and South, called Tories, who thought the movement ill-advised and premature; _ but the patriots of those days rushed into the fear- ' ful contest, and, notwithstanding this internal feel- ing and opposition, they gloriously established | their independence and laid the foundation of this | constitutional confederated Government. Now, can it be supposed that in this nineteenth century, when, under the beneficent influence of this Gov- ernment, the South herself, pari passu with other portions of the country, has grown to be a great section, with fifteen States and eight million peo- ple, they will, when an attempt is made to strike down all constitutional guarantees and to set at naught the limitations which are prescribed for the action of this Government, tamely submit to a dominant, fanatical, and irresponsible majority ? T apprehend not, sir. Have we not grown to be a great people? We have now thirty-three States, | not alone upon the Atlantic slope as in the rev- olutionary struggle, and with a scattered popula- | tion, but you have filled up, by the wise and influ- ential action of this Government, the avenues of population; the great valley of the Mississippi now teems with her millions of people, and we have now, upon the golden shores of the Pacific, two great States—California and Oregon. Now, sir, is it to be supposed that these States | will revolve around the General Government as does the solar system around the sun as a center? Almighty power controls the universe; but Al- mighty power does not control human government upon the same fixed and unalterable basis. That depends in a great measure, under Divine Provi- dence, upon the people—the voice of the people, which, in this country, we recognize, in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, as the voice of God, and the people are not those of the days of the Revolution; not those who are to come after us; but the people now living and moving on the face of the earth within the limits of this Con- federacy, they are the people—the actual people. Wehave lived happily; we have lived and enjoyed all the blessings of life comfortably under this Union; and it has grown to be powerful among the nations of the world under the guidance of Democratic principles. Now, forsooth, in this refined age of the world, here are gentlemen from the North, who are ready to strike down the con- stitutional guarantees and limitations of this Goy- ernment. An assault, too, is made upon the Su- preme Court of the United States. That, perhaps, is one of the most unfavorable symptoms of the times. Has not the Supreme Court of the United States decided that citizens of the South have as much right to carry their institutions and various descriptions of property into the Territories as citizens of the No th have to carry theirs? That court has, upon solemn argument and re-argu- ment, pronounced the Missouri compromise to be unconstitutional, because it violates the rights of the people of the South. Yetthe Supreme Court is assailed! It shows the feeling at the North. They make war not only upon the Supreme Court, but upon the constitutional rights of the South, when in conflict with their sentimentality. It has been said by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Corwin,] and the acquiescence in his views by the other side would make them appear to be those of the Republican party, that they were in favor of the fugitive slave law. Am I to understand that the Republican party proper is in favor of that law? Why, then, these assaults upon the Supreme Court and the South? If that party has ie jae sea influence at the North, as is alleged, why do they not efficiently indicate that recognition of the fugitive slave law? Why is it that a citizen of the, South puts his life in jeopardy when he pursues his runaway slave into the North, in order to return him to his service ? If our friends of the North wish this Government to continue as it has done, then the constitutional rights of the South must be respected. It becomes the solemn duty of the members of the Republican party at once to carry out the provisions of the Constitution. There have been Union meetings in Boston, and Philadelphia, and elsewhere; but they will have no good result unless they influ- |ence the action of the northern Representatives upon this floor, now or hereafter. They must act upon the public sentiment of the North so as to induce patriotic results here in the councils of the nation. If they do not do that, they amount to nothing; then they are a delusion. There is not a gentleman here who does not know that, if the policy which has prevailed in the North be allowed to continue; if infamous publications like the Helper book are indorsed, even though by inadvertence; if such publications are circulated broadcast throughout this Union, for the purpose of stirring up strife, insurrection, and civil war, the Union must fall, sooner or later, however much we may be attached to it; however mindful of its glories and its benefits. Mr. Clerk, the distinguished Senator from New York (Mr. Sewarp] has declared that there is an ‘“irrepressible conflict” between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. Is that conflict to go on, fomented by passion and prejudice and all sorts of means? Why did he take that position? In the North, a portion of the people, atldast, have been in the habit of running men representing the most fanatical and extreme views, for the Presidenzy. They ran Joun P. Hare and Gerrit Smith, I be- lieve, and others. Mr. Sewarp, whois a sharp, keen, calculating politician, came to the conclu- sion, no doubt, that he would take the wind out of the sails of such aspirants, and adopt himself the most ultra ground and thus exclude all others, for none can bemore extreme. I apprehend, there- fore, it was that he promulgated this idea of an ‘irrepressible conflict;’’ and it is well understood that no man in the North can express more ultra views. And, sir, 1 am apprehensive that it will come to pass, when this Republican party puts forth its presidential candidate, that Mr. Sewarp will be their standard bearer. If a man, en- tertaining such views, be successfully indorsed by northern sentiment, then his election to the Presidency will give rise to a momentous ques- tion as to how far the States of the South and the States upon the Pacific, and, indeed, all States that go for the Constitution, should take steps to protect their interests, if they mean to maintain constitutional and well regulated government. I saw a backing. down, however, I think, upon the other side; and I have, I must confess, an abiding confidence in the integrity and perpetuity of the Union. ‘That change of tactics was indicated, I thought, by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Cor- WIn,| in the remarks which he made a few days ago. They seem not prepared to indorse Wiz- 4 nriam H. Sewarp or his extreme sentiments. . If, however, he should be put upas the candidate of the Republican party for the Presidency, and his extreme views should be sustained, then, sir, we of the South will know where to find the North. But I believe, Mr. Clerk, that there is patriotism enough in the North to rebuke the revolutionary and disorganizing views entertained by sucha man as Witutiam H. Sewarp. At the last presiden- tial election, there were one million two hundred thousand votes polled in favor of the national can- didate. Butif the sentiments entertained by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Corwry] are those of the Republican party, upon what ground can that party stand? If they acknowl- edge the constitutionality of the fugitive slave law, if they recognize the décision of the Supreme Court of the United States, that the South have equal rights with the North in the Territories, then upon what basis does that party stand? If they are in favor of the constitutional guarantees, and do not hold to the extreme views charged upon them, why do they come up and attempt to or- ganize this House in opposition to the action of the Democratic party? ust they net be regarded as a stupendous faction? I have observed, in a speech made by a distin- guished gentleman ata Pan meeting at Boston, where there were several thousands assembled, he stated that there were thousands of votes regis- tered in Massachusetts that had not been polled for many years. A small minority, in fact, in Massachusetts have been managing the destinies of that State, if this be a correct representation. Now, in a crisis like this, when the Government is shaking from center to circumference; when this great Confederacy, with all its advantages, is in jeopardy—now, I say, there is an occasion for the people of the North to rise in their majesty and rebuke the mad spirit of disloyalty. We do not ask them to vindicate slavery; if their views are adverse to it, so be it. We have examined this question in all its bearings. By our social in- stitutions slayery exists unalterably in the South. We have four million negroes. hat is to be done with them? Suppose you free them, how do you ayoid the evil? The negro is, by a fixed fact, one of the institutions of the country. You cannot change his destiny. ‘They were brought here by some ruling of divine Providence un- doubtedly, and you cannot hold us responsible. While this Government was being formed in 1789, how came the clause inserted in the Constitution that the slave trade should not cease for twenty years? Why, Mr. Jefferson, and many men in the days of the Revolution, and before the adop- tion of the Constitution, I believe, thought this institution of slavery might be avoided in process of time, and that it would gradually disappear. When the delegates met, and the North and some of the States South, and against the remonstrances of Virginia and Maryland, inserted that provision in the Constitution providing for the further in- troduction of slaves for twenty years; during that period the country was filled with Africans by your merchant adventurers of the North, who had the control of the navigating interest of the country at that time. They are here, and how shall we get rid of them? Northern men, I say, banded with the extreme men of the South, to fasten this institution upon the country, and now | we have some three or four million of the African race. Is there any man who has examined this subject philosophically, and in reference to our social system, who has devised a better scheme for the protection and preservation of the rights of white men, as well as those of the negroes, than you find existing inthe slave States? Can any of these new fee any of these transcendental philosophers, point out a remedy? If you cannot, then is it not one of those unalterable institutions, the destruction of which would shatter your social system North, South, East, and West? If you affect this interest of the South, you derange every interest of this country. How would it operate upon the New England States—the manufacturing States. When we raise cotton, we send it either to Old England or to New England, Now, is there a man upon the other side of the House who is not clothed, to some extent, with fabrics raised by negro labor? Not one; I presume. What will be your condition if you destroy your manu- facturing establishments for the want of material? What would have been the condition of this coun- try from the mouth of the Ohio down to the Ba- lize, but for the existence of the institution of slavery ?—for the whole of that region is adapted © to slave labor and the raising of cottonand sugar. It would have been a vast wilderness, for you would not have had white population sufficient to fill up that region with laborers adapted to the growth of cotton and the sugar cane. Nor could white laborers haye happily occupied that region in the cultivation of such crops. Mr, CURTIS. I would ask my friend if there are not twice as many laboring white men in the South as there are negroes? Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. I think not. Mr. CURTIS. ,That is about the proportion. I think there are about six million whites, and about three million negroes. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. There are about four million negroes, slaves and free. Now let me say to the gentleman from Iowa that there is no incompatibility at the South between, the labor of the white man and slave labor, each in its appropriate and adapted sphere—none whatever. The white man is engaged in different labor and pursuit, Take the history of this country from its origin, trace and examine it in thelight of po- litical economy, and answer me, men ofthe North, would this country, with all its magnificence, all its power and grandeur, hayeoceupied its present high position, had it not been for this African population? Whence could we haye drawn a suf- ficient laboring population? You have already pretty much exhausted Ircland; you get but few men from that quarter now; you get some from Germany,afew from France, and a portion from other parts of the continent; and Lask you, would you have filled up our country with laborers of climatic capacities, but for the African? The negro has been profitably employed at the South in growing cotton, sugar, and rice; and the white man, at the same time, has felt the benefit of this munificent system of Government in other and more congenial occupations. If my friend from Iowa will examine the question fairly, I think he will come to the conclusion thatif the African, by a wise Providence, I believe, had never been in- troduced into this country, we should have been at least half a century behind our present posi- iE FLOWERS COLLECTION 5 tion. Weare much indebted, in my humble judg- ment, to that act of an all-wise Providence; for I think it must have been the act of a benevolent Providence that the African was brought to this country; and if the African is removed, and his destiny changed, it must be done by the same Almighty power. If you undertake, by the action of this Government, by combinationsathe North, to make war upon the institutions of the South, you may destroy not only the South, but this great Confederacy. That institution is a part of our social system, and cannot be changed without fundamental convulsions. Have we not grown great, powerful, and magnificent with African slavery? I ask the gentleman from lowa if he can point to any instance in saered or profane history, of any people who have flourished as have the good people of this glorious country? ‘This in- stitution existed at the formation of the Constitu- tion, and it was expressly recognized and formed a part of that sacred compact, and it has entered into our social and concentrated existence as an integral part. I hope, and yet believe, that there is enough of atriotism and enough of common sense in the orth to keep this Government moying along in its high career of prosperity. We have consid- ered this question, and have, it is too true, an apprehension that fanaticism may be able, by concentration, to destroy the Confederacy and break up this Union. Yet that is still a question. Let us see how the next presidential election will result. If that election be determined in favor of the views of the Republican party, then, I appre- hend, the southern States:and the States of the Pacific, and all other order-loving States, will take counsel together, as’ our forefathers did in the revolutionary struggle... They will take no hasty action, but will resolve deliberately, se- riously, and with a full understanding of their condition. If this great fanatical any comes into power, takes control of the, Government, possession of the White House, and of this Cap- itol, and of all the offices of the Government, would not this metropolis be overrun with swarms of Republican officeholders and office-seekers? and may Heaven deliyer us from such keepers | of our great seal! Mr. KILGORE. I ask the gentleman from Maryland, whether he is not in favor of the ma- jority of the people of this Union ruling, so long as they rule with a proper respect for the rights of the minority? Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Lamin favor of the majority ruling, under the limitations and forms prescribed by the Constitution. Mr. KILGORE. Certainly. | Mr.STEWART, of Maryland. Recollect that in our Confederacy, the little State of Delaware —I speak of heras asmall but respectable State— [laughter,] is on an equality with the State of New York, in the Senate of the United States, under the Constitution. Iam opposed, unalter- ably, to a majority of absolute numbers control- ling this Confederacy in any manner, exceptin the mode pointed outin the compact of Union. This is a Confederacy, not a consolidated empire. The State of Delaware, the State of New Jersey, and the State of Rhode Island occupy the same proud osition, as sister States in this Confederacy, as oes the great Empire State of New York, and will occupy that relation so long as we can keep the Government within constitutional limits. But if you start out on this wild ocean of an itrespon- sible majority, ‘irrepressible conflict,’’ trenching on the rights of the States, cleaving down the lim- itations of the Constitution, then we have a des- potism. No, sir, the great discovery made by our forefathers was, that they had arranged a Government of constitutional limitations. There is the veto power given to the President—that is a conservative power. So, also, the power which the minority holds in this House—the position now occupied by the Democratic party, if you please—is a conservative attribute. Now, when- ever the time comes that you men of the North, with your allies, set aside the constitutional lim- itations, for the purpose of making war upon the South and her institutions, you pull down this pret temple of constitutional liberty on your own heads. Then you yourselves will have no con- stitutional Government, but a wild majority, reck- lessly and uncontrollably setting aside the rights of the States and the people, making war upon the Supreme Court, and upon every institution that comes in conflict with their grasping domi- nation. We thought our forefathers had found outa system of checks, limitations, restraints, and balances against such an illimitable and irrespons- ible majority. Mr. KILGORE. Ipresumethe gentleman from Maryland has been a Democrat all his life. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Yes. Mr. KILGORE. I ask him if he sustained General Jackson in his war on the Constitution, and in his declaration that the Supreme Court would not make decisions to bind his conscience in regard to the bank of the United States? Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. I conceive that the question put by the gentleman from Indi- ana has no application to the question which I am now discussing. ‘That gentleman decides, and I decide, on all constitutional questions coming within our jurisdiction for our own representative action. General Jackson, as the head of the Dem- oeratic party and Government, decided for him- self. Inow put this question to the gentleman: When the Supreme Court has decided a question legally and constitutionally coming before it, does he recognize that decision as binding? I should like to have ananswer. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States. has decided in the Dred Scott case that the people of the South can go into the common Territories with their property—their ne- groes—justas the people of the North can go with their horses, their cattle, and their looms; and the court judged that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional, because it was in conflict with the rights of the South. Willthe gentleman stand up to that decision? Mr. KILGORE. I have: stated, and I do not wish to be misunderstood, that when the Supreme Court travels out of its legitimate sphere for the purpose of pronouncing a political opinion on questions not presented for their consideration, I have no regard for it. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Then you undertake to decide for yourself. Mr. KILGORE. I undertake to decide that the Supreme Court, in that case, traveled out of the record, for the purpose of pronouncing a political opinion not involved in the issue presented tothem. 6 Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Who prop- erly is to decide that question? Mr. KILGORE. Iam, myself. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Exactly; but do you decide in a representative capacity, or as an individual? If you undertake to decide as an individual, and differ with the Supreme Court and its authority, then you would be in opposition to the constitutional authorities of the Government. Such a principle is at war with the orderly acts and authority of this Government, because it is the Supreme Court that has the right to decide these questions when they are appropriately be- fore it. If their decisions are not binding on all coérdinate departments of the Government, in eases which they adjudge, properly before them, then we are without’ any acknowledged or com- petent judicial authority. I hold that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is con- trolling and binding. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court decided that the people of the | South, as well as the people of the North, have equal constitutional rights in the Territories; and it is not in the power of the Congress of the Uni- ted States, or any department of the Government, to control these great constitutional rights. Mr. KILGORE. Let me again ask the gen- tleman whether that question was legitimately be- fore the Supreme Court, and whether the onl question for their adjudication was not whether Dred Scott was a citizen of the United States or not, under the provisions of the Constitution ? And, if that was the only question, let me ask him whether it was not an extra-judicial opinion, and one that should have no binding force upon | any one? Mr. STEWART, of Marylayd. I will say to the gentleman from Indiana that I think the ques- tion came legitimately before the Supreme Court. I think that, in the Dred Scott case, the very ques- tion came up as to the power of the Congress of the United States to prescribe terms in such cases in relation to the occupying of the Territories. I look upon it as having been legitimately decided. | But, outside of the decision of the Supreme Court—which I conceive was only an affirmation | of the constitutional rights of the South—I should like to know upon what principle the gentlemen of a dominant, irresponsible majority can under- take to say to the men of the South, after terri- tory has been acquired by the common blood and the common treasure, that the people of the South have not the same equal rights in the Territories as the people of the North. [say thatit is against common justice, against common decency, and againstcommon right, to maintain such a position. Now, if the object of gentlemen at the Northis to curtail slavery, where will they find the ground on which to stand? If they keep up their argan- ization, when all these questions in relation to the Territories are settled, instead of being a free- soil party, they will certainly become an anti- slavery party, to all intents and purposes; they will make war in fact upon the South, and upon her domestic institutions. I read the other day the correspondence be- tween Governor Wise and the President in rela- tion to the recent onslaught on the sovereign State of Virginia. Governor Wise thought that, under that provision of the Constitution of the United States, which guaranties to every State rotection from invasion and from internal strife, it was the duty of the President of the United States, when the Executive of the Commonwealth of Virginia gave him notice that he apprehended an invasion, to intervene and to protect, if neces- sary, by all the powers of the Wrederal Govern- ment, the State of Virginia from that a yprehended invasion. The President says that he has not the power; that there is no act of Congress conferring it wpon him; and he maintains that the act of 1793, nor the act of 1807, did not clothe him with it. Now, if the interpretation of the President be cor- rect, and he has no such authority, legislation is needed. Are our friends from the different sec- tions jn this House and in the other wing of the Capitol prepared to clothe the Executive with proper authority to protect the various States North, South, East, and West, against such in- vasions, or combinations, if you choose to call them so? Suppose that it is not done, and Goy- ernor Wise, in pursuance of what he considers to be his duty, finding men violating the laws and peace of Virginia, undertakes to pursue them fla- grante bello, and they flee into the State of Ohio, must there not be a collision between these two States, unless there is an exercise of this constitu- tional power of the Government? When Com- modore Paulding made his demonstration on the || soil of Nicaragua, a Government with which we were at peace, and captured Walker there, gen- tlemen on the other side said that he did right, and some of them undertook to compliment him for it. Well, will they carry out that principle? Governor Wise. found John Brown and his con- federates upon the soil of Virginia, with arms and ammunition and all the elements of warfare. Sup- pose they had escaped into Ohio, there is nothing in the Constitution or in the comity of nations, according to your understanding, that would have Hoag: him from pursuing them there; but, ad he done so, it would have brought on a col- lision between those two States. And I appeal to gentlemen in this crisis, when the country is. excited North, South, East, and West, when you find Virginia in a State of military defense, and, no doubt, when the Legislature of Maryland meets, they will put the military defenses of that State also ona proper basis, as will all the southern States—I appeal to gentlemen, if not by suitable legislation, at least by the power of public opin- ion, to prevent these onslaughts upon the South. These are the views and considerations, Mr. Clerk, entering into our discussions here, that should govern and animate us, before the organ- ization of the House, if you please, in undertak- ing to determine what is the proper action that the Representatives of this great Confederacy should adopt in our proceedings on this occasion, in the organization of this House. I think if we con- duct ourselves with decorum, as I have no doubt every gentleman will, if these matters are dis- cussed with fairness and courtesy, we may come — to a proper understanding. We are all of us, I apprehend, friends of the Union and of this great overnment in its individuality and in its com- bined action. Let us all, from every section, — take counsel’ together as high-toned patriots. I would say to the Representatives on the other side, if they are the friends of the Union, why do they press their present candidate? If gentlemen of the North are, as they claim to be, Union-lov- ing and conservative, why do they presentas their organ, as their candidate; as the index of their sentiments, a gentleman who is obnoxious and offensive in his public conduct, if you please, to entlemen from the South? The Speaker of this Bows occupies an honorable position; he is the third officer under the Government; he exercises a controlling influence over our deliberations, in the appointment of committees, &c. Isay, then, to gentlemen on the other side who profess to be Union men, since your standard bearer has been so unfortunate as to have indorsed this offensive publication, why press him upon the House? Can youcarry him through? No, sirs; I tell you, according to my estimate, that this House never will be organized with that Representative as your standard bearer. I do not think it can be done. We men of the South cannot sanction it. Ispeak, of course, of legitimate means, of opposition. I say that he cannot be elected. In the various votes which have been taken, what adventitious force have you been able to obtain? You have tried all ee iieess I presume; you have endeav- ored to exercise all the influence which you could command; and yet you are in a minority, | Per- haps you expect to get the plurality rule. Now, I believe that any man who would vote for the plurality rule, would, if the question were be- tween ‘ee and SumrMan, vote for SHERMAN. I respond to the sentiment expressed by the dis- tinguished gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Reacan.] If gentlemen intend to support Suzrman, let them do it without the plurality rule. Well, even with the aid of the plurality rule, can you elect an ex- tremist—a politician who is implicated with this Helper book?) Can you expect to force him upon this House? I apprehend that it cannot be done. The North will wake up, and ask what is the dif- ficulty. Here wasan infamous publication, utterly atrocious in its character, indorsed and recom- mended by the candidate of the Republican party. Will the North take and admit his explanation? If they do, others will not. I think that that pamphlet of Helper will stick to the Republican arty for all time, if they persist in supporting Mr. Suerman, who has indorsed it. Lask gentlemen of the other side to look at the elements of which this House is composed. We ask the other side to present a man who is true to the Union and uncontaminated. If they are not extremists, we ask them, in reference to the pro- ceedings in the future in this House, in order, sir, that we may, progress harmoniously, we re- spectfully submit to them whether it would not be more proper for them to present as their can- didate some gentleman who is not obnoxious to the charge of an indorsement of such an atrocious pamphlet. Mr. STANTON. I submit to the gentleman from Maryland whether, if the positions were reversed, and the other side of the Fronse had pre- sented a candidate who had been denounced from this side as utterly unworthy of the House and the country, and that side were appealed to to abandon him, and thereby confess the condemna- tion just, they would do it? Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. We have some eighty-eight or ninety members upon this side of the House. We have met, and nominated Mr. Bococx, a national Democrat. If there is any man upon this side of the House, just as sound ag Mr. Bococxk, more acceptable to the other side of the House, I have no doubt that there is nationality enough on this side, magna- nimity enough, to gratify them in the election of such a gentleman to the Speakership of this House. Mr. STANTON. upon Mr. Bocock. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. If you can find any gentleman from the South who has ever signed a document so atrocious in its character as the Helper pamphlet; if you will show that Mr. Bococx has done so, then we will withdraw. him, and censure any man who has done so. Thatis our attitude. If anything can be shown in the public service of Mr. Bococx, in violation of our position, where he has ever said anything so of- fensive as that which is contained in the Helper book, then we should like to hear it, and will condemn it—— ; Mr. KILGORE. Does the gentleman know how their candidate stands in relation to the ele- vation of Mr. Srwarp to the Presidency? Would he consider that Mr. Sewarp’s election would, of itself, be sufficient cause for the dissolution of the Union? If the gentleman is not authorized to answer, I would like to hear from Mr. Bocock himself. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. | Your candi- date has refused to respond to interrogatories. do not undertake to speak for Mr. Bocock. Ido not know exactly what are his views upon those subjects, and do not much care. I am satisfied that he is a national Democrat, and would make us an accomplished officer. But Iam not, ast have stated, his organ to answer interrogatories for him. That is a matter for himself. If the candidate of the Republicans upon the other side will submit himself to be catechised, there would then have been a propriety in putting interroga- tories to the Democratic candidate. Mr. KILGORE. Perhaps, if the gentleman answers my questions satisfactorily, I may vote for his candidate. [Laughter.] Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. IfI-can find out what sort of programme will satisfy the gen- tleman, I would be glad to gratify him in any reasonable wa Mr. KILGORE. Hereare the questions I would like to have answered: 1. If Mr. SewArp should be elected President, pursuant to the forms of law and the Constitu- tion, would the fact of such election be any or sufficient reason for opposing the inauguration of his Administration, or! for a dissolution of the Union of the States? 2: Are you, or is your candidate for Speaker, for or against reopening the African slave trade? 3. Are you, or is he, in favor of congressional legislation for the protection of slavery in the Ter- ritories, in case of the refusal of the Territorial Legislature to pass such laws? 4. Are you, or is he, in favor of popular sover- eignty to the extent of allowing the people of a Territory, during their territorial existence, to admit or exclude slavery therefrom? If these questions are answered satisfactorily by the Democratic candidate, I should not hesitate to say that such a candidate is competent for the peakership. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Those ques- We have made no assault 8 tions are not only propounded to my candidate but to myself. I am ready to answer for myself. Mr. KILGORE. Let me have the gentleman’s answer, if I cannot get his candidate’s. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. I may say of Mr. Bocock, as Mr. Suerman said of himself, that he stands upon his record which is spread before the country. If the gentleman will say that his candidate will put himself forward to be catechised, I have no doubt that Mr. Bococx will not shrink from the responsibility of expressing whatever opinions he may entertain. Mr. KILGORE. If my candidate will not an- swer, I will undertake the responsibility of doing so for him. Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Better answer for himself. It is very evident, considering the time which has elapsed since this House met, and the discussion which has been going on here, that the other side cannot organize this House upon the candidate they have now before us. It can- not be done. Ido not state this in any spirit of defiance. I state it as a probable calculation. Bococx gets so many votes, SHERMAN so many; and then there are so many scattering. They cannot command those scattering votes. I do not, and will not, believe until I see it, that they can command a majority in favor of the plurality rule to allow any to dodge responsibility. We cannot do much before the holidays, evenif we organize. I was here in 1855, when the contest took place on the election for the Speaker. That contest ‘lasted more than seven weeks. Suppose this House never organizes, where is the responsibility? You told the people that you were coming up here to electa Speaker, and organize this House. You have not done that, sir, nor, in my judgment, can you with Mr. SuHerman as your candidate, or indeed with anybody in the same category. Suppose the House does not organize, who is to be held responsible? You will say that the Administration party is in power, and that with- out an organization of this House they cannot carry on this Government. Very well. Here are sovereign States, and you cannot thus bring this Government to an end. When I speak of the Government, I speak of her in all her essence and modifications—of State governments and a Federal Government—of a government of pri- mary and of delegated powers. You cannot, by non-organization on the part of this House, break up this Government, although it is revolutionary ; and the people will so understand it. Wait until you hear what your sovereigns say. Let our can- didates undergo the ordeal, and let the great body of the people of the States in this Confederacy answer upon whom the responsibility rests. When the people of the North understand that the Re- publican party have presented a candidate with ‘ dation. [ such a record; when they see his indorsement of that infamous publication; you will comprehend how far that law-loving people, par. excellence, will sustain you in pressing such a candidate’ under all the circumstances. Iam content. I rep- resent a constituency loyal to this Union; but to’ the Union under the Constitution. “We do not go for your irresponsible majorities; we do not go for any of your new-fauiled and transcendental notions; we take the Government as it was founded by our revolutionary forefathers, and. when you strike down the institution of slavery, you ‘will have cloven down “alike all constitutional guaran- tees. What but revolution can you expect from the South under such cireumstances? Do you suppose this Government is to exist in perpetuity unless you maintain the Constitution in all its vigor and integrity? Look at the history, sacred and profane, of all eer tblican Govern-) ments. Where is Babylon; where is Nineveh: where are Sodom and Gomorrah? Gone, gone. The profoundest antiquarian cannot tell exactly where they stood. And why have they been blot- ted out from the roll of flourishing cities? Was» it not because they were reckless of all moral ob- ligations and legal restraints imposed upon them? And shall we escape the same awful doom if we violate the principles, the spirit of the constitu- tional limitations imposed upon us by the great compact formed by our forefathers ? hat new discovery did our forefathers make which will enable us to'achieve more success or greater per- petuity than did those ancient republics, if we are reckless of constitutional restraints? I wish it, therefore, understood that I go for the Union under the Constitution, and without the Constitution there can be no Union; and’ that, in the election of Speaker of this House, I want its candidate to be a national man, a statesman who will recognize all sections, North, South, East, and West. ; i I shall stand up here, to the best of my ability. in defense of the rights of my constituents, ac- cording to the views I entertain, and shall oppose the plurality rule, and all attempts made to organ- | ize this House by putting in power, with his ob- noxious implications, the candidate of a seetional party, which makes war upon the settled and con- servative institutions of the country, Let this de- — bate go on or stop now, I shall never consent to the plurality rule in order to organize this House: and I trust in God that this House and great Con- federacy may be spared the calamity of witness- ing the inauguration of schemes here under such influences and such a programme of ‘sectional policy as now startles the country, and will, if not checked, cause every column in our great temple of constitutional liberty to totter to its very foun- we ; it Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. LETTER Z © ' FROM THE HON. JAMES ALFRED PEARCE, 4 UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MARYLAND, ON THE POLITICS OF THE DAY. LETTER oy FROM THE HON. THOMAS G. PRATE, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MARYLAND, pp 9! TO THE WHIGS OF THAT STATE. P SPEECH OF THE HON. ISAAC 4D. JONES, jivered in response to the call of a Democratic Procession at Princess Anne, Somerset county, Md. , f on the evening of Tuesday, July 15, 1856. | it SPEECH OF THE HON. JOHN W. CRISFIELD, ivered at Princess Anne, Somerset county, Md., on Tuesday evening, July 15, 1856, responding te the call of a Democratic Procession. f | ; WASHINGTON CITY, D. om 1856. LETTER OF HON. JAMES A. PEARCE. WASHINGTON, JULY 81, 1856. My Dear Sir: You ask what part I mean to take in the coming Presidential election, and what J think should be done by old Whigs who have never been attached to any other party, and who do not desire to enter into new politi- cal connexions. Iam well aware of the embarrassments to such persons which attend a choice among the candidates for the Presidency now before the country. In my own case this embarrassment is sensibly felt. My inclinations point one way, a sense of the duty arising from the present dangerous condition of domestic politics leads me another way. My past relations, political and personal, with Mr. Fillmore, the confidence I have always re- posed in his integrity and ability, the wisdom of his Administration, and the conviction I en-; tertain that he is a just national man and free from sectional prejudice, would induce me to prefer him to hiscompetitors. Neither doI ob- ject to the sentiment of American nationality, properly limited and restrained. Indeed I think that our present system has made American citizenship too cheap. But I did not approve the mysterious system under which the Ameri- can party, of which he is now the representa- tive, was organized ; the oaths administered to members on initiatiou, and the discipline of the order, by which secrecy and obedience was se- cured. How far all this has been dispensed| with I do not know. The original plan of their organization I could not but condemn, us I do the adoption of any principle which founds a a rule of political exclusion upon a diversity of religious faith. However modified in these re- spects their plan may now be, it is not necessary for me to inquire. party came into jit, as I think with purposesjof the “slave power very different from those entertained by the rest.| Fillmore is too nationa Buchanan and Mr. Fremont. friends indeed claim a great reaction in hi but I have taken much pains to ascertai his strength is in the free states, and s have not been able to satisfy myself that carry a single one of them. His wise a triotic conduct while President, which mended him so strongly to the Whigs South, is regarded by the majority at the as a fatal objection to him. tion and conciliation they desire ; they tl sadest calamity that has ever befel our |The comparatively small portion of the can party which remained after this tra the anti-slavery men, and which has nor Mr. Fillmore, is without power to ele even with the assistance of Southern W |National Northern Whigs. These, great their personal respect for and cor in Mr, Fillmore, are under no party obli now to give him their support, seeing has become a member and accepted thi nation of a party which repudiates the 7 and, while they would be willing in a with their old opponents to stand by political opinions to the last, they find reason in the present condition of parties politicel anarchy which prevails, and fear of a sectional and anti-slavery tr leading to ulterior consequences of the sort, to consider whether it is not their « sacrifice all personal feeling and party p1 for the sake of the Union, and to susti nominations of the Democrats as the only of defeating the schemes of the mad a; who rule the Republican party. The contest it seems to me, lies betwe Mr. Fil It is not n one of their leaders said, that the time fo promise has passed. ‘They want, in the dent, an instrument to punish the So The Northern wing of the|what they fancy or pretend to be the ager 2 ry ig upon the North for this purpose, They adopted it as a cloak toschemes which all]/must indeed be eredulous or sauguine— of us in Maryland condemn ‘and detest... The/extreme who supposes that the politicia: necessary affiliations of that wing of the party|have misguided and inflamed the Northe were with the anti-slavery men; and according-|jority will abandon their designs, and re: ly we find the mask now thrown off by the most of them, and see the development of their plans in such a measure as the personal lib- erty bill of Massachusetts, which nullifies a law of Congress, violates the constitutional guaran- tee for the recovery of fugitive slaves, and cre- ates the fiercest and most dangerous discord be- tween the North gndthe South. Their mem- bers of Congress have for the most part been consolidated with the pernicious party miscalled Presidential Convention have deserted ‘to that motly alliance, whose triumph would be thejern men who join in the support of M the spoils for which they hunger and thij) at the moment when, for the first time, tl| confident of the success of the one and joymert of the other. lies in the Whig States of the South. . the Southern States should give him thei} he would fail in the election without suc’ tance from the free Sta‘ to look. for. Buchanan and Mr. Fremont, and what Mé Republican, and many of their delegates to their| Whig believing as I do can hesitate? Mr. Fillmore’s s/ es as it would | The choice, then, is betwé I am not so unjust as to charge all the 8 _ ont with being abolitionists. There are men Bone them whom I hold in much respect, while deploring the error of judgment into hich they haye fallen; but the most active ind influential of their leaders are men who, rom perverted judgment or inflamed passion, or, vhat is worse, from deliberate calculation, have ermined to build upa sectional party, wreck- s of its peril to the Union, once so justly valued, but now estimated far less at the North han at the South. Mr. Greeley is at this mo- hent more potential, with his party than any ther of its members. He has the benefit of Vir. Giddings, co-operation. Governor Chase, fr, Seward, and Mr. Wilson are active and in- Iuential leaders. Their presses teem with the ercest. abuse of Southern men and Southern! pstitutions, with the grossest perversions of the’ ruth, wickedly made to inflame the Northern hind, Their orators denounce us equally, and me do not hesitate to say that they intend or lesire not only to restore Kansas to the opera- ion. of the Missouri restriction, but to repeal e fugitive slave bill, to abolish slavery in the riet of Columbia, to interdict the inter- fate slave trade, so as to prevent the owner ‘om migrating with his domestics from one ave State.to another, to prevent forever here- ter the admission of-any new State which lerates dotiiestic servilude, and to hem in and Snfiue slavery within its present’ limits; thus Mntinually increasing the political power of heir section, until we shall be too weak to resist heir future efforts to impair the value of our euliar property, and, finally to destroy it— Ve do not. indeed find all, these objects laid dwn in the platform of their party ; and there ‘re men associated with them whose designs by and hatred inseperable from party “ character- ized by geographical discriminations.” It was against this that the Father of his Country warned us in his farewell address—the last legacy of the spotless patriot to the country he had loved and served so well. Some years ago (in 1830,) when the danger of this sectional organization was less than it is now, Mr, Clay gaye us his advice in the follow- ing words : _ “ Abolitionism should no longer be regarded as an imaginary danger. The Abolitionists, let me sup- pose, succeed in their present aim of uniting the in- habitants of the free States as one man against the in- habitants of the slave States. Union on the one side will beget union on the other, and this process of re- ciprocal consolidation will be attended with all the violent prejudices, embittered passions, and implaca- ble animosities which ever degraded or deformed hu- man natures Virtual dissolution of the Union will have taken place, whilst the forms of its existence remain. * * * One section will stand in menac- ing and hostile array against the other. The collision of opinion will soon be followed by the clash of arms. 1 will not attempt to describe scenes which now hap- pily lie concealed from our view. Abolitionists themselves would shrink back in dismay and horror at the contemplation of desolated fields, conflagrated cities, murdered inhabitants, and the overthrow of the fairest fabric of human government that ever rose to animate the hopes of civilized man.” It will be said perhaps that this is mere de- clamation ; that Mr. Clay’s fervid spirit gave too warm a coloring to the picture ; but we need only remark the passionate violence which char- acterizes men who have lately yielded to this sectional phrensy to satisfy ourselves what is the temper natural tosuch an organization, At the Convention in Philadelphia, held by those who’ nominated Mr. Fremont, a conspicuous and distinguished gentleman heretofore consider- Yo meaus extend so far, and who, if they knew lie probable consequences of their success, Id recoil from the evil associations into which But, then, more moderate Dngress and of the amateur orators of the ul ty, all clearly evince a determination to unite ll the people of the free States, if possible, in free. and relentless hostility to those of the ‘uth, It is in the strife of sections in which 7 hope to succeed ; and in. what would their ecess result? Not in forming a more perfect ion, not in establishing justice or insuring do- estic tranquility, all of which are among the Nelared. objects of, that Constitution . which ed moderate and conservative, made a speech, in which, amidst cheers and cries of “ good,” he spoke as follows : “They (meaning those who appointed the mem- bers of the Convention,) ask us to ive them a nomination, which, when put fairly before the peo- ple, will unite’ public sentiment, and, through the the ballot-box, will restrain and repel this pro-slave- ry extension and this aggression of the slaveocracy. What else are they doing? Thoy tell you they are willing to abide by the ballot box and willing to make that the last appeal. If we fail there, what then? We will drive it back sword in hand, and’ so help me God, I’m with them,’’ To It is true that the author of these remarks has since publicly avowed that he alone is responsi- ble for this rhapsody. But it cannot be doubted that the feeling which prompted him was the same which animated the preacher who proposed to supply the brethren in Kansas with bread and owder too, and which has stimulated other preachers and their congregations to subscribe J/ashington and the other Fathers of the Re- Viblic gave to us; but in the jealousies, discord, Sharpe’s rifles as the most efficacious instrument 4 in the adjustment of the controversies in that Some of the leaders 20 further still, and « Territory, which all good men deplore, however|sider slavery as a wrong so transcendant tha’ they may differ as to the causes of the unhappy anarchy which prevails there. For myself I ac- knowledge my duty to redress, so far as' I can, all the real grievances complained of in that re- gion; and I have supposed that the bill recently passed by the Senate was calculated to remedy them, because it proposes to enact that no law shall be made or have force or effect in said Ter- ritory which shall require a test oath, or oath to support any act of Congress or other legislative act, as a qualification for any civil office or pub- lic trust, or for any employment or profession, or to serve as a juror or vote at an election, or which shall impose any tax upon or condition to the exercise of the right of suffrage by any qualified voter, or which shall restrain or pro- hibit the free discussion of any law or subject of legislation in the said Territory, or the free ex- pression of opinion thereon by the people of said Territory ; and secures, as far as law can secure, the operation of the public will in the formation ‘of a State government. That this bill was sin- cerely meant to effect its avowed purpose I am quite confident; and I believe that there are conservative men at the North, who do not yield to prejudice or passion, who will credit this as- sertion. Unfortunately they are not the major- ity... At all events, in the most of the free States the masses of the Republican party are led by men who do not mean to be satisfied with any legislation which is not to result in placing the Government under their control; by men who say that the framers of the Constitution “‘ made a compromise that cannot be mentioned without shame ;” who say of Mr. Fillmore, in allusion to his signing the fugitive slave bill, “better, far had he never been born—better for his memory, and for the name of his children, had he never been President ;” who declare that bill to be “one of the immortal’ catalogues of national crimes,” and that he who signed it thereby “sunk into the depths of infamy ;” who pro- nounce the fugitive slave to be, “one of the he- roes of the age,” and the master who demands him a “ vile slaye-hunter,” whom all men should look upon with contempt, indignation, and ab- horrence; men who do not regard the Constitu- tion, and the laws made in pursuance of it, as the supreme law of the land; who disregard the decisions of that high tribunal whose office it is to decide the constitutional questions; who claim. to set up their individual opinions against the official ones of the judicial authorities, and refer their obligations, not to the instrument which they have sworn to support, which is at once the bond and the principle of our Union, _ but to some “higher law,” whose foundationsare to be found in their own fanatical imaginations. must not only be limited to its present boun but must be abolished altogether. We see | effects of this in the increasing restiveness ot part of our population, in the often repeated capes of our servants from the mildes: form servitude ever known, and in the ready acce ance of the recommendation not to hesitate theft, robbery, and murder, if need be, to acec plish their flight. From this condition of thi we can expect no relief if the anti-slavery pa succeed in the election of Mr. Fremont. To. feat their nomination seems to me to be our f duty. and greatest interest, and therefore I ready to adopt that eandidate who appears rm likely to accomplish this purpose. I add showing the extreme designs of the anti-slay zealots the following remarks, reported as h ing been made lately by Mr. Wendell Phill! Speaking of the Republican party, he says; ‘Tt is the first sectional party ever organize( this country. ‘It does not know its own face. calls itself national; but itis not national ; it is) tional. It is the North arrayed against the Sor Henry Wilson said to me, ‘We must get ey Northern State in order to elect Fremont!’ It. a distinct recognition of the fact that the Republi party is a_ party of the North pledged against | South. Theodore Parker wanted to know ¢ where disunion would begin? | I will tell him— where that party decides; that is, a Northern pi against the Southern. I do not call it an a slavery party ; it has not risen to that yet. It! distinct recognition was Banks’ election.”” I have no idea that this is to be consideret| showing the general purpose. of the Republi party, but I am well satisfied that such opin are growing in the North, wnhder the ‘cons teachings of such apostles as Mr. Phillips, , this speech shows the tendency of present eve I have been politically opposed to the De oratic party for so many yéars that I cay without reluctance contemplate the necessit supporting their nominee, Yet it must be mitted that he is a man of abilities and'li public experience ; that he has been just ti South, though not assuming to be a Nortl man with Southern principles ; that his inel tions are generally conservative; that he 1 by the House of Representatives in 18 nanced and promulgated the charge of b and corruption against Mr. Clay in the ele shuuld denounce him for this as readily an 5 » verely as any one if, I thought this allegation st. But I remember that this charge against . Clay was made without any direct testimo- and bravely he had borne it. before his father ! and now he was proud to say that there lived not the man who would whisper it. Mr. Buchanan was free from all connexion with the > Thank God, it died But until 1827, when the Carter Beverly letter|matter. ] to Mr. Buchanan’s being named as.a witness ; id that he then promptly denied the statement ch he was relied on to prove, and, at the of loosing Gen. Jackson’s favor and that of $ party, exonerated Mr. Clay. From the Jet- which he then published I extract the fol- ying passage : eT owe it to my own character to make another servation. Had I ever known or even suspected t Gen. Jackson belieyed I had been sent to him -Mr. Clay or his friends, I should have immediate- corrected his erroneous impression, and thus pre- nted the necessity for this most unpleasant. ex- ination. When the editor of the United States legraph, on the 12th of October last, asked me by iter for information upon this subject, I promptly rmed him by the returning iHail: on the 19th of ht month, that Lhad no authority from Mr. Clay or Telation to their votes, nor did I ever make any h propositions; and that I trusted I would be as ‘apable of becoming a messenger upon such an oc- ive such a message. ake this statement in order to remove any mis- heeption which may have been occasioned by the blication in the Telegraph of my letter to the itor, dated the 11th ultimo.” Again, in 1828, in a speech delivered in the yuse of Representatives, Mr. Buchanan de- red that he had no knowledge of the bargain 1 corruption charged, on, Mr., Clay. These avowals may be* considered as merely cold fice to the great and incorruptible Whig der, but surely they contradict most flatly ‘the i ‘ce of being his “traducer and defamer.” ther proof were needed it may be found in following remarks recently made in Ken- iky by Mr. Jas. B. Clay, his son : i friends, the companions and constituents of {ifather, to rally around that banner which he had Pint his life in upholding—the banner of the Union. was ready to follow the Whig standard as the liglass followed the heart of Bruce—as long as it red. Butithat flag was no longer to be seen on th there was the resurrection. But at present e was no Whig organization, and the only party the Union was that of which Buchanan and ickinridge were the candidates. })Mr. Clay referred to the attempt to implicate ‘Buchanan in the charge of bargain and corrup- i}, On that subject he proposed to take the testi- fimony bearing on the same point:: In feeling eloquent terms he referred to the heavy weight lat charge against his father, and how gallantly iy 0 If i) Mr. Clay then proceeded ‘to urge upon his old|tering: of his own father, and he read from Mr. Clay’s|tion’ rit 2 ) I % to show that Mr. Buchanan had conducted|acceptance of the nomination tendered to him by his self in that affair as aman of truth and honor. |Party, namely, a desire so to discharge the duties of should believe what his father said before others. |the high office to which he aspires as _ ‘to allay do- ides the evidence he had read, there was other |mestic strife, preserve peace and friendship with for- ih Clay concluded ‘with an eloquent appeal to his fellow’ citizens, especiall Old-Line Whigs, to give their cordial support to the Union ticket—to Bu- chanan and Breckinridge.” The next great object is that Mr. Buchanan would beunsafe in his management of foreign affairs. I readily admit that I do not like the Ostend paper, and I do not approve certain res- olutions adopted by the Cincinnati Convention, notwithstanding the unanimous opposition of the Virginia and Maryland delegates, and I believe of others; and if he should adopt the aggressive policy supposed to be prescribed by that paper and the resolutions, I should be as ready and as earnest in my opposition to him as any one. But he is a man of known caution, which, with his intelligent comprehension of the true in- s friends to propose any terms to General Jackson|terests of the United States, and the responsi- bility of the Presidential office, which he could not but recognise, would forbid his urging the sion as it was known Gen. Jackson would be to/country upon a course of aggression inconsistent Ihave deemed it necessary) with the spirit of our Government, faithless to treaties, violative of the rights of other nations, and destructive of our own peace, honor, and concord, J know that many of theleading men of his own party are sound and reliable in this respect ; and I believe that there conservative in- fluence would harmonize'with his own disposi- tion. I am the more assured of this because I observe that in his letter of acceptance there is no recognition of the resolutions, (which were not considered by the Convention as forming a part of the platform,) but, on the contrary, a prudent and conservative tone, which met with ‘the approbation of even the judicious and ex-: perienced Hditors of the National Intelligencer— themselves par excellence, the foes of all fillibus- In an_ additional article noticing Mr. Buchanan’s letter of acceptance, they said : ‘““We may say, however, that Mr. Buchanan’s official letter of acceptance, while not expressly re- pudiating the extreme and exceptionable doctrines foisted into the Democratic confessions of faith by Vibattle-ficld. It might yet be unfurled. Afterjthe Cincinnati Convention, does not, by its spirit and tenor, incline us to hope that he means if elected, so to construe those doctrines as to disarm them of their mischievous significance and evil ten- dency. Indeed we can give no other meaning than this to Mr. Buchanvn’s declaration when he says that he accepts the ‘resolutions constituting the ‘platform of the principles erected by the Coaven- in the same spirit as that which prompts his eign nations, and Republic,” ”” At present the prospects is that the conserva- promote the best interests of the 6 tive Whig vote will be so divided as to defeat a: popular election and throw the decision upon} the House of Representatives—at all times an event to be deprecated, but at this period pecu- liarly pernicious and dangerous, and threaten- ing the rudest shock to-our'system. | What the result will be I will not ventureto predict, but I will say that I do not see the least probability of Mr. Fillmore’s election by the House of Rep- resentatives. I think, therefore, it would be the part of wisdom and patriotism in the Whigs (by which I mean those who have affiliated with no) other party) to throw their votes for Mr, Buch- anan as the strongest of the candidates opposed to the Northern sectional party. This they may) do without renouncing their old political faithy without stain of honor or suspicion of apostacy. The motive being, the integrity of the Union, the defeat of a party which is founded on geograph- ical discriminations and bound together by dan- gerous sectional schemes, the act will be vindi- eated by disinterested, patriotism. For my part, I shall not abjure my political creed, and, having in view but the one object which I have stated, I shall hold myself ready to take any other course which may be neces- sary to effect that object. Should the hopes of: Mr. Fillmore’s friends be realized ; should it ap- pear that he is more likely to carry the great body of the patriotic, but quiet people, who generally come to the rescue in times of public peril; that he is, in short, the best able to sub- due this storm of sectional passion and preju-) dice, I shall rejoice to see him again filling the chair of State. But I will not affect an unal- loyed gratification ; for I cannot forget that he is the candidate of a party which has proscribed Whigs who were not members of “ the order”— of a party) which boasted, that it had risen on the ruins of the Whig and Democratic parties, and which) has pronounced ‘both of them. cor- rupt. Whateres the result, I shall be content if the dangerous excitement which threatens our peace and union can be calmed.down, so that the ex- treme opinions which have their roots in preju- dice and passion may wither away. Then a liberal forbearance and kindly toleration of dif- ferent sentiments. may resume their influence. If this cannot be done, if the South and the North are to regard one another as enemies, then sooner or later our “house, divided against it- self,” must fall. Then we shall have to say, with Pantheus— (3 Venit summa dies et ineluctabile tempus Dardanice. But ours will be a sadder fate than, that of Priam’s empire; for it was not the Dardanian people by whom ‘the inevitable doom of Troy was fixed. A foreign foe beat down her lofty walls and destroyed the bigh renown of T cer’s race ; but we shal] fall by our own stici hands; we will kindle the flames which sha destroy the edifice of our constitutional Union ourselyes will break the bonds of harmonious tr terest and fraternal concord which have held y together as one people. May Heaven inspire t with wisdom to avert so sad a catastrophe | Very truly, my dear sir, your friend, JAS. ALFRED PEARCE. . J. R. FRANKLIN, ; To the Hon ; : ‘Snow Hill, Maryland,’ ‘ P. S.,l add a letter of Mr, Clay to Rev. Wa ter Colton, which shows his opinion in 18438 the effect of the abolition movements of thi day : ' i ASHLAND Sept. 2, 1843. My Dear Six: Allow me tosuggest a subject fi one of your tracts, which, treated in your popu and condensed way, I think would he attended wil great and good effect, I mean abolition. It.ig manifest that the ultras of that party are e ‘tremely mischievous, and are hurrying on the cou: itry to fearful consequences. They are not to | ‘conciliated by the Whigs. Engrossed Nhs ne idia, they care for, nolhing: § se, They would | the administration of the Government precipita the nation into absolute ruin before they would ler a helping hand to arrest its career. They tre worst and denounce moat those who treat them bes who so far agree with them as to admit, Havery) be an evil. Witness their conduct. towards Briggs and Mr. Adams in Massachusetts, and t wards me. prihedong | I will give you an outline of the manner in whir I would handle it: Show the origin of slavery trace its introduction to the British Governmer Show how it is disposed of by the Federal Constit tion; that it is left exclusively to the States, exce in regard to fugitives, direct taxes, and represent tion. Show that the agitation of the question the free, States will first destroy all harmony, at finally lead to. disunion, perpetual war, the extin tion of the African race, ultimate military despotist But the great aim and object of your tract shou be to arouse the laboring classes in the free Stat ‘against abolition. | Depict the consequences to the of immediate abolition, |. The slaves, being fre would be dispersed throughout the Union; thi would enter into competition with the free laborer with the American, the Irish, the German—redu his wages, be confounded with him, and affect} moral and social standing. And; as the ultras; both for abolition, and amalgamation, show «i their object is to unite in marriage the, laborij white man and the laboring black woman; tor duce the white laboring man to the despised and graded condition of the blackman, I would show their, opposition to colonizatig) show its. humane, religious, andjpatriotic aims; th they are to separate those whoni God) has separate! Why do the abolitionists oppose colonization ? || keep and amalgamete together the, two races, violation of God’s will, and to keep the blacks that they may interfere with, degrade, ana the laborivg/whites. Show that the British ernment is, co-operating with the abolitionis }the purpose of dissolving the Union, &c, You i ike a powerful article that will be felt in every ex- mity of the Union. Iam perfetly satisfied it will ‘great good. Let me hear from you on this sub- t if HENRY CLAY. wie — oO ; \ETTER OF HON. THOS. G. PRATT. | {fn response to the communications received m many of my brother Whigs, I deem it my vilege, in this manner, to counsel with all in ition to the course which patriotism and duty uld seem to indicate as itical crisis. No lover of his country whose judgment is biassed by party zeal and uncontrolled by tthern or Southern fanaticism can fail to see pending danger to the Union. (‘he first duty of every man who loves his ntry and her institutions is to provide for safety. The life of the nation is in dan- ' It must be saved ; then, and not till then, 1 it be permissible to us to discuss our differ- es of opinion upon minor subjects. | say that the life of the Union is in danger, ause, for the first time in our history, a party ) been formed composed exclusively of citizens ine section of the country, bound together by single bond of an alliance for offensive war- against the other section. That the success puch a party would imperil the Union has a recently demonstrated by an address of | Fillmore, and will, it is snbmitted, be ap- mt to all who will bestow a moment’s con- proper in the present | the South would be more effectually protected by a separation of the slave from the non-slave- holding States, and therefore rather promote than interpose to prevent. a result so calamitous. We have hitherto disregarded the danger which such a state of feeling and such a course of ac- tion would indicate as mpst imminent, because we have assumed that such sentiments and ac- tion could only be attributed to a small minority of our Northern brethern. But now, when thig sectional exasperation has been made available for the inauguration of a party calling itself Republican, under whose banner, for the first time in the history of the country, this sectional opposition to Southern rights and interests have united.in nominating, with alleged probabilities of success, a purely sectional ticket for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States, we can no longer shut our eyes to the reality of the threatening danger; we cannot but feel that the success of such a party would be the death knell of the Union. ‘The unpatri- otic purposes of this sectional party are but too manifest. Many of its supporters avow their object and purpose to be disunion, and have even gone so far in the madness of their fanati- cism as to desecrate the flag of our country by obliterating from its constellation the fifteen stars which represent the slaveholding States, and dis- playing as their party banner that flag with but sixteen of its stars remaining, to represent the sixteen non-slaveholding States. It is manifest ration upon the existing posture of political,that those who disavow the object are not igno- rs. rant of the inevitable result, ot less than two thousand million of dollars,/honor to address, need no proof to convince them m equal to the value of all the other property|that calamitous consequences would flow from ae United States, as shown: by the last cen- This property is not only recognised, but ar guarantied by the Constitution as to im- upon the Federal Government the duty of bring to his owner the slave who may escape } another State or Territory of the United es. for years past this constitutional obli- the success of this sectional party. They each and all know that the election of Mr. Fremont, and the administration of the Government by him upon the principles of Ais party, would necessarily occasion a dissolution of the Federal Union, to which they have been taught to look as the source of national strength and of indi- vidual prosperity and happiness. pn has been not only repudiated by some of mon-slaveholding States, but political par- have been organized in all with the avowed t of liberating the slaves, and thus not only iving the South of this vast amount of pro- if but subjecting it to all the horrors which I have known the Whigs of my State too long, I estimate their patriotism too highly, I have associated with them too intimately, to suppose it necessary for a moment to offer an argument to them in ‘ehalf of theircountry, They appre- d necessarily result from such aconsumma-|ciate, as fully as I could depict, the horrors of _ In addition to all this, whilst the aboli-idisunion; they will see the loss of national Mis on the one hand openly avow their op-|strength, the internal dissensions, the fatal check lion to the Constitution and their desire to|to civilization and freedom, the contempt of the loy a Government which imposes obligations] world which would, be the consequences of such diated by them, on the other hand many|a calamity. | The Whigs of Maryland, who have hern inen, goaded by the incessant attacks|followed the lead of such patriots as Clay and leir Northern fellow-citizens upon their feel-|Webster, “will never keep step to any other their property, and their constitutional/music than that of the Union.” | i Is, express the belief that the interests ofl, It therefore only remains to, inquire what course shall be taken to rebuke sectional fanati-:more and Donelson will interpose to prevent. sism and preserve our country from the dangers fair exercise of our judgment on that side of its success. propose briefly to inquire whether there is a1 You are aware that this Republican party,|thing to prevent our support of the Democrs which we all agree must be put down at all nominees, if after investigation we shall beli hazards, is opposed by two other party organi-| that our vote in their fayor would more certaii zations: the American, headed by Messrs, Fill-/secure the safety of our country. It can more and Donelson, and the Democratic, led on| have escaped your observation that the politi by Messrs. Buchanan and Breckinridge. You!principles upon which the Whig and Demoer will recollect that Mr. Fillmore, prior to his re-|ic parties have battled for thirty years, with ) cent visit to Europe, abandoned the Whig party Tied success, have been for the most part sett! and became a member of the former of these| by the fiat of the people, and that such as h: organizations, which boasted that it had risen|not been so definitely disposed of haye be upon the downfall of the Whig party, and whichjeither abandoned by the one or adopted by | proclaims that the corruptions of the Whig and) other of those parties; sq that now the rep emocratic parties constituted the necessity of sentatives of the people in the halls of State a its existence. You know that he and Andrew’ Federal legislation are found indiscriminately ¢ Jackson Donelson have been nominated by this|Vocating and opposing the same principles a party (not by the Whig party) for the Presiden-,measures., Not only is there no principle of j ey and Vice Presidency, and you will admit that litical antagoism which should prevent Whi the principles of proscription because of religions 4nd Demoorats acting together for the benefit epinions, and other repudiated tenets of this|their common country, but it is confidently su new party, are in direct antagonism with the/mitted that upon the only vital.question, tl principles of that good old Whig party to which|which now agitates and endangers the count we are still attached, and which has been aban-|the two parties fully accord. The Whig a doned by Mr. Fillmore. It is not my object in|Democratie platforms upon the slavery ques referring to these facts to deny to the American|in eighteen hundred and fifty-two were iden party, since the secession of its abolition adhe-|cal; and, there being no Whig nominees bef rents, a fair claim to nationality; nor to deny)the people, it might be suggested that consiste the patriotism and virtue of Mr. Fillmore, nor/cy would rather require than oppose the supp! his eminent qualification for the office of Chieflof the Democratic nominees by Whigs. 1 Magistrate. But I do deduce from them thejcontrolling inguiry to the patriot now recu necessary conclusion that, as Whigs, we owe no!which of the two national organizations can party allegiance to Messrs. Fillmore and Donel-|/is vote be made most certainly successfnl? son, members and nominees of the Marérient} Every Maryland Whig will be bound by é party. { deduce the conclusion that, as Whigs, |ty tie of duty to vote as his judgement shall « we are not only at liberty. but that as patriots|cide this question, , we are bound, by every obligation fo our country| It may not be immaterial to observe that nei and posterity, to throw aside, on the one hand,!er of the national nominees will obtain throu the feelings of hostility which Mr. Fillmore’s out this broad land any votes which will not desertion of our party would be calculated to cast by national conservative citizens, and it engender, and, on the other hand, to forget for|to be regretted that in this crisis that vote sho the time our former battles with the Democratic| de divided between two national candidates wh party, and to ask ourselves but one question). tihe entire anti-national vote will be concentra which of the two national organizations offers the upon the sectional nominee. To judge of — best quaraniee of success in crushing out of exis-|telative,strength of the two national ore tence this new and monstrous sectional party, /tions it is unnecessary to trace minutely which threatens the life of your country? I do‘origin of the American party. It is sufficien not propose to examine the relative claims of.bring’ to_ your recollection that it was origint the two national parties or their nominees to our:composed, North and South, of the dissati: support. It is not, in my judgment, permissible, members of the two parties, and that in - in the present crisis to interpose our individual|North its original members were chiefly th differences of opinion upon minor questions. It) who opposed the conservative principle w is sufficient for us to know that the election of|the slavery question avowed in the platform) either national nominee would secure the Union ;|the two old parties, It must not escape y and the only question permitted by patriotism/recollection that upon the nomination of Me is, Whether our support of the one or the other|Fllmore and Donelson a large majority a would more certainly prove successful 2° ” Northern delegates seceded from the Conve But before I proceed to this inquiry, having/declared their intention not to support a shown that no political allegiance to Messrs Fill-nominees, and subsequently united in the mi 9 sation of Mr, Fremont. his separation of the sectional from the national portion of the Ameri-| an party has occurred inevery Northern State in the Confederacy. I deduce from these facts the nationality of the supporters of Messrs Fill- more and Donelson, and I submit the inquiry for the honest decision of those to whom this paper is addressed, what non-slaveholding State can this national branch of the American party, thus shorn of the larger portion of its original strength, promise its nominees? Let the Whigs of Maryland ponder upon the view of this sub- ject I have endeavored to present to their con- sideration, and no one of them will ‘say that a single non-slaveholding State is certain for Fill- more and Donelson, Time, J think, will develop the fact that Mes:rs Fillmore and Donelson. will be left without an electoral ticket in most of the free States, and it is at any rate the deliberate ‘conduct leading to such a result?) Suppose Mr; Fillmore to reach the House of Represensatives with the votes of ‘four or five States, (his utmost possible strength,) no man can.seriously contend that he would be elected President, and assured- ly few will be fourtd bold enough to assert that, under such circumstances, he ought to be. The only effect, then, of giving the electoral vote of any portion of the South to Mr. Fillmore would be to transfer the contest between Mr. Buchanan and Fremont from the hustings to the House of Representatives ; and the danger to our country, now sufficiently menacing, would, in that event, be appalling indeed. Who can contemplate the occurrence of such a contingency without feeling that he would be a traitor to his, country if he failed to exert every possible effort to avert so awful a calamity ? I deem it, then, to be my duty, ‘as well as that sonviction of my judgment that they will notlof all who believe with me that the election of earry a single non-slayeholding State in the Onion. If J am right, or even approximate the truth in the view I have taken, it will necessari- ly follow that any conservative vote for the American nominee North wiil be equivalent to a vote for Mr. Fremont, as it will be a vote ta- ken from Mr. Buchanan, his only real competi- tor. “It is clear, then, that to the South alone can the friends of Messrs Fillmore and Donelson look for the probable chance of an eiectoral vote; and itis to the States of Maryland, Tennessee, ' Kentucky and Missouri that they profess to look with the greatest hope of success. It is mani- fest that if this hope were realized,’ it might in- deed prevent the election of Messrs’ Buchanan | and Breckinridge by the people, but it would only throw the election of President into the Yes House of Representatives, composed as hat House now is, iFremont would be the death-knell of the Union, to unite in the support of Messrs Buchanan and Breckinridge; and I shall sustain their election to the best of: my ability. Whilst I. concede that there are certain principles hitherto profess- ed by the party which nominated them that cannot receive our support, yet on the great. is- sues of the constitutional rights of the South ithe platform on which they stand meets my cor- dial approval, and is in accordance with that) of the party which I now address, and to whose kind favor I owe the honor of holding the seat I now occupy, and which I shall cease to hold af- ter the 4th of March next by the. fiat of that party to which Mr. Fillmore has attached him- self, and which is now dominant in the Legisla- ture of my native State. Let Maryland Whigs remember that the po- litical battle now being fought is one of the Does not the election of this)deepest interest to them ; thatthe maintenance same House, after a contest of two monthis, of a{of the constitutional’ rights of the South *is the Black Republican Speaker, admonish us of the}issue tendered)to the American people by the danger of such an experiment? Who can doubt| Democratic party, and (as the Whigs: have no that our political fabric would be shaken to its very foundations by this election of President being thrown upon the present House of Repre- ‘sentatives? On the other hand, is it not certain “beyond the contingency of .a doubt, that the vote of the States indicated for Mr. Buchanan, wher candidate) by that party alone; that upon. this. issue the Republican party have staked the Union and*in such a battle, upon such ‘an issue, they: must be true to those who are doing battle in our behalf. : It would be indeed sad if, in such a contest, the conservative streugth of the coun+ added to that of the other Southern States, would|try should not be united: it would beas strange secure his election and the consequent safety ofjas sad if;in such a contest, Southern meu should the Union? It is obvious that in this condition|not be found battling shoulder to shoulder for the of the canvas the only serious contest is that be-|maintenance of their own constitutional rights. tween Fremont and Buchanan; that the only| In thus accomplishing what I believe to bé a possible result that the most sanguine of the|duty, I shall be inexpressibly gratified if T shall friends of Fillmore and Donelson can hope tojfine myself sustained by the approval of my obtain is to carry the contest into the House’ of|fellow Whigs, who have refused to abandon Representatives. Who can conceive any thingjeither the party or the principles in support. of ‘more fatal to the peace of the country, more in-|which we shall remain at perfect liberty to: re- ‘sane in political action, than such~a course ‘ofjorganize as soon as our common. efforts shall have 10 sueceeded| in averting the perils that now threat-(as he thought, it,was, he would prefer it over en our beloved country. all others. He had, too, been an ardent admirer ' THOMAS G. PRATT, |of Mr. Fillmore personally, and if he could re- gard him now as he formerly had, he wonld per- j haps préfer,him for the high office which he SPEECH OF HON JNO. W.CRISFIELD. | once filled, overall others. But he had changed. q — The painful conclusion had been forced upon” Mr. Onisric.p, after acknowledging the com-jhim that Mr.,Fillmore was not now what he’ pliment their presence and call implied, which,jhad been, He had become a member of a se- he said, was as unexpected as it was unmerited, jcret political organization, dangerous in its ten-_ and expressing his thanks, proceeded, in sub-|dency, destructive of ther freedom of political — stance to say: That they all knew his antece-jopinion, and at war with the»theory of man’s dents ; that it was well known he had always|capacity for self-goyernment—an organization — been a Whig, and under all circumstances, as|proscriptive in its character and intolerant of re- well in the darkest hours of defeat as in thejligious freedom, which enforced its jesuitical — hour of triumph, had stood under the banner of)policy by oaths not authorized by law and demor-. ] that party, proud todo battle in its support.|alizing in their tendency. He is, as we are in- He had done so, because the leading principles|formed, “a member in good standing of Council of that party and the doctrines: it’ proclaimed|No. 177,” in western New York. If this be so were just and patriotic, and had the unqualified|as few will doubt, it isa sad truth. Its discove- approval of his heart and judgemnt. These/ry crimsoned bis cheek with shame. In allow-~ principles, in his opinion, so just, so conservative,|ing himself to be placed in this position, Mr. — so consistent with the Constitution, had been so|Fillmore has been unjust to himself, and reckless long cherished, and so ardently loved, that hejof his own fame. But this is not all; he has | could no more shake them off or change them)unwhigged himself; he has become a member than he could change his epinions of religion orjof an organization which boasts of having arisen of morals, And he felt sure that no one expect-|upon the, ruins, and in spite of the opposition, ed him to do it. He reavowed them, and de-jof the Whig party, and proclaims, in its well clared that, as they had been the rulers of his/considered confession of faith, that it is nct re- political conduct in the past, so they would be}sponsible for the obnoxious errors and violated FE inthe future, whenever, from the state of partiesipledges of that party. He consorts with »An- Z and the condition of the country, those princi-!drew Jackson Donelson, the defamer of his Ad-_ ples should be in issue. But unfortunately that/ministration and the reviler of the Whig party, — was not now ; the Whig party was nota party/a Democrat of the stamp mest odoious to Whigs; to this fight; Whig principles are not in issue ;|and he now. demands of us, as Whigs, our sup-_ and Whig candidates were not, and would not be in the field. New parties had been formed, new issues had been joined, and upon these all Southern men could stand side. by side. The real contest. oow was between Southern rights and Northern fanaticism. In this state of. cir- cumstances, he felt it to be his solemn duty to lay aside ancient prejudices, and fraternize with that party now orgenized, and in the field, which -in his judgment, offers the best guarantee of its own success and of safety for our national, and domestic institutions; and in the performance. of this duty, after dispassionately examining the whole subject, he had come to the determination now for the first time, publicly announced, to give his support—his cordial and energetic sup- port—to the nominees of the Oincinnati Con- vention. Mr. C. said he would briefly assign, some of! the reasons which had brought him ‘to this de- termination, He'could not support Mr. Fillmore. He was a supporter of his administration; he thought it one of the purestand best which had trans- which he is nominated; and to old Whigs, he is port of this extraordinary and anomalous associ-— ation. At this moment he is carrying the ban-— ner of those who conspired for the destruction of — the Whig party. With these facts before him, he — could not recognize Mr. Fillmore asa Whig; he — had disrobed himself of that title; heis an alien — from the fold, and, had not a shadow of a claim, — based on old party associations, to the support of the few who still remain coustant to the an- cient faith, ar b | But if he were willing, in consideration of his services, to overlook these serious, objections to Mr, Fillmore, he could not support him without. also supporting Mr. Donelson. e twoarein- dissolubly blended ; and he would not vote for Mr. Donelson. He had not a single qualifica- tion to recommend him, for the high place for perhaps the most objectionable man who could be named;, For his own part, he was. not wil- ling to vote for any man for Vice President whom he would be unwilling to trust as Presi- dent. He had. not forgotten the blasted fruits pired in his time; and if it could be restored, of the Whig triumph of 1840. Who ay be willing to see Mr. Donelson President ? Noone, ii! he would Ventiire to say; and yet, if tlic Fill- more ticket prevails, he may, and probably will, be.” Twice have the Whigs carried the} Presidential election, and on both occasions, : ih Ja, qv tag , . bry scarcely had the shout of triumph ceased to re- -echy before they were called upon to mourn 'the death of their President.’ What right have we | 7 | to caleulate upon exemption from a like calam-' ity in the next Presidential term ? ‘antee haye we that Mr. Fillmore will not also be taken? and if he should be, who is not appalled at the idea of the duties of that high station de- volving on Mr. Donelson ? Who does not trem-! ble at the thought of entrusting him with the ‘whole power of this Government ; of placing in ‘his hands its army and its‘navy; of committing to his management its foreign policy; and of| eaving to hi§ charge the settlement of the peril-! ‘ous questions of Gomestic policy which at this ‘moment are rudely agitating the Union of tiaese ‘States, and threatening dissolution? “He could: ‘not vote for Mr. Donelson ; and if ‘any ‘one ‘should twit him for supportiti¢ Mr; Buchanan becatise he is a Democrat, Mr. C. would just re- ‘mind him that Mr. Donelson, also, is a Demo- erat, with the ‘stain of Know-nothingism and in- ‘capacity superadded. ) “But if he waived these considerations, there ‘were other reasons, still’ more conclusive, which obliged him at this crisis to give his support to “Mr. Buchanan. The contest in which we are ‘engaged, unhappily, is a contest between ‘the ‘North ‘and the South—between abolitionism and free-scilism on the one side, and the preser- ‘vation of ‘southern rights and the Union on the ‘other. This was the real issue, and he might isay the only issue now to be decided—and one of more overwhelming’ importance was never presented for decision td the American people. On the one’side we find the Republicans, led on y Mr. Fremost, sustaining the ultra! northern lew. ‘The objects of this party are'unmistaka- ble; they are humiliating to the South, and de- structive of her constitutional rights and material interests. The Republicans deny to her her just share of political power; negative those consti- ictal guarantees which wete intended for pro- le tered the Union. And is there no danger that ey may triumph? Already have they ob- tained control of nearly every State legislature north of Mason and Dixon’s line ; they have a Majority in the’ House of Representatives, which slects the President in case of the failure of the eople to elect; and'to preside over the deliber- ations of that body, they have elected Mr. Bahks, who boldly avows, that sooner than’ abolition hnd free-soil measures should fail, he would “let the Union slide.” | The people of the Free States, What gua-| ection, and without whicli she would never have! icesses, and headless of constitutional restraints jand’ of consequences, are madly rushing into the ‘Republican ranks with a unanimity hitherto without example; and it'may well be feared that even the united energies of all southern men and the conservatives of every section may be too feeble to resist the overwhelming power. The Union trembles under the blows of this sec- itional Strife; God grant that the fearful catas-’ ‘trophe of its dissolution may be averted! ‘he election of Fremont would be its déath-knell. If his supporters are strong enough to elect him, they are also strong enough to’ consuminate their designs of sectional aggrandizement and southern humiliation; and in spite of the Gon- stitution, they will assume the power of Con- gress to legislate our Slavery in the’ Territories of the United States; they will exclude the South from its just rights in the national domain, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, re- peal the fugitive slave bill and refuse to’ admit new States into the Union unless they repudiate slavery. That these measures would follow the election of Fremont he had no doubt ; and when they did, the Union would, and ought to be, dissolved. These measures, and each of them, negative important provisions of the Constitu- ” tion inserted for the security of the South, and if persisted in are jnst grounds of separation. Fellow-citizens, do you appreciate the dangers which encompass you? He feared we were on the verge of dissolution. Gloom and apprehen- sion shroud’ the future; our very existence as a nation—as one united people—in all probability depends upon the result of this election.’ Our institutions are assailed in their most vulnerable part. The torch of the incendiarry is blazing; the citadel of the Union is besieged’; and this is no time for the garrison to be wasting the time and strength, which should be given to the com- {mon enemy, in the indulgence of old antipathies and vain disputes ; but regardless of the'past, and with patriotic devotion, sacrificing, on’ the alter of our common country our ancient prejudices and preferences, we sh ould rally under the stan- dard of that‘ leader who gives thé best assurance of his ability to preserve the common safety, If we concede Mr. Fillmore’s entire nationality, and that, if elected; his energies’ would’ be de- voted in’ good faith to preserve the Union, and quell all sectional ‘discord, what assurance have we that he can be elected? Does any one believe that he can be?’ He who'thinks he can be is blind to the signs of’the times. Mr. ©. knew very well that in certain quarters studied efforts had been made to produce the impression that his election was certain, and it is quite possible that there are those Whose vision ‘does not reach beyond the narrow horizon of Somerset, or even purhing with fabaticism, inflated’ by these sue- of the State of Maryland, who’ may think so: but the man who comprehends within his view the whole country,.and the present state of par- ties, who has observed for the last half-year the varied and manifold indications of popular sen- timent, andis familiar with the spirit of the Ameri- can press, and can think there is the remotest probabitity of the election of Mr, Fillmore by, the people, has become insensible to evidence. Where is he to get the votes? He is the nominee of the 12 and West are either Republican or Dernocratic 5 and no reasonable ground exists justifying the | belief that he can get a single electoral vote in_ the inte States, unless it be in California, of which he did not pretend to speak. These States _ will vote for Buchanan or Fremont, Mr, C._ greatly feared a raayppity of them would go for the latter, Inthe South Mr. Fillmore may, do | better. THis friends last year carried Delaware, American party, which, if it was even a national party, has long since ceased to be so by the de- fection of its own members. A large portion of the members from the. free States of the conven- Maryland and Kentucky; if these be accorded to him now, they will not ;elect him. Can he | got any more? Few, if any, think heean; but tion which nominated him at that time seceded, and went over to the Republicans; and from that time to this the work of secession has been going on, until now it may, be truthfully affirmed that the American party, distinct from, and uncon- nected with the Republicans, has ceased to exist in those States. True, individual members re- main firm; but, as a party, capable anywhere in those States, unless it be in the city of New York, of effecting anything, it does not exist.— Nor cap he expect any important aid in those States from other parties. The Whig party there, for the most part, lost itself in American- ism, and as part of the American party has goue over to the Republicans. Except Choate and Winthrop, and probably Everett, of Massachu- setts, he could not name a Whig of New Eng- Jaud, of national reputation, who was not now a Republican. Even the most active and able supporters of Mr. Fillmore’s administration have enlisted in the Republican ranks. New Jersey, is the Republican candidat for Vice President; Collamer, of Vermont, is the chosen adyocate of Republicanism in the United States Senate, and Corwin, of Ohio, his Secretary of the Treasury, is stumping Indiana for Fremont; and the same, may be said of many others of like stamp. In the free States nearly every Whig of na- tional reputation may now be found among the Republicans. , The legislatures of those States are either Republican or Demoeratic—not. I'ill- more Americans; in the House of Representa- tives there are scarcely enough members from the free States who favor Mr. Fillmore’s election to fill the cabinet appointments, even if they were of the right material; and if there is one mem ber from those States in, the Senate of the United States who favors his election, Mr. C could not name him. Of the anti-democratic press of those States the same may be said. Out of 91 anti democratic journals from the free States which exchange with the New York Herald, 78,,.as we learn from that paper, are for Fremont, and. 11 for Fillmore and 2,,for Buchanen. .Shut their eyes, as the friends of Mr., Fillmore may, the fact is nevertheless true thatthe whole North Dayton, of suppose he gets Tennessee, North Carolina, and , Louisiana—and his most sanguine friends claim | no more in the South—still he is greatly in the. minority. Then, he cannot be elected by the, popular vote; and every yote thrown for him,. With that view, isa vote thrown away. But, votes for him may have a different and very , mischievous effect. If he carries the States re- i ferred to, or even a considerable portion of them, no election probably will be effected by the peo-_ pe, and the. election will be referred to the ouse of Representatives. Will that benefit. him? ao : Certainly not. His.strength in that House is the Fuller squad; which after a two months’ . struggle could not get a Speaker. But ia a presidential election, when, the vote is cast by, States, it would have even less effective strength, , for they are in the majority in three States only,, \(Deleware, Maryland, and Kentucky,) which , would give him three votes’only. ‘Then it is, equally certain that he cannot be elected by the , House. If it goes to the House, Fremont will, be elected, or there will be, no election. The. Repubiicans were strong enough to elect Banks Speaker ; and is there any reasonable ground to doubt their ability to elect Fremont President? They have, it, is feared, already fourteen States,’ and it requires but sixteen to elect. Starting | with this immense odds in his favor, and with the patronage of the government at his disposal, in the event of success, his friends will haye no_ difficulty in procuring the additional votes re- quired. He considered, then, all votes given. for Fillmore for the purpose of defeating the elec> tion by the people, and of throwing it into the. House, as votes given to promote Fremont’ election; and that those who, under existing circumstances,..and with, such an object, call their votes, are unfriendly to the South, and re- sponsible for all the consequences which may , follow. If the friends of Mr, Fillmo : naa bly calculate on his election, or if, the contes' was between him and Buchanan, he wou!d hay nothing to say. He should vote in silence ac cording to his convictions. of propriety, feeling assured that, whether the one or, the other suc: re could reaso : ceeded, the substantial interests of the country— above all, the safety of the Union—would be, preserved. But the contest is not between/ them; and his being in the field, at least in the Southern States, can be productive of mischief; only. While the Freesdil interests'are all com- bined and combining, the South presents a divided front; defeat and humiliation are the certain consequences of these tactics, if *perse- ‘vered in. he real contest’ is between Mr. ‘Buchanan and Mr. Fremont; one or the other ‘of these must succeed’; and, ay between them, ‘he held it to be the duty of every Union-loving “*man—6of every’man who cherished the honor of ‘the South; and desired :her to be preserved in the ‘enjoyment'of her constitutional: rights and au-: ‘thority—to give the former a'cheerful and unre-! served support. For one, he-intended to do it.! The ground Mr. Buchanan occupied on this gréat question was the true, constitutional, and only safe ground; it corresponded with Mr. C.’s -long-cherished and oft-repeated opinions; and he should be false to those opinions if he hesi- tated, at this time, in giving him and them his support. He thought that the duty of all, Southern ‘men especially. He regretted . that ‘many of those with whom he had long acted, his cherished and familiar’ friends, thought dif-; ferently ; he regretted not to see’ them around ‘him: to-night, and hear’ their famaliar voices cheering him onward—the separation pained ‘him. He conceded to them an equal degree of ‘intelligence and patriotism which he claimed for himself; and could only regret that they would ‘not think with him. He believed he was right, he knew he was sincere, and he should act up to his: duty, painful though it be. Possibly he ‘might be’ denounced ; better men had beem de- ‘nounced, and he knew of no reason why he ‘ought to expect exemption; but he should not ‘hesitate or falter ;~he should act up to his prin- ‘eiples, and according to his sense of duty, in the face of all denunciation. He was not afraid to do his duty: He would leave consequences to “take care of themselves. Mr. Crisfield, after having told an anecdote ‘illustrative of his own position, again tendered ‘his thanks to the audience, bid them good night, ‘and retired. or | SPEECH OF HON, ISAAC D. JONES. ' Mr, Jones said he would no longer resist the ‘calls of his fellow citizens. He had to this mo- ‘ment declined to speak. on this occasion; had ‘gone home with no intention to be here to night, and had returned to the village to gratify the wishes of the ladies of his family to enjoy the masie of the band. He arrived in time to hear <1 the’ concludirg portion of his ‘friend Orisfield’s speech, but hoped himself, to pass unobserved. Not that he had: any reluctance to avow his opinions regarding the ‘present crisis, for they were already well known in this) community, but he desired not to participate, at this time, in the excitement of political diseussion.. He had all his life, been an attentive observer of the politics of the country. He had witnessed and participated in the strife of parties ; had seen with deep concern, gloomy clouds threatening disaster and destruction to the country’s fairest prospects, -but- under the guiding hand of a merciful Providence, they had passed harmless- ly by. But never before had: he looked upon the political condition of the country with ‘so much solicitude ‘and»anxiety.. ‘Never before were such issues presented in ‘a Presidential election for the People’s decision. He had watched the progress of events with intense in- terest. He had pondered carefully the pros and cons on all sides of the absorbing questions of the day. He believed he had weighed. them with impartial judgment, certainly with personal disinterestedness, and with entire candor. He be- louged to none of the existing parties: He was but-an humble fragment of what was onee the glorious: old Whig partys. The practical ques- \tions heretofore in issue between the Whig and Democratic parties have been. adjusted and pass~ ed into history.. The Whig party has no longer an existence. ' Its vitality seems to have passed away with its great leaders, Clay and Webster. When, where, why; and by whom, it was “ruined,” deserted, betrayed; —its name, its principles, its ‘organization. abandoned—who can tell? . These incidents: of its history are hid- den among the mysteries of secret, midnight, oath-bound Know-Nothing Councils. A new party has arisen, sprung upias it were, in a night, without ‘‘a local habitation or a name ”—meeting nowhere, composed of no- body, and knowing nothing. It was first dis- covered by the public, in the ballot-box, to the dismay of the Democracy, and the delight of the Whigs who’ were glad to see their ancient foe defeated, no matter by whom. It had its origin; it is said in the North; in the land of Millerism,Mesmerism, Mormenism; Spiritualism, Abolitionism. In June 1855, emboldened by its success, it emerged into public view, and or- ganized as a political party, calling itself Ameri- can. Its purposes and objects have since been somewhat understood. | Its councils have exhi- bited a singular want of unanimity and har- mony in their party action. ' In June 1855, they planted themselves upon their 12th Section as a National party, acquiescing in existing laws as a final settlement of the Slavery: question.. In February, 1856, the American National Council * 2114 abandoned.the -12th Section, Southern, mem-|Southern rights: 4.0 4j)4.00 94) | bers protest- and secede, Ina day or two the| With these well-known, facts staring us in th scene changes—a compromise is patched up‘in|face—with the Republican and American par secret—Southern members and Northern mem-|ties in the North rallying upon Fremont,, .witl bers re-appear in American National Convention,|the avowed, purpose of a relentless war.upor and nominate Fillmore and Donelson. North-|Sonthern rights, what. did) we see and hear,?— ern membersagain protest, secede, and denounce) Mr. Joncs saidy ageustomed as he was, to th Fillmore and Donelson. lus perversions of partizans and.mewspapers, be wa But other startling developments had preced-|amazed at, the; hardihood. of assertion .in thos ed these doings of February. It was boasted| who were denouncing the| Democratic party as.re that this National American party had elected |sponsible for the sectivnal strife, and the slayer a large majority of members of. the houselagitation, which now, more than,eyer, threate: of Representatives. Congress met. in Decem-|the stability of our Union and Constitution. A ber, 1855, when it was found that these Na-ja Whig, who in former days, had been. thei tional Americans were rent into fragments ; the|frank. and. steadfast opponent, he. would: asser small Southern band divided among themselves;|that impartial history will, pronounce this impu whilethe great Northern American party, hav-|tation an, wafounded,slander -upon.the Demo ing a majority of the whole House, combined injcratic party. ,|He exceedingly, vegretted to se solid, uncompromising phalanx, upon a.red-hot|that so eminent a; statesman,.and so excellent Abolitionist . for Speaker... The | Democrats|man as Mr., Fillmore, /should,..in a, moment united upon a North-Western National Demo-({forgetfullness and excitement, have given counte crat, and for some two months closely aad firm-|nance tothis imputation in his speech at Albany ly maintained their position with Spartan hero-|He then spoke of the responsibility of those wh ism. At length, patriotism prevailed jover|‘‘re-opened the Slavery agitation.” ,At what pe Southern Americans and National Democrats,|riod, said .Mr. Jones, since the formation, ot th aad foregoing party preferences, they united im opposition to the factious Abolitionists ;who sought at all hazards,, to place Banks in the Speaker’s chair. Who does not know the re- sult?,, Who does not: remember the shame and coufusion, and unortification,. with which our Know-Nothing: friends.hung their heads when it way announced that Banks was Speaker ?— Who does not remember the bitter curses’ wpon Davis, of Maryland, and ‘Cullen, of Delaware, for throwing: away'their» votes, and indirectly aiding in the result ? Having triumphed, iv the election of Speaker, and in breaking down the 12th Section’ at Philadelphia, it could. scarce~ ly be: expected that the, Northern Americans would desert their Republican: allies, and trust to any hope of. co-operation with ‘Southern Americans, who had, in the election of Speaker, openly preferred alliance with the Democrats. The party who hadvyelected Banks, ‘Speaker, called itself Republican. It) had, by an exclu- sively sectional’ vote, elected a most obnoxious Abolition Speaker. ‘They now resolved to strike for the Presidency—and they have nominated Fremont as their candidate. The Anrti-Fillmore Amniericans met and nominated | Speaker Banks for President. | He: declined, and: they) have ‘united with the Black Republicans upon Fre- mont. ‘The Democrats havé nominated Mr. Buchanan, 'a distinguished statesman, of large experience ini public affairs, of unsullied per-: » sonal character, and though a citizen of a free State, he has, all his life, amidst the storms of Abolitionism, stood with heroic firmness upon nion, I O @: Wess Slave law, every wherein the North N. E. Anti-Slavery Society, about,1831, has th question been .closed,/or has,its,agitation ceased r. Fillmone’s advogates say that, the, Compr. mise rmcasures of 1850 restored peace,aud quic to the country upon: this; question, Are, the oblivious of facts)so recent, in, the histary of th country? Do they not know. that it required a the cormbined influence, talents and euergy of a the National ‘Whigs ‘and, Demoerats, in hot Houses of Congress, to pass the Compromi: measures? -‘That,,Clay, and, Cass,, Webster an Douglas, and /other/ Whigs and | Demoerats, 1m ted to save the country in, that, terrible crisi Phat Mr. Clay’s bill for. the admission’ of Califor nia, adjusting the bonndary.of Texas, and orgart izing the Territories. of New, Mexico and Utal was defeated; and’ that, when separate bilis fc these objects had) been passed, and the Fugitiy Slave bill had -passed,/the powerful and. talente opposition, so far from aequiescing in those mea sures, as a final. settlement, openly appealed t the:anti-slavery feelings of the North and Wes and avowed their determination to “agitate” fc the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, and) to,ex clude slavery. from all the Territories of th Yas not the attempt to execute th Te sisted even unto blood, by anti-slavery mobs If peace and (quiet were restored, and those mei sures acquiesced in by the country, why wasnt Mr. Fillmore or Mr.;Webster nominated for Presidency in 1852)? Such. was the excite against Mr. Fillmore for signing the F Slave bill, that all) his own. great talents: the guarantecs of the Constitution, in defence of faithful efforts to serve his whole country, ; ‘ ‘ lb “Mr. Clay’sendorsment and’ influence to aid him,} were unavailing in the Whig convention, Gen: 4 Scott was nominated under the influence of the free soil, anti-slavery ‘excitement among North- ~ ern Whigs. The conservative spirit of the coun- try was aroused, the Whig candidate was dis- “trusted, and the Democratic party achieved an overwhelming triumph.’ This,'so far from quiet- - ing the angry spirit of Anti-Slavery, but in- creased its rage. Who does not remember the ~ terrible effects of an armed mob in’ the city of ~ Boston to prevent the execution of the Fugitive ~ Slave law upon the negro Burns, and the politi- _ cal revolutions that followed, sweeping the Dem- ' ocratic party from power in'the northern States ? “It is true, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska "pill added fuel to the flame, but did not kindle “it. It was used by the agitators in the North to - increase the excitement, which had been con- stantly growing since the defeat of the Wilmot proviso, and the passage of the Fugitive Slave | law. ' But it is said the repeal of the Missouri Com- _ promise line brought the present troubles on the country. Mr. Jongs ‘went on to show that, in 1850, when it was proposed to extend this line ' West, so as to make it the boundary of Utah, ’ that Seward, Hale, and the Free 'soil party in Congress, denounced the line; would not, even by implication, admit that it had any binding - effect ; avowed that it should not’stand, but that “slavery should be forever excluded from all the ‘Territories, South as well as North ‘of that line, “That when Congress came to organize Territorial "governments for Kansas and Nebraska, the ques- tion was, whether the National Whigs and Dem- ocrats, who believed that there was no constitu- tional obligation to abide‘ by thaf line, (which was but the application of the Wilmot Proviso ‘to all the territory North of 36°80’) should! “stand quietly by and see Kansas settled exclu- sively by Free Soilers, and add another to ‘the free States, to be followed by Nebraska as a free State, by which time the power to protect them- selves and their rights under the constitution | would forever have been taken away from the slave States; or whether, whilst they had the power, they should assert their constitutional rights to an equal share of the public domain, leaving the question of slavery, as a domestic in- stitution, to be settled by the people of the Ter- ritory, when they came to form a State constitu- tion. In adopting the latter alternative, they followed the example of the Congress of 1850, in the Utrh and New Mexico Territorial bills, and erected the Territores of Kansas and Nebraska, without the Wilmot Proviso. This, like the Fu- gitive Slave law, and the defeat of the Wilmot Proviso in 1850, has been made the oc- casion of increased rage and fury among the . Free Soilers, and afforded’a convenient oppor- tunity for Northern politicians, who thought they saw coming triumph’ 'for Free Soilism, to join its ranks. But-can Southern Whigs and men in ‘the Nerth, claiming to be friends of the South, join inthis Free Soil crusade against the Democratic party ? ; Mr. Jones then proceeded to express his opin- ions upon the Presidential. contest:—that Fre- mont was the candidate of this Free Soil party in the nou-slave holding States, and that to de- feat hin’ might require the united efforts of all National men, Whigs, Democrats and Ameri- cans.'! That frora the distracted state of Mr. Fillmore’s party in the Northern States, and the large secession from it to Fremont’s support, it was questionable whether Mr. Fillmore could so divide the vote in any Northern State as to de- feat the Free Soil electors in such State. That if Mr. Filimore’was supported in the North by a portion of the conservative National men, to that extent, he would divide the vote that ought to be united upon one candidate against the Ab- olitionists and Free Soilers. ‘That Mr. Buchan- an is supported by a party, which, in a conven- tion of six hundred delegates from every State in the Union, unanimously planted themselves upon the Constitutional guarenties of Southern rights.’ They have risked their existence as a political partyin defence of our property, our rights, the (Constitution and the Union. That it was amazing to him, with this prospect before us, that Southern Whigs, or any Southern man, should hazard the loss of a slave State to Mr. Buchanan by voting for Mr. Fillmore. That this was no time to indulge personal preferences, or party animosity, or to revive the feuds: of other days. “That the question is’ one of self- preservation against all the probable horrors of disunion, anarchy, and civil war—to end, God knows where! That’ he had a high personal regard for Mr. Fillmore, and admitting, that in talents, statesmanship, and patriotism, andyeven upon the question of Southern rights, he may be all his most ardent admirers claim for him, Mr. Buchanan, is at least, his equai in these re- spects, and is sustained by a party which is in the majority in nearly all if uot all the slave States. Shall Southern men, in such a crisis, seek to distract and defeat the only party in the country which, in his judgment, affords the’ slightest hope or prospect of defeat to this dan- gerous, sectional F'ree Soil party of the North? But it was said Mr. Fillmore had denounced the Sectional Free Soil party in his speech at Albany, and had proclaimed that if it should elect its candidate to the Presidency, the South would not, and ought not tosubmit. Let no man be deluded by such a threat. If Fremont shall be elected President according to the forms 16 of the Constitution, ‘either by. obtaining the united vote of the-free States, in the Electoral Colleges, or by a majority of the States, in the House of Representatives, if there is no election by the people—he willbe entitled to take the Presidential office ; to grasp’ the sword of the army, and the flag of the navy; and to exercise all the great powers vested by law in that high office. Overt acts of armed resistance to his lawful authority, if unsuccessful would be treason. Successful resistance, would be revolu- tion, disunion, and all the horrors of anarchy. Mr. Jones then adverted to the, theory of those Whigs and Americans who proposed to vote for Mr. Fillmore in the slave States, in the hope, that: by giving him the vote of two or three slave: States, the election may be carried into the House of Representatives, where, hav- ing four States in his favor, and holding thus the balance of power, they would }compel the Democrats or Republicans, to, take Fillmore, or have no election. Did gentlemen forget that the same House of Representatives that elected Banks Speaker, will have the election of Presi- dent? » Are they-sure that Fremont, with four- teen States, may not find means to secure two more? Does any dream that the Free Soilers in Congress, will, in any event, vote for Mr, Fillmore, or for Mr, Buchanan ?, They will ad- here to Mr. Fremont as they did to Banks—and Southern men may find, as they found in the election of Speaker. that the attempted union of Southern Americans and Democrats in Con- gress, may come too late to defeat the Free Soil party. holders. Mr, Jones said, if the election should go to the House of Representatives, the probability was, there would be no election by the House. PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE STANDARD, WASHINGTON, D. 0. sre Let them remember, that in a possibie contingency, Speaker Banks, even. before ‘the Presidential election, may become President, comamander-in-chief of the army and navy, and surrounded with an army of Free Soil office j He considered it as certain as any fy politi- cal event could be, that John C. J rack idg would be elected Vice-President, and in cas no election by the Tigo before the A! March next, Breckinridge, by the Constitutio will, become President., He was a noble son of Kentucky, a man of high order of intellect, a statesman of eminent ability, : he would make a safe and able Pr Jones said he would support Buchanai Breckinridge upon the. platform of their sen ments, as contained in their letters of accept- ance, and upon the practical and real issues in- volved in this contest, which he conceived to be defence of Southern rights against the purposes of the Free Soilers, and defence of the rights o! conscience in religious belief, and of the Con- stitutional rights of our naturalized citizens against the-purposes of the American party. Proseription of any, class, of our, American citizens, on account of their religious creed, o1 place of birth, is illegal and unjnst, and at wat with the avowed doctrines and policy of Mary- land Whigs for all past time, and especially for the last sixteen years, He remained firm by the doctrines of the Whig Central gid of 1840, re-affirmed by a convention of Whigs ir Baltimore in April, 1856. 0 | ~ In this hour of trial, in her exposed conditior as a frontier slave State, bounded by Mason anc and Dixon’s line, Maryland, needs the unitec aid of all her citizens, Protestant, Roman Catho lic and naturalized, to protect her property, he peace, and all that she holds most sacred ant dear—the Constitution and the Union! Le her be warned by the past, and irust nothing t the House of Representatives. Let her citizen see to it, that by uniting at the ballot-box wit! her Southern sisters, and with the Nationa Democrats and Whigs, and conservative men. ¢ the North and the West, they elect Buchana) and Breckinridge by the voice of > ad a Mie Hi) 2 SE Ya on Fe fine f 4 Date Due SEP2 "SR Form 335—40M—6-39—S