SHAKERS.
WHEREAs, there appeared in the True Wesleyan (a paper
edited by Luther Lee, of New York,) in the fall of 1487, a long
article called the “Shaker Trial;” And whereas, such article
abounds with false statements and gross misrepresentations of the
true account of the said case, and is calculated to deceive and
prejudice the public mind against the Society to which I belong,
and has since that time been reprinted and widely circulated for
that purpose, I, therefore deem it a duty I owe, not only to my-
self and those associated with me in the trial aforesaid, but also to
the public, to make some few remarks respecting said publication,
and also the cause which led to this singular trial; not, however,
with a view of making a direct reply to all and singular the mis-
statements contained in said article, but enough to show how
iittle reliance can be placed upon its general features for truth and
Verity; - w
* #. fall of 1846, Wm. H. Pillow, plaintiff in the case afore-
said, together with his wife Ann, were received as noviciate
members into the family where I reside. After some months resi.
dence, Wm. H. Pillow, aforesaid, concluded to leave. No objec-
tions were made to his doing so, or to his wife’s going with him,
had it been her choice: but, after much conversation between
them upon the subject, they settled the matter between them.
selves; and he went away, leaving her peaceably to enjoy her
home for a time in the Society. &
But, as it appears, subsequently receding from his liberal princi-
ples, he came to our place of residence, and insisted upon her
Heaving, and going with him to New York. To this she remon-
strated, as abridging her rights and depriving her of liberty of
conscience. But yet he insisted on her going; and although he
spent hours with her in private, endeavoring to persuade her to
go, still she was inflexible in her determination to remain where
she was. e
In this affair between Wm. H. Pillow and Ann, his wife, we
assumed no dictation, but informed thern distinctly, that it was a
imatter for them to settle ; and if she chose to go, she was free to
do so, as he was ; but, while she chose to remain, we could nºt
tleem it right, or our duty, to expel her from our doors, unless for-
bidden to harbor her.
2
Thus matters stood between all parties, when, on the 25th of
August, 1847, Wm. H. Pillow, in company with Luther Lee,
(aforesaid) and two females, came to see her. After again using
all his influence, combined with that of his associates (one of whom
was his sister) to persuade her to go, and finding her invincible in
her determination to remain, he forcibly seized her, and probably
would have compelled her from the house, had she not applied for
help from two females nearby, and laying hold of one of them,
he was prevented from forcibly dragging her out.
Thus failing in their attempt, their next course was to obtain a
writ of Habeas Corpus. Having effected this, and the writ being
served on us, we made our returns to the writ; stating, that Ann
Pillow was not in our custody, nor under our power or restraint,
and had never been, neither before nor since the allowance of the
said writ. ©
Our returns were contested by plaintiff, on the grounds that we
exercised a moral influence over the said Ann Pillow, amóunting
to physical restraint, and plaintiff's counsel moved to go into evi-
dence for proof. This our counsel objected to, and contended that
it was a restraint no where recognised within the limits of the
statute; if so, there was not a minister or leader of any society
whatever, who were not liable to the same charge; for their call-
ing was expressly to exert a moral influence over the minds of their
hearers; but such influence was by no means contemplated as
coming within the limits of the statute. However, the Court saw
fit to overrule the objection, and grant the motion ; but nothing
from the statutes could be shown to warrant such a decision, nor
could a precedent be brought from all the Reports in Court on
Habeas Corpus. tº a
Agreeable, however, to this decision, the Court went into ex-
amination of witnesses, on the side of plaintiff; but no position
taken by myself or associates was in the least invalidated or proved
false, by the evidence. And had the Rev. Editor (so called) begn
as willing to have published what appeared on the cross-examina-
tion as he was the direct evidence, the whole account would have
appeared very differently dressed in the columns of the “True
Wesleyan.” Nor would their whole testimony, to the unprejudiced
mind, have proved matters of fact more against than for the de-
fendants. This was so apparent at the close of plaintiff's evi-
dence, that our counsel arose and inquired of the Court, if the
evidence that had been produced (admitting it all to be strictly
true) was sufficient to warrant the Court in granting the attach-
ment moved for. *
“It will be of no use” (continued he) “for us to go into rebut-
ting evidence, and take up the time of the Court, unless the evi-
dence produced is sufficient to grant an attachment for the defen-
dants.” As the Court was not to be brought by any means unequi-
ºcally to decide this point, we concluded to leave the whole
iſlatter, and all they had gained by their witnesses, for the Court
to make the best of that it could, and grant an attachment to

3
commit defendants to jail, if it thought proper to take the respon-
sibility. And it was on this principle, and this alone, that we
refrained from bringing rebutting evidence (of which we had an
abundance), or, of moving on further in the suit. And in this
dilemma was the Court placed, when Ann Pillow was forcibly
brought into Hudson, but not, however, by all our importunity,
allowed to come before the Court, to speak for herself, and give
evidence of her restraint.
As to the vaunted triumph they claim in obtaining the body of
Ann Pillow at the North House, “where,” they say, “we had
sworn she was not,” it will not appear so wonderful to the public,
nor so criminal on our part when it is recollected, that in our re-
turns to the Court, on the 17th instant, we said that Ann Pillow .
was at all times, at full liberty to remain with us, or go, just as
she pleased, and when she pleased ; that we never had her in our
custody, or under our control or restraint. º | >
And though the returns stated that she was then absent from
our house, it by no means implied that she would be the next week,
or even the next day; but it plainly set forth, that she was at
liberty, as far as we were concerned, to return the next hour if she
chose. And our declaration that she had left the family, was not
for the purpose of adding strength or suffficiency to the returns,
(it being all.sufficient without), but merely to show that she had
left of her own free will and choice, and was absent from our
house when we left New Lebanon. *
On what ground, then, I would ask, can any one accuse me, or
my associates, of falsehood or fraud, if, fourteen days after the
said returns, the said Ann Pillow is found at our house, (it being
exactly two weeks from the day that said returns were made to
the Court, that Wm. H. Pillow, accompanied by the Sheriff, found
and took the body of Ann Pillow from said North House )
Had we at any time admitted her, as being in what the law
contemplates as our custody, or under our power or restraint, the
case would have been very different. But having, through their
own imagination, placed us in the predicament they represent, and
built their own man of straw, we leave them the full honor of
knocking it over. º e
Now, the report that Ann Pillow was controlled or restrained
of her liberties, by any one, or more of the United Society, from
going any day or hour with her husband, I must, in justice to my- .
self and others, declare to be an utter falsehood, whether it orgi-
nated in ignorance or malice. Nor do I believe, a report so
entirely false and inconsistent, and so evidently the effect of a
prejudiced mind, could, after a little reflection, be countenanced
as truth by the candid reader. *
And I have so much charity for the editor himself, and his as-
sociates, who saw, and her converse, in presence of her husband,
as to believe, were they brought to say if they believed her so re-
4
strained of her liberty that she could not freely go with her hus-
band if she chose, they would answer in the negative.
And the very fact of her being refused admittance before the
Court, when demanded by our counsel, that she herself might
testify whether she had been restrained of her liberty or not, goes
conclusively to prove, that they have no faith in their own allega-
tion, and were unwilling the truth should be brought to the test.
RICHARD BUSHNELL.
SHAKERS TO THE PUBLIC.
THE Society of SHAKERs hwaing of late suffered much, by
the spirit of persecution, originating mostly at the instigation of
seceders therefrom, whose immoral course of life caused their
expulsion or separation from the Society. And, inasmuch, as
their slanderons reports against our Order and Institution, circu-
lated, not only from malicious, but mercenary motives, have so far
influenced the public mind as to induce the popular branch of the
N. H. Legislative, during the last winter, to adopt the most
strange and unconstitutional mode of proceeding ever before
known in any legislative body of the Federal Compact; and
which, for its intolerance, perhaps, cannot find a parallel in any
government of the nineteenth century. And, as the proceedings
9f this lower branch of the Legislature have been published in a
mutilated form (without noticing their unanimous rejection by
the Senate), together with other grossly libellous matter, consisting
of false representations of the faith and principles of the Society,
and of one-sided and untrue reports of trials into which some mem-
bers have been unwillingly dragged by said parties, with a mani-
fest design of influencing and prejudicing public opinion, and thus
forestall and control the decisions of cases now pending in the
£ourts of Justice, thereby to deprive us of our just and legal
rights, we have thought proper to lay before the public the
Minority Report of the Committee before whom the investigation
was made, and also an extract from the Boston Courier, in order
to show in what light the whole proceedings were and are re-
ceived by enlightened and liberal minds.
[From the Boston Courier.]
T H E S H A K E R S.
THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
AND THEIR CONSTITUTION,
At the last winter session of the New Hampshire Legislature, 3.
meagre petition,-signed by a few scores of individuals, mostly dis-
5
affected seceders from the two societies of Shakers at Canterbury
and Enfield,—was presented, praying legislative interference to pre-
vent sundry alleged abuses, which, the petitioners affirmed, the two
societies habitually practised upon their novitiate members and
children.
Well, beyond all precedent, and º as it may seem, the
House of Representatives empowered their Judiciary Committee (to
whom the petition was referred) to send for persons and papers, with-
out qualification. This the Committee did, even ordering the Sha-
kers to bring all their covenants, orders and rules, printed books and
manuscripts. These, especially such as were deemed by the Sh*.
kers to be of Divine origin, were ridiculed, scoffed at, and moc.ed
by the learned (?) counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners were
also broughtforward, and all was elicited that could bear any possi-
ble construction derogatory to the good character of thet wo soci-
eties. But no direct legal testimony was drawn forth, tending in
the least to sustain the charges brought, or the abuses of which the
petitioners complaimed. • *
Yet, notwithstanding this, a long and labored plea was made in
support of the petition, and at its close, a bill was read by the peti-
tioners’ counsel, not before brought to the notice of the Committee.
To take advantage of the excitement and prejudice created by ridi-
culing and browbeating a peaceable, quiet and inoffensive class of
citizens, a motion on the said bill was pressed immediately, and it
was finally passed, by a vote of more than three-fourths of the House.
Six out of the ten members of the Committee voted for it.
But the other four members of the Committee,_viz.: Hon. Moses
Norris, Jr., United States Senator; Hon. Levi Chamberlain, the
Whig candidate for Governor; George Y. Sawyer, an eminent law-
yer of Nashua, and A. A. Lane, Esq., of Walpole,_made a minori-
ty report, positively and unequivocally declaring that the charges
attempted to be proved by the petitioners were groundless and un-
sustained, with but one solitary exception, where the parties were
immediately expelled; and also, that the above bill was wholly and
palpably unconstitutional.
This examination extended over a period of more than half a
century, and included both societies, cach containing about four
hundred members. It was rigorous, scrutinizing and insulting;
and after having been continued many tedious nights, (it was
carried on only in the night,) with malicious and bitter informers
against them for witnesses, and those, too, whom they had
reared in the very bosoms of their families, the two societies
have come forth from the ordeal without a single stain of immo-
rality or vice º
Yet, had it not been, (and I blush while I write it) for the no-
ble, wise and excelsior bearing of the Senate, who voted unani-
mously to postpone indefinitely the bill, the state of New Hamp-
shire would have been disgraced by a law far better suited to the
spirit of the sixteenth than the nineteenth century.
The provisions of the bill, which a large majority of the House
proposed to inflict upon these two societies, and upon all such of
£heir constituents as might think proper thereafter to unite with
them, were not only positively unconstitutional, but more oppres-
Give to the rights of property than the penalties imposed upon the
basest and most hardened criminal in any penitentiary in the Uni-
£ed States, . It actually provided that if any of the good citizens
of the Granite State should unite with either of these two Socie-
ties, or with any religious society who believe cohabitation to be
Sinful, their rights and titles to all property, and their control and
guardianship of their children, should be forfeited for ever !
We must, in charity to humanity, conclude that all those
ymembers of the Legislature of New Hampshire who voted for
this bill, had never read that instrument, whose fifth article de-
chares—“Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to .
worship God according to his own conscience and reason; and
no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person,
liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season
imost agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his
religious professions, sentiments, or persuasions, provided he doth
act disturb the public peace, or disturb others in their religious
worship.” Or if, perchance, they had ever read their own con-
stitution (for the people of New Hampshire are noted for their
general intelligence,) they had certainly forgotten the above arti-
cle, for I cannot believe them guilty of gross and umitigated
perjury •
I have noticed but a few instances in which the public press
has expressed any opinion at all upon this delicate subject. Among
these, the more elevated and respectable of all parties, have
praised the wonderful forbearance and peaceable deportment of
the two Societies in question, and have even dared, moderately, to
disapprove of this new system of Smithfield persecution. I have
noticed but two that have taken an opposite course. One of these,
a Boston print, suffered to appear in its columns, but a few weeks
since, a letter purporting to have been written by an irreponsible
person, which is a tissue of misrepresentations, and every one
who attended the investigation before the committee knows it to
the so. It merely reiterates the same charges there attempted to
be proved by the petitioners, and in some important points ac-
tually contradicts their sworn testimony. But the whole of it,
as the minority report declares, was completely and triumphantly
disproved by the Skakers. What a spectacle ! Go into the like
rigid examination of the private and domestic affairs of the best
regulated and most virtuous family in Christendom, and will not
the foul tongue of slander have much to tell of unhappy, broils
and disgraceful incidents occuring yearly, monthly and daily? .
The other instance I have noticed is a weekly paper called the
* New Hamphshire Democrat,” which copies the above letter
antire from the Boston paper, and advocates its claims to cre-
dence,—censures the whole of the grave and honorable Senate,
7
(notwithstanding their fidelity to their oath,) for their “incapa-
city to think, or a reckless disregard of public sentiment,”—as
cxpressed through a majority of the House of Representives,
who never knew, or had forgotten the Constitution they had
sworn to preserve, and concludes by recommending more sum-
mary modes, “ than waiting for the slow process of the law to
apply the remedy.” This valiant editor must have been a man
of exceedingly large calibre, to thus attack, alone and single-
handed, a whole Senate. But it is to be hoped that the New
Hampshire Senate,<-knowing its constitutional duty,<-will dare
to continue to do it. -
What though the Shakers may err in matters of religious
faith;-all cannot be right. But the fact, that by taking indigent
children and adults from the humbler walks of life for materials,
the Shakers have instituted and maintained a social compact for
over sixty years, which, for all the domestic and moral virtues,
for purity of life, and pure integrity of purpose in all their busi-
ness relations with others—has become proverbially a model in-
stitution for the whole world to copy, ought, indeed, to entitle
them to general respect. º
The writer of this article has had the pleasure of many years
personal acquaintance with several of these Societies in the
United States, among which, are the two in New Hampshire.
Conscious that I have given no aspect to the above case, contrary
to the truth, I beg you to give the foregoing a place in your
columns. I do this in justice to a peaceful, inoffensive, and virtu-
ous class of fellow-citizens. In justice to those, who, through
malice and envy, would traduce and mal-treat their neighbors,
and in justice to the glorious inheritance of civil and religious
liberty, so sacredly entrusted to our charge.
JUNIUS AMERICU.S.
MIN O RITY RE PORT
of THE JUDICIARY comMITTEE, UPON THE PETITION OF FRANKLIN
MUNROE AND oth ERS IN RELATION TO THE SOCIETY OF
CHRISTIANS CALLED SHAKERS.
THE undersigned, a minority of the Judiciary Committee to whom
were referred the petitions of Franklin Munroe and 409 others, the
petition of John Leavitt and 69 others, the petition of Mary Mar-
shall and 14 others, and the petition of James M. Otis and 2 others,
setting forth “that there are now existing among the society called
Shakers in this State, many gross and inconsistent practices, sub-
8
versive of the public good which require the interference of the le-
gislature to suppress,” ask leave to submit the following report:—
The undersigned from the commencement of the investigation,
have been deeply impressed with the delicacy and importance of
the questions involved, and that there might be a full and thorough
investigation of all the charges preferred, the Committee have given
to the petitioners great latitude in the introduction of testimony.
They have permitted them to introduce evidence touching the ma-
nagement of all the pecuniary aud business affairs of the Shakers,
both at Enfield and Canterbury; their grounds and articles of re-
ligious faith; their rules, modes and practices of religious worship;
and their temporal and religious teachings and instructions, to all
classes, both young and old, covering a period of more than half a
century. To aid the petitioners in the investigation, the Committee
have ordered the societies both at Canterbury and Enfield, to pro-
duce before them all their manuscripts, covenants, agreements,
orders and rules, and printed books, touching the management of
their temporal affairs as well as those pertaining to their religious
faith. Agreeably to that order all such manuscripts and books
were produced before the Committee for their inspection and that of
the petitioners and their counsel.
So far as the undersigned were concerned, they were induced to
agree to this wide range of investigation for the purpose of eliciting
all the facts that might have any bearing in aid of the prayer of the
petitioners and not with any design of attacking the religious faith
of the society of Shakers, or of provoking the sneers of any one
against them or their religious faith, by bringing before the public
their very peculiar modes and practices of religious worship. In
matters of religious faith and worship the undersigned believe every
individual is alone answerable to his conscience and his God, “pro-
vided he doth not disturb the public peace, or disturb others in their
religious worship.”
he charges preferred by the petitioners are—
First, that children bound to the Shakers, or placed under their
care, are mal-treated and abused to such a degree as to injure ser-
iously their health, and sometimes to shorten their lives: conse-
quently unfitting them for the ordinary affairs of life when they leave
that society, and that the aged were often unattended and neglected.
Secondly, that when a person becomes a member of said society,
he is obliged to sign an instrument relinquishiug all claim upon the
roperty he may possess and for the work he may do, thus neglect-
ing his duties to his family, and thereby depriving them of the pro-
per means of support. L º
Thirdly, that the friends of persons who are sick and die there,
are not allowed access to them while sick and dying, and that their
deaths are kept secret and unpublished to the world. º
So far as the distinct charges in the petition are concerned and,
the evidence upon which the petitioners sought to sustain them, the
undersigned can hardly be expected to recapitulate the evidence, or
9
º more than to state the conclusions to which they have been
Cúl,
The charge that aged persons have been neglected and mal-treat-
ed was utterly unsustained, and indeed distinctly disproved. The
evidence to support the same charges as applicable to middle-aged
persons º solely to matters connected with their religious ex-
ercises and worship and discipline, and although there was at one
period evidently great excitement in the Society, and much that
other denominations of Christians would regard as absurd, still there
was no evidence of any bodily injury, except in a single instance,
and that slight and accidental, as testified by the individual herself,
who declared that then and at all times she had been treated with
the utmost personal respect and tenderness; nor was it even pre-
tended that there was any intentional wrong.
The general allegation that children have been cruelly treated,
equally failed of support. As before remarked, the investigation
upon this subject extended over a long period of about forty-five
years, and embraced the societies at Enfield and Canterbury. Al-
though many witnesses were called who had passed years in the
different families, but seventeen instances, including both males
and females, were referred to in which it was pretended that the
chastisement was severe. Most of those instances occurred from
ten to eighteen years since, and in a majority of cases it is believed
the punishment would not have been regarded as severe in any dis-
trict school in the State. The witnesses of the petitioners, as well
as those for the Shakers, bore united testimony to the fact, that in
the teachings, public and private, severe puuishment was absolutely
forbidden, and kindness and tender care of the children universally
inculcated.
That there have been several instances of severe chastisement,
the undersigned entertain no doubt, but they have been unauthor-
ized exceptions, and in violation of the established rules and orders,
and the general practice of the Society.
With regard to the contracts under which individuals and families
are admitted to the different orders of the Society, the undersigned
respectfully refer the House to the printed regulations, with the
single remark that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part
of the Shakers in a single instance, or that the principles which
they avow to the world in that respect have been violated.
The allegation that the friends of persons who are sick and die
there are not allowed access to them while sick and dying, and that
their deaths are kept a secret and unpublished to the world, was
not only not sustained by any proof, but clearly disproved.
What legislation do the petitioners propose? The bill read to the
Committee of the whole House by the petitioners' counsel in his clos-
ing argument and not before brought to the notice of the Committee,
and which was afterwards placed in the hands of the Committee with
a request that it be reported to the House, with a recommendation
that it become a law, and which is the identical bill reported, shows
specifically the kind and extent of legislation proposed. It is to be pre-



10
sumed that the petitioners and their learned counsel, who have
bestowed much time and attention upon the subject, while they have
formed this bill so as to effect the object of their prayer, have at the
same time made it as unobjectionable as their ingenuity could pos-
sibly devise. The first question which presents itself seems to be
this—is the request of the petitioners, as specified in the provisions
of the bill, consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and
the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty 2 The un-
dersigned think not. The Constitution, article 1, paragraphs 3, 4,
and 5 declare— |
3. “When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up
some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the
protection of others, and without such an équivalent the surrender
is void.” w Q
4. “Among the natural rights some are in their very nature un-
alienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them.
Of this kind are the rights of Conscience.” ©
5. “Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to wor-
ship God according to the dictates of his own conscience and reason;
and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person,
liberty, or ESTATE, for worshipping God in the manner and season
most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience—or for his re-
ligious professions, sentiments, or persuasions; provided he doth
not disturb the public peace, or disturb others in their religious
worship.” . d
The great principle involved in these provisions of the Constitu-
tion, framed and adopted bysour fathers, who lived nearer the age,
if not in it, of religious intolerance and bloody persecution, is in the
opinion of the undersigned, the only true and legitimate foundation
on which can rest our civil and religious freedom. They believe
these provisions to have been conceived in truth and wisely incor-
porated in the Constitution, and that the welfare of the people re-
quires that they should be regarded in all legislative acts as sacred
and inviolable.
The question then presents itself, can the Legislature impose
upon any one a penalty of any kind for the free exercise of the
rights of conscience 1 or in, other words, for worshipping God
according to the dictates of his own conscience and reason 3 or
can they hurt, molest or restrain any one in his person, liberty or
estate, by penalty or otherwise, for worshipping God in the manner
and season his conscience shall dictate 3 or on account of his reli-
gious profession, or the religious sentiments he may entertain and
promulgate 4 or on account of the religious persuasion or society
to which he may attach himself or belong, provided the public
peace and others in their religious worship are not disturbed
thereby 1 e - ( )
Upon this matter but one answer can be given. The Constitu-
tion is clear and explicit, and in the opinion of the undersigned,
the Legislature have no such power, and if they had, it would be
11
extremely unwise to exercise it. What then are the provisions
of this bill ſº
The first section of the bill provides “That whenever any man
having a family shall connect himself with any religious sect or
society which profess to believe the relation of husband and wife
unlawful, or co-habition between them sinful, the right of such
husband over his property shall be suspended, and thereafter the
wife of such person shall have the management and control of such
property in the same way and manner as her said husband might
have done before such connection, except that said wife shall not
convey any real estate of her said husband, or lease the same for a
longer period than five years. And in case of the death of such
wife, or of her voluntary connection with such sect or society, the
said property shall be managed and controlled in like manner by
a guardian of the children of such person, to be appointed in the
same way and manner as guardians of children in other cases are
appointed ; and said guardian shall appropriate the income of such
property for the support and benefit of the children of such person
so connected with such sect or society in such way and manner
as the Judge of Probate of the county in which such guardian re-
sides, shall from time to time order and direct. And all leases,
gifts, sales and conveyances made by such person to such sect or
society, or to any person or corporation in trust for such sect or
society after such connection, or in anticipation thereof, shall be
Void " ' &
The second section of the bill provides,—“That whenever such
person shall abandon such sect or society, he may by petition, ap-
ply to the Justices of the Superior Court of Judicature to annul the
control of such property by the wife of such person or the guar-
dian of such children, and after due notice to such wife or guar-
dian and hearing the evidence of said parties in relation thereto,
the said Court may, if in their judgment the interests of such per-
son and his family will be promoted thereby, by their order annul
the said control of said wife or guardian over the property of such
person from the time of such order.”
Here, then, is the open, undisguised proposition for the enact-
ment of a law declaring that if any person shall conscientiously
and religiously believe cohabition between man and wife to be sin-
ful, and shall, even under a sense of religious duty, connect him-
self with any sect or society which profess to believe the same, it
shall operate a forfeiture of his whole estate, and that he shall
thereafter be “RESTRAINED” from all exercise of ownership over
it ; which can never be restored to him, unless on condition that he
abjure his religious faith and conscientious forms of worship, by
abandoning the religious sect or society to which his sense of duty
bids him adhere; nor even, then, unless the Justices of the Supe-
rior Court shall adjudge that the interests of such person and his
family will be promoted by such restoration. tº-
Here, then, in the free State of New Hampshire, where we boast
of our civil and religious freedom, in the middle of the nineteenth
12
century, it is seriously proposed to visit upon the free exercise of
the rights of conscience, a penalty more severe as it respects the
rights of property than is visited upon the most hardened and des-
perate villain now within the walls of your State Prison.
In the limited time allotted to the undersigned, amid the pres-
sure of other engagements, they are unable to advert more parti-
cularly to the provisions of the bill; but to them it seems quite
obvious that they involve other principles not less repugnant to
the spirit of the Constitution, and to just, equal and wise legisla-
tion.
M. NORRIS,
LEWI CHAMBERLAIN,
GEO, Y. SAWYER.

The undersigned was not present during the entire investiga-
tion before the Judiciary Committee, but fully concurs in the gene-
ral sentimens and principles of the foregoing Report.
F. F. LANE.
/*A** >