A PPLICATION
TO
C O M M I S S I O N E R D E L A N O.
BRIEF
OF
DURIBIN WARD,
Counsel for Applicants.
ALBANY, N. Y. :
J. MUNSELL, 82 STATE STREET.
1869.








EX PARTE SHAKER SOCIETIES.
*—a - - ºr-º-ºr *-nº-º-º-O - A---—A--º-º-º- ---
BRIEF.
As the question, now submitted to the department
is one of great importance to the United Society of
Believers, commonly called “Shakers,” I begapatient
hearing on their behalf. ,
I think it important that we should consider first of
all what the Association actually is.
In doing this, let us not be inclined against them,
because, their religious opinions, or or even their
domestic habits, their social ideas differ from ours.
The great fundamental law gives them the right to
worship God according to the dictates of their own
consciences, and to regulate their domestic habits, not
interfering with others, by such rules as in their
judgments lead to their own domestic happiness. No
law prescribes conduct in these particulars.
Nor does any law require any particular form of
social or industrial organization. The laws ought to
operate upon them equally with others.
Who and what then are the Shakers ?
They are an off-shoot of the old, harmless, non-resist-
ant Society of Quakers, whose most illustrious mem-
ber colonized Pennsylvania, and laid the foundation
of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love.”
The founder of the sect, Ann Lee, and her asso-
ciates, fled from persecutions, stripes and imprison-
ment in England, to this country in 1774. Ann Lee
4. *
prophesied the independence, the religious toleration
and the greatness of the then rebellious colonies; and
therefore sought an asylum here.
The emigrants settled near Albany, New York, in
1777. The first organization of the society into pre-
sent form took place at New Lebanon, twenty-five miles
east of Albany. The original settlement had been at
Watervliet still nearer Albany, and there mother Ann
Lee lies buried. & 6
' The society at New Lebanon is the parent society.
Watervliet soon followed, and early in the present
century eighteen societies in all were organized and
still exist.
Three of these are in New York, four in Massachu-
setts, one in Connecticut, two in New Hampshire,
two in Maine, four in Ohio, and two in Kentucky.
All these societies are in a sense dependent on the
parent society at New Lebanon, N. Y. The whole
number of members attached in one grade or another
to the sect, is between three and four thousand,
perhaps four thousand. .
These associations own about 65,000 acres of land;
and are congregated in central villages in the midst
of their farms.
In addition to farming, they carry on various species
of manufacturing. Their own clothing is partly
manufactured by themselves, the balance they pur-
chase. They are also engaged largely in horticulture
and stock raising for the markets. Garden seeds,
medicinal herbs, medical extracts, brooms and other
products of handicraft, fruits and wines, are their chief
products sent to the general market. [ .
The value of their real estate, houses and factories
as assessed in the aggregate about $2.267,000 dollars.
Their personal property is about in the aggregate
$364,528.
5
§uch is a general statement of the amount and
character of the property which they possess, and which
will be further noticed presently.
The chief religious tenets which distinguish them
from other sects of Christians are t
IFirst. Christ was to be manifested in the flesh in
the female as well as in the male form. T |
Second. That the male manifestation on earth was in
the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and the female mani-
festation in the person of Ann Lee the “Mother Ann”
of the Believers.
Third. That Jesus was a celebate and abstained
through life from carnal knowledge of women, And
that “Mother Ann” became alike holy by renouncing
all sexual indulgence. &
Fourth. That a like abstinence is essential to an
entrance upon the plane of a Christian or resurrec-
tion life. &
Fifth. That although to those in a lower plane,
the carnal, not the spiritual, sexual intercouse, whose
object is simply procreation, is not sinful, yet that
all such intercourse for mere pleasurable indulgence
or for any purpose other than the procreation of the
species, is corrupt and sinfäl even in that order.
These are the principal spiritual elements of their
faith. And, however we may differ therefrom, it cer-
tainly cannot be claimed that they lead to the corrup-
tion of morals, or are likely to find adherents enough
to endanger the strength of the nation. If it be an
unnatural fanatioism which rejects as unchristian
what the rest of the world cherishes as the holy rela-
tion of husband and wife, it is a harmless error, resisted
by the strongest impulses of human nature, and cer-
tain to have no other result, than to afford an asylum
to those whose sexual relations have been unfortunate,
6.
or who from any cause have become friendless and
destitute.
But surely that freedom of religious tenet and prac-
tice, everywhere accorded in this republic, renders it
unnecessary to argue that all religions alike “are
equal before the law.” . . .
But this religious sect, in addition to the peculiar
domestic faith just noticed, maintain a social and in-
dustrial organization, which they claim is likewise the
true development of Christianity. Their faith ordains
a community of goods; and they insist that in this
they follow the primitive church. They claim to be
founded on the apostles and original church. .
Here again, as an abstract proposition, no one will
deny that this tenet of religious faith is protected by
law. No law compels a man to acquire property that
it may be taxed. No law requires a man to hold in-
dividual property, or forbids him to hold it in com-
mon with others. Whatever may come in the future,
at present no statute enjoins or forbids the amount, or
the nature of property a citizen may hold, nor the
form of tenure, nor the nature of the interest by which .
his rights are measured; so far at least, as the federal
government is concerned. t- &
Neither Fourierism, communism, cooperative asso-
ciations, nor any form of industrial organization or
development, has been sanctioned or condemned by
law. The rights of the Shakers, therefore, to their own
social system, is as full and perfect as that of any other
class of citizens. Their religion, their property, their
personal and social rights will be at once recognized
by this department and by every other.
Indulge me, therefore, while I state what their
social polity really is, so that we may arrive at a just
standard for their taxation.
7
In' Exhibit A of the present application will be
found a printed record in certain legal proceedings in
Ohio. That record contains as an exhibit, also marked
A, the Covenant df "the United Society of Believers, at
Union village, Ohio. All the eighteen societies of
the United States are bound together by like cove-
nants. . . As already stated the parent society is at New
Lebanon, New York, and the covenant of each
society, is copied from that of the parent association.
Of course as they exist in different states, their cove-
nant language is slightly modified in each to conform
it to the statutory requirements as to trusts and reli-
gious societies therein. * -
The original covenant was in 1798, but for the rea-
sons stated, that, and those of the dependent societies,
have from time to time been slightly modified and
perfected. But at all times the covenant of each
society has been substantially the same and practically
what it is now. It was intended to give the sanction,
of a legal contract, to what was among themselves the
religious and spiritual covenant, of the members.
It will be seen by an examination thereof (Exhibit
A page 24), that the first object of this covenant is to
bind the society together by a social compact as a reli-
gious and social community.” - *
This society is to be “under the charge and protection
of the ministry and eldership thereof.”
They then avow as the foundation of their faith an
acknowledgment of the “Gospel of Christ in his
first and second appearing.” They acknowledge
themselves as members of “one general community,”
and subject to the administration of one united and pa-
rental government.” They also declare that the primary
authority of the institution has been settled, in the first esta-
blished ministry at New Lebanon, there to rest and remain as
the general centre of union.” * =
- 8.
“The established orden of this ministry includes
four persons, two of each sex.” This ministry is a
“perpetual succession.” These, ministers, appoint
their successors, by and with the consent of the socie.
ties, and receiving the general approbation of the church.
The parent society, therefore, appoints by its minist
try, not only their own successors, but the ministry
and the successors,thereof, for each of the other seven-
teen Societies. Such appointments, however, only
become binding when they neceive “the general appro-
bation of the church.” The ministry of the several
societies by a like approbation of such society, and of
the ministry of the parent Society at New Lebanon,
appoint all other officers, in the society, spiritual and
temporal. And are also to counsel, advise and judge in
all matters, of importance.whether Spiritual or támporal.
They likewise have authority to revoke the appoint-
ment of any officer or annul any order, rule or regu-
the approbation of the society as in other matters.
. The second anticle of their covenant.(page 26) in its
first section, Gontains, a very important, provision.
The clauses, bearing especially on this question read
thus: “We further acknowledge and declare that the great
object, purpose and design, of our uniting, together as a
church, “is for the mutual, protection, support, comfort
and happiness of each ather, as, brethren, and Sisters; in the
gospel; and for such other pious, and charitable purposes as
the gospel may, requite,” te
The same, spirit runs throughout the, whole instru-
ment, To effect, these objects, it, is ordained, that
there, shall be in addition to these ministry and
elders, having charge of the spiritual;, deagons, having
charge, of the temporal concerns of the church. Each
society has these, offiges for itself.
.9
Each society has also been, for the better administra-
tion of its affairs, spiritual and temporal, divided into a
convenient number of families, with local elders and
deacons, male and female. For the management of
its temporal, affairs with the outside world, each
society has office deacons, who are commonly called
“trustees,” who hold the legal title to their property.
But they are accountable in all things to the ministry
of the society, and can be removed at any time, as
will appear by the covenant, article. 1st, section 5th,
Exhibit A, page 26. - f s Q
These are the general objects of the society, and a
general outline of its government. * *
But let us inquire more closely into the rights and
obligations of its members. The members consist of
two general classes. The covenanting and non-cove-
nanting members. The latter are, in most of the fami-
lies the more numerous of the two. They receive
their protection and support from the society so long
as they remain with the society and conform to its
rules, but do not surrender to it all property. They
have not yet consecrated themselves and their worldly
effects to the church. Many of them remove and
never do so. Many of them are children receiving
their education. They are supported while they re-
main, but they take nothing with them if they leave.
They enjoy for the time being all the benefits of the
institution, without taking the final vows of consecra-
tion. Q ( ) *
These vows, some of them, cannot conscientiously
take, and yet they might remain under the protection
and receive the support of the society during life.
None are turned away for disease, or decrepitude, or
incapacity to take the vows. Actual conformity to the
rules and regulations gives the temporal benefits of
2
10

the Society, without the sighing of the 66véfiant; this
hâkes the Shakers essentially a dharitable institution.
Thé tovéfiant fleńbers, hówever, are the owners in
lăw and équity of the whole “consecrated property.”
Pérhaps hô society is so exacting as to the qualifica:
tiêns of its members. Sée Goveriaht, article 26, set.
tibh 2d. By this provision “ho member of āńy tom-
pāńy 61 association in business, of civil &bhdérns, fió
co-partner in trade, fid person under legal involvement,
or obligation of service, no slave, hoslave-holder,” can
enter into covenant relations, as believers. They
mtist also settle all just and equitable claims and filial
heirs, so that whatever property they possess may be justly
their own. ©º
Having this prépared themselves, by a full and just
settléméfit of their temporal affairs, ās well as by a
spiritual reconciliation to the faith and practice of the
believers, the novitiates are allowed to sign the holy
“covéfiant,” and shall thenceforth be entitled to all the
benefits and privileges thereof, and be subject to all the obli.
galions required of the original signers. (See page 27).
The covenant member then dedicates himself, and
all that he has, “to the service of God, and the support
and benefit of the church of Christ in this community, and
ió stºch other pious ahd charitable purposes as the gospel
hāy require.” Exhibit A, page 34. tº
The covenant, then, in the last clause, goes on to re-
lease all personal right to the property so dedicated;
and in the most solemn manner, the covenantors bind
themselves to each other, as covenantees, never to re-
quite any ačcount of division of the “interest, property,
iábor or services so devoted to the uses and purposes afore-
said,” “ºrary to the stipulations of this covenant.”
And in the 3d article, section 1st (Exhibit A,
page 28), the trustees are required to hold all the
consecrated property, in trust forever, for the benefit

11

of the church, and the same is declared to be “the
wnited and consecrated interest of the ghurch.”
Thug we see that by every form of expression which
language 99pl; devise, Bach member and his property
is solemnly dedicated and devoted to God, the church,
and Sugh other pious and ghariable purposés as the gospel
may régºire, J.
But the govenant would be incomplete, if it left in
doubt what would be the rights under it of the coye-
nanting members. Hence this is explicitly defined
(covenant, article 6th, sections 1 and 2, Exhibit A,
page 82). o ... • &
Each member is declared to have “equal rights, bene-
fits and privileges, in the wse of all things pertaining to the
church, according to their several needs and circumstances.
And no difference shall be made, on account of what any one
has contributed and devoted to the support and benefit of the
institution.” - *
From this brief statement of the nature of these as-
sociations, and the rules by which they govern them-
selves, it is apparent that they are in their nature,
object, spirit, and organization, no less religious
charitable institutions, than worshiping religious
societies. Charity towards their own members and
others, is fully as much, if not more, their leading ob-
ject, than the promotion of any special form of worship,
or the propagation of any specific tenet, of belief.
In their legal aspects, they are charities and ought
rather be exempted from all taxation, than,to be over-
taxed. They are in no sense moneyed or money get-
ting institutions. Profit or the accumulation of
property may become an incident, but is no specific
object of these societies.
The first question in regard to them naturally is, have
they any income that is under the law taxable at all. I
|
have not been able to find that the exact question has
12
come up in this form. Are charitable societies, hav-
ing funds or endowments, whether in moneys, or
lands, and other property liable to be taxed on the in-
come of their charitable funds? Is the income of a
charity taxable in the hands of its trustees? There is
no specific provision of the statute on the subject. At
least I have found none. Nor have I found any rul-
ing or regulation which covers the precise point.
The truth is that charitable institutions generally are
not in the contemplation of the statute at all. In my
own county a wealthy old maid by her will left a large
fund to erect and endow a home for orphan children.
The fund is invested at interest. Can the interest be
taxed as income in the hands of the trustees and the
bread to that extent be taken out of the mouths of
these orphans? A soldier's orphan's home is now
being endowed in Ohio, by voluntary subscriptions.
Will you tax that? If left to myself I would ask
the department to remit the income tax on the
Shakers totally. But they have instructed me not to
do so, as they are willing to be taxed equally with
their neighbors, though their income is so largely
devoted to charitable uses. &
Since then, they consent without struggle and cheer-
fully pay an income tax, if any be fairly and equitably
due, after all proper deduction the 'real question.
is, by what method shall this tax be ascertained 2
What constitutes their income? And to what ex-
emptions are they entitled • Q
With all deference to the late ruling of the present
commissioner, I claim that the Shaker organization
was not within the contemplation of the framers of
the statute. It was enacted to meet the exigencies of
society generally, as organized into families, of
parents and children, and not with any reference to
the existence of these social communities. They were
13
not in the mind's eye of the legislator at all. Nor
does it seem to me, that these societies are within a
fair construction of the clause in the 24th section of
the act of 1867, relied on by the commissioner.
The society is not a person, within the meaning of
that clause. The clause appearsina section relating to
distilled spirits; not income tax. And the proposer's
brain was doubtlessfull, if not of “whiskey,” of the tax-
ation of the article. But if we turn to the subject of
income tax it seems to me to become quite apparent,
that the clause relied on in the act of 1867. b
(See Int. Rev. Act, official, copy page 48, section 44)
is not applicable. That clause simply provides that, all
words “indicating or referring to person, or persons, shall
be taken to include" associations and so forth, “where not
otherwise designated or manifestly incompatible with the in-
tent thereof.” - | * *
Now the first section relating to “income tax *
(official copy, p. 103, sec. 116), says there shall be
levied, &c., on “every person,” &c., an income tax.
The following section defines, how that income shall
be made up, and what items shall constitute it. This
requires to be included in his return “the share of any
person’ in the gains and profits of all companies, whether
incorporated or partnership, who would be entitled to the same
if divided whether divided or otherwise.” Except that such
gains are not to be returned, if the association or cor-
poration from which they arise, are required by law to
“withhold a per centum of the dividends, made by such insti-
tutions” before paying them to the stockholders or
others entitled. * O. e
The subsequent section points out what companies
and corporations shall thus withhold a per centum be-
fore paying dividends, and it is clear that the Shaker
organizations, are not within that category. These
14
associations then, are not taxable under the sections
referring to eorporations or incorporated companies.
Their gains therefore for taxable purposes fall under
the provisions of section 117, page 104 (official copy),
if indeed they are taxable at all.
But the argument of the commissioner is that the
covenant members have no interest in these gains,
that they are the property not of the members but of
the society. If this be so, then clearly the society is a
mere charity, and all its gains a charitable fund which
it would be inequitable to tax at all. But let us in-
quire whether it be true, that the covenant members
have no interest in the fund, no personal right to the
gains and profits. The real nature of their rights and
interests is defined by the 6th article, section 1st of the
covenant. It is clear from this section that while
obeying the covenant, each covenanting member has
an equal undivided share of the whole property of the
church according to the “several needs and circumstances of
each.” It seems to be inferred by the commissioner
that because “it is said that the property is dedicated
and consecrated, as a united whole,” and is stipulated
that the members shall neither “make nor require any
account of any property, labor or Services, or any division
thereof,” that therefore, they have no interest in the
gain and profits of their labor, or their consecrated
property.
But this reasoning omits one important clause in
the last section of the covenant. The covenant stipu-
lating that no account or division shall be demanded is
not absolute, and without condition. It only is an ele-
ment thereof that no such account or division shall be
demanded, “contrary to the stipulations of this covenant.”
The account or division demanded must be one allowed
by the covenant. But if it be an account or a division
allowed by the covenant, then there is no stipulation
15
against it being demanded. On the contrary, the
very fact that such condition is annexed to the right of
demanding an account, recognizes the existence of the
right.
What then is the account or division which the cove-
nant does not prohibit a covenant member to demand?
Why by referring to the before mentioned clause in
first section of the 6th article, it is plain enough what
demand the covenanting member has a right to make.
While he observes the covenant he has an absolute
right to his support in health and in sickness, from
youth to old age. If accident or palsy disable his
limbs, if insanity dethrone his reason, if the stealthy
decrepitude of age unnerve the whole man until light
and sound revisit no more his jocund senses and he
feebly gropes on in darkness and silence to the grave,
the protecting arm of the society is around him and
its guardian hand guides him even to the portals of the
“dark walley and the shadow of death.” Who shall
say then that he has no interest in the gains and “in-
come" of the society? *
Nor are his rights left in the mere voluntary keep-
ing of his covenant brethren. The very preamble of
the instrument declares it to be a “lawful testimony in all
cases of question and law.” And it is spread upon re-
cord in their respective associations and in the proper
legal offices of the several states wherein the societies
exist. Never in the history of these communities have
they refused to support a member who was in Christian
union with them, and it may well be affirmed that they
inever will. But should the devil ever creep into
these harmless willages as he once creptinto Eden and
fill the brethren with guile and selfishness so that
they should deny protection and support to a worthy
brother, however little of this world’s goods he might
have brought to the institution, and though he may

16
have for years lain helpless on their hands and be for-
ever disabled from future labor; his right under the
covenant to his share of the consecrated property
would be enforced, by any court, however little it
might sympathize with the religious faith or practice
of the believers. The law secures the covenant mem-
ber's rights though he will doubtless never need to
invoke its powers. . . . . . . . . . . . .
True the covenant, does provide that the “offer-
ings and pious donations" constituting the property
of the society are a “united interest” “not to be con-
sidered a joint tenancy or tenancy in common but a
consecrated, whole.” Yet this language is intended
simply to deny the usual attendant upon such an estate,
the legal right of partition. It is intended to be and
is covenanted that no member shall demand partition
of the estate, but still the members are clearly “joint
tenants” in the use and occupancy of the property
real and personal. If any accident, no matter what, dis-
solved the association, a court could not but divide the
property among the members. Suppose the constitu-
tion or laws of the country were so changed as to ope-
rate a dissolution of such associations would not the
property be divided among the members? Or sup-
pose a pestilence or an earthquake should destroy all
the members, but one, would he not be the rightful
owner of the whole property? Surely then the mem-
bers have an interest in the gains and profits of their
labor though in the language of the statute it is not
an income to be “ divided.”
It seems to me, therefore, that giving these provisions
about income tax a strict construction each covenant
member of all the Shaker societies would be entitled to
make out his return and take his exemption under the
117th section if the law reached these societies at all.
But as already claimed I think the law does not in
strictness, reach those associations at all. We are
therefore, called upon either not to tax them at all, or
give the law such construction as shall do them prac-
tical justice. We can adopt a rule which shall assimi-
late them to the rest of the people. We find that
about one-fifth part of the whole population are liable
under the existing statute to make return of income
tax. Families on the average consist of about five
members, old and young, producing income, or help-
less. The application of this rule it seems to me
would be fair to the Shakers. The average adult
population is greater with them than in society gene-
rally, but so is the old and infirm. Being in their
essential nature charitable societies, receiving all with-
out regard to age or infirmity, the non-producing
element, though they have fewer children among
them, is fully as great as in society in general, I in-
tended to present accurate statistics on this subject,
but the short time I have had to prepare, considering
the wide dispersion of the societies, has prevented me
from procuring the requisite information. But I will
do it yet if time is afforded me. Suffice it to say, that
they all have a large number of old and infirm per-
sons among them, and each 'society has schools for the
children whom they have adopted. Most of these
children are the offspring of persons deceased or in
needy circumstances, not belonging to the Shakers,
and who find an asylum during their infant helplessness
among these self-denying, charitable people, and are by
them left free on arriving at full age to go away or stay,
as they may choose. They are fed, clothed, educated:
and protected during minority, and then at maturity
are charged nothing for their support and education,
though many of them then leave the community. I
have visited their schools and they compare favorably
with the common schools of any country. , - '
3 \


18
Notwithstanding all these things the late ruling of
the commissioner treats the whole society as “one per-
son " and however numerous it may be gives but a
single exemption of one thousand dollars. Some of
these societies number several hundred members in
the aggregate; covenanting and non-covenanting
members. Indeed the average of the whole eighteen
societies is above two hundred each. The exemption
is therefore, about five dollars per capita while the
general average of community is about two hundred
dollars. & • & ſ
Now it seems to me to be too clear for argument
that the object of allowing the one thousand dollars ex-
emption is to give a man before he is required to return
a taxable income that amount as a naked support, food
and clothing, for his family. The sizes of families
differ greatly, but where a family is numerous, some of
its members usually earn something, and therefore the
exemption usually goes as far in a family often as of
five. So that the injustice of taxing each alike is
rather apparent than real. But to say that you will
give no greater exemption to a social community of
two hundred members which performs the functions of
a family by feeding, clothing, lodging, educating, and
protecting its members, works an injustice which this
department, I cannot but believe, will refuse to same-
tion when the subject is fully considered.
As a part of this argument I adopt and file here-
with the opinion of Commissioner Lewis given in 1863.
Not because I adopt his principle of taxation strictly,
for Ithink a division, for taxing purposes, into families
of five more consonant to the spirit of the act; but
because the general reasoning is so applicable to my
view of the subject. I confess I cannot see that any
principle requires the taxation to be on the covenant
male members, while I do see that the principle of .

19
equality in the burthens of government is attained by
assimilating these societies to the rest of the community
by dividing them for taxation into families of five the
average elsewhere. * º
But if I am wrong in all these positions and the
deductions therefrom, and if the late ruling is correct
that each society is to be treated as a person it seems
to me to be irresistible that such person must be
allowed the same deductions and privileges as any
other “person.” This will, I think, be at onee admitted
and all I need do, as to this branch of the subject, is to
show how this principle practically results when applied
to the Shakers. In addition to the other deductions
allowed by the 117th section, each “person" is per-
mitted to deduct “the amount actually paid for labor to
cultivate land or conduet any other business from which
income is actually derived.”
If these societies are to be treated as “persons,”
then all their members are by the same reasoning to
be treated as persons “hired” and their services as
“labor,” in the sense of the statute. True they are
not paid in money; but the statute does not require
such payment, to make the exemption allowable. If
payment is aetually made it cannot in principle matter
in what it is made. It may as well be in food, cloth-
ing, and so forth, as in money. What then does the
society “pay” their members if we must for legal
purposes treat them as hired laborers?
First. They pay them in food, clothing, lodging,
medieal attendanee, and in other necessaries of life,
whatever they need during the year. {
Second. They pay to their credit, or rather, carry to
their account, not in form but in fact, whatever indefi-
nite sum of money or amount of property may be
necessary, “according to their needs and circum-
stances,” for their future support and protection, not
20
only in health, but in sickness and old age. Indeed,
the covenant is a life insurance policy to each mem-
ber against want, and his service is the premium paid
therefor. e C. ſº tº
Third. The society has to support those who cannot
work at all, and therefore pays this support also, for
4.
the labor of those who can.
From these considerations, it appears that the whole
expense of running the establishment ought to be de-'
ducted before the society can be said to have any
income. &
But even this would not do them justice; because,
in addition to the current expense of the year, the
society is charged with the support for life, of all its
members; and the cost of this, cannot with any accu-
racy, be prospectively arrived at. But if the depart-
ment feels constrained to adhere to the late ruling of
the commissioner, then we respectfully ask that this
view of the subject may be taken, and such orders and
regulations issued, as will enable these societies to
make up their income return on the principle of
allowing them to deduct the expenses of working the
organization, both present and prospective. It may
be difficult to do this, but an approximation to these
expenses will come nearer doing them justice, than
any other course we can devise under the late ruling.
But I cannot help thinking it would be more con-
sistent both with law and justice to make the division
into families of five, which we ask. *
With these suggestions I submit the application of
these industrious, law-abiding and inoffensive people.
Their religious ideas forbid them to take part in war,
exercise the right of suffrage, or take any part in the
conduct of public affairs. They cannot, therefore,
maenace your decision whatever it may be with oppo-
sition. They appeal simply to your sense of justice
21
and will abide uncomplainingly whatever their govern-
ment enjoins.
I cannot bring myself to conclude, however, without
saying that though non-combatants they extended dur-
ing the late struggle their full share of charitable aid
to their country. The Soldier's Aid societies, the Sani-
tary Commission and the other organizations to min-
ister to the suffering soldier, always found willing co-
adjutors in these communities. The needy wives
and children of the soldiers found homes with these
people whenever they asked shelter and, were cheer-
fully supported without “money and without price.”
They supply the place unattended by the corruptions
and the evils of the old monastic institutions of the
middle ages, and though they can never become nume-
rous supply a want which exists in all countries and
ageS. & - a
DURBIN WARD,
Counsel for Shakers.