Q. Have not several suits been commenced in different parts of New York by those you call Friends, against those whom you style Orthodox? A. I know of none by the approbation of any meeting. Q. Do you know of any with or without such approbation? A. There was one commenced at "Purchase," by a Friend who was treasurer to a school fund, belonging, I believe, to the Preparative Meeting of Purchase; and which has been already explained in my evidence before the present examiner. Q. Do you know of any other? if you have knowledge of any other, I wish you to state it? A. There was a case, I believe, which occurred at "Nine Partners," in Duchess county, of a trustee who held property belonging to the school at that place, and under the care of the Yearly Meeting of New York. It appears that he was the only surviving trustee, and without consulting the Yearly Meeting, or its committee, as I understood, but at the instance of a counsellor, eminent in the law, he was advised to issue a writ of ejectment against the persons who were in possession of that property. This, however, when it came to the knowledge of Friends generally, met their decided disapprobation; and he was advised to withdraw that writ; which I have understood, he accordingly did: as it was the express and decided opinion of the Meeting for Sufferings, representing the Yearly Meeting, that Friends should in no case be plaintiffs in any suit at law for the recovery of any property, which might be in the possession of any of those called Orthodox Friends. I know of no other suits of the kind, within the compass of our Yearly Meeting. Q. Although the suit was withdrawn, did not those whom you call Friends take possession of nearly all the lands belonging to that school? A. I believe they kept possession of some of those lands which had always been in their possession, although very far from its being kept in peaceable possession: those of the Orthodox party having frequently disturbed them therein. Q. If previously in possession, why institute an action of ejectment for its recovery? A. I am speaking of part of the lands; I believe the ejectment was served, or issued against those in possession of the school-house,—I am not particularly informed as it respects the division of that kind of property, and what part of it the suit was brought against. Q. Previously to the commencement of the suit you speak of in Purchase Quarter, had not your party taken possession of nearly all the property of the society, in that Quarter?. A. I cannot answer that question, for want of knowledge. I presume, however, that the greater portion of the meeting houses in that Quarter, were in possession of the society; they never relinquished it. The Orthodox, as I have understood, having left them in the peaceable and quiet possession of Friends. Q. Are not the disownments of your party by those you denominate Orthodox, valid and effectual, as respects all their meetings, and all meetings in church fellowship with them? A. I don't know that I have any opinion to give upon that subject. Q. According to the discipline and usages of the Society of Friends, is it not a duty which specially devolves on the elders to watch over and advise ministers, and where any thing unsound or otherwise objection able appears in their ministry, to treat with and admonish them, as the circumstances of the case may require? A. Unquestionably so. But always to be done under the influence of christian forbearance, loving kindness, and charity. Q. Does not the discipline of your Yearly Meeting declare, that Monthly Meetings are subordinate and accountable to Quarterly Meetings, and that when a Quarterly Meeting is dissatisfied with any of the proceedings of its Monthly Meetings, they are to render a full and clear account, when required? A. My recollection does not serve me as respects the particular clause, which gives such specific directions; if it can be produced, I should be willing to see it. [A copy of the discipline of New York Yearly Meeting is handed to the witness, when he asks for the question to be again read, which being done, he answers further.] There is such a clause in the discipline. Q. If through weakness or unfaithfulness, a Monthly Meeting should fail in the support of the discipline, or testimonies of the society, and refuse to render any account to the Quarterly Meeting, or to take its advice, would not the latter meeting be bound to support the testimonies and discipline of the society by laying down such Monthly Meeting? A. This appears to me to be supposing a case that has not occurred 'within my memory; and therefore I cannot say how the meeting would act under such circumstances. If the counsel wishes by the question to ask my opinion, how I suppose they would act under such circumstances, I can give it for what it is worth, and no more. Q. Is not the case I have supposed, a possible case? A. I allow it to be a possible case. Q. And should the case exist, would not the case I have supposed, naturally result from the subordination of the one meeting to the other, as recognised in the discipline? A. As I said before, I consider it only a supposable case, and my opinion simply, I should suppose, would be of no consequence, how the meeting ought to act; but I think it is expressly mentioned in the discipline that no Monthly Meeting can be laid down by its Quarterly Meeting, without its consent: therefore, whenever a Monthly Meeting gets into such a situation, as has been described, I should suppose the regu lar course of proceeding would be, to labour by a committee of its meeting to restore it to a state of soundness,-if after such labour, this desirable end should not be effected, and the Monthly Meeting were not prepared to consent that it should be discontinued, in that case, I should suppose, the Quarterly Meeting would open the case to the Yearly Meeting for its advice and assistance in the case, and not lay it down, without its consent, as has been mentioned. Q. Suppose after a reference of the case to the Yearly Meeting, and its advice and assistance obtained, and such additional labour bestowed upon the refractory Monthly Meeting as should be advised by the Yearly Meeting, the Monthly Meeting should still continue refractory, what would be the result; must the inferior or superior submit? A. I cannot in my mind suppose such a case. It is a case which it is not likely ever will take place in the society. I have never known such a case; and there is no provision in the discipline to meet it that I know This is my answer. of. Q. You decline giving any other? 1 A. I don't see any other to give. Q. If I have understood you rightly, you have stated that there is an express rule of the discipline of the Yearly Meeting of New York, against laying down a Monthly Meeting without its consent: will you have the goodness to refer me to that rule? Witness. I think it is contained in this paragraph-[having the discipline in his hand, reads]-"No Quarterly Meeting is to be set up or discontinued, but by the Yearly Meeting; no Monthly Meeting, but by the Quarterly Meeting;"-this is the paragraph that I alluded to, page 11 of the discipline. Q. That book does contain the discipline of the Yearly Meeting of New York? A. Yes, I believe it does; [examining the book]-I believe it is the same. The said book of discipline is offered in evidence on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, and marked Exhibit No. 45. Q. Does not the discipline of New York Yearly Meeting, declare that "when any by their inconsistent or disorderly conduct, or by imbibing and adopting principles and practices contrary to the doctrines which we hold, have first openly manifested their disunity with the society, it is just and requisite, that after endeavouring to restore them without effect, the body should testify its disunity with such erring and refractory members; at the same time earnestly desiring that they may be convinced of the error of their ways, and that through unfeigned repentance and a consistent and orderly conduct in future, they may be reunited; this being the utmost extent of our discipline respecting offenders, it is very evident that from the right exercise thereof, no degree of persecution or imposition can be justly inferred, for the imposition would rest entirely on the part of those who might insist upon being retained as members whilst at open variance with the body, either in principle or practice?" A. I acknowledge there is such a clause in the introduction to the discipline of New York Yearly Meeting; and if it would be any satisfaction, I fully unite with it, as I understand it. Q. [The paper marked Exhibit X, being a statement of numbers, &c. being shown the witness.] Is this in your handwriting? A. Yes, except those figures at the bottom, where they are summed up. I don't know whose that is. Q. I think you stated that paper as containing the result of certain reports, not as a copy of the reports. I think you made that discrimination; have you any further knowledge in respect to the relative numbers of the parties styled by you Orthodox and Friends respectively, than what you collected from those reports? A. I have no other knowledge that can be depended on. Q. Have you any other knowledge of the principles upon which those estimates were made, and the sources from which the several committees derived their information, than what is contained in those reports? A. I have none. The documents are in my possession as clerk of the Meeting for Sufferings, from which this result was taken. The counsel for Joseph Hendrickson rests the cross-examination; and on reading over the testimony to the witness, he makes the following explanation. In a former answer, I quoted from page 11 of the New York discipline as follows: "No Quarterly Meeting is to be set up or discontinued, but by VOL. II.-36 the Yearly Meeting; no Monthly Meeting, but by the Quarterly meeting." J. J. FOSTER, Master and Examiner. Adjourned until Tuesday next at 10 o'clock, A. M. Tuesday morning, March 29th, 1831, at 10 o'clock. Examinations continued. Present Mr. Price, of counsel with complainant and Stacy Decow, and Jeremiah H. Sloan, for Hendrickson. Burr GEORGE H. BURR, of Philadelphia, a witness produced on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, alleging himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed according to law, on his solemn affirmation declareth and saith: Question by Mr. Price. What is your age? Answer. Thirty-eight or thirty-nine, I cannot state positively, without referring to the record. Q. Did you make a count of those Friends who attended the Yearly Meeting, on the second Second-day of Fourth-month, 1828; and if so, state the numbers that attended? A. I did count them at two or three of their sittings during the week, but not commencing with that day, in relation to the count, but on Third-day. They commenced on the time mentioned by the counsel, but I was not enabled to count them, in consequence of the storm, and both of the gates for a short period being open at the same time, so that I did not finish the count. I did, however, during the week, count the numbers at four of the sittings. The average number amounted to about 1,150. There was one or two sittings, at which there were upwards of 1,200. Q. Of males do you speak? A. Of course, as I am speaking of the Yearly Meeting, which alludes to them. And at one of the sittings there were about 1,100. I did not count them at a later period than Fifth-day afternoon of that week. Q. When you counted them, did they pass through but one gate? A. But one gate; or at least I had no means of ascertaining whether the back gate was open at the time, excepting in the instance I have previously mentioned, as the meeting house obstructed the view, and I understood it was not opened; and the committee was placed at the west gate. There were two carriage loads of Friends that came in at the north gate, which is in full view of the other; those Friends were included in the number. Q. Whether that was entered or not, you only counted what you saw enter? A. Of course; that is what I stated. Q. Did you count those who assembled on the third Second-day of Fourth-month, 1828, to hold what they called a Yearly Meeting? and if so, state the numbers. A. I did number them; number those Friends who assembled their Yearly Meeting at the Arch street meeting house at that period, at three of their sittings during that week; in company with another person at two of those sittings; and in company with two or three persons, at one other. They numbered on the first day of the meeting, seven hundred and near fifty in the morning, and about seven hundred and sixty in the afternoon: and on another sitting, on another day which I do not recollect, the number was eight hundred and thirty-one, I think. They were counted by some others at different times during the week, but I cannot state further than from general report, and therefore do not think proper to give it unless requested; though I have no doubt as to the estimate. Q. On any one or more of those occasions, was your count tested and confirmed by one of the Orthodox party? A. One of those persons who assisted, as I have previously stated, professed to be favourable to the Friends who assembled at Arch street; but I think he informed me that he was not a member; and I am aware that he is not, from what I have since understood. There was one Friend, a member of that meeting held at Arch street, who stated, on viewing them in the meeting, and endeavouring to number them himself, that he was under the impression that the count was substantially correct: and another Friend, who belongs to the Yearly Meeting first named, stated the same. And I will also observe, that the Friends who attended both those meetings, were very respectable bodies; and it is cause of regret to myself, and I have no doubt, to thousands who are not members of either of these meetings, that any thing should have occurred, or has occurred, to interrupt the former harmony which subsisted among them: and I am not without a hope that the time may come when they will be reunited. There are many Friends on both sides of the question, for whom I entertain sincere respect. Q. Did there appear to be the usual proportion of elderly and consistent Friends entering at the meeting you have first spoken of, held at Green street? A. Yes, as is usual at the Yearly Meeting; I allude to both meetings; it was the same at both. Further this affirmant saith not. GEO. H. BURR. Affirmed and subscribed at the house of William Ridgway, at Camden, in the county of Gloucester, the 29th day of March, 1831, coram, J. J. FOSTER, JOSIAH GASKILL, a witness produced on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, alleging himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed according to law, on his solemn affirmation declareth and saith: Q. What is your age? A. I am a little turned of forty-six, I believe. Q. Are you a member of the Society of Friends; and how long have you been so? A. I am, and have been from my birth. Q. Were you present when there was a separation from the Burlington Quarterly Meeting; and if so, did the greater part of the meeting decide to adjourn without doing its business; or did the greater part decide to continue the sitting of the meeting? A. I was present when that separation took place, of considerable the |