Q. Was that its title before the separation?

A. I cannot say as to exact words; but I expect it was.

Q. Do you speak of the members in the New York Yearly Meeting, from your own knowledge, or from the epistle to which you have refer red, and from information derived from others?

A. I made no enumeration myself; I obtained it from some who were there present at the time of the separation, when I was present, and who said they had counted them, the Orthodox, as they passed away from the house. And before that sitting adjourned, after they had passed away, the strangers that were there present, not members of that Yearly Meeting, were requested to withdraw; and the object, as I was afterwards informed, was, to ascertain exactly how many Friends remained in the house, members of that Yearly Meeting, in order to prevent misrepre sentation. The number I believe I have before given. I had also some further evidence of the numbers as they were estimated in the greater part of the Monthly Meetings constituting that Yearly Meeting, in pur suance of a minute that was issued from the Meeting for Sufferings, requesting an account to be forwarded to that meeting from the different Monthly Meetings, of the numbers of Friends, as also of the Orthodox; and the result of which was, from the best evidence I can obtain in the case, 12,617 Friends, and 5,922 Orthodox, and 798 neutrals; the aggregate 19,337, errors excepted.

Q. Are the rights of minors affected by the acts of the parents in the Society of Friends?

A. I don't think they would be, in common cases. But if parents belonging to one society should choose to join another, and take their minors with them, it would be reasonable that their rights should go with their parents. But if a parent was guilty of any immoral conduct, and disowned by a Monthly Meeting for such conduct, it would not affect the rights of his children that were then born.

Q. If the parent should join another religious society, would not the rights of his children fully remain in yours, during their minority?

A. If a parent should go from the Society of Friends, and join the Presbyterians, Methodists, or any other, and did not choose to take his children with him, and they were not of age to judge and choose for themselves, I suppose it would be considered that they remain members of the Society of Friends. But that would be very different, and have no analogy, in my apprehension, to the circumstance of a society divid ing or separating into two equal or unequal parts.

Q. Can a society be separated into two parties, and yet each be the same society?

A. It has been done, and each claimed to be the society; but to determine which is actually the society, is for the chancellor of New Jersey, and not for me.

Q. Did not those whom you call Orthodox, issue an epistle from a meeting held by them in 1828, in New York, purporting to be "an epistle and testimony from the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in New York" in that year, and is not this the epistle?

[The witness, after examining the pamphlet put into his hands by the counsel, answers]-Yes. I believe this appears to be the epistle and testimony, purporting to have been issued by those Orthodox Friends, who seceded from the Yearly Meeting of New York that year, signed by their clerks; and as far as I have examined it, it appears to be very much a

twin-sister, and a great deal of it a repetition, of the Philadelphia declaration, issued in the same year. The said epistle is contained in Exhibit No. 44, from page 33 to 53 inclusive, and marked by me in brackets. Q. Did not the Yearly Meeting of which you speak, which was attended by you in that year, after the separation, dissolve the Meeting for Sufferings?

A. I cannot be certain, as I have no minutes of that year to apply to: but my impression is, that as a number of the members for the Meeting for Sufferings, had went off with the party that seceded, they did release the former members of the Meeting for Sufferings, and appoint a new one, or some to supply their places; but I will not be positive about it. I believe there was a committee appointed that year, which might be considered as a substitute for the Meeting for Sufferings.

The counsel for Joseph Hendrickson here close their cross-examination of Halliday Jackson, and the further examination in this cause is, by consent of the parties, and their counsel, postponed until Tuesday next at three o'clock in the afternoon, at the same place.

J. J. FOSTER, Master and Examiner.

Tuesday, March 8th, 1831, 3 o'clock, P. M. The parties, counsel and witness, attended as aforesaid.

The testimony of Halliday Jackson, given upon his cross-examination, was commenced to be read over to him, and proceeded in during the afternoon, and the next day, and concluded, when at his request the following corrections are made, viz:

Page 1035. At the Darby Quarterly Meeting, in 1826, on reflection I am satisfied that Willet Hicks was not present. He was there not long afterwards; and I was under the impression, when I mentioned his name, that he was present at that time; but that impression was not correct. Page 1036. I said that the first number of the "Berean" I ever saw, was at the house of Nathan Sharpless. I find, on reflection, that I had mistaken the work: and that it was a copy of the controversy between Paul and Amicus, and not the Berean, that I saw there. But I saw the Berean at the house of another Orthodox Friend, Moses Palmer, in Concord, where I frequently put up.

Page 1044. The elder who was talking with William Evans when I went up to them, went with the Orthodox at the time of the separation, and remains with them.

Page 1057, bottom of the page. On reflection, I am not satisfied that Benjamin Cope was present.

Page 1108. Respecting the persons who were at the meeting of the contributors to the asylum, I could not at the time I spoke of them, remember that Abraham Lower was present at the meeting, but I have now a distinct recollection that he was there.

Page 1139. The committee spoken of, as having been proposed in that conference, in Fourth-month, I am now satisfied was not appointed until the meeting in Sixth-month following.

The counsel for the complainant and Stacy Decow, proceeds to reexamine in chief, the said Halliday Jackson, viz:

Question by Mr. Price. According to the usages of the Society of Friends, is a clerk the servant of the meeting, and in all respects subject to its direction?

A. I believe it has always been considered so: so far as I have had experience in serving a meeting in that capacity myself, I have always felt myself bound to be the servant of the meeting, and to record what I believed to be the prevailing sense of the meeting.

Q. Are his minutes subject to be modified, and adopted or rejected by the meeting?

A. They are so.

Q. Do committees, on appeals in the society, decide by the greater number of voices?

A. I believe that has been the uniform practice as far as I recollect; it has sometimes happened, that reports of such committees have been signed only by part of the committee. I never remember a report being made by a minority of the committee, either in the Quarterly or Yearly Meetings. In the case of the appeal of Ezra Comfort to the Yearly Meeting, I think the report was signed by a majority of one, of the committee; if my recollection is correct, that was the case.

Q. Were not the elderly, experienced and consistent members of society, as often found among the majority of Friends, as among the minorities of Orthodox?

A. I think there were, from my knowledge and observation, I think there is quite a full proportion of that class of society that are now in unity with Friends.

Q. You have spoken, during your examination, of a census having been taken by Friends: if you have a schedule of any of the particulars of it, please to make an exhibit of it?

Mr. Sloan. Any schedule prepared from any other source than the witness's own information, is objected to, as incompetent and irregular.

Witness. Here is a paper which I have given some account of before in my previous examination, and also the authority from which I obtained it. I will now offer it as an exhibit, believing that it contains nearly or as correct an account, in the different Quarterly Meetings, as can expected to be come at; as those accounts were officially furnished from nearly all the Monthly Meetings, with two or three exceptions, I think, of those held out of Philadelphia; and I may further add, that in a general way in the country meetings, or at least, I should suppose, that in about three-fourths of the meetings in the country, the original records were in the possession of Friends, and they could have access to the original lists of their members. I stated before, some exceptions in the Philadelphia Quarter, which were obtained in a different way.

The paper referred to by the witness is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant, and Stacy Decow, and marked Exhibit T.-[See Appendix.]

Q. Although Friends were generally the majority of meetings, have they not generally made offers of an amicable settlement of differences, as to property, agreeably to the injunctions of the discipline, and of gospel order?

A. I believe that has been done, in a great variety of instances; it was recommended by our Yearly Meeting, I think, in the spring of 1828 or '29, I will not be certain which; the epistle will show, that such offers should be made for an amicable settlement of the property, as was understood to be held by the parties in common, previous to the separation: in pursuance of which recommendation, the Monthly Meetings in

many places took up the subject; and to give an instance of the manner in which it was done, I will offer a minute of the Monthly Meeting of which I am a member, on that occasion. This I know to be a correct copy of the minute of the Monthly Meeting of Darby, and it is in my own handwriting.

The paper thus proven is offered in evidence on the part of the complainant and Stacy Decow, and marked by me Exhibit U.-[Sce Appendix.]

Q. Were Friends a majority of that meeting?

A. They were so. I can give the numbers as they stood at the time of the separation. There were about eighty-nine families of Friends, making three hundred and twenty-five individuals; about nineteen families of those called Orthodox, several of which, I believe, were only parts of families, and making sixty-six individuals, as near as could be ascertained by a large committee appointed for that purpose, and who had recourse to our records of births, &c. and former lists of their numbers. Q. When a new meeting is established, is the property purchased or erected out of a general fund, such as in Yearly Meeting stock, or is it contributed by the parties interested?

A. I am not acquainted, I think, with any instance where it has been done out of the Yearly Meeting's stock. I believe the general practice is for those who are about to compose such a meeting, to raise the means of building a meeting house by private subscription among themselves. But there may and have been instances, I apprehend, where a new meeting has been set off, and where the meeting they were about to separate from, may have, in part, been set up at their expense, that such meeting may have aided and assisted them in building a new meeting house; and there may be other cases where Friends may have been poor and in low circumstances, they may have obtained some aid from Friends individually, or from some of the superior meetings, to assist them in building a meeting house: but, I think, in all such cases, as far as I have knowledge of circumstances, the right of the property is vested in those Friends who are about to compose such a new meeting. Others who may have contributed towards it, not making any claim in consequence of the aid they may have afforded.

Q. Did you ever know an instance in any such case, of any remainder or reversionary interest, or resulting trust, in the Meeting for Sufferings, or Yearly Meeting of the society?

Witness. I suppose the counsel alludes to the case of that meeting becoming extinct.

Counsel. In any way or shape.

A. I don't know that I am acquainted with any such instance. There is some advice in the discipline, I think, that when a meeting is brought into any difficulty in regard to their titles, as their trusts are sometimes suffered to run out, they are advised to make early application to the Meeting for Sufferings, in such cases, for advice and assistance. I suppose it is meant, in order that care may be taken to apply to the proper authorities, to have their titles secured; but not at all to be understood that the Meeting for Sufferings has any control over the property of such meeting. And there may possibly have been one or two instances, where meetings have become extinct-no Friends to occupy them-that the Meeting for Sufferings has, in some way, taken charge of the pro perty. But how the proceeds of it have been applied, I cannot say VOL. II-23

Q. Is the subordination of meetings, as established by the discipline, for disciplinary purposes solely, or does it extend to give the superior meeting a control over the disposition of the property of the inferior meeting?

A. I think it is solely for disciplinary purposes, meetings for wor ship, &c. There is no discipline that I know of, which gives a supe rior meeting any authority over the subordinate meeting, in regard to the disposition of property; except the one I have instanced, in the Meeting for Sufferings affording advice and assistance, when called for, in cases of difficulty.

Q. Have particular meetings been in the practice of freely disposing of their property, according to their own pleasure, as circumstances might render it expedient?

A. I don't recollect any circumstance of that kind that has occurred within my knowledge, except it may have been in Philadelphia. They have, since my memory, disposed of a large lot and meeting house, at the corner of Market and Second streets. They also disposed of a considerable lot with a meeting house on it, at the corner of Chesnut and Fourth streets. I don't recollect of any circumstance in the country meetings, of property being sold; but I should suppose, if a meeting found it to their advantage or convenience, to move their situation to some other part, they would have an unquestionable right to dispose of their property.

Q. Has it been the practice of the society to set up-and lay down meetings by the mutual consent of the meetings concerned?

A. I believe that has been the general practice in society. I know of no instance of a meeting being set up without its own consent; and I believe there have been very few attempted to be laid down by a supe rior meeting, but what have consented to it before being laid down. There was a case occurred in Baltimore, some years ago, after they had divided the Monthly Meeting there, by mutual consent, and established one called the "Western District," there was some difference arose between the two meetings, about a matter of property, the circumstances of which I am not very intimately acquainted with; but I think they applied to the Quarterly Meeting in the case, as a case of difficulty. It agitated the Quarterly Meeting for a considerable time, and if I am not mistaken, there was some temporary accommodation took place at one period. It however eventually got to the Yearly Meeting, and I think, was several years under the care of the Yearly Meeting. One of the Monthly Meetings, called the eastern district, (the old meeting,) did not seem disposed to take either the advice of the Quarterly or Yearly Meeting in the case. Perhaps they might have had a little too much Orthodoxy about them, and not being disposed to submit to the voice of the majority; and finally the Yearly Meeting, I think, concluded to recommend the laying down of that Monthly Meeting by Baltimore Quarterly Meeting. A considerable portion of their members, however, for some time seemed to stand out; but finally concluded to yield the point, and submit to the decision of the Yearly Meeting, which ap pears by the following minute made on that occasion, which I will read. Witness reads: "On reading the report of the committee appointed to attend the Yearly Meeting, the Monthly Meeting of Baltimore, for the eastern district, made, on the 4th of the Eleventh-month, 1819, the following minute, which, (the report,) claiming the serious considera