After carefully considering the subject, it was the united judgment of this meeting, that his case be forwarded to the Monthly Meeting, that further care may be taken therein. ROBERT R. WILLETS, Clerk. William H. Macy, George Hallock, and Jacob Capron, were appointed to visit him on the account. In the latter part of 7th month, J. J. M., having been out of town at its date, received a note, of which the following is a copy: New York, 7 mo., 22d, 1867. Esteemed Friend,-At our last Monthly Meeting, George Hallock, Jacob Capron, and myself, were appointed a committee to see thee relative to a complaint that “thee had been earnestly advised to discontine thy public communications in our meetings, which, it was believed, very much disturbed them." I have called twice at No. 131 William Street, but have not been able to meet thee; the present is to ask if thou wilt meet the committee, at my house, No. 40 East 21st Street, at half-past 7, any evening this week, except on fifth day Thy friend, next. To JOHN J. MERRITT. WM. H. MACY. The time indicated in this note having elapsed before it could be answered, it was replied to as follows: ESTEEMED FRIENDS, Wm. H. Macy, and associates, of the Monthly Meeting's Committee: Gents. I wish it to be distinctly understood by you, that I shall endeavor at all times to make it convenient to arrange an interview, at one day's notice, at my house, in reference to the matter of your appointment, if you should deem such interview necessary or desirable. I am, with much respect, Yours, &c., 7 mo., 30th, 1867. The response to this was as follows: JOHN J. MERRITT, Esteemed Friend-Thine of yesterday's date is at hand, from which I notice that thee will endeavor to make it convenient to arrange an interview with the committee of the Monthly Meeting, at one day's notice; that committee proposes calling at thy house in reference to the matter of their appointment, to-morrow, at 6 P. M. If that time does not suit thy convenience, please inform me, this afternoon, and name the time that will suit, that I may inform my associates. Thine truly, WM. H. MACY. To JOHN J. MERRITT, 131 William Street. The proposed interview was had, and a full report of it is to be found in THE FRIEND, vol. II, No. 8, page 247. The next step was the following minute: At the Monthly Meeting of New York, held 8 mo., 7th, 1867, the committee appointed to visit John J. Merritt, informed that they had given attention to the subject, but were not prepared to report at this time They were continued. Then follows this minute: At the Monthly Meeting of New York held 9 mo., 4th, 1867, the committee appointed to visit John J. Merritt informed that they had given further attention to the subject, but are not prepared to report at this time. They were continued. Next in order was the following note from W. H. Macy, and the answer of John J. Merritt. New York, 9 mo., 13th, 1867. Esteemed Friend,-The committee of the Monthly Meeting have desired me to request thee to meet them at such time as may suit thy convenience some evening within a week from this date. As George Hallock has met with an accident and is not able to leave his home, he wishes that the interview may take place at his house. I am instructed to say that the committee wish this interview to be with thyself alone. TO JOHN J. MERRITT. Thine truly, WM. H. MACY, 27 Wall st. Esteemed Friends MACY, CAPRON & HALLOCK : New York, 9 mo., 14th, 1867. In reply to W. H. Macy's note of yesterday on your behalf, I may say that we have had an interview in which I listened to you until you announced that after saying what you had you should feel clear of the case. The interview closed satisfactorily to me also, and regarding it as a final one I accepted of your advice, and have not since withdrawn or violated the pledge to be guided by you which I then gave to you. My own feeling would be that so happy a conclusion ought not to be interfered with. If, however, you now feel that more is required of you, I am willing to meet you say at my house on 2d day evening, at 8 o'clock, or on as early a day thereafter as would be mutually convenient, deferring it, if you please, until George is able to attend. (If the accident to George was the result of any effort on his part to bring this case to a speedy close, I will waive this requirement and meet you at his house.) At our only interview, when invited to do so, you declined attempting to prove-what was denied by me-that I had committed the offence charged. Under such circumstancesknowing that I had not done it—I have no desire to meet you again as a committee, and if an interview is had it will be because of your desire for one; and I cannot consent to the exclusion of my wife and other friends, who feel more interest in the matter than I do, without some sufficient reason being assigned therefor. The interview, if it takes place, will be for your gratification rather than mine, and if it were otherwise, it would seem that my preference in reference to the method of granting it should not be entirely disregarded by you. The offence charged, if committed, would be eminently a public one, and I desire no secrecy in our method of treating it, and I do not wish the interview to be with myself alone. JOHN J. MERRITT. Respectfully yours, No further communication passed between the committee as such, and John J. Merritt. One of them called at John's house, socially, as he said, and an allusion having been made to the last notes which had been interchanged by them, he was told by John J. Merritt that if an interview of the kind asked for by the committee were insisted upon, he, John J., would say nothing in it until he had first written out what he intended to say, and would then read that, as he wished to know and have a copy of every word which he might say before that committee, not being willing to trust them or himself in recalling their conversation, if this should become necessary. It appears by the minutes of the Monthly Meeting, that the labors of the committee were here brought to a close by the report hereto annexed. It must have been based upon the interview described in volume II, number 8, commencing upon page 247 of THE FRIEND, and on the correspondence we have already inserted; and we next give this report, and J. J. M.'s running comments upon it, these consisting mostly of extracts from what must have been the basis of the report. We do it in double columns-the report on the left hand, the comments on the right. At the Monthly Meeting of New York, held 10 mo., 2d, 1867, the committee appointed to visit John J. Merritt reported in writing as follows: To the Monthly Meeting We had an interview with John J. Merritt last month, and informed him of the complaint made to the Monthly Meeting against him by the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders. He denied the charge that the meetings were disturbed, and claimed that he never attended more orderly meetings than those which are said to have been disturbed by him. We told him that we had fully informed ourselves on that point, and had come to endeavor to persuade him to discontinue his communications, as they were detrimental to our Society, and urged him to follow the advice of friends, as a very large proportion of the meeting were dissatisfied with his addresses. After much discussion, we did not discover any disposition to comply with the wishes of the committee and the meeting. The original of this statement must be here. One of the committee said: "Since our appointment I have made con siderable enquiry among those in the habit of attending our meetings, and I am well satisfied thy communications are detrimental to the Society, and I should be glad if thee would take the advice of thy friends and discontinue them." Another said: "I would say as an individual, that I have not counted the votes, but I am satisfied that a large proportion of the meeting are dissatisfied with thy communications; and afterwards added, in reply to an enquiry, "because they disapprove of thy sentiments." The committee gave no further particulars, and withheld all proof of the correctness of their conclusions, though John J. Merritt said to them: "I think you are bound to point out on what occasion I have disturbed the meeting, and in what it is they are disturbed. It is one of the peculiarities of Friends that they have a free gospel ministry open to all; every member has a right to speak, and before he can be convicted of disturbing a meeting in which there is no external appearance of disturbance, which meeting receives his communications with as much solemnity and apparent acceptance as those of any other individual, you are bound to show in what their impropriety consists." Having denied the truth of the charge, and called for its investigation, John J. Merritt said: "If the fact exists-if the meetings really are disturbed, I pledge myself that they shall not continue to be disturbed by me." After further conversation, adding, "and it would appear that the first thing for you to do is to satisfy me that there is truth in the charge." "I am as anxious to do right as you, and if you can only show me that I am wrong. I should not require advice or the counsel of my friends to induce me to change my course. I have the right to speak in meeting if I believe it to be my duty to do so, at least until you make an effort to convince me that I am wrong." Again adding, "I am disposed, if I can do it rightly, to adopt the advice of my friends, if the meeting will tell me in what I have offended." This was said in reply to Wm. H. Macy's answer to an enquiry by J. J. M., if he "was never to speak again ?" Macy's answer being in these words: "Thee can judge as well as any man living, when the proper time comes for thee to speak." J. J. M. responding thereto, "I cheerfully accept of your advice. I shall be silent until I judge that the proper time has come for me to speak, and I believe that is all you require of me. I give you permission to report to the Monthly Meeting that I have adopted your advice. I am glad our interview has come to such a happy conclusion. I shall be exceedingly careful to avoid any disturbance in future." True; and the presence of these friends was not objected to by the committee or by John, who was really the proper party to object if they were to be excluded; and what was written down and published as having been said on the occasion is admittedly correct and truthful." John was not aware of what was silently passing in the minds of the committee, or that writing or publishing a truthful account of such visits was contrary to their spirit or to any justifiable object. John had promised all they asked of him, and had kept his promise. This was in these words: "I am instructed to say that the committee wish this interview to be with thyself alone." The committee, in their report, underscore the words not, exclusion and other friends, though these were not underscored in the note of J. J. M., and have omitted in their pretended quotation of his language without some sufficient reason being assigned therefor "thus entirely changing its meaning. Had they reported truthful, they must have informed the meeting that further labor was uncalled for, through their having fully obtained the only alleged object of their appointment. The Monthly Meeting's minutes proceed as follows: The Meeting feelingly entered upon the consideration of this subject. After careful deliberation, it was was the judgment of the meeting that he be disowned. William H. Macy, George Hallock and Jacob Capron were appointed to give him that information, and inform him of his right to appeal. At the Monthly Meeting of New York, held 11th mo., 6th, 1867, a com munication was presented from John J. Merritt, but was not read or noticed upon the minutes-the minute in his case being to this effect: The committee appointed to inform John J. Merritt of his disownment and right to appeal reported that the information had been given to him. A remonstrance against the action of the meeting in disowning John J. Merritt, signed by fifty-four members of Brooklyn Meeting, was read in this meeting, and then silently passed from without being placed upon minutes. The next minute in the case is to this effect. At the Monthly Meeting of New York, held 12th mo., 4th, 1867:-A communication received from John J. Merritt was read, from which it appears that it is his intention to appeal from the judgment of this meeting, in his case, to the Quarterly Meeting. Samuel Willets, William H. Macy, Robert R. Willets, Effingham Cock and George Hallock were appointed to attend that meeting, with a copy of the minutes of this meeting relative to the case, and to give any further information that may be desired. The communication above referred to is as follows: TO THE MONTHLY MEETING OF NEW YORK: Dear Friends:-Since our last meeting I have received from the members of your late committee in my case, a joint note, which goes to show that the matter announced in it as having been concluded by you, is not so entirely finished, but that further information from them to you is deemed to be necessary. I am glad that they accept this as being our position, and trust that it will be recognized by you also. That you may fully understand it, I here insert as part of this communication, and that it may be included with the minutes of the case, the note referred to by me, together with my response to it. It is as follows: "JOHN J. MERRITT:-At a Monthly Meeting, held 10th mo., 2d, we were appointed a committee to inform thee that the meeting had decided to disown thee as a member of our religious Society, and to inform thee of thy right to appeal from its decision to the Quarterly Meeting. We now hand thee this notice because thee will not admit that William H. Macy informed thee of thy right to appeal when he gave thee notice as above, on the 22d of last month. We shall inform our next Monthly Meeting that we have given this duplicate notice to thee; if thee desires to appeal, thee will please inform us, that we may inform the meeting. New York, 11 10., 16th, 1867. To which J. J. M. replied as follows: To MACY, HALLOCK & CAPRON. (Signed,) W. H. MACY, Gentlemen :-Your note of 16th inst. was handed to me yesterday by George Hallock. In reply, I would say that the information you aim to give me, reached me in a less formal manner through others than yourselves, on the day named by you-10 mo., 2d—and a repetition of the information, to be availing, should be official, which this of yours is not. I must say further that the reason stated by you for now handing it to me is not well founded— as I have not been asked to admit what you unauthorizedly say that I will not-and, without being asked, an admission of it would seem to be uncalled for, especially as it would be untruthful. If William H. Macy had really done as he says that he did, no admission of it from me would be needed by you. If he did not do it, you are no longer in a position to remedy the defect. He did not do it, or I should then have required a copy of the complaint against me to furnish which, if required, the discipline designates as being part of the duty of such a committee as you then were, though from your statement of the object of your appointment, it would seem to have been overlooked in this case. The remedy now is a very simple one, and is with the Monthly Meeting. Let it re-consider the case and correct any defects which through doing so may become apparent in the manner in which it has been conducted, and I doubt not but that it can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Your calling the notice you have now sent me a "duplicate notice," does not make it such, and I think you will hardly persist in thus calling it when you recur to what you know to be the facts. After the information received from the clerk, and also which you have given me of your being discharged |