from your appointment, through having finished your duty, unless you can show me that there has been a subsequent re-assembling of the meeting and a re-appointment of yourselves, I can hold no further communication with you as being a committee; and when you say that because you will inform the next Monthly Meeting that you have given this miscalled duplicate notice to me, you add, that if I desire to appeal, I will please inform you, that you may inform the meeting, I think you are assuming to instruct me in what does not belong to you. When you were the duly appointed organ of communication between the meeting and myself, you failed when requested to do it, so to present what I had furnished to you as being my appreciation of your labors as to make the meeting acquainted therewith and now that you have ceased to be such organ-though thanking you for your volunteered expression of willingness to oblige me -perhaps in the same way-I must decline troubling you in the matter. I believe the meeting has a duty to perform, and I shall not now interfere with its action otherwise than by an appeal directly to itself. As you are no longer a committee, and the information you say you will give to the next Monthly Meeting, can only be presented to it by you as coming from individuals and may be refused as being extra official, I will relieve you from the unpleasantness of such a refusal by embodying this correspondence in the communication which I propose to make to our next Monthly Meeting, thus furnishing it with our joint statement and avoiding what would be otherwise an ex parte one, if yours should chance to be read and mine not. And I will say further that I have no desire to be technical beyond what is needful to maintain the right; and going behind the practice of Friends, and looking to what is really right, I believe that every person under treatment should be furnished, if required by him, with a copy of every report concerning himself from every committee made to meetings from which such person is excluded. He should know the exact progress of his case, and the ground upon which he is being judged, and not be tried by a secret commission, or a committee whose proceedings are secret from himself. And feeling thus, I am willing to withdraw my objection to the sufficiency of your notice, and give you, for the purpose of this proceeding, an admission of the service as being a sufficient one, if you will promptly place in my hands a verbatim copy of your report to the meeting of the 10th month, 2d, which, as it has been represented to me is untruthful, and also of the verbal report to our last monthly meeting, and a copy of the complaint against me, all which are required by me. It is possible that your doing it would end all controversy in this matter, and at any rate, I pledge myself, on the receipt of these papers, to make my subsequent proceedings conform to the admission which is herein promised Yours, &c., you. New York, 11 mo., 19, 1867. JOHN J. MERRITT. To the foregoing I have received no reply, and I therefore submit it to yourselves as promised by me. Shortly before your last Monthly Meeting, the address which I now attach to this communication-which accept as forming a part of it was placed by my direction in the hands of your committee, as being the organ of communication between you and myself, with the understanding that they would present it to you. Instead of doing this, I learn that it was placed by one of them upon the clerk's table without any notice to the meeting of its having reached it through its own committee, and, therefore, leaving the meeting to infer that 1 was ignoring the existence of any committee in my case, and improperly attempting to force a communication upon it through a channel which at that time would have been illegitimate. Perhaps it was through this apparent informality in its presentation that it was not read. I am now informed by that committee that they have been discharged. I can now, without disrespect to them and in accordance with the order of the Society and in compliance with its discipline, communicate directly with yourselves, and as I find that William H. Macy, one of your late committee, is prepared to affirm that he gave me notice of my right to appeal, and all of them have since served me with their so-called duplicate notice -which I have herein copied for you-it seems proper, as a measure of prudence, to modify my intended method of proceeding and make it conform to this asserted information, though it never was received by me except as herein stated. I, however, am as desirous as ever of avoiding all contention by making you acquainted with a part, at least, of my objections to your proceedings and my desire for a full investigation of all the facts of my case. I renew the offer of my last month's address unto you. It is true that this was thrown out by you at your last meeting, but as this was done by you without its being read, and you therefore rejected it without knowing what you did, I am willing to give you an opportunity of reconsidering what cannot have been with you otherwise than hasty and inconsiderate action. It seems almost incredible to me that a professedly business meeting of any respectable body of men should so demean themselves as to refuse to listen, with a view to their correction, to grave allegations of improprieties and errors alleged to have been committed either by themselves or under their authority and sanction. I trust you will not do this; and by availing yourselves of this opportunity for reconsideration, you may perhaps change my intention, of which I reluctantly gave you notice, of appealing from your judgment to the next Quarterly Meeting. I would respectfully ask of you to enter this notification upon your minutes, and to take such further proceeding as may be needful, furnishing me with a copy of the complaint against me, though I can scarcely bring myself to believe that you will compel me to proceed to this extremity, at any rate without granting me a hearing. New York, 12 mo., 3d, 1867. Respectfully your friend, TO THE MONTHLY MEETING OF NEW YORK. JOHN J. MERRITT. Dear Friends I was some days since called upon by Wm. H. Macy, who informed me that "it was the conclusion of your last Monthly Meeting that I should be separated from the Society of Friends." These were nearly his own and only words on the subject of his appointment, and contain all the information which he gave me in connection with it, except that he stated in reply to an enquiry, that there were three who were appointed to do this but they did not deem it necessary for all to come simply to give this information. There was nothing said by him about my having any privilege of appealing, and in such matters I shall not pretend to be wise above what is written or officially spoken. Without doing this, as the discipline provides for the officially acquainting of a disowned person with the privilege of appealing where this exists, I cannot, in the absence of such information, assume that I have such a right, and must therefore infer that there is some peculiarity in my case or in the method of separating me from the Society which has left me without this privilege. If so, I can only protest unto yourselves, and I wish do to this with the solemnity suited to the occasion for it. But irrespective of my rightinstead of appealing unto others as I supposed the discipline provided that I might-I now prefer doing it to you, and I would here bid you pause and consider what you have done and are doing; asking of you, if needful, to retrace your steps in this matter while it is yet within your control, and it is within your control until your judgment has been appealed from unto others. And perhaps I can aid you in coming to a right conclusion in regard to it, by pointing you unto what it seems to me would be a more correct construction and adininistration of the discipline, in similar matters, than have perhaps prevailed with us, and also some facts in connection with this particular case, with which it is altogether possible you are now unacquainted. I will first speak of the discipline. This was unquestionably intended to be exceedingly guard ed in the manner of our bringing the cases of offenders to our meetings of discipline. This care is apparent in the several articles, with reference to it under the heads of "Overseers" and "Treating with Offenders." In the first article it is made "more particularly the business of overseers to treat with offenders "in the spirit of meekness and restoring love, patiently endeavoring to instruct and advise them; but should their labor prove ineffectual, the preparative meeting should in due season be informed of the cases that, if necessary, they may be laid before the Monthly Meeting." The latter article, after prescribing christian effort for the restoration of offenders, provides that "if any reject this tender labor, the overseers are to acquaint the preparative meeting thereof, in order, if necessary, that the case may be forwarded to the Monthly Meeting," &c., thus constituting the overseers the only instruments by which the cases of offenders can rightly reach the Monthly Meeting for its final judgment-calling, as it does, for the judicious labor of overseers before the presentation of such cases to the body of the meeting at large can be made. The first paragraph on page 24 of the Book of Discipline-though it has certainly sometimes, as in the present instance, been construed differently-does not, in my judgment, furnish an exception to this rule, but on the contrary, most beneficially institutes a proceeding in the extremely delicate cases there referred to, which is not designed to supersede, but is to be preliminary to any action of the overseers, whose later action is only to be taken when the deliberately expressed sentiment of the Monthly Meeting, as called forth by the meeting of ministers and elders, accords with that meeting in regarding the communications complained of by them as being disturbing. A persistence in offering such communications, after such an expression by the Monthly Meeting, would constitute an offence, though, until it had been so decided by the joint action of the meeting of Ministers and Elders and the Monthly Meeting, it could not rightly be regarded as being unmistakably such. At a no remote period our own Quarterly Meeting must, at least in part, have recognized this feature of our discipline, as it reinstated an appellant because of the absence of this preliminary labor by the meeting of Ministers and Elders. The caution exhibited by this provision, for it was undoubtedly designed to secure this, leaves or places the right of judgment in this most important matter where alone it should rest, not in any committee, though acting as a meeting of Ministers and Elders, or as a board of overseers, but in the meeting itself. And in accordance with this discipline, whenever the Monthly Meeting, on the presentation of the meeting of Ministers and Elders, decides that the communications submitted are improper and disturbing, a persistence in offering them becomes an offence for which the Monthly Meeting, in its regularly prescribed order, first by its overseers, and then its special committees, "should proceed to treat with and disown the offender if it should appear to be necessary." Our discipline designates nineteen disownable offences. Sixteen of these are acts which can be definitely defined, and the general provision, in reference to the case of overseers with regard to these, seems sufficient, and they are therefore left to this provision. In two of the remaining cases the action of the overseers is needed to constitute the offence, and in one of these—such is the intended care of Friends, that after the case has reached the Monthly Meeting, through the preparative meeting, it is made the duty of the Monthly Meetingbefore it is taken upon its minutes, to make enquiry and ascertain if the "Gospel order has been observed" in regard to it. The remaining case-being the present one—is so ethical and immaterial in its nature, that no writing could, in advance, define it into an offence, for the character of its offerings as being disturbing or not, depends upon their suitableness to the occasion, and the discipline provides that this is to be judged of and determined by the joint judgment of the meeting of Ministers and Elders and of the Monthly Meeting, which can alone give to these offerings the impress of being disownably offensive. After having received this impress, if they are persisted in, the party presenting them becomes an offender, and is to be treated with and disowned if necessary. The cases which have originated under the discipline here referred to (being on its 34th page), have been so unfrequent as scarcely to furnish us with reliable precedents, and in the absence of these and of explicit directions-though what I have cited would seem almost to amount to such-analogy might well, to some extent at least, be used to guide us. By the express provisions of discipline, when the meeting of Ministers and Elders, consisting as it does jointly of men and women Friends, is united in proposing to the Monthly Meeting for discipline the consideration of acknowledging a Friend a minister, the information is to be given to the Monthly Meeting of which the Friend is a member, and both the men's and women's meeting is to take part in the consideration of it, each having an equal interest. If both meetings unite in approving, information thereof is to be given to the meeting of Ministers and Elders. Analogy and the same guarding care would suggest a similar method in the attaining of a widely differing result, where the information received was from the same source and had reference to the same subject matter, though inviting action by an expression of disapproval instead of unity. The men's and women's meetings each having an equal interest in this matter also, should in like manner be consulted jointly. In the special case before us, the propriety of such a course is made the more apparent by the unusual form of the information forwarded to the Monthly Meeting-being only a statement of belief that meetings were being disturbed by improper communications-thus rightly assuming it to be a doubtful case, avoiding a direct charge, and raising a question as to the alleged disturbing matter rather than with reference to any personal one, and leaving it to the meeting to enquire into and judge for itself. Not charging any one with an offence, but calling the attention of the meeting to what is believed by them to be one, and asking it to decide. The individual concerned in it could as rightly be present during the investigation of this, as could the individual in the former case referred to by me, during the investigation of that. He would not be in attendence as an offender whose case had been carried to the meeting, but as a member to learn if any offence was being committed by himself, if what he was doing was an offence, and thus his duty in regard to it. And there would be an advantage to all concerned in his being present, for he would then certainly know the feeling of the meeting in reference to his communications. The offering of public communications, in good conscience, cannot be an offence in our Society, before the Monthly Meeting, which is the most executive body in the Society has decided upon them as being disturbing, for it cannot be otherwise than that the sentiment of the meeting at large, in the absence of a fixed creed, must determine the character of these communications as being offensive or disturbing before the party offering them can be charged as an offender. I believe that as the discipline now exists and in strict accordance with its letter, such a construction of it is the only fair one, and that its correct administration as being such would very much satisfy those who are clamoring for a change and would go far towards securing not only the rights of individuals but the interests of meetings and of the Society. I would never consent to occupy the position of an offender under it. Leaving this branch of the subject, I will now refer somewhat specifically to some facts in the case before us. I should have attended the meeting in which what was calied my case was first introduced, and should then have made this statement, but was absent from the city and had no notice that it was to be carried forward. I should have attended the next meeting and made this statement, but desiring to give no cause of offence, I yielded to the committee who claimed that I had no right to attend, as I was being treated with by them as an offender. I should have made it to them, but they told me they had nothing more to do in the matter than to advise me to be silent, and without being convinced, I again yielded and have remained silent -thus fully meeting the requirements of the committee by doing all that they claimed of me. Our meetings in answering the queries unvaryingly report that except some sleeping no unbecoming behavior is observed in them-and meetings thus reporting of themselves cannot have been disturbed by improper communications. These answers are in and by themselves a denial of the alleged facts upon which the committee claimed their proceedings to be based. They were denied by me also as not having an existence; but without resting upon this officially sustained denial as being a bar to further action, until these denied allegations were proven, I assented, on the terms proposed by the committee, to the only requirement which they made of me, and my doing so was accepted by them apparently as being satisfactory. After the lapsing of many weeks, and nothing occurring to change our relative positions, another interview was proposed by them, differing from our former one, and on conditions that were objectionable to me. While I have spurned dictation from any one, I have ever invited and gratefully accepted the counsel of my friends, and without declining or intending to decline this proposed interview (its suggestion and my response to it are in writing and accessible, that the facts can be demonstrated); I stated my objections, not doubting but if the committee continued to desire another interview-after being told that I had no such desire-another could be arranged to our mutual satisfaction. As they made no further suggestion, I, of course, supposed they were satisfied without another, and I certainly feel that if they were not, they were bound not to leave me with an impression that they were. ere. Such a method of treating an offender would be far more likely to entrap the unwary than to reclaim the erring. Besides all this, the offence claimed to be charged, if it were definitely charged in accordance with the order of society, and fully proven and weil founded, would only be a disownable one when persisted in—and there is no pretence of this being my case, or that I have disturbed a meeting even by my silent presence, since our satisfactory interview. I therefore believe that there must have been some misapprehension here, as in the then condition of my case the conclusion reached by you could not possibly have been attained under any right presentation of it.* I therefore ask it of you to re-call and review it. I do this less from personal feeling than because I believe that the continued existence of some important branches of this Society is dependent upon the proper solution of questions which are herein involved. New York, 11th mo., 4th, 1867. Respectfully your friend, JOHN J. MERRITT, This was followed by the following appeal, which was not read in the Quarterly Meeting, but referred to a committee of twelve. TO THE QUARTERLY MEETING OF WESTBURY, to be held in New York, 1st mo., 23d, 1868. Dear Friends :-In 10th month last, I was called upon at my place of business by a friend, who stated that he was one of a committee of three, who were appointed to inform me that it was the conclusion of the Monthly Meeting of New York, "that I should be separated from the Society of Friends;" and then making some small purchases he withdrew. I have since heard from no committee of that meeting, and as this interview in its method, and the substance of the information given, was very much short of the requirements of discipline in a case of disownment, I addressed the next following Monthly Meeting through this committee, repeating what had been stated to me, and informing that I had received no notice of my having a right to appeal from the judgment so informally announced to me. My communication was returned to me unanswered, and, as I understood, without having been read. I readdressed it to the next Monthly Meeting, accompanying it with a notice of my intention to appeal, if necessary, to the Quarterly Meeting, and requesting a copy of the complaint against I have not received this copy or any other response to my communication, and though in the absence (through the want of action by the Monthly Meeting) of these required preliminaries, an appeal may appear to be unauthorized and not in the order of discipline, I deem it to be my duty thus to present one. And I therefore appeal to this meeting, not only from the aforesaid conclusion of the Monthly Meeting but from its subsequent disregard of the provisions of discipline in reference to disownments, if they meant this to be such. me. Having no personal feeling in this matter, or any objection which I wish to urge to any one whom the meeting may regard as being suitable, I waive my right of being present in person during the appointment of the committee which may be selected to attend to it, and have authorized my son George to represent me before you in this part of the case, so far as the same may be necessary. Trusting that best wisdom will guide us to whatever result may be attained, New York, 1st mo., 22d, 1868. JOHN J. MERRITT. The committee of the Quarterly Meeting to whom this appeal was referred, met to the number of eight, on the evening following their appointment, and heard the parties, until all announced that they were satisfied. The Monthly Meeting's committee and the appellant then withdrew to * Persons who are being treated with as offenders are kept in ignorance of the reports of committees in their cases, and can only see them as they are pre-ented to the superior meeting, in the event of an appeal. |