Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Wayne County, Ind.) 1831-1837, 1833-05-04

LOT FsieDds would not feel itself q lib.
Ierty to accePt a donation under those
much less to apply to
the legislature Of the state for the
power to do what! To wrest from
the right owners, the heirs, their inhe-
ritance in despite Of the laws Of the
LAND!
This is certainly burlesque on
christianity. Wilt thou suppose friend
editor, that those individuals were
Friends otherwise than in mere name
|onlys No, they were Of that sect
whose late movements in the Ohio le-
gisiature elected the speeches ofwhich
the writer complains, and they still re-
main with that sect.
] shall next take notice Of some Of
the assertions he makes in defence Of
the above charges. He says 1.-THE OBJ
Ject OF the act was not in any degree
to deprive any person or persons, or
set, or society of men Of their rights"
Now unless this writer differ from
his fellow professors, he does not ac-
knowledge that the society Of Friends
to whom he alludcs, under the invidi-
Gus distinction of Hicksites, has any
rights involved in the case. He and
his associates in religion claim all the
right to all the property Of the society
of Faiends, together with ITS name and
its religion. This claim Of theirs, $50
manifestly unjust that they never can
sustain it where imPartiality and rea-
son dweli Is, conceive, the slender
on which he risks the as
sertion, that the object Of the act was
not in any degree to deprive any per-
son, or persons, &c. of their rights.
The object ofthe act is on the face Of
the Bill that was before the House.
1t was to build certain individuals
therein named. into a body, corporate
and polite, civil polity, bearing the
name ofthe society Of Friends!--a So
ciety Of Friends, by Legislative author
ity and favor. The original society Of
Friends arose with the power Of iegis-
lative enactments and penal laws a.
gainst it, and it still continues to exist
by the Powerof Him who was, and is,
its foundation, without looking to any
other source for any other Protector,
Or Builder. tits rot common for le-
gislature to take one persons name
from him and bestow il on another; nor
IS it reasonable to suppose that they
would consent to take the name of the
society of Friends, and give it to a COR
poration.
Ii this company of individuals had
taken a name that did not belong to
any body else, they could no doubt
nave obtained an act Of incorporation,
md this they could very readily have
lone, for 4 do not know Of such ano-
her Company on earth.
Dost thou think that | should wish
o petition the legislature 10 give mel
ny name with power to hold what al
'eady hold without dispute? Or tol
enable me to take hold Of what might
honestly get hereafter? Certainly not.
But 1 should think that an attempt to
'btain thy name exclusively, would
'xcite suspicion, Ito say the least oiit}
hat all was not right; for it might
,e feared that after obtaining it,
night take it in my head to make an
Hort TO Dust thee, and enter into the
Enjoyment "f thy possessions, convert
ny to my own use and benefit. THIS
uspicioa would be greatly strength
ned if it were known that a differ
r<e existed between US in relationl.
0 certain property, and was not yeti
satisfactorily settled, when / asked for
be act granting me this exclusive prl-
ilege. 1t might perhaps be constru-
d into an attempt to settle the dis
ute between as by an act Of the leg
Stature without thy knowledge. And
cannot help thinking that to disin- !
crested persons acquainted with the
Of the case in Ohio,
md such presume we're the orators)I
be attempt must have had a similar :
the app nrance of an at
emPt to take hold lUbt only Of the !.
rhool fund (for that l suppose was
heir own) but Of all the property be-
,1ging to the society Of Friends in Z