Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1844-05-28


crn feeling, aided by verv considerable
proportion of the South, has changed the
old order Of things.
nc question immediately before the
Conference and which brought up the
whole SUBJECT IN review, was that of the
4 Rev. Francis A. Harding, travelling
preacher in the state of MARYLAND, who
appealed from the decision of the Baltimore
Annual Conference, suspending him from
The ministry for a year, or until he should
manuTit certain slaves, which as II was al
legged, belonged TO him.
! The circumstances under which Mr..
Harding became the owner of the slaves.
were these. In FEBRUARY last he married
lady, resident Of the state Of Mary land,
who owned five slaves, de missed by the pa
rents of the wife; and he was charged with
having thus become connected with slave
ry, and consequently disqualified as fra.
rctfing preacher, according TO the rules Of
discipline. He was therefore required to
execute 4 deed of manumission immediate
", or give pledge that he would do so
during the ensuing conference year. He
refused 10 do this on the ground that the
laws OF Maryland gave the right of pro-
perry to the wife independent of himself,
ana that he had no control over them and
could not manumit them; and that rs they
required an lmpossibiliiy he could no, COM
ply. Even if this were no, SO, il is con-
tended that he is sustained BY the rule of
discipline oil, the church, which states that
ibe mere fact of holding slaves does not
d squaIIty; that he is only required to man
unit them when he can do so legally, and
that IN This case he could not, because he
could not remove them without their own
consent, and the laws of Maryland do not
allow slaves to be manurni.ted and remain
in the state.
The question, therefore, was, whether
the Baltimore Conference had RICH, n
suspend preacher who had violated the
rules OF the conference upon the question
of slavery, but not the discipline of the
church.
\ motion was made by Il delegate from
Virginia 10 reverse the decision. which was
lost by :; vote of III to 56,-ihc whole of
the Northern and Eastern. and many of
the Southern, Delegates voting against the
motion for reversal.
s,
land, decided that the vote affirmed the de
cision Of the conference
1t is little remarkable that the case
should have been brought up from slave
state, and have been carried on by the Ma
ryiand Conference with SO much spirit
his circumstance probably contributed
much to induce the Conference to reverse
their hitherto conservative course. and ,ake
a stand against slavery.
The Baptist church, at their trienoiaj
held at Philadelphia fortnight
SINCE, was agtatrd in the same way
The result OF their deliberations was 10 Law
he whole SUBJECT on the table without ac-
ion.
The larger part Of The Melhodi Is. we
ire inclined TO believe, are found in the
VI cdle and S,ulhern States: and in the
after, The subject is looked upon there with
more leeling than in any other section of
The Richmond Compiler. in con
Guiding an article on this subject, saws, "If
'Per this Methodist conference should
'econe involved as party in this agira-
ion, The d.ath knell OF this confederacy
would be soundtd'
Several memorials have been presented
The Conference on The sub Get of slavery
rom the Northern and Eastern states. ask
nS. among other things, that the members
hall not be allowed 10 hold slaves. These
ave been referred 10 committees. Soma
Quit exists rs To whether these commit
;es VIII report on the subject at ALL
, he'hef they do so or not The excitement
II the sub ect will no doubt be very ors,,
the Conference N. Y. Express.