Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-04-03

ne dlso iupilts udt 1 duhilt'eu dgdlIl ana
again that the body Of Friends opposed the
Anti-slavery movement. denounced Anti-Sla-
very members, &c, In this sentence he does
not properly represent me.
lie continues to assume the position, that
all members Of Friends society are accounta-
Bile for the errors of all the rest, whether they
approve or disapprove of their course whe-
Their they belong 10 the same Yearly Meeting
or to another. This extraordinary assumption
is the ground work of his cause, and without
1t could not for a moment be sustained. |
will endeavor to avoid argument in this arti-
Gle; my object is simply TO refer the reader
to what | have already written, and TO recite
briefly, what | have before explained. And
in reference to this main point, which my
friend still seems to believe 10 be substantial
ted by facts, let me say, that if he will find
any considerable number of intelligent indi-
viduals acquainted with the regulations Of
Friends, who take his ground, | will acknow-
ledge myself in error. Bat on the other
hand, not only has every intelligent meml er
with whom | have conversed on the subject,
and they have been many, agreed with me,
that there was no such responsibility upon
members, but at a very large meeting Of dis
union abolitiopists-members Of Friends, re-
Gently held III Chester county, Pa, an elabo-
rate address has been issued, taking mainly
the same ground | have laid down, and which
| have maintained in This correspondence
Would it not be as just and as liberal for G..
r. White TO say, that Jas. Barnaby did knoV
that he was aiding the cause of Satan and re-
tarding emancipation by associating with in
fdels, and not waiting for Divine direction,
in his action, as for the former to say that the
latter "does know he stands an obstacle to
the advancement of the several reform oues-
tions2 But friend J. b. has not replied to
me at all upon this subject, as may be seen
by a comparison Of our articles. He kas ia
ken up an issue which | did not raise, and
replied to it, He begs the question by assn
ming that G. F. White, &c., know those to
be real reforms, and yet oppose them! Ibid
not say that intention alone determined the
character Of an action, but that the intention
and a knowledge of the consequences which
the action would produce, did determine it.
My friend again misrepresents me when he
says. do by any means " give countenances'
to that which l admit TO be wrong in the So
ciety.
If my friend chooses to try to destroy the
force of my exposition of his comparison Of
the "sheep thief" by afixing new definition
to terms, ] have no objection, but | can as
sure him that his definition to the term thief
Is unsnstained by any proper authority
There is no theft where such an intention.
Gan evil cne) does not company the act
Property may be taken innocently' but II is
not 'heft. |. may be taken and converted to
one 6 own use without an intention 10 nav for
1t and 1t is trover--a tenn less disnrsceluI
less punishable than theft. My friend, to
make out his case, must use a more severe
term TO apply to a less wicked act. Troysr
even would be too hard a term lor the nlaco
he puts thief. Theft is always a criminal
ollenee' If am correct in this, and [ appeal
to any work on jurisprudence in use for its
correctness, then does my former article re.
main unaffected in this respect, and his arrr-
ment' making wilful and malicious thievings
and unintentional error, equal, is reiutpd. J.
d. dwelis on one or two points which rest on
the positions which | have already answered.
In his answer TO my queries relative to
Green Plain Friends, he says they did RIGHT
in using the name of G.. f. White in their
disclaimer, Of course he admits thcy did
wrong Ia offering to retract that part OF their
proceedings, and this is what he wished to
Know whether / would venture to assert.
Forthe last ten years, says my friend, the
organization of Friends has been a hinderance
TO " growth in the truth among its members.
and in the world. Previous to the last ter
years, he may know that there were among
them fewer aboIitionists, much fewer drsu-
n%ionlsts, a much less number Of temperanco
men, not SO many peace men, fewer in favor
Oh Tree discussion and general reform, and a
greater proportion who voted for Shareholders.
although then confessedly in advance Of all
o'her societies on the above named questions
OF reform, at a period a little more remote. a
large number of the members were siareAok.
@efS-man were distiHers-the mass of them
tolerated rum-drinking, and the administering
OF WllskeY to poor families in Iar,as