Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-01-29
COMMUNICATIONS.
MoNTvILbt, July 8, 1916.

tiavlng lately been expelled from the
Church, and feeling that it was done without
a proper cause or a fair trial, and being aware
my enemies have misrepresented the case
throughout Chardon Circuit in a manner cal
culated TO injure me, duty to my family, my
self, and the Christian religion impels me 10
beg of you the privilege Of stating the facts
in the case and trial as they are, through the
medium Of your paper.
Some time during the month Of March last,
a colored man by the name Of Watson came
into this place, and lectuteI on the subject of
American Slavery. During his remarks, he
said, among other things, that the Methodist
Episcopal Church was connected with this
foul and heaven-daring system. From the
short acquaintance which | had with Mr..
Watson, | highly respected him, and SYM
pathized with him in the efforts which he
was making to obtain the liberty Of the bond
man. Soon after, about the filth Of April,
Mr.. Norton preached here. During his SER
mon, he made an uncalled-for attack upon
the Abolionists and the Liberty party. He
boldly and unhesitatingly declared Mr.. Wat
sons statement, which he had made respect
ing the connection of the NJ. L. Church with
slavery, was false, and furthermore stated
that the NJ. E. Church was entirely free from
and unconnected with that institution. He
defed He'll 10 send forth a more powerful
engine of destruction TO religion than these
Abolition Lecturers. After sermon, Mr..
Norton read from the Discipline to the corr
gregation. When reading and commenting
on that part which refers to slavery, he stated
that the NJ. f. Church was not wholly free
from slavery but that a part OF the Baltimore
Conference held slaves, and that Conference
belonged yet TO the Church. He closed
without attempting TO reconcile this state
ment with the one which he had before made.
On my return flom meeting, in converse
ton about the sermon, | said, " that Mr.. Nor
ton had contradicted himself and must have
made a false statement" Again, while con-
versing with one who applauded The attack
upon Mr.. Watson, | said, 81 wonder who
lied the most, Watson or Norton" A few
weeks after, the subject came up in a class
meeting. ] was censured much by one or
two members for having said that Norton had
lied. / claimed that | never had said that
Norton had lied but had said that Norton
had made a false statement, and | said so
still, and was willing 10 abide the conse-
quences.
About this time, or a little before, a letter
was written by a member of the Society,
against whom no complaint has ever been en-
tered, setting forth the Inconsistency OF the
ground which Norton had taken, complaining
of his uncharitable attack upon the Liberty
party in his sermons, and signed by over
twenty persons, members of the Church and
other respectable citizens, and addressed to
Rev. MIR. Norton. Among others, | signed
this letter.
On Saturday the 9th of June, | was
brought before the church TO be tried on the
following Declarations:
"The Church al Montvllle, by Samuel
Nye, (Steward) against Josiah Miller, fol
defaming the character of Rev. Albert Nor.
ton. ~ In saying at the meeting house il
April last, that he (Norton) lied and he knew
it. (2) Repeating the above SANDER at diff
ferent times. (3) In signing a scurrilou'
piece against said Norton, calculated to in
jure his reputation"
Rev. Mr.. Eddy sat as President in the trial
Mr.. Eddy had previously selected the follow
ing named committee from Thompson to 81
as Jurors;
Charles Goodride, Homer Griswold, Is
rael Comstock, Josiah Wheton, Lyman
Miller, James Gotham.
claimed and plead the privilege Of beinI
tried by the Society of which l was a mem
Der, and read the following discipline to sui
~stantiate my claim "An accused membt
shall be tried before the Society Of which
is a member, or a select number Of that S
ciety." Discipline of the M. e. ChurcI
Section WIZ
The President decided against me, an
said, 'by society is meant the whole circuit.
claimed that as the Presiding Elder ha
the right to preside in this trial, by the sam
rule he might define society, to be the whoI
District over which he had Jurisdictions
And as a Bishop could preside in this cas-,
he might, by the same dictionary, define 81
ciety as meaning the whole NJ. E. ChurcI
and therefore take me to any place in II
Omitted States for trial. But the PresideI
(Which constitutes the court) was against m
and | was under the necessity of being tie
before a jury selected from the society
Thompsonby Mr.. Eddy (lhe court.) Messr
Underwood, Norton and Nye prosecuted II
case against me.
They proceeded to substantiats the fir
charge. MIR. S. Nye testified that | said