The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-20

4
he gives other evidence to the same purport
The Rev. Humphrey Hunter testifes that
in connection with the resolves" set Of
"bylaws and regulations for the government
OF a Standing Committee Of Public Safety
was enacted and acknowledged Now, this
can be affirmed only of the proceedings had
on May 81 1t is to those proceedings then,
that the memoirs" Of Mr.. Hunter must be
attached.
Messrs. George Graham, William Hutchin-
son, Jonas Clark and Robert Robinson aver
that at the time when the Declaration was
adopted "a Committee Of Safety tor the
county were elected, who were clothed with
civil and military power, and under their
authority several disatfected persons" were
arrested and tried 1t is admitted that oil
trials of this provisional and ertempore kind
were held in Mecklenburg under the regula-
tons of May 81. They testify, besides, that
Ephraim Brevard was secretary of the meet
ing, and not John McKnitt Alexander. Bre-
ward was secretary of the meeting held on the
Stat of May as we know from the contem-
porary records.
John Simeson testifes that the same COM
mittee which made the Declaration appointed
three men to secure all the military stores for
the county's use-Thomas Polk, John Phifer
and Joseph Kennedy" This committee was
appointed at the meeting held on May 81.
John Simeson was mistaken only in adding
the name Of John Phifer to its number.
Isaac Alexander says that DR.. Ephraim
Brevard was secretary Of the meeting which
passed the Declaration John Davidson, who
was member of The Convention, testifes that
Dr. Ephraim Brevard twas appointed to give
sketch Of the Declaration of Independence,
which he did. 1t is in undsputed evidence
that Brevard wrote the resolutions OF May
81, and that he was secretary of the meeting
held at that date.
We have thus given an analysis of the evil
dence furnished by all the witnesses cited to
support the authenticity of the Mecklenburg
Declaration, except two, Samuel Wilson and
James johnson, who do not testify to any par
ticular facts in connection with the event they
sought to recall. From this analysis it appears
that these chosen witnesses, as soon as
they venture upon any precise and specific
recollections in the premises, invariably
make some statement or cite some
incident which is true only of the
paper adopted on the 31st of May. And this
fact is conclusive upon two points-frst, that
the only authentic Declaration to which the
recollection Of these venerable witnesses can
be credited is the manifesto of May 81, and
second, that the honesty of these witnesses
is confirmed by their very mistakes. When
they gave their testimony the paper of May
81 had not been recovered; but they were
feeling for it by their recollections and when
we remember the strong prepossessions under
which they were called to testify, with the
"McKnitt' document before their eyes, it is
surprising that ethe paper of May 81 should
have reasserted its strong hold on their mem
cries by such a variety of significant facts and
incidents And in the presence of such an
exhibition it is hardly necessary to say that il
any reliance is 10 DO placed on this testimony
it must be conceded that the only authentic
Declaration Of Independence" ever made in
Mecklenburg was that made on the 3lst Of
Nav.