St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1894-03-08
IMPRISONMENT OF ALLEN AND
BROWN.
EDITOR CALIFORNIAN {:

edy," correspondent incidentally
makes the following statement:
"a few words in regard to Haverhill
Jail 1t was built about 1890 and re-
modelled some fifty years ago, and has
In its time sheltered as much crime and
misery as any country prison IN New
England Others besides evil doors have
sometimes been confined within its
gloomy walls. In the year 1882
Stephen Foster was imprisoned there
for holding the doctrine Of non-reslstance,
and refusing to join military com
pany while student at Dartmouth Col
iege. Ten years later Nathaniel Allen
and Erastus Brown were confined there
for uttering abolition sentiments and
sheltering fugitive slaves
You will permit me to assert that
the above passage relative to Nat.
Allen and Erastus Brown is not his
tory. The writer who puts the af-
fair in the form quoted is misintorm-
ed. These men both resided at Little
ton. They were, it is true, non-re-
sistants and abolitionists and they
were committed to Haverhill jail IN
1912 and incarcerated there for
time, but not for uttering abolition
ist sentiments and harboring fug1-
tive slaves, as would be the inference
from your correspondent illusions
to the matter. Their actual offence
was the disturbance of a religious
meeting in the Congreg ationallst
church on Sunday. Mr.. Parker
Pillsburv states it in this way.
He BROWN persisted IN opening
his mouth for the dumb and for him
who had no friend nor defense IN the
Sunday assemblies of his oppressors
and enslavers" (Italics mlne.) Acts
of the Anti Slavery Apostles, p. 29o.
Their excuse was that the urgency
of their cause justified them in
practically breaking up the ordinary
Sunday service IN the village church
for the avowed purpose of present
ing their views, to the exclusion OF
other matters of religious consider
alton and observance. Several Wit
nesses to the scenes in church which |
resulted in the prosecu ton OF these |
men, still reside in LittletOn. They
agree substantially as to the facts. |
Briefly related they are these: Allen |
and Brown claimed the right to IN
teriect their own discourses on the |
subject of slavery and nOn-res1stance
at any point in the regular church |
service when the minister was not |
actually speaking or some part OF |
the oral exercises was not IN actual
progress. Such occasions would be |
the usual pause after the read
ing of Scripture, the reading |
or rendering of hymns or the |
offering of prayer. The minister in
charge of the service requested them
to desist from this conduct and they
refused to regard his authority, the
rights of the congregation or the
proprieties of the place. No amount
of persuasion or prohibition awaited
with them. They were persistent in
this line of procedure and forced
those who desired to have the
privileges of an orderly and uninter-
rupted service to protect themselves.
Upon request Of the acting pastor
that these men should be elected
from the church unless they would
desist from their disorderly conduct,
and when it became apparent that
nothing else would avail, several
persOns-One of them, at least, a
deacOn-removed them, Mr.. Allen
first and then Mr.. Brown, one of the
twain having taken the floor and
continued the discourse as the other
was being elected. No violence or
indignity was offered them and no
unnecessary force was employed. In
accordance with their doctrines Of
non-resistance each fell limp upon the
floor, as he was taken in charge by
the bearers" and in that condition
was carried out. Later on, COM
plants were made against them, not
for the expression of their opinions
on any subject, or for harboring
slaves, but for these very disturb
ances of the public worship. They
were both tried and found guilty OF
the offense charged, and were sent to
Jail, where they remained sixteen
days. Similar conduct is under the
ban of the law today, is universally
condemned by a wholesome public
sentiment, and would probably re-
ceive the same practical reproof if it
were attempted in the midst of Sun
day services of any church of any
denomination in st. Johnsbury, Lit
Teton or Newbury. Indeed, the
episode at LittletOn was in some i'm
portant aspects repetition of his
tory made at Newbury in 1865, &C
cording to the narrative given in
Grant Powers History of the Coos
Country, first edition, p. 50.
There was no settled minister at
Littleton at this time, but the Rev.
Drury Fairbank, who had been an
IL 1.E