Tales of Oppression. No. XVI. BY ISAAC T. HOPPER. THOMAS HUGHES AND JOHN P. DARG.--Thomas Hughes came with his master, John P. Darg, to this city, in the latter part of the 8th month, 1838, and soon afterwards left his service, taking with him seven or eight thousand dollars of the master's money. Six thousand, nine hundred and eight dollars, wore recovered through my instrumentality and returned to Darg. Barney Corse negotiated the business, and previously to his having any knowledge that the lost money had been recovered, he agreed with Darg that Hughes should be manumitted forthwith, on condition that the whole, or the greater part of the money taken, as advertised in "The Sun" should he returned. Much the greater part of this money was returned, as above mentioned, and consequently Tom became legally entitled to his freedom. It is generally known, that he was sentenced to the State prison for the term of two years, that being the shortest term allowed by law for the offence of which he was convicted. It has been invidiously asserted, that he had been tampered with by abolitionists previously to leaving Darg's service; but all who have read the trial must see, that there is not the least ground even for suspicion of the kind. It has also been said, that, preferring slavery to freedom, he had voluntarily returned into bondage. This equally false with the other. The facts of the case are these. His sentence expired the 22d of last month, and on that day I visited him in prison at Sing Sing. I stated to him, in the presence of one of the Inspectors, that I had come to imform him of the position in which he stood--that he was a free man, and therefore at liberty to stay at the North or to go to the South--that on this point there was no doubt, for I had advised with three of the most respectable lawyers in New-York, and they were clearly of opinion that he was free--and that if he wished to remain at the North, I would do all I could to protect him. I told him, at the same time, that I had no advice to give him in relation to the matter--that I wished him to exercise his own feelings and judgment in the case. He knew Darg, and the business he followed (gambling,) and that no confidence could be reposed in him--and that, if he went with him, I had no doubt he would very soon sell him, and that he would never see his wife. After a short pause, he informed me that he had considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion to remain at the North. I then observed to him, that I hoped he would remain firm in whatever conclusion he should then adopt. Darg and his wife had been several times to see him,--They informed him that they should not attempt to take him unless he wished to go; but that, if he would accompany them to the South, he should live in freedom with his wife, for whom he manifested a warm affection whenever he spoke of her. The keeper agreed to discharge Tom the next morning at 9 o'clock. Immediately after I left the prison, Darg had another interview with him, and again on the morning of the day he was liberated, and, no doubt, held out such inducements as prevailed upon Tom to change his determination; and, I have reason to believe that some, at least, of the officers of the prison lent their aid to effect that object. At 9 o'clock, Tom received his final discharge in the presence of Darg. I then asked him what he wished to do, when he spoke in substance as follows "I am now a FREE MAN, and can stay at the North, or go to the South. I have been told (he did not say by whom) that Mr. Darg is insolvent, but he has shown me more money than I ever saw him have before, and also some of the notes which I removed. I have always found Mr. Darg true to me, and I wish to go with him." I then replied, "I am satisfied, but thou shouldst have told me so yesterday." He then stepped into a carriage with Darg, which was in waiting, and drove off, highly elated with the idea that he was about to enjoy his liberty and the society of his wife. But there is much reason to fear, that he will he disappointed in both, and that ere this he has been sold to some of those wretches who speculate in human flesh. Darg knew Tom was free, and did not attempt to exercise any right of ownership over him; neither had Tom any suspicion that his liberty would be called in question. I have heard that it has been asserted, that he preferred slavery to liberty; but so far from this being true, he declared that be would take his own life rather than return to the South as a slave. It has been said, that while in prison at Sing Sing, he became a Christian. There is some ground to fear that his Christianity was rather superficial, or he would hardly have been willing to place himself in a situation where he must lend his aid to a business followed only by men who prey upon the community, and who are the most abandoned of mankind. The following account of his life was taken from himself, while he was in prison in this city: "I was born at Richmond, Virginia; my father was my first master; at the age of eleven months, myself, mother and twin sister, were sold to my father's brother; who, as well as my father, was a planter of great wealth, before my recollection. My mother and sister were resold, but to whom, or where taken I never could ascertain. At the age of thirteen years, I was sold, and my father's son became my owner, who then resided in the state of Kentucky; his orders were so severe I remonstrated with him, for treating a brother as he did me; for doing which I was sold, hand-cuffed, and my feet tied under a horse's belly; taken to Maysville, shipped on board a boat for Louisiana, together with about five hundred more slaves, and sold; fortunately for me, as I supposed, my master was a gambler, and resided at Louisville, Kentucky, with whom, as his body servant, I soon returned. I resided with him for three years, when fortune turned against him, and he informed me he should be obliged to sell me. During my residence at Louisville, I ascertained my father had moved to Kentucky; I told my master that my father was a white man and a planter of great wealth; that if I could see him I thought he would purchase me and set me free. Upon which he consented to let me go and see him; on arriving in the place where he resided, I found he was quite as wealthy as he was in Virginia; I called upon him, told him that my name was Thomas, the son of his slave Rachel, and that from good information, I had no doubt he was my father, which he did not deny. I told him of the injustice of my relatives, in selling me; informed him that I was to be again sold, and begged him to purchase and manumit me. I told him of the miserable life I was leading, subject to the will of any person who might become my master; but to all my entreaties he turned a deaf ear, and in public would not speak to me as he passed me. I remained in the place two weeks, to ascertain if possible, where my mother and sister were; but so indifferent was he to their fate, he had not taken the name of their purchaser, or the destination of the drove of which they formed a part. I again returned to Louisville, and soon found myself going to Louisiana to be sold; on my arrival, Mr. John P. Darg became my purchaser, who being of the same profession as my former master, that is, a gambler, my life was spent in much the same manner as before; the fact of Mr. Drag's being a gambler, I have been compelled to contradict, but it is true. Two days previous to my leaving New Orleans, I married one of my master's slaves. It is painful for me to leave my wife, but should I be taken to the South I am doomed never to see her, as I shall no doubt be sold; or should I remain his slave, his fortune may change, and I be forever separated from my wife, and perchance family; or raise children only to augment his wealth, liable to be torn from each other at any moment; the idea of which made my situation doubly painful;--under these considerations I resolved, before I left New Orleans, never to return a slave. As I had ever been a trusty slave, my master allowed me to carry the key to the trunk in which he carried his money. I supposed by taking his money and leaning him, he would be willing to give me my liberty, in case his money was returned; but I found other difficulties; it was necessary to have some person to return the money, this, two colored men engaged to do, but as soon as my fluster advertised the money, offering a large reward, they became alarmed and sought to secrete me. Had I informed the gentlemen who came to inquire if I had taken my master's money of the facts, I have no doubt it would have been all returned; but I concealed the fact, in hopes the colored men would return it to my master, until my fears were awakened by one of the Friends, as to the safety of the money. I then told him to whom I had given it, and desired him to go and get the money, as I dare not do it, return it to my master and ask him to manumit me. To this he reluctantly assented, saying I had done very wrong, of which I am fully satisfied; but as my master could state, were he here, he has intrusted me with larger sums for a long time and I never defrauded him of a cent. "I trust, when I say I never had any other design than to secure my freedom, that my statement will be believed, and that I intended to return every farthing of the money to its lawful owner; neither was any man who has been implicated in this unhappy affair, ever to be benefited in any way; they ever manifested their regret to think I had been so imprudent, and notwithstanding officers Peck and Merritt have held out every inducement to gem one to swear that they, the persons charged, knew of my intentions, and advised me to the step, before I took the money; saying that I should not be tried, but used as a witness, and many other promises of like purport; I clear my conscience, and do justice to innocent men, when I say they knew nothing of me until after I had left my master, and if any man is guilty I am the one; if any men is to be punished let that punishment fall upon me, and let those gentlemen be credited for their honorable motives in trying to restore to my master the money I had wrongfully taken. "I will also here express my regret for concealing many things, and for having made statements at variance with this; but they were not true; I was compelled to do so by the presence of my master or one of the police officers above alluded to, who have ever done all they could to prejudice me against those men and the principles they profess, so much so, that it has seemed to me, they not only wanted me to swear to the truth, but to a little more than the truth, to suit their purpose. "I have here stated every circumstance as it has occurred and to whom the guilt of the whole belongs. "THOMAS HUGHES" His X mark. Aged about twenty-two years. "Witness present, HORACE DRESSER. "Halls of Justice, New-York, Nov. 22d, 1838." NATIONAL ANTI-SLAVERY STANDARD, THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1841. [Engraving. On banner: "WITHOUT CONCEALMENT, WITHOUT COMPROMISE." In book: "TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE."] Rare Specimen of a Quaker Preacher! "The prophets prophesy LIES in my name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke unto them: they prophesy unto you a FALSE vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart."--Jer. xiv. 14. "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame."--Jude 14. We have placed these graphic and terrible quotations from the Inspired Volume at the head of this article, not in a moment of excitement, to gratify a censorious or retaliatory disposition, but because, after calm and mature deliberation, we believe them to be strictly and fearfully applicable to the individual of whose conduct we are about to speak. The grounds of this opinion will be seen from the statements which follow On the 8th of November last, the writer of this, having understood that THOMAS M'CLINTOCK, (an active abolitionist, and a highly esteemed minister of that division of the Society of Friends not called Orthodox,) would be present, was induced to attend the Rose street meeting of Friends in this city. On that occasion, Thomas M'Clintock spoke against slavery and other national sins with great plainness and fidelity, as a genuine Friend might be expected to do. His communication was received with evident marks of dissatisfaction by many, and he was several times disturbed, when alluding to slavery, by the shuffling of feet! An occurrence so extraordinary, in a meeting of Friends, could hardly fail to excite attention, and lead to an inquiry for the cause which produced it. Having learned that GEORGE F. WHITE, a minister belonging to that meeting, was in the constant practice of denouncing abolitionists in the most offensive and opprobrious terms, we were at no loss to account for such disgraceful conduct; and accordingly, in the Standard of Nov. 12, after stating the fact of the disturbance, we made the following remarks: "Nor is such conduct much to be wondered at, when it is considered that the most prominent minister in the meeting is in the habit of denouncing, not only anti-slavery, but temperance societies, in the most reproachful terms, in his public communications. This rude pro-slavery demonstration was made, however, by a small portion of the assembly, and will meet the disapprobation of many who are not abolitionists. If the young men who thus disgraced themselves had not been nursed in a pro-slavery atmosphere at home, and felt themselves sustained by the opposition to the anti-slavery enterprise, which generally prevails in the meeting, they would not thus have presumed to disturb the 'quiet' of their fellow-worshippers." These remarks, as might have been expected, created some excitement among the leading individuals in the Rose street meeting, which was increased by their subsequent appearance in the Pennsylvania Freeman, accompanied by the following appropriate observations by the editor of that journal: "SHAME ON THEM.--Our readers will be surprised to learn--as they will, by an article which we copy below from the National Anti-Slavery Standard, that an approved and highly estimable minister of the Society of Friends has been interrupted in the midst of a religious discourse in a regular meeting for worship at one of the Friends' meeting-houses in New-York city, by such tokens of dissatisfaction as ought to be regarded as disgraceful even to the political caucus;--that conduct was witnessed in an assembly of this quiet and orderly denomination, which we venture to say would not have occurred,--and certainly would not have been tolerated in a religious meeting of any other sect in the country. And why was this outrage upon the rights of the preacher, and the quiet of the assembly to which he had come as a messenger of God's truth? For no other reason, it appears, than his noble faithfulness in maintaining, and honest plainness of speech in setting forth one of the greatest testimonies of the Society. Has it come to this? Has this glorious testimony already, by reason of the growing tendency among the great body of its members to conform to the corrupt public sentiment and wrong customs of the world around, so far lost its excellency in the eyes of its professed upholders, that they can no longer abide its promulgation in its purity, simplicity and unabated fullness? If friend M'Clintock had qualified his righteous condemnation of slavery with a liberal share of abuse and calumny and bitter denunciation lavished upon those of other sects, who concur with him in holding, and are faithful in proclaiming the same testimony, would he have been thus insulted, and his rights as a man and a minister of the Most High been so trampled on in that meeting? We are far from believing that the minister alluded to by the Standard, as being 'in the habit of denouncing not only anti-slavery, but temperance societies,' would himself approve the indecorous behavior we have had occasion to comment on:--this most unquaker-like, unchristian, unmanly and indecent outrage upon propriety amid the good order of a religious assembly." Whether George F. White deserved the charitable exculpation, with which the editor of the Freeman closes his remarks, will appear from the history of his subsequent conduct. That he would openly justify the disturbance, we do not believe; nor have we ever learned that he deemed it worthy of public censure. That we were right in speaking of it as the natural effect of his furious denunciations, no one who has attentively watched the progress of the anti-slavery cause, or who understands the workings of human nature, can for a moment doubt. The worst mobs which abolitionists have ever encountered, were excited by the misrepresentations and falsehoods of "hireling" editors and preachers, who professed to be "as much opposed to slavery as any body" and who, when the responsibility of such outbreaks was laid to their charge, were wont to repel the imputation with scorn, and to exclaim, in the indignant language of the messenger of the proud king of Assyria, when the Hebrew prophet told him of the crimes which he would commit on his accession to the throne of his master, "But what? is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?" It is certainly no wonder, that those who are not restrained by high moral and religious principle, and whose minds are filled with that vulgar prejudice against our colored population which so extensively prevails, should be led, by such passionate and sweeping denunciations as those of G. F. White, to imbibe that kind of hostility to abolitionists, which would naturally find vent in rude and indecent behavior, whenever anti-slavery principles are advocated in their presence. Their spirit and conduct are but the counterpart of his. They deserve commiseration, on account of their ignorance, being deluded by those whom they have been taught to regard as models of Christian forbearance and charity; while he, and his more intelligent supporters, are worthy of indignant rebuke, as in the sight of God the real authors of the disgraceful conduct in question. On the 15th of November, we went again to the Rose street meeting. We will not conceal, that, in doing so, we were influenced, in some measure, by a painful curiosity, very natural to us as an abolitionist, to listen to the preaching of a man, the vituperative character of whose ministry had become so notorious. It wanted a more vivid imagination than ours, to conceive how a Quaker preacher would look at this period of the Christian era, and at this I advanced stage of the anti-slavery enterprise, breathing out wholesale denunciations of abolitionists and their measures, in a style so coarse and vindictive as might well put the New-York Courier and Enquirer and the Washington Globe to the blush! Such a character was so incongruous with all our ideas of Quakerism, so inconsistent with all that we had ever seen of that moderate and imperturbable sect, that we listened with involuntary incredulity to the statements of others, and determined to see and hear for ourselves. On the occasion above alluded to, we witnessed the "anomalous" exhibition, a description of which had failed to make any well-defined impression upon our mind, so difficult was it to believe that that description was not greatly exaggerated. It was the Sabbath next succeeding that on which Thomas M'Clintock had borne his solemn testimony against slavery. George F. White delivered a discourse, (if we may call it by that name,) which, for incoherency of argument, misrepresentation and caricature of the sentiments of others, abusiveness of style, and passionate ferocity of manner, exceeded any thing which we had ever heard from a man professing to be a minister of the gospel. To say that we listened with painful surprise to such a discourse, in such a place, would be too faint an expression of our feelings. Our emotions were those of utter astonishment--nay, almost of horror! We were reluctantly compelled to acknowledge, that the half had not been told us, and for a time we could hardly believe the testimony of our own eyes and ears. But for the outward peculiarities of a Quaker assembly, which we saw about us, we should have been ready to conclude that we had missed our way and gone to a political caucus, and that we were listening to the harangue of some unscrupulous demagogue, who supposed that his only chance for preferment depended upon the facility with which he could blacken the reputation of his neighbors. The expressions, "hireling lecturers" "hireling editors" "hireling printers and book agents" "servants of the devil" "emissaries of satan" "hypocrites" "blasphemers" "hypocritical workers of popular righteousness" "coming up out of the bottomless pit" &. were used with an indiscriminate frequency no less shocking to a charitable mind than repugnant to a refined taste. Of the manner of the speaker it is enough to say, that it corresponded with his matter. The tones of his voice were harsh, and his countenance and gestures (particularly the former) were indicative of a high degree of morbid excitement and vindictive passion. It was apparent, notwithstanding his frequent asseverations that he was required by God to speak as he did, that his "inspiration" was mainly derived from his strong displeasure on account of the anti-slavery preaching of the previous Sabbath, and his anxiety to remove any favorable impressions it might have made upon the assembly. As an illustration of the manner in which he caricatured the sentiments of those who were the objects of his attacks, we may observe, that he accused the friends of the temperance reform of impugning the wisdom of God in their warfare against intoxicating liquors, alcohol being one of the "good things" intended for the benefit of man! Instead of candidly and truly stating their real position, viz: that the use of alcoholic stimulants as a beverage is contrary to the laws of health and animal life, and therefore sinful, he represented them as holding the absurd doctrine that sin was inherent in the alcohol itself! On this ground he charged them with "blasphemy" and with assuming to be wiser than God! That he knowingly and wilfully misrepresented their sentiments, we will not take it upon us to say; but, that such a statement, at this day, is the fruit of honest ignorance, seems almost too incredible to be believed. Nevertheless, we will be as charitable as possible. Soon after the time above mentioned, a highly respectable member of the Society of Friends informed us, that on a subsequent day, when we were not present, the same preacher had charged members of a society professing nonresistance principles with threatening to enter a meetinghouse by force. Being a member of the society to which he was understood to refer, we addressed him a respectful note, asking to be informed on what authority he had made this serious statement. Instead of frankly complying with our request, as he was bound in honor to do, and as he would have done if he had been sustained by a consciousness that his charge was well founded, he sought to evade the question, and to shield himself from responsibility by making false issues upon immaterial points; and when he could no longer withhold the information we sought, without inflicting upon himself positive disgrace, he accompanied it with a tirade of personal abuse and low sarcasm, such as it had never before been our lot to receive at the hands of any man professing to be governed by the principles of the gospel. On the 19th of November, while this correspondence was in progress, we went again to the Rose Street meeting. At this time, he not only repeated his usual denunciations, but charged the whole body of abolitionists, without exception or qualification, with holding the doctrine, that the only hope of the slave was not in God, nor in truth, but in themselves. This doctrine he pronounced "FLAT BLASPHEMY." If he had contented himself with general denunciation, we should have been silent; but here was a definite charge brought against abolitionists, in the presence of 800 people--a charge which we knew to be false, and which, if left uncontradicted, might do no small amount of mischief. As one who had been identified with the antislavery enterprise from its commencement, and especially as a member of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, we felt it to be our duty, in the most unequivocal and explicit terms, to deny its truth. This we did as briefly as justice to the accused would allow, and in a tone and manner with which the warmest supporters of George F. White have never ventured to find fault, although they were much displeased with us for presuming to ward off a blow thus cruelly aimed at us and our associates. It was one of those acts of self-defence which haughty sect never can forgive. At the conclusion of our remarks, we expressed the hope, that the members of a society whose early founders had often felt themselves called upon to address the religious assemblies of other sects, not only contrary to the rules of those sects, but even to the laws of the land, would not judge us harshly or uncharitably for venturing to speak under such extraordinary circumstances. After we sat down, George F. White arose and declared, that he had ample vouchers for all that he had said, which he would exhibit to any body who would call at his house or store. He also (strange infatuation!) charged me with falsehood for saying that primitive Friends had violated the laws of the land by speaking in the meetings of other sects! This charge certainly displayed great ignorance of the early history of the Society, or an utter recklessness of truth. On the next evening, availing ourselves of the invitation thus publicly given, we went to his house, in company with James S. Gibbons, and asked for the privilege of looking at the vouchers for his charge. Will the reader believe us when we say, that he not only refused to exhibit them, but ordered us, in a haughty and imperious tone, to leave his house, and heaped upon us the grossest personal abuse? Incredible as it may seem, such is the fact. To James S. Gibbons, however, he showed his proof, which consisted of a resolution passed by the Junior Anti-Slavery Society of Philadelphia! On a palpably strained and false interpretation of that resolution, he persisted in charging the whole body of abolitionists with uttering "blasphemy." Certainly, this is not less unjust than it would be for us to make the whole body of Friends responsible for his uncharitable aspersions. Who would hesitate to say, if we were to avow a principle so absurd, that we were either strangely deluded, or knowingly guilty of bearing false witness? The charge against non-resistants was no better substantiated than the other. After tracing it to its source, it was found to be "a false vision and divination, a thing of nought, and the deceit of the heart." It was nothing, in fact, but a piece of gossip and scandal, which, falling in with his bitter prejudices, and feeding the fire of his implacable hostility to a philanthropic association, he had the folly and presumption to deal out in a religious discourse, under the sanction of Divine inspiration! Our correspondence with him in relation to this charge is before the public, and to it we refer the reader for additional information. The same pamphlet also contains a refutation of the charge of blasphemy against the abolitionists, and ample proofs, from the Journal of George Fox, that our statement respecting primitive Friends was strictly and incontrovertibly true. It is certainly a matter of wonder, that a minister of the Society, (and one, too, of the pretensions of G. F. White!) should be either superficial or hardy enough to deny the truth of our remark on that subject. Let no one say, that we have attached undue importance to the accusations of such a man, or suppose for a moment that any motive of a personal nature has drawn us into a conflict with him. By his standing in that division of the Society of Friends to which he belongs, and by his reputation as a preacher, he has done much to poison the minds of others, and to keep the Society itself from taking the position in relation to our cause which its principles demand; and hence, a thorough exposure of his conduct will exert a beneficial influence. Multitudes in the Society, who are extremely pained and mortified on account of his course, heartily rejoice that such an exposure has been made; and the information which we have received from various quarters where the pamphlet has been read, leaves no room for doubt that it will do great good. A highly esteemed minister of the Society writes to me as follows: "I will just state, that I have lately read a correspondence between thee and a member of our Society, and that my soul has been brought into near sympathy with thee on account thereof. The subject needs no comment of mine. The language and spirit of thy opponent are enough to satisfy me, and I think they must satisfy every one who truly loves God and his creature man." Another minister of the Society, in a letter enclosing an order for 25 copies of the pamphlet, says-- In view of all the circumstances, I approve of the publication of the correspondence, and I cannot see any thing in the part thou hast acted to which I can object; but I am astonished and mortified at the course of G. F. White. Whether the Friends of Rose street meeting can, hereafter, receive his ministry, I shall leave for them to determine. Upon reading his last letter, I said to those around me, that I had much rather have made the threat in question, [to break into a meeting-house] than to have put my name to a document of the style, and breathing the temper of that letter. It would give me great pleasure to know that he had discovered his error, and promptly condemned it. But let us forgive him, supposing he knew not what he did." I have seen a letter from another minister, of high standing in the Society, expressing his disapprobation of G. F. W.'s conduct in still stronger terms. A friend in Philadelphia writes: "George F. White's part of the correspondence, as far as my knowledge goes, finds no defenders, and few apologists. Those who are free from sectarianism in the Society think him in a very unpleasant predicament, and I guess his warmest friends could wish his letters had never come to light." An individual of great worth, who is extensively acquainted with Friends, writes thus: "A person of my acquaintance, who at first hearing of your difficulty with G. F. W., (I suspect partly at least from him,) thought you much in the wrong, called you in effect ungentlemanly and unmannerly, to say no worse, has since read your correspondence, and says George is a sad specimen of a Quaker preacher, and that he has no kind of excuse for his shameful treatment of you, while you have given full evidence of your veracity, gentlemanly manners and Christian forbearance." These are but specimens of numerous testimonies, of a similar character, which we have received from persons living out of the pro-slavery atmosphere of New-York; and there are those even here who will rejoice to see them. George F. White and his supporters may read in them the verdict of the great body of the Society in relation to his course. Friends abroad will be interested to learn what effect the publication has had in the city, and whether G. F. W. still continues to denounce abolitionists and others as formerly. We are sorry to say, that he has "waxed worse and worse" having added to his former list of epithets those of "wolves" "reptiles" and "household vermin." His discourses abound even with gross personal allusions! On Wednesday of last week, we attended Rose street meeting. In his sermon on that day, after stating the general principle that men are humbled and subdued by suffering, and referring to the judgments of God upon Pharaoh as a case in point, he gave an illustration, which we will repeat, as nearly as we can recollect, in his own words:--"Just as a slave, recently, who had suffered the effects of his criminal conduct, and been thus led to calm reflection, chose to go back into slavery with his master, and to endure all the evils of that condition, notwithstanding his former experience of them, rather than stay with those hypocritical workers of popular righteousness who had interfered in his behalf. For my own part, I commend his choice. I had a thousand times rather be a slave, and spend my days with slaveholders, than to dwell in companionship with abolitionists." This was an allusion, which every one present understood, to the case of Thomas Hughes, formerly the slave of John P. Darg, whose history is given in our columns today, by Isaac T. Hopper, as No. XVI. of his "Tales of Oppression." It was also understood and intended as a thrust at Isaac T. Hopper, who went to Sing Sing, to act the part of the Good Samaritan, by informing Tom that he was free, and offering him protection. That the pro-slavery press should speak of this act of disinterested benevolence in contemptuous and reproachful terms, and exult over the weakness of the unfortunate colored man in placing himself in the power of a gambling slaveholder, was no more than might have been expected; but, that a Quaker preacher should seize upon such an occurrence, with an avidity which would not allow him to wait for a proper understanding of the facts, for the purpose of inflicting a wound upon a worthy and venerable member of his own religious society, (the latchet of whose shoes he is unworthy to unloose,) and to bring the anti-slavery cause into contempt, is a fact which may well excite both our astonishment and indignation, and lead us almost to conclude, that his own expression of his feelings is indeed too true, and that he is far better qualified to associate with slaveholders, than with the humane and conscientious portion of community. If a man may be known by the company he prefers, what shall we say of such a preacher? But it was not true that Tom Hughes went back to the South as a slave. For this reason, we deemed it our duty, at the close of the sermon, to rise and say--"Tom Hughes, formerly this slave of John P. Darg, on his release from prison recently, returned with his master to the South NOT AS A SLAVE, preferring slavery to freedom, but AS A FREE MAN, under a promise of being permitted to enjoy his liberty and to live with his wife. I state this to present misapprehension." This was all I said. If I had uttered a falsehood, the Lords Spiritual of the meeting would have cared very little about it; but, as my statement, was TRUE, and could not be contradicted, it gave great offence, and led to a determination to exclude me hereafter from the meeting. Accordingly on Saturday last, I was waited upon by George T. Trimble and Nathaniel Merritt, who announced to me officially, that the door-keepers had been instructed to prevent my entrance in future. I informed them that, previous to their visit, I had concluded that my mission to that meeting was ended, at least for the present; and that, if they could tolerate a ministry so false, abusive and corrupt, I could only say I deeply regretted it. It may well be supposed, from this statement of facts, that the governing influences of the Rose-street meeting are not very deeply imbued with the genuine spirit Quakerism. The character of too many of them, we fear, may be accurately described in four scriptural words--"GREEDY OF FILTHY LUCRE." And these men, whose "godliness is gain" have the effrontery to charge abolitionists with being actuated by pecuniary and sinister motives in all that they do to promote the anti-slavery cause! The censure of such men is more to be desired than their approbation: the latter we should feel as a stain, but the former we regard as one of the strongest evidences that we are doing right. We rejoice to be "counted worthy" of suffering reproach and denunciation from such a quarter. "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?" We have given this exposition of the intolerance which prevails in one division of the Society of Friends in this city, because the peculiarly aggravated form which it has assumed appeared to require it at our hands. It is due to Friends abroad that they should know the facts, that they may duly weigh their own responsibility for these exhibitions of tyranny. We have only to add, that the columns of the Standard are open to George F. White and his friends, if they should wish to make any reply to the foregoing statements and remarks. We court investigation in respect to all that we have said, and have no committee of vigilance to exclude any one front the platform on which we stand. We do not claim a right to [make] statements implicating the character of others, and then to prevent them from opening their mouths in their own defence. P. S. This seems to be the proper place to state, that we have been visited by two leading Orthodox Friends of this city, who expressed their regret, that, in the correspondence, we had not been careful to state, distinctly, to which division of the Society of Friends George F. White belonged. We had supposed that he was so generally known, and the separation so well understood, that no one would be led into error on this point. They assured us, however, that many did not make the proper distinction, and that they and their friends were therefore liable to suffer from the disgraceful conduct of G. F. W. In these circumstances, justice would seem to require us to state, distinctly, that he does not belong to the Orthodox Society. It is right that responsibility should rest only where it belongs.
