Skip to main content

Full text of "American colonization society"

See other formats


LIBRARY  OF  CONGRESS 


0  011  897  658  7 


HoUinger  Corp. 
pH8.5 


E  448  11/70 

.N62 

Copy   1  • 


AMERICAN  COLONIZATION  SOCIETY. 


A    LETTER 
BY    REV.   JOSEPH    TRACY,    D,D., 


CONTAINING 

MEMORANDA 

CONCEENINa 

THE  LATE   APPEAL   OF   THE   EXECUTIVE   COMMITTEE 

OF  THE  NEW  YORK  STATE  COLONIZATION 

SOCIETY   TO    THE    FRIENDS    OF 

AFRICAN    COLONIZATION. 


FrBLISHEB   BY  BEQUEST   OF  FRIENBS   IN  NEW   YOBK 


NEW    YOKK  : 

PRINTED    BY    MACDONALD    &    PALMER,    733    BROADWAY. 
1870. 


Colonization    Office, 

:Dodon,  Sept.  21  ^870. 


Rev.  Dr.  Orcutt  : 

Dear  Sir  : — I  tliank  you  for  sending  me  the  iV.  Y.  Tnhme  of 
Aug.  2,  containing  the  article  addressed  "  To  the  Friends  of  African 
Colonization,"  by  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  New  York  State 
Colonization  Society.  I  have  read  that  article  carefully  and  repeat- 
edly. Your  reply  to  it,  published  in  the  Tribune  on  your  return  to  the 
city,  two  or  three  weeks  after,  seems  to  me  quite  sufficient  to  neutralize 
its  influence.  Yet,  some  of  the  errors  in  the  Committee's  article  are  of 
such  a  character,  that  it  seems  expedient  to  place  an  exposure  of  them 
on  paper  for  future  reference,  if  there  should  be  occasion  for  it.  As 
their  order  is  somewhat  confused  and  repetitious,  I  shall  not  confine 
myself  to  it,  but  will  first  notice  their  attack  on  me  by  tiame.  1  have 
hitherto  neglected  it ;  but  it  is  renewed  so  persistently,  and  with  such 
increasing  unfairness  from  time  to  time,  that  perhaps  some  notice  of  it 
is  due  both  to  myself  and  to  you. 

You  doubtless  recollect  the  condition  of  the  N.  Y.  State  Coloniza- 
tion Society  in  the  beginning  of  1867.  Many  Avho  had  been  among  its 
most  efficient  members  had  become  dissatisfied  with  its  management, 
and  silently  withdrawn  from  all  participation  in  its  doings.  This  dis- 
aflection  had  so  increased  during  a  course  of  years,  that,  out  of  a  Board 
of  thirty  managers,  and  twenty-eight  other  officers  entitled  to  act  as 
managers,  "it  was  often  difficult  to  obtain  a  quorum"  at  the  meetings 
of  the  managers  for  the  transaction  of  business,  though  only  seven  out 
of  the  fifty-eight  were  necessaiy  to  form  a  quorum.  For  nine  years  it 
had  contributed,  according  to  their  own  showing,  only  $986.39  to  the 
funds  of  the  Parent  Society.  Of  that  amount,  only  $336.84  had  been 
paid  in  cash  into  the  Treasury  at  "Washington.  Since  1863,  it  had 
deliberately  refrained  from  attempting  to  collect  funds  for  colonization. 
It  had  a  Corresponding  Secretary  who  was  far  away  from  New  York 
on  other  business  than  that  of  the  Society,  and  who  had  said  that  he 
did  not  intend  ever  to  return  to  his  former  labors  in  the  service  of  the 
Society.  His  place  in  the  Society's  Rooms  was  occupied  by  one  who, 
so  far  as  I  can  learn,  had  never  been  elected  by  the   Society  to  any 


office,  and  who  held  no  office  provided  for  by  their  constitution.  The 
constitution  required  an  annual  meeting  in  May,  for  the  election  of 
officers,  receiving  reports  and  other  business.  No  annual  meeting  was 
holden  that  year,  no  officers  elected,  no  reports  received  by  the  So- 
ciety.    Evidently,  the  Society  needed  reorganizing. 

As  a  Director  of  the  Parent  Society,  having  been  one  for  about  a 
quarter  of  a  century,  I  had  long  felt  deeply  the  loss  of  the  co-operation 
of  our  friends  in  New  York,  and  had  done  what  I  could  to  bring  about 
an  arrangement  by  which  you  miglit  labor  for  its  restoration.  I  knew 
that  if  the  Hon.  William  E.  Dodge  and  others,  who,  from  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  management  of  the  Society  and  unwillingness  to  be 
engaged  in  controversy,  had  silently,  one  by  one,  retired  from  active 
membership,  would  return  in  a  body,  resume  their  seats,  and  give  their 
votes,  that  co-operation  woidd  be  restoi'ed  ;  for  they,  and  those  who 
agreed  with  them  in  the  main,  but  still  continued  to  be  active  members, 
were  a  decided  majoi'ity,  both  in  number  and  in  weight  of  character. 
I  thought  that  this  ought  to  be  done,  even  if  the  minority  should  op- 
pose it,  quarrel  about  it,  and  in  the  end  secede  from  the  Society. 
When  the  majority  has  right  views  and  purposes,  it  is  not  only  its 
right,  but  its  duty,  to  rule. 

Such  was  the  state  of  affiiirs  April  9,  1867,  about  a  month  before 
the  annual  meeting  should  have  been  holden,  but  was  not,  and  there 
was  no  reason  to  expect  that  it  would  be.  On  that  day,  it  happened  to 
be  my  duty  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  you.  I  added, 
in  an  off-hand  style,  on  a  single  page  of  note-paper,  an  exhortation  to 
labor  for  the  reorganization  of  that  Society ;  for  the  return  of  Mr. 
Dodge,  and  others  who  had.  withdrawn,  to  their  former  activity  as 
members,  even  if  it  should  lead  to  a  conflict  with  the  minority  whose 
management  had  driven  them  into  retirement,  and  the  retirement  of 
that  minority  in  their  turn. 

The  thought  of  a  controversy  suggested  a  danger.  That  Society 
holds  in  trust,  for  education  in  Africa,  the  proceeds  of  bequests  to  the 
amount  of  some  $60,000.  A  controversy  ending  in  a  disruption  of  the 
Society  might  give  rise  to  doubts  as  to  the  rightful  custody  of  those 
funds,  and,  in  the  end,  for  want  of  a  clearly  legal  custodian,  they  mio-ht 
be  claimed  by  residuary  legatees,  or  revert  to  the  heirs  of  testators, 
and  thus  be  lost  to  the  cause  of  education  in  Africa.  I  therefore 
added  a  caution  against  this  danger. 

You  approved  of  this  advice,  and  sent  the  substance  of  it,  sometime 
afterwards,  in  a  letter  to  Washington,  with  your  endorsement.  You 
acted  according  to  it,  and  the  managers  of  the  State  Society  approved 
your  action.  Old  members,  who  had  been  inactive,  began  to  come 
back  and  resume  their  places.     A  Secretary  was  appointed  who  was 


on  tlie  gi'ound,  and  the  reorganization  was  as  complete  as  it  could  be 
made,  till  there  should  be  an  annual  meeting  for  the  election  of  officers. 
There  liad  been  no  "quarrel,"  no  "split."  The  identity  of  the  So- 
ciety under  the  charter  had  been  preserved,  so  that  the  invested  funds 
were  safe.  The  advice,  given  by  me  and  approved  by  you,  was  good, 
and  had  been  executed  to  the  letter,  except  that  Mr  Dodge,  and  per- 
haps some  others  of  the  old  members,  had  not  yet  resumed  their  places. 
Tlie  difficulty  was  made  afterwards,  and  by  others,  who  speak  and  act 
as  if  they  had  been  unwilling  that  "  Dodge  and  others  "  of  the  old 
members  should  come  back,  "  assert  their  rights,  and  exert  their 
power." 

In  their  official  "  Statement  "  they  quoted  my  words  thus  : — 

"  Do  try  to  reorganize  the  New  York  Society.  Have  a  quarrel  and 
split  if  necessary,  undesirable  as  that  would  be.  Bring  Dodge  and  others 
to  assert  their  rights  and  exert  their  poAver.  Presei"\'e  the  identity  of 
the  Society  under  the  charter,  for  the  sake  of  the  invested  funds.  You 
cannot  do  a  better  thing." 

They  quote  this  as  proof  of  a  design  "  to  get  control  of  the  trust 
fimds  "  Avhich  the  Society  held.  It  was  no  such  thing.  The  design 
was,  to  save  that  Society  from  losing  those  funds,  as  in  its  disorganised 
condition,  above  described,  it  Avas  in  danger  of  doing,  and  as  it  would 
do,  if  the  "  identity  of  the  Society  under  the  charter  "  should  not  be 
pi'esei  ved. 

Ill  their  Tribune  article  they  quote  as  follows  : — 

"  Do  try  reorganize  the  N.  Y.  Society.  Have  a  quakrel  akd 
SPLIT,  if  necessary.  Bring  Dodge  and  others  to  assert  their  rights  and 
exert  their  power.  Preserve  the  identity  of  the  Society  for  the  sake 
On  THE  INVESTED  FUNDS.     You  caiiuot  do  a  better  thing." 

They  quote  this,  to  prove  that  you  "  wanted  not  only  a  change, 
but  a  split,  in  the  Society."  It  answers  that  purpose  much  more 
plausibly,  for  the  omission  of  the  words,  Avhich  I  wrote  and  you  ap- 
proved, "  undesirable  as  that  would  be."  If  those  words  had  been  re- 
tained, an  honest  reader  might  have  found  some  difficulty  in  believing 
that  you  "  wanted,"  and  was  seeking  to  obtain,  what  you  regarded  as 
"  undesirable."  "Whether  those  Avords  Avere  omitted  deliberately,  for 
that  reason,  I  do  not  knoAV.  If  they  Avcre  not,  their  omission  shows 
that  the  authors  of  the  article  Avere  capable  of  such  omissions.  The 
omission  of  the  Avords,  "  under  the  charter,"  in  the  last  sentence  but 
one,  perhaps  somcAvhat  diminishes  the  precision  Avith  Avhicli  the  idea 
is  expressed,  but  does  not  alter  its  meaning.  It  still  evidently  refers 
to  the  legal  identity,  which  must  be  preserved,  to  save  the  funds  from 
going  into  the  hands  of  heirs  and  residuary  legatees. 

There  are  other  things  that  might  be  said,  as  you  well  knoAV,  about 


that  extract  and  their  use,  or  rather,  their  abuse  of  it ;  but  I  have 
written  quite  as  much  as  I  wish  to  about  myself. 

The  Tribune  article  alleges,  as  cause  of  complaint : — 

"  First. — The  approval  of  the  American  Society  of  an  act  of  it3 
Executive  Committee,  in  refusing  to  withdraw  an  agency  from  the  city 
of  New  York,  conducted  by  its  travelling  Secretary  in  hostility  to  the 
New  York  State  Society." 

This  charge  is  sufficiently  i-efuted  in  the  "  Exposition  "  to  Avhich  you 
refer.  I  may  add,  however,  that  the  last  clause  in  this  complaint  con- 
tains a  false  accusation.  As  I  have  already  shown,  that  agency  was 
commenced  and  conducted,  not  "  in  hostility  to  "  that  Society,  but  to 
preserve  its  organization,  secure  its  safety,  and  promote  its  efficiency. 

As  to  their  right  to  demand  the  withdrawing  of  that  agency,  they 
have  changed  their  ground  remarkably.  In  tlieir  "Memorial,"  pre- 
sented at  Washington,  and  laid  on  the  table  by  the  vote  of  their  Pre- 
sident and  fourteen  other  Directors  out  of  twenty ;  in  their  official 
"  Statement"  and  semi-official  "Synopsis,"  they  base  that  claim  on  an 
alleged  "  compact  "  and  "  pledge,"  contained  in  certain  words  skilfully 
selected  from  the  constitution  of  the  American  Society,  adopted  in 
December  1838  and  "carefully  "  observed  for  thirty  years,  and  on  re- 
solutions of  tbe  Board  of  Directors,  adopted  in  1851  and  in  1855. 
The  "  Exposition  "  showed  that  those  constitutional  provisions  were 
never  applicable  to  such  a  Society  as  theirs  is  now ;  were  relaxed  by 
mutual  agreement  made  in  1842  and  never  rescinded  ;  and  were  wholly 
repealed  in  1846.  In  their  present  publication  they  abandon  that 
ground  entirely.  They  say  not  a  word  about  any  "  compact,"  dating 
from  1838  and  observed  for  thirty  years.  Nor  do  they  refer  to  the 
resolutions  of  1851.  They  could  not  conveniently  do  it,  for  they  con- 
tain conditions  which  their  Society  has  habitually  disregarded,  and 
intends  still  to  disregard.  Of  the  Resolution  of  1855,  tliey  conceal  the 
fact  that  it  was  only  explanatory  of  those  of  1851,  and  needs  to  be 
compared  with  them  m  order  to  understand  it,  and  quote  only  so  much 
of  those  j)roceedings  as  may  be  quoted  plausibly  for  their  purpose. 
But  see  the  "  Exposition." 

Another  curiosity,  before  leaving  this  matter.  The  "  Exposition  " 
quoted  the  mutual  agreement  of  1842,  by  which  the  constitutional  pro- 
visions of  1838  were  relaxed,  previous  to  their  repeal  in  1846.  They 
assert  that  it  was  quoted  to  prove  that  the  Resolution  of  1855  "  is  not 
binding  in  1869."  It  was  not  quoted  for  any  such  purpose  ;  nor  does 
the  "  Exposition  "  even  once  refer  to  it,  in  any  discussion  concerning 
the  resolutions  of  1851  and  1855.  The  "  Exposition"  does  not  deserve 
the  discredit  of  using  the  bad  argument  thus  ascribed  to  it. 

Their  second   "  cause  of  complaint  "  relates  to  the  notice  taken  by 


the  Executive  Committee  at  "Washington,  of  the  "  revolution"  effected 
inj  the  N.  Y.  State  Society,  at  its  election  of  officers  in  1868.  They 
complain  also  of  the  statement  of  the  "Exposition,"  that,  in  1869,  the 
revolution  was  completed,  and  "  eight  new  men "  were  chosen  as 
members  of  the  Board  of  Managers. 

The  Executive  Committee  had  said : — 

"  We  also  understand  that  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  New 
York  State  Society  was  composed  substantially  of  new  men  ;  that  there 
had  been  what  might  be  called  a  revolution ;  that  the  old,  long-tried 
gi'eat  men  who  had  been  members,  had  been  turned  out,  and  a  new 
set  of  men  putin." 

They  say  that  these  "  allegations  were  without  a  shadow  of  truth. 
Evidence  was  before  the  annual  meeting  to  show  that  they  'were 
groundless  and  calumnious.  The  Amei'ican  Society  refused  to  have 
them  struck  from  the  report,  and  embodied  them  in  its  records." 

The  "  evidence  "  here  mentioned  was  a  printed  document,  headed: — 

"  Officers  of  the  New  York  State  Colonization  Society  for  1865,  as 
published  in  the  Keport  of  the  thirty-third  annual  meeting,  re-elected 
in  1866  Avithout  a  single  change,  and  holding  over  in  1867,  there  being 
no  election  that  year,  are  as  follows." 

This  was  accompanied  with  the  assertion  tliese  officers  had  all  been 
re-elected  in  1868,  except  a  few  who  had  died  or  resigned.  This 
document  is  copied  into  their  official  "  Statement,"  preceded  by  the 
following  sentence : — 

"A  list  of  the  officers  elected  in  the  years  1865,  1866,  and  1868,  is 
here  given,  which  shows  that  the  allegation  in  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee's report,  that  there  had  been  a  revolution  and  a  change  of  men 
in  the  government  of  the  New  York  State  Society,  is  without  a  sem- 
blance of  fact." 

Certainly,  "ahstof  the  officers  elected  in  1865,  1866,  and  1868," 
means,  according  to  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  words,  a  list  of  all  the 
officers  elected  in  either  of  those  years ;  and,  cei'tainly,  nothing  less 
than  a  complete  list  of  all  the  officers  elected  in  1868,  could  show  that 
there  had  not  "been  a  revolution  and  a  change  of  men  in  the  govern- 
ment "  of  that  Society. 

I  have  before  me  an  official  Circular  of  eight  pages,  issued  by  the 
N.  Y.  State  Society  about  June,  1869.  Its  last  page  is  headed  : — 
"  Officers  of  the  New  York  State  Colonization  Society."  This  heading 
is  followed  by  a  list  of  twenty-four  officers,  the  whole  number  provided 
for  in  their  new  constitution.  I  take  it,  ^therefore,  to  be  a  true  and 
complete  list  of  their  officers  elected  in  1869.  On  this  Hst  I  find, 
among  the  "Managers,"  the  names  of  Ashbel  Gi*een,  J.  K.  Kendrick, 
D.D.,  E.  B.  Cleghoi-n,  J.  M.  Goldberg,  Lorenzo  D.  Yates,  Stephen  H. 
Provost,  M.  J.   FrankUn,  and  Joseph  S.  Peacock,  neither  of  which  is  on 


the  "  list  of  the  officers  "  elected  in  1868,  pfesentecl  at  Washington,  and 
reprinted  in  the  "Statement,"  as  proof  that  there  had  been  no 
"chan<Te  of  men  in  the  government"  of  that  Society.  Yet,  in  their 
Tribune  article,  they  say  that  in  1869,  "the  Society  did  not  appoint 
ei"-ht  new  men  as  members  of  the  Board.  With  three  exceptions,  the 
whole  number  of  officers  and  managers  were  foi-mer  members  of  the 
Board  of  Managers." 

How  is  this  ?  Did  the  list  presented  at  Washington,  to  prove  that 
there  had  been  no  "  change  of  men,"  that  the  allegation  of  the  Execu- 
tive Committee  concerning  the  election  of  "  new  men  "  in  1868,  was 
false,  leave  out  the  names  of  at  least  five  "  new  men  "  Avho  Avere 
elected  that  year  1  By  long  and  hard  study,  I  have  found  out  nearly 
how  it  is  ;  and  it  is  a  very  curious  business. 

I  find  from  the  semi  official  "  Synopsis,"  that,  in  1868,  besides  the 
old  officers  on  the  list  shown  at  Washington,  five  ncAV  vice-presidents 
were  elected,  of  whom  one  had  before  been  a  manager,  and  four  were 
"  new  men."  These  were  to  fill  vacancies  from  death  or  resignation,  with 
one  exception.  These  vice-presidents  were  members  of  the  Board  of 
Managers,  ex  officid,  Avith  the  right  to  vote.  J.  M.  Goldberg  was 
chosen  Recording  Secretary,  and  was  manager,  ex  officio.  W.  IM. 
\y  Havermeyer,  James  Stokes,  S.  H.  Provost,  Ashbel  Green,  Rev.  E.  B. 
Cleghorn,  and  Dr.  James  Warren,  all  "  new  men,"  were  chosen 
managers  to  fill  two  vacancies  caused  by  death,  two  by  resignation, 
and  two  many  years  vacant.  Here  are  the  names  of  eleven  "new 
'    men  "  entitled  to  vote  in  the  Board  of  Managers. 

Wlien  we  recollect  that  any  seven  of  these  men  might  form  a 
quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business,  and  that  so  many  had  become 
disaffected  and  "never  attended,  so  that  it  was  often  difficult  to  obtain 
a  quorum,"  it  is  evident  that  these  eleven  "new  men"  had  the  business 
of  the  Society  "substantially  "  in  their  hands,  as  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee had  been  informed.  Old  members,  if  we  may  rely  on  these 
documents,  had  not  been  "  turned  out,"  because  vacancies  from  death 
and  resignation  had,  in  the  course  of  "  many  years,"  become  numerous 
enough  to  make  room  for  all  the  "  new  men"  needed.  The  "  evidence  " 
which  they  say  was  before  the  Directors  at  Washington  in  1870, 
touches  only  one  point  in  the  statement  of  the  Executive  Committee 
which  it  was  brought  to  controvert.  If  admitted,  it  proves  only  that 
old  members  had  not  been  "  turned  out,"and  leaves  uncontradicted  the 
statements  that  the  Board  of  Managers  was  composed  substantially  of 
new  men :  that  there  had  been  what  might  be  called  a  revolution,  and 
a  new  set  of  men  put  in.  And  yet,  these  were  the  main  points  which 
it  behooved  them  to  disprove,  and  to  disprove  which  they  were  under- 
stood to  produce  that  "evidence." 


There  are  some  apparent  discrepancies  on  this  subject,  which  it 
may  be  well  to  notice,  though  they  do  not  affect  the  general  conclusion. 
On  the  list  of  officers  exhibited  at  Washington  as  "  evidence,"  two 
managers  are  noticed  as  "  deceased,"  and  one  "  resigned,"  showing 
only  three  vacancies  to  be  filled.  The  "  Synopsis  "  gives  the  names 
of  six,  who  were  elected  to  fill  vacancies  on  that  Board  ;  two  caused  by 
death,  two  by  resignation,  "  and  two  many  years  vacant,"  On  count- 
ing the  official  list  given  as  "  evidence,"  it  is  found  that  it  contains 
only  twenty-eight  names ;  and  as  their  Constitution  required  thirty,  it 
seems  there  were  two  vacancies,  of  which  it  gave  no  notice,  making 
five  in  all.  Where  the  "  Synopsis "  found  the  sixth — two  resigned, 
instead  of  one  resigned — does  not  appear  from  anything'in  my  posses- 
sion. But  as  it  gives  the  names  of  the  six,  it  is  hard  to  suppose  a 
mistake. 

The  Tribune  article  denies  that  "  eight  new  men "  were  ap- 
pointed members  of  the  Board  in  1809,  and  says:  "With  three  ex- 
ceptions, the  whole  number  of  officers  and  managers  were  former 
members  of  the  Board  of  Managers."  As  I  have  already  shown,  the 
Board  elected  in  1869  contained  eight,  whose  names  are  not  on  the  list 
of  old  membei's  presented  at  Washington,  and  were,  therefore,  "  new 
men  "  in  the  sense  in  which  that  term  has  all  along  been  used  in  these 
discussions.  The  assertion  that  five  of  them — all  but  three — "  were 
former  members  of  the  Board,"  must,  therefore,  mean  that  they  had 
been  elected  in  1868.  But,  of  the  six  named  in  the  "  Synopsis  "  as 
elected  in  1868,  only  three — Messrs  Provost,  Green  and  Cleghorn, 
were  re-elected  in  1869.  Mr.  Goldberg,  who  was  elected  Recording 
Secretary  in  1868,  ard  thus  became  a  member  of  the  Board  ex  officio, 
makes  a  fourth.  That  there  was  a  fifth,  is  not  verified  by  anything 
before  me.  He  may  have  been  appointed  sometime  during  the  year 
by  the  Board  of  Managers,  to  fill  a  vacancy.  But  it  matters  little. 
All  the  eight  Avere  -'new  men,"  introduced  by  the  "revolution,"  begun 
in  1868,  and  completed  in  1869. 

The  word  "revolution  "  never  was  applied  more  correctly  than  to 
those  proceedings  of  1868.  A  member  of  the  Society,  for  the  purpose 
of  controlling  the  election,  placed  thirty  dollars  in  the  hands  of  a  can- 
didate for  office,  who  was  to  find  and  bring  In  thirty  friends  to  vote  as 
the  giver  wished.  On  this  ground,  twenty-eight  men,  none  of  whom 
had  ever  given  or  subscribed  a  dollar  to  the  funds  of  the  Society,  as 
the  Constitution  required  in  order  to  membership,  came  In,  took  con- 
trol of  the  meeting,  and,  with  less  than  half  their  number  of  old  mem- 
bers, elected  whom  they  pleased.  They  elected,  according  to  the 
"  Synopsis,"  eleven  "  new  men  "  to  office,  all  entitled  to  votes  in  the 
Board  of  Managers,  of  whom  seven  formed  a  quorum ;  and,  from  that 


10 

time,  these  "  new  men,"  and  some  old  members  who  were  re-elected 
by  the  same  unlawful  votes,  had  the  bushiess  of  the  Society  "  substan- 
tially "  in  their  hands. 

The  report  of  the  Executive  Committee  at  Washington  was,  there- 
fore, "  substantially  "  true  and  just ;  and  the  pretense  of  disproving  it 
by  "  evidence  "  that  has  no  bearing  except  on  a  single  unimportant 
point  of  it,  is  eminently  sophistical  and  futile. 

Perhajis  I  ought,  in  justice  to  say,  that,  since  reading  the  "  Tribune  " 
article,  and  re-examining  the  "  Synopsis,"  I  have  been  able  to  dis- 
cover, in  the  official  "  Statement,"  and  even  in  the  list  of  old  officers 
re-elected  and  its  appendages,  viiiual  admissions  of  the  elections  of 
"new  men  "  in  1868  ;  though  I  have  not  been  able  to  reconcile  those 
admissions  with  the  purpose  for  which  that  list  was  made  and  present- 
ed, or  Avith  the  inferences  Avhich  it  was  claimed  to  sustain,  or  Avithsome 
other  statements  in  the  "  Statement." 

But,  if  there  Avere  vacancies,  had  not  the  Society  a  right  to  fill 
thera  ?  Certainly ;  and  would  naturally  fill  them  Avith  old  members 
of  the  Society,  knoAvn  to  be  interested  in  its  objects.  But  it  should 
have  been  done  at  a  laAvful  meeting,  laAvfuUy  conducted,  and  by  the 
votes  of  men  Avho  had  a  right  to  vote,  and  those  only.  Such  was  not 
the  election  in  1868,  as  has  been  shoAvn. 

The  Tribune  article  says,  that  the  "  Exposition "  "  mentions  the 
election  of  the  Kev.  Dr.  Pinney,  Corresponding  Secretary,  in  a  manner 
that  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  an  assault."  I  regret  that 
they  did  not  quote  the  Avords,  and  point  out  Avherein  the  assault  con- 
sisted. But,  perhaps,  I  ought  to  excuse  them,  as  the  attempt  Avould 
have  taxed  their  ingenuity  severely,  and  the  charge  against  the  "  Ex- 
position "  Avas  needed,  as  an  apology  for  an  enumeration  of  the  many 
and  valuable  services  Avhich  Dr.  Pinney  has  rendered  to  the  cause  of 
Colonization. 

They  deny  that  they  ever  before  heard  that  the  building  of  the 
Setb  Grosvenor  "  was  remonstrated  against,  or  disapproved  by  the 
American  Society."  They  add  : — "  It  Avould  have  been  a  gi'atuitous 
assumption  of  supervision  over  the  New  York  State  Society  to  have 
done  so." 

I  am  informed  that  the  American  Society  did  disapprove,  and  ex- 
press its  disapproval ;  and  I  presume  that  the  correspondence  of  the  two 
Societies,  if  thoroughly  examined,  would  shoAv  it.  At  least,  I  presume 
their  oavu  records  would  shoAv  that  they  formally  applied  to  the  Ameri- 
can Society  for  its  co-operation  ;  and  that  the  Executive  Committee  of 
the  American  Society  decided  that  it  was  "  inexpedient  to  enter  into 
the  enterprise."  As  for  a  *'  gratuitous  assumption  of  supervision," 
they  should  consult  the  resolutions  of  the  Directors  of  the  Parent  So- 


11 

ciety  in  1851,  which  they  have  quoted  abimdantlj  in  their  former 
pubhcations,  though  they  now  abstain  from  touching  them,  as  if  they 
were  pieces  of  very  hot  iron.  They  will  there  find  thiat  it  was  their 
duty,  as  an  auxihary,  to  obtain  the  consent  and  *'  co-operation  "  of  the 
Parent  Society,  before  engaging  in  any  such  enterprise.  Their  own 
records  will  show  tliat  they  asked  for  that  co-operation,  and  did  not  ob- 
tain it.  Tiiey  will  find,  too,  that  the  surplus  funds  of  auxiliaries,  after 
defraying  their  own  domestic  expenses,  were  due  to  the  Parent  Society, 
to  be  paid  into  its  treasury,  or  expended  in  "  co-operation  with'  its 
Executive  Committee ;  so  that  tlie  Parent  Society  had  some  right  of 
"  supervision  "  over  such  matters,  and  would  have  had,  even  if  its  co- 
operation had  not  been  requested. 

They  say  again,  speaking  of  the  "  Exposition  "  : — 

"  The  pamphlet  contains  a  very  sophistical  and  exceedingly  lame 
attempt  to  show  that  some  twenty-six  thousand  dollars,  acknowledged 
in  the  African  Repository  as  received  from  the  New  York  State 
Society  from  February  1859  [a  misprint  for  1849]  to  1863,  were  not 
received." 

It  contains  no  attempt  whatever,  "  lame  "  or  sound,  to  show  that. 
On  the  contrary,  it  shows  when,  where  and  how  those  several  amounts, 
$26,213.74,  were  received.  An  assertion,  so  diametrically  opposite  to 
the  fact,  is  not  justifiable,  even  as  a  rhetorical  trick,  or  a  pettifor^in"- 
artifice.     The  facts  are  the  Travelhng  Secretary  had  said  : — 

"  The  amount  the  Parent  Society  has  received  in  cash  from  the 
New  York  State  Colonization  Society  since  1849 — nearly  twenty 
years — is  less  than  $12,000;  and  the  entire  amount  claimed  by  the 
State  Society  as  a  basis  of  representation,  has  not  averaged  $1000  a 
year  for  the  last  fifteen  years  or  more." 

The  second  clause  plainly  refers  to  amounts  not  "received  in  cash  " 
by  the  Parent  Society,  but  expended  by  the  State  Society  in  such 
ways,  that,  under  certain  resolutions  of  the  Directors,  they  might  be 
claimed  -as  a  basis  of  representation.  The  "  Statement  "  of  the  State 
Society  omits  the  words  "  claimed  by  the  State  Society  as  a  basis  of 
representation,"  and  thereby  makes  the  passage  read  as  if  the  whole 
referred  to  amounts  received  by  the  Parent  Society  "in  cash." 

If  they  had  seen  fit  to  deny  the  fairness  of  thus  singling  out  the 
payments  made  "  in  casli "  to  the  Parent  Society,  when  the  State  So- 
ciety had  expended  larger  amounts  by  which  the  Parent  Society  had 
been  benefitted,  and  which  it  had  acknowledged,  they  might  have  made 
out  a  plausible  argument,  and  the  Secretary  would  have  needed  to 
show  the  propriety  of  the  discrimination  which  he  had  made.  Put 
they  choose  to  pursue  a  different  course.  They  choose  to  say  that  his 
"allegation"   was   "  simply  untrue."      They  thus  made  it  a  question 


12 

of  veracity,  and  bound  tliemselves  to  prove  that  the  amount  received 
by  the  Parent  Society  from  tliem,  "in  casJi, "  nnd  '■^ since  1849,"  \va« 
not  '•  less  than  $12,000."  To  prove  this,  they  quote  acknowledgements 
of  amounts  received  from  the  State  Society  since  1848,  not  since  1849. 
In  not  one  of  these  acknowledgements  is  it  said  that  the  amount  was 
^^ received  in  cash;"  and,  therefore,  not  one  of  them  is  admissable  as 
evidence.  In  a  large  proportion  of  them,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  it 
was  received  otherwise  than  "in  cash."  The  "  Exposition  "  showed 
in  what  other  way  than  "  in  cash  "  many  of  those  amounts  were  re- 
ceived ;  and  that  the  remainder  of  them,  which  may,  or  may  not,  have 
been  "  received  in  cash  since  1849,"  amounted  to  only  $9116.13,  being 
$2883.87  "less  than  $12,000."  They  no-w  represent  the  "  Exposition  " 
as  denying  that  those  sums  had  been  received  at  all,  and  assert  that 
they  all  were  "  raised  by  the  New  York  State  Society  a7ul  its  officers, 
and  paid  to  the  American  Society  at  Washington,  or  for  its  account  at 
New  York  and  Liberia."  This,  if  perfectly  correct,  would  not  sustain 
their  assertion  that  the  Secretary's  "  allegation  "  was  "  simply  untrue." 
But  it  is  not  perfectly  correct.  Two,  at  least,  of  the  amounts  were  not 
paid  "  in  cash  "  anywhere,  but  in  orders  for  goods  at  Monrovia.  Others 
Avere  not  paid  to  meet  any  liabilities  of  the  Parent  Society,  as  the 
phi-ase,  "  on  its  account,"  seems  to  imply  ;  but  were  expended  in  the 
business  of  the  State  Society,  and  then  reported  to  the  Parent  Society, 
and  acknowledged  in  the  Kepository. 

The  facts  concerning  one  of  these  items  are  so  curious  and  instruc- 
tive, as  to  demand  particular  notice. 

The  "Exposition"  sail,  of  $1800  raised  by  Gerard  Ilallock,  for 

the  Rogers'  slaves : — 

"  The  money  was  handed  to  Eev.  J.  B.  Pinney,  May  10,  to  be  paid 
to  JMr.  McLain,  and  Avas  paid  over  the  same  day.  It  was  never  the 
property  of  the  State  Society,  nor  in  its  treasury,  nor  at  its  disposal." 

This  they  deny.     They  say  : — 

"It  Avas  paid  to  the  treasurer  of  the  State  Society,  and  by  him 
through  Dr  Pinney  transmitted  to  the  American  Society." 

If  this  were  true,  it  Avould  not  afiect  the  conclusion.  It  would  only 
shoAv  that  the  amount  received  by  the  Parent  Society,  in  cash,  since 
1849,was  only  $1083.87  "less  than  $12,000,"  instead  of  being  $2883.87 
less  ;  and  the  Secretary's  "  allegation  "  Avould  still  be  shown  to  be  true_ 
But  was  that  money  ever  "paid  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  So- 
ciety'?" "Was  it  ever  "  by  him  transmitted "  as  alleged?  Happily, 
the  facts  are  ascertainable. 

Mr  Hallock  began   his  efforts  by  an  appeal  in  the    "  Journal  of ' 
Commerce,"  of  May  2,  1850.     In  the  "Journal  "  of  the  next  morning 
he   announced  six  donations  of  $100   each.      May  4,  $900  had  been 


13 

given  ;  May  6,  $1000  ;  May  7,  $1100;  May  9,  $1300  ;  May  10,  $1500. 
May  11,  he  announced  that  the  whole  $1800  had  been  raised,  and 
paid  over  the  day  before.  He  annexed  copies  of  two  receipts.  The 
first  read: — ''Ncav  York,  May  10,  18o0. — Received  of  Gerard  Hal- 
lock,  for  the  use  of  the  American  Colonization  Society,  eighteen  liun- 
dred  dollars,"  &c.  It  was  signed  "J.  B.  Pinney,  Cor.  Sec  ,  &c.,  &c." 
Observe,  he  received  the  money,  not  from  the  Treasurer  of  the  State 
Society,  but  from  Gerard  Hallock ;  and  not /or  the  State  Society,  but 
for  the  American.  The  other  receipt  reads  : — "  New  York,  May  10, 
1850. — Received  of  Rev.  J.  B.  Pinney,  Secretary  of  the  New  York 
State  Colonization  Society,  eighteen  hundred  dollars,  contributed  by 
eighteen  persons  in  New  York,"  &c.  It  is  signed,  "  Wm.  McLain, 
Sec.  &  Treas.,  A.  C.  S."  In  all  this,  there  is  no  reference  to  the 
Treasurer  of  the  State  Society,  as  there  should  and  Avould  have  been, 
if  the  money  had  ever  been  in  his  hands.  The  documents  show  that 
it  never  was  in  his  hands,  but  passed  directly  from  the  hands  of  Gerard 
Hallock  to  those  of  J.  B.  Pinney,  and  from  his  to  those  of  William 
McLain.  Besides  this,  the  cii'cum stances  show  that  it  was  paid  over 
without  any  vote  of  the  Board  of  Managers,  without  which  the  Trea- 
surer had  no  right  to  pay  out  any  of  the  funds  of  the  Society. 

The  very  authority  to  which  they  refer  as  proof,  contradicts  their 
claim.  They  claim  in  their  "  Statement,"  as  acknowledged  in  the  Re- 
pository, "  Feb.,  June,  July,  $7300."  Turning  to  "Feb.,"  we  read: 
"From  the  New  York  State  Col.  Soc,  $4000."  In  "July,"  we  read: 
"Appropriation  by  the  New  York  State  Col.  Soc. — $1500."  And  so, 
always,  when  money  received  from  the  State  Society  is  acknowledged, 
it  is  acknowledged  as  I'eceived //'om  t/ictt  Society.  The  $1800  in  ques- 
tion was  acknowledged  in  "  June,"  not  as  received  from  the  State 
Society,  but  as  received  from  eighteen  donors,  who  are  named. 
They  themselves  recognize  this  distinction  in  their  official  "  Statement ;" 
for,  immediately  after  their  list  of  "  moneys  received  from  the  Treas- 
urer" of  their  Society,  they  subjoin  a  list  of  "  legacies  and  donations" 
from  various  sources  in  the  State  of  New  York,  not  passing  through 
their  treasury.  This  $1800  clearly  belonged  in  this  second  list,  and 
not  in  their  first.  The  acknowledgement  concludes  with  the  words — 
"To  the  credit  of  the  N.  Y.  Society;"  Avhich  would  have  been  utterly 
inappropriate,  if  the  money  had  beQn  received  from  the  treasury  of 
Society  ;  but  was  perfectly  appropriate  Avhen  the  money  was  paid  by 
others,  who  desired  that  it  should  count  to  their  "  credit,"  as  a  "  basis 
of  representation." 

One  more  proof  The  N.  Y.  State  Society,  that  year,  published 
its  receipts  in  the  African  Repository,  about  quarterly.  In  the  Re- 
pository for  August  there  is   a  Ust,  headed — "  Donations  received  at 


14 

the  office  of  tlie  Colonization  Society  of  the  State  of  New  York,  from 
3Ia7  1,  to  July  15,  1850."  If  this  $1800  was  ever  in  their  treasury 
it  ought  to  appear  on  this  list,  as  received  May  10,  the  day  on  which 
Mr  riallock  paid  it  to  Mr  Pinney,  and  he  to  Mr  McLain.  But  it  is 
not  there.  No  sum  is  acknowledged  as  received  that  day.  There  is, 
May  8,  ''  A  Friend,  $10.00."  The  next  is  May  12,  "  Eev.  G.  Mather, 
$10.00."  And  so  the  acknowledgements  go  on  in  regular  order, 
through  May  and  June,  to  July  10,  "  Buffalo — Jesse  Ketchum, $10.00  ;  " 
and  they  are  footed  up,  "$221.10."  Plainly,  up  to  July  10,  this 
$1800  had  not  been  received  into  their  treasury.  After  that  footing 
up  we  read : — "  May  8 — For  Rogers'  slaves,  from  eighteen  donors, 
before  reported,  $1800;"  and  then,  "Total,  $2021.10."  But  this 
entry  is  not  true.  May  8,  the  money  had  not  been  raised.  May  9, 
$500  was  wanting,  and  $300  on  the  morning  of  May  10,  the  day  on 
which  the  business  was  completed.  It  is  not  an  entry  made  by  the 
Treasurer  at  the  time  of  the  transaction,  but  a  report  made  about 
two  months  afterwards  by  somebody  who  had  no  trustworthy  memory 
ofthe  facts. 

The  mode  of  payment  was  really  as  follows : — Mr.  Ilallock, 
May  10,  gave  Mr.  Pinney  his  own  check  for  the  $1,500  which  he  had 
in  his  hands  that  morning,  and  three  checks  of  other  persons,  of  $100 
each,  for  the  three  additional  donations  received  that  day.  Mr.  Pinney 
paid  over  those  four  checks  to  Mr.  McLain  that  same  day,  May  10 ; 
and  Mr.  McLain  deposited  them.  May  14,  in  the  "  Bank  of  Wash~ 
ington,"  where  the  deposit  of  those  four  checks  is  on  record  to  this 
day. 

Their  assertion,  therefore,  that  this  money  "  was  paid  to  the  trea- 
surer of  the  State  Society,  and  by  him  through  Dr  Pinney,  transmitted 
to  the  American  Society,"  is  conclusively  shown  to  be  contrary  to  the 
facts ;  and  the  statement  which  they  expressly  deny,  viz.,  that  the 
money  was  collected  by  Mr  Ilallock,  handed  by  him  to  Mr  Pinney, 
who  paid  it  over  to  Mr  McLain,  and  that  it  was  never  in  the  treasury 
of  that  Society,  or  at  it  disposal,  is  strictly  true  in  every  particulax'. 

I  notice  their  declaration  that  "  the  American  Society  has  dissolved 
all  possible  friendly  relations  with  the  New  York  State  Society,  and 
compelled  it  to  prosecute  its  work  in  such  manner  as  it  may  deem 
the  most  judicious."  After  this  declaration,  Ipi-esume  it  will  no  longer 
claim  to  be  "  auxiliary  to  the  American  Colonization  Society,"  as  its 
Constitution  declares  that  it  "  shall  be."  I  do  not  find  that  their  Ex- 
ecutive Committee  has  power  to  annul  that  clause  in  their  Constitu- 
tion. Nor  am  I  sure  that  the  Society  will  ratify  that  annulment.  If 
it  should,  I  do  not  know  how  such  a  radical  change  in  the  essential 
character  of  the  Society  might  affect  its  legal  identity,   and  thus  its 


15 

competency  to  hold  its  "  invested  funds."     This  they  would  do  well  to 
consider. 

If  they  think  that  "  the"raost  judicious  "  manner  in  which  that  Society 
can  "  prosecute  its  work,"  is  by  such  attacks  on  the  American  Society 
as  they  have  been  making  for  more^than  a  year  past,  I  think  they  mis 
judge.  I  think  it  would  be  more  "judicious  "  for  them  to  found  their 
claims  to  public  approbation  and  support  on  the  merits  of  their  own 
work,  and  not  on  the  alleged  demerits  of  others. 

There  are  other  matters  for  criticism  in  their  Tribune  article, 
but  I  have  written  quite  enough  for  me.  I  have  written  some  three 
times  as  much  as  I  intended  when  I  began,  being  tempted  along  by 
the  inclination  to  give  one  point  after  another  a  thorough  treatment. 
I  wished  to  have  such  an  exposition  of  certain  matters  in  my  letter- 
book,  for  future  reference.  If  you  find  it  worth  keeping  on  file  for  a 
similar  purpose,  I  shall  be  twice  paid  for  the  labor. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

JOSEPH  TKACY. 


1  IBRARY   OF   CONGRESS 

mi 

0  011  897  55B    ' 


\ 


LIBRARY  OF  CONGRESS 


0  011  897  658  7 


HoUinger  Corp. 
pH8.5