Full text of "The proceedings of the court convened under the third canon of 1844, in the city of New York ... December 10, 1844, for the trial of the Right Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, D.D., bishop of New York; on a presentment made by the bishops of Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia .."

THE COURT

HE TRIAL

RIGHT REV. B ERDO

BY AUTHORITY OF THE COU*1

: ; \

For *<

D.
T2SE CPSKIOWTS OP TE23 BISHOPS

//. FtfO.U 777 A' ;'

IN \LOFB1SHOPON D K K J) O N K.

'J HL

THE UISHOP'S 0! ."5.

10 l-'2 c

^/rtf/e^/

BISHOP SOUTH ': PLY:

rER TO A )

TH IUR

FOI;

RRATIVK Oi
TO THE S^ JACOBITE) CHURCH OF MESOPOTAMIA;

WITH ST

81 ' \MTY 1

Oiv flhc Ron-

"It is well and ablv o feel an in-

terest in t) iiieir

birth " .*}(('

" To the (. .i done tlia less the Christian of

othe, it will be i iceljr

less interest by t.

''THE APOSTLES' DOCTRINE AND FELLOWSHIP;"

;RMONS

Prec

BY THE R

of North C'.-i

One elegant rolume, 16mo.

" Their o' .e Bishop himself in the letter in wliii-:. s to tht

publication, was ' to protect the Truth from harm, at this time
on matters of Faith, a < of unfounded and it.

against Ciiro!i-<

tion of th-

CATHOLIC CHCRCH IN ENGLAND AM) \MKHU

THREE LECTU!

1. T:

2. T r, <

3. ITS C

BY JOHN OGIUBY, D. R
One t
"Pro!
aid.

A r -Sis has not for a long lime is-ueii fron. and

_iit for his

BCSB LIBRAE

THE

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT

CONVENED UNDER THE THIRD CANON OF 1844,

CITY OP NEW YORK, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1844,

THE TRIAL

EIGHT REV. BENJAMIN T. ONDERDONK, D. D.

BISHOP OF NEW YORK;
ON A PRESENTMENT MADE BY THE

BISHOPS OP VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE, AND GEORGIA.

BY AUTHORITY OF THE COURT.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & CO., 200 BROADWAY.

PHILADELPHIA :
GEORGE S. APPLETOX, 148 CHESNUT-STREET.

MDCCCXLT.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845,

BY D. APPLETON & CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-Ywk.

NOTICE.

Arty infringement upon the Copyright of this work will be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law.

PROCEEDINGS, ETC.

Tuesday, Dec, 10, 1844.

SEVERAL of the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States of America, attended in the upper room of the Sunday-school build-
ing attached to St. John's Chapel in the city of New York, in pursuance
of notice from the Presiding Bishop convening them at the said place on
said day at 10 o'clock, A. M., for the trial of the Rt. Rev. Benjamin
Tredwell Onderdonk, D. D., Bishop of New York, under Canon Third of
1844 ; on a Presentment by the Rt. Rev. William Meade, D. D., Bishop
of Virginia, the Rt. Rev. James Hervey Otey, D. D., Bishop of Ten-
nessee, and the Rt. Rev. Stephen Elliott, D. D., Bishop of Georgia.

The Rt. Rev. Philander Chase, D. D., Bishop of Illinois; the Rt. Rev.
Thomas Church Brownell, D. D. LL.D., Bishop of Connecticut ; the Rt.
Rev. Levi Silliman Ives, D. D. LL.D., Bishop of North Carolina ; the Rt.
Rev. John Henry Hopkins, D. D., Bishop of Vermont ; the Rt. Rev. Ben-
jamin Bosworth Smith, D. D., Bishop of Kentucky ; the Rt. Rev. Charles
Pettit Mcllvaine, D. D., Bishop of Ohio ; the Rt. Rev. George Washington
Doane, D. D. LL.D., Bishop of New Jersey ; the Rt. Rev. Jackson Kem-
per, D. D., Missionary Bishop for Wisconsin and Iowa, and Provisional
Bishop of Indiana ; the Rt. Rev. Leonidas Polk, D. D., Bishop of Louisi-
ana ; the Rt. Rev. William Heathcote De Lancey, D. D., Bishop of West-
ern New York ; the Rt. Rev. Christopher Edwards Gadsden, D. D., Bish-
op of South Carolina ; the Rt. Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham,
D. D., Bishop of Maryland ; the Rt. Rev. Alfred Lee, D. D., Bishop of
Delaware ; the Rt. Rev. John Johns, D. D., Assistant Bishop of Virginia ;
the Rt. Rev. Manton Eastburn, D. D., Bishop of Massachusetts ; the Rt.
Rev. John Prentiss Kewley Henshaw, D. D., Bishop of Rhode Island ; and
the Rt. Rev. George Washington Freeman, D. D., Missionary Bishop for
Arkansas, were present.

The Rt. Rev. William Meade, D. D., Bishop of Virginia ; the Rt. Rev.
James Hervey Otey, D. D., Bishop of Tennessee ; and the Rt. Rev. Ste-
phen Elliott, D. D., Bishop of Georgia, appeared as Presenters.

The Rt. Rev. Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, D. D., Bishop of New
York, appeared as Respondent.

The Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Illinois read Morning Prayer.

On motion of the Rt. Rev. the Assistant Bishop of Virginia, it was

Resolved, That the number of Bishops required by the Canon to consti-
tute a Court being present, the senior Bishop be requested to act as their
presiding officer.

Whereupon the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Illinois, the senior Bishop of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, took the chair.

Ordered, That this Court will now proceed to appoint a Clerk.

Ordered, That the election of Clerk be made by ballot.

The Rev. Bird Wilson, D. D., a Presbyter of the Diocese of Pennsyl-
vania, and Professor of Systematic Divinity in the General Theological
Seminary, was nominated.

The President appointed the Rt. Rev. the Missionary Bishop of Arkan-
sas, teller, to collect and declare the votes for Clerk, and the Court pro-
ceeded to ballot.

Whereupon it appeared, that all the votes had been cast for the Rev.
Bird Wilson, D. D., and he was accordingly declared unanimously elect-
ed Clerk of the Court.

Ordered, That Bishop Whittingham be requested to act as Secretary
until Dr. Wilson can be notified of his appointment, and shall enter upon
its duties.

The Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Maryland accordingly proceeded to act as
Secretary.

Ordered, That Bishop Whittingham be requested to inform the Rev.
Dr. Wilson of his appointment, and to request his attendance at the next
meeting of this Court.

Ordered, That a Committee of three be appointed to examine and re-
port whether the Canonical preliminaries for the constituting of a Court
for the trial of a Bishop have been duly observed.

Whereupon, on suggestion of the President, that nomination should be
made,

The Rt. Rev. the Bishops of North Carolina, Vermont, and New Jersey,
were respectively nominated, and on motion were appointed said Com-
mittee.

Ordered, That a certified copy of the Canon under which this Court as-
sembles be provided for its use by the Clerk ; and also that a copy be
placed by him in the hands of the Rt. Rev. Benjamin T: Onderdonk, D. D.,
and one of the Presenting Bishops respectively.

Decreed, That in conformity to the suggestion expressed by the Present-
ing Bishops in this case, it is the opinion of this Court, that the Bishops
presenting cannot, under the Canon, be considered as members of the Court
in any sense.

Decreed, That foreign Missionary Bishops are not entitled to sit as
members of the Court provided for in Canon Third of 1844.

Ordered, That the Court shall meet at half-past nine in the morning, to
be opened with prayer by the President. Further ordered, That the Court
shall adjourn each day at three o'clock in the afternoon.

Ordered, That this Court do now adjourn to meet at half-past nine to-
morrow morning.

The Court accordingly adjourned.

Attest,
W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

SECOND DAY'S SESSION, >
Wednesday, Dec. 11, 1844, half past 9 A. M. \

The Court convened for the trial of the Rt. Rev. Benjamin T. Onder-
donk, D. D., Bishop of New York, met pursuant to adjournment.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The list of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States was called over, upon which it appeared, that the Rt. Rev. the
Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky,
Ohio, New Jersey, the Northwestern Missionary Diocese, Louisiana,
Western New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the As-
sistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Isl-
and, and the Southwestern Missionary Diocese, were present.

The Presenting Bishops and the Respondent severally appeared.

The record of the first day's session was read, amended, and approved.

The Secretary read a letter by him received from the Rev. Dr. Wilson,
respectfully declining, for various specified reasons, to act as clerk of the
Court.

It was ordered by the Court, that the Rt. Rev. Dr. Whittingham, the
Bishop of Maryland, be requested to act as the Clerk and Secretary of this
Court ; and that an assistant Clerk, being a Presbyter not of the Diocese
of New York, be appointed on his nomination, by ballot by the Court.

The following report was presented and accepted :

The Committee appointed to examine whether the provisions of the
canon under which we are assembled have been complied with, respect-
fully report, that they have discharged their duty, and find that such pro-
visions have been duly complied with.

(Signed,) L. S. IVES, Chairman.

It was ordered by the Court, that the Clerk be instructed to have as many
copies of the Presentment as may be wanted by the Court, duly certified,
furnished for the use thereof.

The Rev. Anthony Ten Broeck, a Presbyter of the Diocese of New
Jersey, was nominated by the Clerk to be his assistant, if chosen by the
Court.

The Court went into ballot upon the nomination, and upon the declara-
tion of the votes, it appeared that the nomination was adopted.

It was ordered by the Court, that the Clerk be empowered to procure
the attendance of an officer authorized by law to administer oaths, and
that the testimony in this trial shall in all cases be given on oath.

The President then asking whether all parties were ready for procedure
to trial, the Presenters and Respondent severally made answer that they
were.

The Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Virginia, on behalf of the Presenting Bish-
ops, put in a copy of the Presentment, which, by direction of the Presi-
dent, was read by the Assistant Clerk.

PRESENTMENT.

To the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of

America.:

THE undersigned, that is to say., the Right Reverend William Meade, Bishop of
the said Church in the Diocese of Virginia, the Right Reverend James Hervey
Otey, Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of Tennessee, the Right Reverend

Stephen Elliott, jun., Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of Georgia, do
hereby, in virtue of the canonical authority reposed in them, present to their
brother Bishops, the Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, Bishop of
the said Church in the Diocese of New York, as being guilty of immorality and
impurity in. the several specifications hereinafter more particularly set forth ; and
they do solemnly demand a trial of the said Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, pur-
suant to the provisions of the canons of the General Convention of the said
Church, in such case made and provided.

ARTICLE I. The said Bishops presenting as aforesaid do hereby present and
allege, that the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, on or about the first day of June, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, being then
Bishop of said Chufch in the Diocese of New York, was engaged in a tour of
official duty, and was proceeding to the town of Syracuse, in Onondaga county, in
said Diocese of New York, for the purpose, among other matters, of ordaining the
Reverend Clement M. Butler to the Priesthood ; that on his way to, and near the
said town of Syracuse, the said Clement M. Butler, together with his wife, met
him in a carriage, for the purpose of conducting him, the said Benjamin T. Onder-
donk, to the said town.

That the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk entered the said carriage and took his
seat on the back seat thereof, by the side of the said lady ; that they two alone
occupied that seat, the said Clement M. Butler and a person driving, occupying
the front seat ; that thereupon afterwards the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk im-
purely atd unchastely put his arm around the body of the said lady, and in an
improper and unbecoming manner pressed the said lady towards him ; that the said
lady endeavored to repress the said familiarities, and to bring said Benjamin
T. Onderdonk to a just sense of his duty in that behalf ; that the night came on
before the said parties reached the end of their journey ; and that after it became
dark, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk renewed his said improper conduct, and
impurely and unchastely did pass his hand down and along the person and the legs
of the said lady ; and did otherwise behave toward her in so rude and indecent a
manner, that she, the said wife of the said Clement M. Butler, was obliged to claim
the protection of her husband ; and thereupon she left her seat in the said carriage,
and rode upon the front seat thereof for the rest of the journey ; in doing which
she was obliged to sit upon her husband's lap ; and that owing to, and in conse-
quence of, the said conduct of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, the said lady
became seriously sick, and her health was so much affected as permanently to
injure her constitution ; all which said actings on the part of the said Benjamin
T. Onderdonk, the said Bishops presenting do charge as being in violation of his
duty as Bishop, and contrary to his consecration vow in that behalf, and to the
great scandal of the Church of Christ.

ARTICLE II. The said Bishops presenting do further present and allege, that
the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk. Bishop as aforesaid, at the said time and place
mentioned in the last specification, was under the influence of, and improperly ex-
cited by, vinous or spirituous liquors drunk by him, the said Benjamin T. Onder-
donk, contrary to his duty as Bishop, and his consecration vow in that behalf, and
to the scandal and injury of the said Church.

ARTICLE III. And the said Bishops presenting do further present and allege,
that on or about the first day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and thirty-eight, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, being then Bishop
as aforesaid, was travelling in a public stage from Batavia, in the Diocese of New
York, to Utica, in the same Diocese, for the purpose of attending a meeting of the
Convention of said Diocese, then about to be held at Utica ; that the only passen-
gers in the said stage were the said Bishop and the Reverend James A. Bolles,
and a young woman, to the said Presenting Bishops unknown, and whose name
they are not able to furnish ; that the said Bishop and young woman occupied the
back seat, and the said James A. Bolles the middle seat of the said stage ; and
that thereupon afterwards the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk impurely and un-
chastely put his arm around the body of the said young woman, and took other
indecent liberties with her person ; and behaved in so improper and unbecoming

a manner, that the said young woman endeavored to get beyond the reach of the
said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, and finally, with a view to escape his rudeness, left
the stage before reaching the place of her destination ; which said coriduct of the
said Benjamin T. Onderdonk the said Bishops present, as being contrary to his
consecration vow in that behalf, and to the scandal and injury of the Church
aforesaid.

ARTICLE IV. And the said Bishops presenting do further present and allege,
that on or about the twentieth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thpusand
eight hundred and thirty-nine, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, then being Bish-
op as aforesaid, visited Westchester County, in the Diocese of New York, for the
purpose of officiating in St. Paul's Church, East Chester ; that the said Bishop
dined *.t the house of Isaac U. Coles, Esquire, and after dinner walked with Miss
Ann Wilson, then governess in the family of the said Coles, and Miss Chadwick, (of
Boston,) in the garden attached to the house of said Coles ; that thereupon after-
wards upon reaching a retired part of the garden, said Bishop seized an oppor-
tunity when the said Miss Chadwick was separated from the said Ann Wilson, and
did rudely and grossly insult the said Ann Wilson, by impurely and unchastely
thrusting his hand into her bosom, to her great astonishment and fright ; and did
otherwise so misbehave himself to the said Ann Wilson, that she was obliged
hastily to leave the said Bishop, and retreat to the house of the said Coles ; which
said conduct of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, the said Bishops present as con-
trary to his consecration vow in that behalf, and to the scandal and injury of the
Church aforesaid.

ARTICLE V. The said Bishops presenting do further present and allege, that
"between the months of May and July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and forty-one ; to wit : on or about Sunday the 13th day'of June, in the
said last mentioned year, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, then being Bishop as
aforesaid, visited St. James's Church, Hamilton square, New York city ; that soon
after the services of the church were ended, and on the day last aforesaid, he left
the said church in a carriage, in company with Miss Helen M. Rudderow, a voung
lady, to proceed as a guest to the house of her brother, John Rudderow, Esquire ;
that while riding in the said carriage by the side of the said young lady, he, the
said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, impurely and unchastely thrust his hand beneath her
dress upon the bosom of the said Helen M. Rudderow, to her great alarm and con-
sternation, and in violation of the proper duty of a Bishop, and in breach of the
consecration vow of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, to the great scandal and
injury of the Church of Christ.

ARTICLE VI. The said Presenting Bishops do further present and say, that on
the same day mentioned in the last specification^ the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk,
Bishop as aforesaid, was received at the house of the said John Rudderow, in the
parlor thereof, by Jane O. Rudderow ; and that thereupon the said Benjamin T.
Onderdonk. impurely and unchastely, thrust his hand into the bosom of the said
Jane O. Rudderow, and upon being repelled, took other indecent and unbecoming
liberties with the said lady, in violation of his duty as Bishop, and his consecration
vow in that behalf, and to the great scandal and disgrace of his said office.

ARTICLE VII. And the said Bishops presenting do further present and allege, that
on or about Sunday, the seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and forty-two, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, then being Bishop
as aforesaid, held a confirmation at Zion Church, Long Island, in the Diocese of
New York ; that after the services were ended the said Benjamin T. Oaderdonk
returned to the house of the Reverend Henry M. Beare, where he was a guest,
in the carriage of the said Henry M. Beare, in company with Mrs. Charlotte
Beare, the wife of the said Henry ; that the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk and
Charlotte Beare occupied the back seat of the said carriage, and the other persons
in the same were so situated as to have their backs towards the Bishop and the
said Charlotte ; that thereupon the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk impurely and
unchastely put his arm around the body of the said Charlotte Beare, drew her
towards himself, and at the same time felt her bosom in an improper and indecent
manner, so as to scandalize the feelings of the said lady, and cause her. to remove
herself from hiru as far as the side of the carriage would permit, to avoid his rude-

ness ; in violation of his duty as Bishop, and his consecration vow in that behalf,
and to the disgrace of his said office.

ARTICLE VIII. And the said Presenting Bishops do further present and allege,
that in the afternoon of the said seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk held
a Confirmation at Whitestone Chapel, on Long Island aforesaid, and after the ser-
vices went to spend the evening at the residence of Joseph L. Franklin, Esquire,
on said island ; that about nine o'clock at night, the Bishop was returning home to
the house 'of the said Henry M. Beare, where he was a guest, and was accompa-
nied in the carriage of the said Henry M. Beare by the said Charlotte Beare, the
wife of the said Henry M. Beare, she being constrained by circumstances to ride
with the said Bishop against her own desire, and she and the said Bishop sitting
alone on the back seat ; that while thus on their way the said Benjamin T. On-
derdonk again insulted the said Charlotte Beare in the grossest manner, by im-
purely and unchastely putting one arm around her body, while he thrust his other
hand beneath her dress, upon her naked bosom ; that upon the same being repel-
led, the eaid Benjamin T. Onderdonk repeated the indignity, and finished his acts
of rudeness by passing his hand in the most indecent manner down the body of the
said Charlotte Beare, outside of her dress, so that nothing but the end of her cor-
set-bone prevented his hand from being pressed upon the private parts of her body :
all which acts and doings threw the said Charlotte into the deepest distress ; to the
manifest scandal and injury of the Church of which the said Benjamin T. Onder-
donk was a Bishop, and in violation of his vows before God, solemnly entered into
on his consecration.

ARTICLE IX. And the said Bishops presenting do further present and allege,
that at sundry other times within the seven years last past, the said Benjamin T.
Onderdonk, while Bishop of said Diocese of New York, and within the limits of
the said Diocese, has impurely and unchastely laid his hands upon the bodies of
other virtuous and respectable ladies, whose names have come to the knowledge
of the said Bishops, so that he is of evil report within the limits of the said Dio-
cese, and .in other parts of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States
of America; to the manifest scandal of the Church of Christ, and the disgrace of
the office of the said Benjamin -T. Onderdonk : and nothing prevents the presenta-
tion of these cases on separate specifications, but the. want of a civil process by
which to compel witnesses to testify to the truth of these matters.

Dated this seventh day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred' and forty-four.
Signed,

. . WILLIAM MEADE, D. D.,

Bishop of the Protestant Church of Virginia.

JAMES H. OTEY,
Bishop of the Diocese of Tennessee.

STEPHEN ELLIOTT, Jun.,

Bishop of the Diocese of Georgia.

The President then called on the Respondent for his plea.

The Rt. Rev. 'Benjamin T. Onderdonk, D. D., Bishop of New York, as
Respondent, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charges made and. contained in the
Presentment.

It was ordered by the Court, that so much of the Presentment as is con-
tained in the ninth article of the said Presentment, be stricken out as not
proper for trial, being without reasonable certainty as to time, place, or
circumstances.

It was ordered by the Court, that the Presenting Bishops furnish the
Court with the names of those witnesses for whom they require citations.

It was Ordered by the Court, that the Presenters inform the witnesses

that their presence will be required on Friday morning, at half-past nine
o'clock.

It was ordered by the Court, that when the Court do adjourn, they ad-
journ to meet this afternoon at five o'clock, to adjourn again at seven.
The Court then adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk,

^Wednesday, Dec. 11, 5 P. M.

The Court met, pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North -Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary. Diocese,
Louisiana, Western New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ;
the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, -Rhode
Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The record of the morning's session was read, amended, and adopted. .

A motion was made for the following order, viz :

Ordered, That in proceeding to investigate the charges in. so much of
the Presentment as relates to transactions alleged to have transpired ante-
rior to the date of three years prior to the date of the Presentment, the
Court do so with the protest that such charges (said charges being for
immoralities, and not for any offences made criminal by . the laws of the
land) are brought forward contrary to the spirit of our canons, which re-
quire, in all cases of moral character, testimonials for the three preceding
years only.

On the question being put, the yeas and nays were ordered, and called
by the Clerk ; upon which the motion was lost, the votes being

Illinois, no Connecticut, aye North Carolina, aye Vermont, 'no
Kentucky, no Ohio, no New Jersey, aye North Western Missionary
Diocese, no Louisiana, no Western New York, aye South Carolina,
aye Maryland, aye Delaware, no (Assistant) Virginia, no -Massa-
chusetts, no Rhode Island, no South Western Missionary Diocese, no.

Ayes 6 Noes 11.

The Court then adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Friday, Dec. 13, 1844,
half- past 9; A. M.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey,
the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York,
South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ;
and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western
Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The record of the proceedings of Wednesday evening was read, and
adopted.

Ordered, That the Court do now proceed to the trial.

The Respondent then informed the Court that he had given notice to the
Presenters that he should employ Counsel, and that he had engaged the

services of David B. Ogden, Esq., in that capacity. He also asked per-
mission of the Court to employ an amanuensis, and to introduce the Rev.
Edward N. Mead in that capacity.

Ordered, That the request of the Respondent be granted.

The. Presenting Bishops then informed the Court that they had engaged
the services of Hiram Ketchum, Esq., as Counsel. They also asked per-
mission of the Court to employ an amanuensis, and to introduce Stephen
Cambreleng, Esq., in that capacity.

Ordered, That the request of the Presenting Bishops be granted. .

Ordered, That during the trial the Court will meet each day at half-past
9 o'clock A. M-, and adjourn at 4 P. M.

David B. Ogden, Esq., appeared in Court as of Counsel for the Re-
spondent.

Hiram Ketchum, Esq., appeared in Court as of Counsel for the Present-
ing Bishops.

Ordered, That the Counsel of the parties have time to prepare the case,
until half past 9 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Ordered, That the Court do now adjourn.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Saturday, Dec. Uth, 1844. >
lialf-past 9 A. M. \

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey,
the North Western Missionary Diocese, Western New York, South Caro-
lina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the
Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary
Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The record of the proceedings of yesterday was read and adopted.

Ordered, That when the Court is cleared, the Presenting Bishops, the
Respondent, and the Assistant Clerk be not included in said order.

The -Counsel for the Presenting Bishops then opened the case in behalf
of the Presentment.*
1

May it please the Court

Although the position I now occupy might be regarded as worthy of professional
ambition, yet I feel bound to say that it is not one of my own seeking.

I was called upon a few weeks .since by the Presenting Bishops to assist as
counsel in the management of the case before the Court of Bishops, if counsel
should be required ; that is, in the event of the Respondent appearing 'by counsel.
I regretted the application to me, yet, having been made, I did not, upon reflection,
consider myself at liberty to decline it. For, first, the application came from three
of the most respectable Bishops of the Church, acting, as they believed, under a
high sense of duty ; and the service solicited was directly in the line of my profes-
sion. Secondly, I am a member, though an unworthy one, of the Protestant Epis-
copal Church ; and it did appear right to me, that if counsel were employed, it was
desirable that they should be members of the Church.

* The opening speech of Counsel was sent by him to the Clerk, while the Journal was in press, with
the introductory remark, " Mr Ketchum opened the case on the part of the Presenting Bishops substan-
tially as follows."

But while I consented to act as Counsel, I distinctly informed the Rt. Rev. Pre-
sentors that I could not appear in any sense as a volunteer. I was anxious, and am
now anxious, to be explicitly understood on this point ; for I have long known
Bishop Onderdonk, and though I could not lay claim to an intimate .acquaintance,-
yet our relations, so far as I know, have been very friendly : certainly no other
feelings have been entertained on my part. It is now about twenty years ago since
I had a public discussion with the Bishop, at the capitol of this state, before a
committee of the Senate. I have often had occasion to say, since that discussion,
and say it now with great pleasure, that he sustained his side of it, not only with
distinguished ability, but with the candor and courtesy of a Christian gentleman.
Since that time, after long attendance upon her ministrations, I have seen fit, in
the maturity of my judgment, such as it is, to unite myself to the communion oTthe
Protestant Episcopal Church ; and more than seven years ago, the hands of the
Respondent were laid on my head, in the holy rite of confirmation. I must not,
therefore, be regarded, in any sense, a volunteer in supporting the Presentment
against him.

I appear as the counsel of the Presenting Bishops ; but in representing them,
and acting under their instructions, which accord entirely with my own inclinations,
I shall try this cause with the utmost candor and liberality toward the Respondent.
I contend not for victory but desire to present and investigate the evidence fairly ;
and I now say. that if after a fair and impartial investigation of the facts, your minds
shall arrive at the conclusion that the Respondent is not guilty none in this Court,
or out of it, will be more gratified with that result than the Presenting Bishops and
their Counsel. I am willing to stipulate with my learned friend on, the other side,
that our Bishop shall have a fair trial.

I feel some embarrassment lest any attempt, on my part, to instruct a Court con-
. fessedly so learned and venerable as that which I have the honor to address, in their
duty, should seem presumptuous ; but perhaps my daily familiarity with the admin-
istration of justice in the courts of law, will enable me to make some suggestions
fo this Court not wholly out of place. The government of the Church, I respect-
fully submit, like the civil government, is divided into the legislative, the judicial,
and the executive departments. The House of Bishops is a part of the Legisla-
ture of the Church, as the Senate is a branch of the National Legislature, or, per-
haps, more like the House of Lords in England, which is composed of members
whose term of office, like that of the Bishops, is perpetual. Here, however, the
Bishops act not as part of the Legislature of the Church, but as the judiciary.
There is yet another department in which the Bishops act in their spiritual capaci-
ty of which it is not necessary now to speak but here they compose the judicial
department of the Church ; they are clothed, not with their surplices, or their gowns,
but, in contemplation of law, they are invested with the ermine of the judiciary ; and
the. only difference between this and other Courts is, that here that ermine is supposed
. to he some shades whiter and purer than elsewhere. I have thought proper to remind
the Court of these distinctions, because I understand something has been said about
the allege:! offences, or some of them, being outlawed. Now, I need not inform
the Court that the Canons of the Church, which are the statutes of the Church,
make no provisions for the outlawing of offences, and if the Legislature of the
Church have made no such provision, this Court, sitting in its judicial capacity, have
no more power to make such a provision than the humblest slave who communi-
cates at her altars. The Court cannot make law, but they must adjudicate the law
as they fin\J ii they have no legislative power.

Let us now torn to the pleadings in the case. The Presentment sets forth the
offences charged, with time, place, and circumstances, according to the require-
ments of the Canon. The plea of the Respondent is, Not Guilty. This, then, is
the issue for you to try is the Bishop guilty, or not guilty, of the offences specifi-
cally set out in the Presentment 1 All the evidence offered, bearing upon this
point, ought to be received by the Court, any evidence not relevant to this issue,
should be rejected.

The first case mentioned in the Presentment is that of Mrs. Butler, the wife of
the Rev. Cl.ement M. Butler, a very respectable Presbyter of the Church. The
facts, as they will be proved, will make out a case of more aggravated criminality

man that charged in the Presentment. Mr. Butler was to be ordained to the
priesthood in Syracuse, where he was officiating as a clergyman. On or about
the first of June, 1837, he went from Syracuse to Ithaca, in a private carriage,
accompanied by his wife, and a person who drove the carriage, for the purpose of
meeting the Bishop, and conveying him to the place of ordination. Having: taken
in the Bishop at Ithaca, and on their return, in the evening of the day, the Bishop,
sitting on the back seat with Mrs. Butler, began his familiarities with th young
lady, then recently married, by putting his arm around her waist, and drawing her
close to his side. This was observed by the husband, and permitted, at first, by
Mrs. Butler, who had long known the Bishop. She at length became annoyed by
these familiarities, and slightly rose and gently removed the Bishop's arm from
around her person, and laid his hand upon his knee, and observed to him, mildly,
in the hearing of her husband : " Bishop, this is a sacred hand, it has been laid
upon the heads of many of my friends in confirmation, and to-morrow it will be
laid upon the head of my husband in ordination." . This gentle, but keen reproof,
seemed, for the moment, to be heeded by the Bishop. Shortly after, however, he
suddenly encircled the lady with his arm, and pressed, or clasped her bosom. She
struck down his hand, and he immediately, in a most indelicate manner, grasped
her thigh. Whereupon, she instantly left the seat, and sat upon her husband's lap
on the front seat. Without going into further detail, in statement of the proposed
proof, let us inquire into the character of this offence. This is the conduct of a
Bishop of the Church of Christ, it will be recollected. Now, I speak not of the
personal indignity, or insult, offered to Mrs. Butler, but here is, if I may be al-
lowed the expression, an assault upon the soul. What could more effectually con-
vince a person receiving such treatment at the hands of a Bishop, that he regarded
religion as a cheat, a delusion, and that his pretended attachment to it was mere
hypocrisy ? What course of conduct would have a more direct tendency to mur-
der the soul ? This is the light in which I desire to present these offences to the
Bishops of the Church.

Mr. Ketchum then went on to state the evidence which he intended to offer
under the other charges in the Presentment, observing that he might not be able to
state it precisely as it would turn out in proof, from the fact that his opportunity
of conferring with the witnesses had been slight. These, remarked Mr. Ketchum,
are the facts which I believe we shall prove in support of the Presentment: As to
the course of the defence, he went on to say : I am not able to anticipate what it
may be ; but it has been given out publicly, that this Presentment has been insti-
gated by party spirit, and is the result of a conspiracy formed by the Bishop's
enemies in the Church. I suppose that the real question for your determination is
are the charges alleged true or false 1 If they are true, it is of small moment
how, or by what motives the inquiry was instituted. Still, however, a conspiracy
is alleged. Now, I have to say that no objections will be made to the proof of
such conspiracy, if any should be offered. If such proof is offered, we stand pre-
pared to rebut it, and show precisely how the prosecution was instituted. We will
show that it had not its origin in this diocese, but that it was entirely a Southern
movement, and chiefly promoted by the Rev. Mr. Trapier of Charleston. We
profess our entire readiness to meet the allegation of conspiracy, whenever it is
brought forward and attempted to be sustained by proof.

When witnesses for the Presentment were about to bo called, the Coun-
sel for the Respondent objected to the reception of evidence pertaining to
matters of more than three years' standing, and asked that the objection
might be recorded.

The Counsel for the Presentment asked permission of the Court to in-
troduce a female friend as an attendant upon the female witness about
to be brought in.

Ordered, That the permission requested be granted.

The Counsel for the Presentment asked permission ik*t the Rev. Paul
Trapier attend upon Mrs. Butler, her female friend being absent.

Ordered, That the permission requested be granted.

Frances Livingston Butler was called up by the Counsel for the Pre-
sentment.

The oath was administered to the witness by Dayton Hobart, Esq., a
commissioner legally empowered for the administration of oaths in the
State of New York, and appointed in this case by the Clerk of the Court.

The Counsel for the Presentment commenced the examination in chief
of Mrs. Frances L. Butler.

Pending the examination, the Counsel for the Presentment stated that he
had understood from the Counsel for the Respondent, that he designed
having an associate, and therefore asked permission of the Court to have
the assistance of Gerardus Clark, Esq., in the management of the case
on the part of the Presentment.

Ordered, That the permission asked be granted.

Gerardus Clark, Esq., made his appearance in Court as associate Coun-
sel for Presentment.

FRANCES LIVINGSTON BUTLER.

Direct Examination.

1. What is your name ?
Frances Livingston Butler.

2. Are you the wife of whom 1
Rev. Clement Moore Butler.

3. When was you married to Mr. Butler ?
On the 3d of April, 1837.

4. Where did he then reside ?

He resided at Syracuse, in the State of New York.

5. Had he charge of a church there ?
He had.

6. When was he ordained Priest ?

On the 2d of June, 1837. I think that is the date. The Journal of Conven-
tion will show. One thing I wish to say. It is rather a singular thing that I
do not recollect the date of my marriage. Several anniversaries occur in that
month. I do not remember whether it was the 3d or 13th.

7. By whom was your husband ordained Priest ?
By the Rt. Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk.

8. Did you witness the ordination ]
I did not.

9. When Bishop Onderdonk- came to ordain your husband, did your husband,
accompanied by you, meet him on the way ; and if so, where ?

He did, at the village of Ithaca.

10. In what sort of a vehicle did you go ?
In a barouche wagon, with two seats.

11. Who accompanied you, besides your husband ?

A man, as driver, whose name was Peck. He was not the owner of the carriage.
He had business in Ithaca, and was glad to drive us there. He was a parishioner
of my husband.

12. Of what church was your husband rector ?

I think it was Zion Church. There was but one church there.

13. What time did you receive the Bishop in the carriage ; at what time of the
day, and where ?

So nearly as I can recollect, it was a little before sunset. If the ordination
took place on the 2d of June, it was on the 1st. It was at the house of Mr.
Munn.

14. How was the company seated in the carriage ? Please describe.

The Bishop was seated behind the driver, Mr. Butler beside the driver, and I
beside the Bishop, on the back seat.

15. How long did it take you to accomplish the journey from Ithaca to Syra-
cuse ?

We left I think before sunset, and arrived the next day about an hour before the
time appointed for service. We were delayed. We had not intended or ex-
pected to ride at night. We were delayed by bad roads going down to Ithaca ;
so that we stayed all night at a place called Dryden, on the way to Ithaca, about
ten miles from Ithaca. We were again delayed, by finding that there were to be
two services at Ithaca, instead of one ; and again delayed after the second ser-
vice, by a storm of rain and lightning.

16. Did you ride all night on your return to Syracuse ?

We did, except when we rested the horses, which we did three times.

17. Now, Mrs. Butler, I want you to state what occurred between you and the
Bishop while you were riding in that carri

I scarce know how or where to begin. Shall I begin at what occurred at Mr.
Munu's, from that time ? We received the Bishop at Mr. Munn's, on my part

with all cordiality, inasmuch as I had long known him as a friend of my father,
and had. always considered him my friend ; and my confidence in the purity of his
character was unhesitating. I noticed immediately, that his breath was tainted by
something he had been, drinking.
By the Court. Bishop Mcllvaine.

18. Had any conversation taken place between the witness and the Bishop prior
to his getting in the carriage ?

I think not, sir.

(Witness resumed narrative.) At first, after we rose the hill'out of Ithaca, the
Bishop read letters which he had received ; the sun had then set ; he read
them by the fading sunset light, or by the twilight that followed the sunsetting.
When I first noticed that his breath was tainted by something he had been drink-
ing, I was neither surprised nor pained by it, for I was .aware that he habitually
used wine and ardent spirits, but was not aware to what extent. After he had
finished reading his letters, I found with some alarm, that he became unusually
talkative, and that he spoke so indistinctly that I could not always understand
him. He first put his arm around my waist and drew me towards him ; this lie
repeated once, perhaps twice. He had often done this when I was unmarried,
and I had permitted it, although always disagreeable to me ; because I believed
him incapable of wrong. At this time, however, I removed his hand each time,
because i saw that he was not himself. I was exceedingly fearful lest our driver
should discover it ; as he was a man who had but recently become interested in
church affairs ; and fjor whose spiritual interests my husband was deeply solicitous ;
and also because during our ride to Ithaca, he had often or he had strongly spoken
of the inconsistencies of professing Christians, as having been a great stumbling-
block in his way to heaven. The Bishop persisted in putting his arm about me,
and raised his hand so as to press my bosom. I then rose and withdrew the arm
from behind me, and laid the hand upon his knee, and said to him in a raised tone
of voice, hoping to bring him to himself, and wishing to attract Mr. Butler's at-
tention, that a Bishop's hands were sacred in my eyes, and that his were particu-
larly so, because they had been laid upon the heads of many I loved in confirma-
tion, an^ were about to be laid upon my husband's head in ordination. He made
but little answer, but for some. little time let me alone. During this time I thought
of the awful disgrace that would come upon him, and his family, and upon the Church,
if his state and conduct that night were known. I had a lingering hope that he had
been betrayed into taking more than was habitual to him, and that in this way he
had been betrayed into intoxication ; and I hoped that his insult to me was unin-
tentional. I therefore decided upon keeping silence upon this subject, and upon
preventing, so far as in me lay, its ever becoming known. While sitting in
thought, I found he was again moving : I waited to see whether he might not be
merely steadying himself in his seat, as the roads were rough, when he sud-
denly and violently again brought his hand upon my bosom,'pressed and clasped it.
In some horror I struck the hand with all my force, and he withdrew it ; but im-
mediately grasped rny leg in the 'most indelicate manner. I sprang forward to my
husband, and told him I could no longer sit with the Bishop : I must sit with him. .
I was greatly distressed, and he, Mr. Butler, held me on his knee for some time ;
and after that I rode sometimes on his knee, and sometimes on a carpet bag at his
feet. We stopped twice during the night, resting at Homer an hour or two, as
nearly as I can recollect. During all our time of stay at those places, my whole
efforts were needed by my husband to soothe him, he being violently incensed,
and declaring that Bishop Onderdonk should not ordain him. We stopped that
morning about day-break, at a place about ten miles distant, I should think, from
Syracuse perhaps fifteen miles. Here we again rested, and breakfasted. Dur-
ing the ride from Homer to this latter place, the Bishop slept heavily. When we
left the last stopping-place, I .persuaded Mr. Butler to sit back with the Bishop, in
order to avoid the remark that would be occasioned by his sitting alone. No con-
versation passed between the Bishop and myself after I changed my seat : nor
have I since seen him, except in Convention, until now.

19. Did the Bishop make any remark when you left the back seat ?

He did not, nor did he afterwards remark upon the way in which we rods.

16 ; * f ;

20. Was it a clear and warm night on that occasion ?
It was warm, but not clear ; it drizzled somewhat about midnight.
' 21. Did the Bishop make any remark about the state of the weather ?
Not that I recollect.

22. Did he make any remark about your sitting on the front seat ?
I have answered the question, He ,did not: not that I recollect.

23. Was the top of the barouche up ?

Yes, sir. But I do not recollect whether half way, or all the way.

24. Was you exposed entirely to the inclemency of the weather on the front
seat?

I was, sir ; but the weather was by no means severe.

25. What occurred on the next day 1 ?

When we got home I .was very, much distressed in mind and body; and both
unable and unwilling to attend the ordination. . : , "

26.. Was Mr. Butler ordained by Bishop Onderdonk?

He was ordained, by him, though suffering under great distress.

27. ; Did Mr. Butler state to you the reasons why he was ordained ? {Objected
.to and ruled out.]

28. What was the effect of Bishop Onderdbnk's treatment towards you, on your
.health? '

I always supposed that 'some weeks of indisposition were caused by the distress
that I 'went through with that night.

29. When And where was you indisposed ? . .
In my own house, sir ; where I boarded, rather, at Syracuse.

30: Did your indisposition immediately succeed that night?
It did.

31. When,; and -to whom, did you first communicate these facts?

Never minutely to any one, until since this cause has been on the carpet, except
to my husband that night. I have since avoided conversation, -even with him, on
the subject.

32. Do you now reside in Syracuse ?
I do not, sir.

33. Where do you now reside .?.'
In the city of Boston. '

34. Hbw Ipngl

Since the 25th of May last, or about that time. Mr. Butler's institution took
place on the 25th of -May last, and we arrived there a day or two previous.

35. Did you remain at Syracuse up to the time of your removal to Boston, and
if not, where did you live in the mean time ? ,

At Utica afcout six months ; at Palmyra two years ; at Baltimore about seven
months; at Georgetown; D. C., two years and a half; and thence .moved to
Boston. ;. . '

3G. What time did you remove from Syracuse ?

The May following- the ordination, in 1838.

, ..
Crass-Examination, by Counsel for Respondent.

1. You have said in your direct examination, that when you spoke to the Bish-
p about the. sanctity of his hands* 'he said 'but little. I. now wish you to state
what he did say.

I cannot recollect. I recollect no conversation at all, except' some remarks on
the roughness of the Broads in the Indian country.

2.. What was the distance from Ithaca to Syracuse ?
, About -50 miles.

3. In what part of this jburney was it that you quit yoUr seat with the Bishop,
and went to your husband, as yon have stated.!

It was. between Ithaca and Dryden.

4. This was, then, within the first ten miles of your journey> was it?
About that.

. 17

5. Did you never after, in any part of your journey, sit en the back seat with
the Bishop *

I think not. I recollect no change.

6. Are you positive T

I am as positive about this, as about any thing so immaterial as it seems to me.
Some things I distinctly recollect, other things I have no recollection of. This is
one of the latter. ../

7. When you told your husband that you could no longer ride on the seat with
the Bishop, did' y.ou tell him the reason why ]

I did, but not by any means in detail.

8. Did your husband after that, of your knowledge of within your hearing, say
any thing to the Bishop on the subject 1

' I recollect nothing said on the subject. ' . . '

9. .How long after you spoke to the Bishop about the sanctity. of his hands, was
it that you left the Bishop, and went upori the front seat with your husband ?

It is so long ago that I do not recollect accurately ; but I should think fifteen
minutes.

10. Do you think your husband heard those observations, made by you to the'
Bishop !

He did, sir. I spoke ia a loud tone, in order to attract his attention.

11. Have you any recollection that night before you left thereat with the
Bishop, pf. having complained to him that you fell very, chilly and cold?

I have no such recollection.

12. Upon your arrival at Syracuse, did tAe Bishop go with you to your lodgings *
He did not, sir.

13. Was he not at your lodgings that day *
He was not, sir.

14. Now, Mrs. Butler, I wish you to recollect yourself do you not remember
that. he was there in .the course of that day, and that you and your husband took
him about your house, and into your bedroom, and showed him how comfortably
you were accommodated 7

I recollect no such proceeding-
1$.' .What was your rn*iden-name I
Hart.

16. Where does your, father reside*

In Walden, in Orange county, state of New York.

17. How old were you when married 1
I was twenty, I think, sir.

18 Had not the Bishop, for many years, been very intimate with your father's

family ?

He had been quite so.

19. Was not his manner towards you and all the family the Children very
kind arid parental ?

His manner had been always affectionate, and I supposed it parental.

20. Now, Mrs. Butler, will you be kind enough to' tell us when you first men-
tioned these circumstances to any person besides your husband, and who that per-
son was 1 ',,'.'.

I have no recollection of ever mentioning them, in detail, to any person what-
ever, until I was called Upon t6 make my affidavit. I have alluded to them in
several instances in three instances that I recollect, and but three that I recollect.

21. When were you called upon to make this affidavit, and where, and by whom ?
Perhaps I was wrong -in saying I was called upon to make an affidavit : my

husband was called- upon to make one, in Philadelphia, during the sitting of the last

General Convention. Upon his return home, he showed me what he had written,

and I found it correct, except, perhaps, in one little matter.

. 22. What was that little matter T

, I would rather not answer the question. Mr. Butler can answer it.

23. I must insist upon an answer.

It was nothing of any great importance, or I should not hesitate to answer.

24. "We will judge of that.

Mr. Butler understood me to say, that I was afraid the Bishop would pull up my
clothes, whereas I said he was so violent he might do it.

25. Do you know the object of your husband in going to Philadelphia ] Was
he a delegate to the Convention '\

He was not a delegate : he went at the earnest solicitation of a gentleman who
desired to establish a religious periodical, to obtain the approbation of the Bishops
for that periodical.

26. Mrs. Butler, have you never told your father the circumstances of this case ?
I have not, sir. He questioned me, for the first time, upon the subject last

spring, and I told him that what had passed was of such a nature that I did not
like to talk about it ; that he had placed his hand upon my leg in a very indelicate
manner ; and that I was perfectly convinced that. his intoxication, at the time, led
to his doing so. My father said I might have been mistaken. I told him I could
not tell him all, but I was not mistaken.

27. You have mentioned, a little while ago, that you had, in three instances,
alluded to this subject. What were those instances 1

To my sister-in-law, Miss Harriet Butler, at Troy ; to my friend, Miss Cath-
arine Bruce, of this city ; and to my father. I think I spoke to my sister, who
lived with me at or near that time ; I did not speak to her at that time, she being
absent at boarding-school, and very young.

28. Mrs. Butler, after your husband returned to Boston, and showed you that
affidavit, to whom did you next speak on the subject ?

I think, my uncle, Mr. Moote. \ recollect, now, having spoken to Mr. Moore
upon the subject, early last spring, h being in conversation upon the rumors
which were rife. His name is Thomas William Channing Moore, of the city of
New York. He sailed day before yesterday for Buenos Ayres.

29. Was the conversation with him after yc-i saw the affidavit, in New York or
Boston 1

He visited my house shortly after Mr. Butter's return from the General Con-
vention at Philadelphia ; but I do not remember whether at that time I had seen the
affidavit or not. Mr. Butler did not show it to me as soor. as he got home, he being
quite confident as to the truth of each circumstance mentioned in the affidavit ; but
he did show me, within I cannot say how long a time and apologized for not
showing it before, because of his certainty with regard to i\s contents"

30. To whofn did you next mention it ?

I do not recollect mentioning it to any one else in the city of Boston ; but in
New York I have mentioned it wherever I have been Maying, among my friends,
without any hesitation. f

31. Did any body call upon you to inquire about it, and vho 1
No, sir, I have not been called upon, that I recollect.

32. Have you been sent for by any person, to call upon them 1

I have not beeni I have seen Bishop Meade since I came to town ; he told me
that possibly the case would be tried without a lawyer, and I had better put dovn
in writing what ( I had to say, he thinking that the Court would receive such written
testimony, and that it would save my feelings to have it put in that form.

33. Did you reduce it to writing ]
I did, sir.

34. Did you know before you left Boston to come to this city, the object of
your coming hither 1

I did, sir ; I was subpoenaed to come as witness in this case by the Prosecuting
Bishops.

I believe so ; I do not recollect the form of subpoena. It was signed by Bishop
Chase.

Direct examination resumed.

37. In your cross-examination you said you had told these circumstances to no
person in detail ; in your direct examination you said to no person except your
husband ; how do you mean to be understood 1

Of course, as in my direct examination.

By the Court.
By Bishop Doane.

1. In directing your language to arrest the attention of your husband, did you
think you could do so without arresting the attention of the driver!

I thought I could.

2. Did you have reason to think that the driver's attention was drawn to what
took place ?

Not at the time ; but from the fact that he never asked me any questions after-
wards on the subject, I supposed it was.

3. Did you have any other evidence or reason to believe that these circumstances
became known in Syracuse ?

I had not.

By Bishop De Lancey.

4. What was the name of the Church at Palmyra where you resided ?
Zion Church, I think.

5. What was the name of the Church in which your husband ministered at
Baltimore, and Georgetown, respectively T

He was a missionary at Baltimore, assisting from time to time Dr. Johns in
Christ Church. The Church in Georgetown was called St. John's.

6. Did Bishop Onderdonk in reading his letters appear to understand what he
was about ?

Yes, sir, I thought he did.

7. Was there any thing in his conversation that night, or in the manner in which
he said it, that induced you to think he was intoxicated 1

He spoke very thick, and talked a great deal during the early part of the ride,

8. Did you go to sleep yourself during the ride ?
I did not. sir ; not at all through the night.

9. Did your husband go to sleep *
I do not recollect that he did.

10. You spoke of the Indian country you came through; what Indian country
did you mean ?

The Onondaga tract.
By Bishop Ives.

11. You spoke of meeting Bishop Onderdonk at Ithaca, At what time did you
arrive ?

At a late breakfast hour ; it must have been 9 o'clock.

12. Did you attend service that morning at Ithaca ?
Yes, sir.

13. How many times ?

I do not recollect whether I went in the afternoon or not.

14. Did you dine with the Bishop that day ?
I did not.

15. At what time did you meet him after service ?

I think we spoke with him at the chancel after the morning service ; that is all
I recollect.

16. Did you see or speak with Bishop Onderdonk on the day that you arrived
at Syracuse 1

I have never spoVen with him since. I did not on that Jay.
By Bishop Gadsden.

17. Did you think at the time that the Bishop would i^ve acted towards you as
he did if he had had his full consciousness !

I thought he would not have done so.

18. Do you now think that his conduct was wholly owing to intoxication ?
I am afraid it was not.

19. Your unwillingness to attend the ordinadon, was it because you considered
him an intemperate man, or because you regarded him as impure.'?

Because I thought him both.
By Bishop De Lnncey.

20. Do you recollect the form of the carriage ! was there aback to the front seat !
1 do not recollect distinctly.

21. Did the driver continue to be connected with the parish ?
He did.

22. Did you ever mention this subject, or any part of it, at Palmyra, where you
resided ?

I think I there mentioned it to my sister who lived with me, as having altered
my opinion of Bishop Onderdonk.

23. At the time of the Convention of the Diocese of New York, held in Utica,
in 1838, were you in Utica at that time ?

I was.

24. At or about that time, or during your residence in Utica, did you ever men-
tion this subject to any person there 1

I recollect no such mention. I was exceedingly guarded on the subject.

25. During or about that period, do you recollect having heard this subject
talked upon 1

I do not, sir not this case ; except that I knew my husband had mentioned it.

26. From whom did you know this !
From himself.

27. Did your husband tell you to whom he had mentioned it ?

He did, sir ; and how it came about : it was to Rev. Mr. Lucas, then settled at
Auburn.

28. Did you ever say to any one, in these various conversations on the subject,
that Bishop Onderdonk actually attempted to lift your clothes 1

I never did say so ; but in showing to my husband what he did do, he saw that in
doing it, my clothes were somewhat raised ; but it was unintentional on my part,
conveying to him the impression that the Bishop had attempted to do so.

29. When did you first discover that your husband had made a mistake in his
apprehension of your account about lifting your clothes 1

When he showed me the affidavit,w r liich I have seen but once, and only at that time.

30. Was this at Boston *
It was.

31. Did you ever hear this story in relation to what occurred on the ride from
Ithaca to Syracuse, connected with a statement that Bishop Onderdonk had at-
tempted,, during that ride, to lift your clothes ?

I recollect no such statement. I should have contradicted it, if I had heard it.

32. Have you any reason to think that your husband ever spoke of this trans-
action, with that statement !

I have no reason, except that I know he mentioned the circumstance to Mr-
Lucas and Mr. Irving, and probably under the same impression with which he
gave his affidavit.

33. Did your husband ever state to you what he did tell Mr. Lucas and Mr.Irving 1
He did not, sir.

34. Is your memory such a one as that you rely upon it with certainty as to
names, dates, places, and circumstances ?

With regard to places it is ; with regard to circumstances it is ; with regard to
dates, not unless I have previously determined to impress them upon my memory ;
with regard to names, I am very good at that.

By Bishop Ives.

35. You mentioned in your direct examination, that wi^n the Bishop ap-
proached you, you raised your voice to attract the attention of your husband. Do
you mean that you raised it above your ordinary voice ?

I mean that I raised it above the tone in which I was then conversing with
Bishop Onderdonk.

36. What were you then saying to him ?

I do not suppose that I recollect every thing. I remember we spoke of the
roughness of the roads in the Indian country.

37. Did you speak then in your oidinary tone *

Yes, sir. During a part of the time, Mr. Butler joined in the conversation. I
recollect hearing Bishop Onderdonk speak of the Rev. Mr. Ten Broeck, and of
having received a letter from him, a part of which I think he read aloud.

38. Were the roads so rough as to require a distinct tone of voice ?

The rattling of the carriage was such, as to require it. It had beeii .Jning ; **i
roads were very heavy.
By Bishop De Lancey.

39. .Had you any conversation with Bishop Onderdonk after you left the back seat *
I have stated that I had not.

40. How far is the Indian country from Syracuse?.

I do not recollect. I think from five to ten miles. I am not certain. , My im-
pression is, that it is within from five to ten miles from Syracuse.

Cross-Examination resumed.

35. How great a distance does the road run through the Indian tract \
I do not recollect. I do not think more than fivQ miles

By the Court.
By Bishop Gadsden.

4 1 . Was there much space on the seat between you and the Bishop *

It was an ordinary sized carriage, a barouche wagon what they call a
' carryall."

By Bishop Brownell. . .

42. Were you in the Indian country when you had the conversation alluded to
with the Bishop ?

no, sir ; it was just after we left Ithaca, or between that and our first stopping-
place, Dryden.

By Bishop Whittingham.
, 43. When did you tell Mr. Butler that the Bishop' was so violent, &c. ?

1 whispered it to him as he drew me forward upon the front seat.
By Bishop Ives. .

44. Did you make any excuse at the time' for going te the front seat ?

I do not recollect making any at all. I was excessively agitated. I do not
recollect distinctly any thing from that time until we reached Dryden I mean any
thing that occurred in the carriage. .

Cross-Examination resumed.

36. Did your husband sit with his face towards the back seat, or towards the
horses?

Towards the horses.

The Court adjourned to six o'clock this evening.

\itest
W.' R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk,

Saturday, December 14&, 1844, \
6 o'clock, P. M. $

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut. North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, Western New York, South Carolina. Maryland, and Delaware ;
the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the. Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, an,d the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The Counsel for the Presentment called in the Re'v. .Clement M. Butler,
Miss Jane- O. Rudderow, Miss. Helen M. Rudderow. the Rev. James A.
Bolles, and the Rev. Jesse Pound; who were severally sworn by Dayton
Hobart, Esq., commissioner. ' .

The Rev. CLE.VENT M. BUTLER was examined.

Direct examination.

1. WTiat i? your vocation, and where do you reside 1

I am a m-nister of the. Protestant Episcopal- Church in the city of Boston.

2. When, and by whom, and at what place were you ordained Priest!

On the 2d of June, 1837, by the Rt. Rev. Benj. T. Onderdonk, at St. Paul's
Church, Syracuse.

3. On the Bishop's approach to Syracuse on that occasion, where did you meet
him 1 In what vehicle was you, and who accompanied you !

At Ithaca, in a two-horse-carriage I scarcely know how to describe it the
cover springing from the back, and extending over the front seat. Mr. Peck and
my wife, Mrs. Butler, accompanied 'me.

4. Who returned with you in the carriage ]
Mr. Peck, my wife, and Bishop Onderdonk.

5. How were the parties seated in the carriage V

Mr. Peek and myself on the front seat. Bishop Onderdonk and my wife on the
back seat ; my wife behind me, the Bishop behind Mr. Peck.

6. What distance did you ride, and on what day, and at what time of day did
you s.lart on your return!

About fifty miles ; just before sunset on the first day of June, the day next pre-
ceding my ordination.

7. What occurred during the ride from Ithaca to Syracuse, as far as you discov-
ered, between Bishop Onderdonk and Mrs. Butler 1 ?

I first noticed the Bishop's arm about my wife's waist ; I saw him draw her to-
wards him in a manner that I thought indelicate ; I saw her gently remove his
hand from behind from off her waist. A second time I saw his arm about her
waist; again I saw that he was" sitting without his arm about her waist. Looking
again I saw it again about her waist. My attention was then turned to the front
part of the carriage. Looking around again, I saw my wife slightly raised, carry-*
ing the Bishop's hand around to his knee. Then I heard her say, that that hand
was a sacred thing to her ; it had been laid upon the heads of many of her friends in
confirmation, and was to be laid upon my head to-morrow. Nothing occurred af-
ter this, until my wife touched me upon the shoulder.. She said she could not
sit there, that she must come over with me. As she came over and sat in my lap,
I asked her what had happened. She whispered to me, and I understood her to
say that the Bishop had been very rude to her, and had attempted to pull up her
clothes. She was very much agitated, and told me she would tell hie at the
next stopping-place more fully. We arrived, I think, al Dryden ; myself and wife
went into a separate room to take some refreshment. There she told me the Bishop
had put his arm around her waist, .and pressed her. bosom with sudden and violent
motion. She struck down his hand ; he placed it upon her thigh, and grasped it .
hard. There was nothin'g in this that led me to change my opinion, at the time,
that she had told me the Bishop attempted to pull up her clothes. I then told her
I must speak to the Bishop ; t'nat I would not return with him ; that I would not
be ordained by him. She soothed me, and dissuaded me, saying that the Bishop
might have taken more" wine than he was aware of, and did not know what he was
doing. She also said I was not in a Fit state of mind to speak to him. I promised
her for the present that I would not speak to him. We then rode to Homer. I
'revolved on the way what I ought to do. I concluded 'that I would be ordained,
say nothing about it, treat the Bishop with the civility that my official relation re-
quired, and with no more. The next stopping-place was about twelve miles from
Syracuse, where we breakfasted. We arrived in Syracuse about ten o'clock. I
was examined at the house of General Granger by old Mr. Pardee. Service com-
menced at eleven o'clock, and I was ordained Priest by Bishop' Onderdonk.

8. What .was the appearance of Bishop Onderdonk when Mrs. Butler spoke to
him about the character of his hand ?

I do- not remember that he said any thing, and I believe he was embarrassed.

9. Did or did not the Bishop appear to be excited by spirituous or vinous liquor T
He did.

10. What were the indications of such excitement?

Very high spirits and thickness of speech, first noticed by me when he was read-
ing a letter from Mr. Ten Broeck 1

11. Did the Bishop take any spirituous liquor during the journey?
Not that I know of.

1-2. Did Mrs. Butler remain on the front seat daring the whole night*
Yes.

13. Did the Bishop make any remark about her removal?

: that I remember.

14. Did he request her daring the night to return to the back seat ?
I did not hear him.

1 5. During any part of the drive, did you sit on the back seat with the Bishop ?
My first impression was that I did not ; on recalling circumstances, I think that

I did from the breakfasting place.

16. Did any, and what conversation pass between you and the Bishop while sit-
ting on the back seat together !

The only conversation I recollect was about the badness of the roads in the In-
dian country, compared with some others the Bishop had lately passed over.
IT. Did Mrs. Butler witness your ordination ?
No.

18. After the occurrences spoken of, was Mrs. Boiler indisposed ! and if so, for
what length of time ?

She was sick for about a week. I then took her to Pompey Hill, because she
was still very feeble. In a few days she was taken sick again, and I returned with
her. She remained very sick between two and three months.

19. What was the cause of that illness ?

I always attributed it in the first instance to her very great excitement and dis-
tress during that ride.

20. When, and to whom, did you first communicate the knowledge of these cir-
cumstanc-

Never, until I heard rumors of a similar kind. First, to the Rev. Mr. Lucas,
of Auburn, in the fall of the same year.

2 1 . To whom, and when, did you next communicate the knowledge of these
circumstances !

According to the best of my recollection to the Rev. Mr. Irving and the Rer.
Mr. Gallagher, at Palmyra, in the spring or summer of 1839. I had previously
told old Mr. Hubbard, of Stillwater, a* tie Special Convention at Utica, that I
knew of such a case.

2-2. Besides these, to whom did you teli it, and when, previous to the last Gen-
eral Convention I

I told it to Mrs. Isaac Lawrence, I cannot remember when. I mentioned it to
Bishop Meade, on a visit to luro at Millwood, in 1840 I think, in the spring of that
year. I mentioned it to Dr. Hcnshaw, when I was a missionary at Baltimore,
during the winter of 184* ** Besides these, I do not remember having mentioned
it to others, though I may have done so. After the rumors of investigation in
the Seminary, after 1 w as applied to to give my testimony on this subject before
the Committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the Seminary, I told it to
some persons ia Boston.

23. Did you &n e ^th & e Bishop on the day of your ordination ; and if you did,
at what place, and under what circumstances ?

I did not.

24. ^>Tiere did the Bishop dine on that day ?

I thini ac William Cook's.

26. Was you invited to dine there 1

i was.

Cross-Examination.

1. Was there a back to the front seat of the carriage upon which yon and the
driver sat ?

I think there was.

2. How then did your wife get from the back seat, and sit upon your lap ? Did
she climb over that back 1

She came over very quickly, I believe over the back.

3. After she got upon your lap, did she sit with her feet towards the horses or
towards the back seat ?

Towards the horses, with a carpet-bag and trunk I think immediately before us.

4. Did she continue sitting in that way all the rest of the journey until you got
upon the back seat with the Bishop ?

She sat upon my lap until we reached Dryden, and after that alternated between
sitting on my lap and on the carpet-bag in front, all the rest of the way, until I
changed my seat.

5. You have stated that you saw the Bishop put his arm two or three times
around the waist of your wife, and her put it away ; were you looking then at the
Bishop ?

I was sitting sideway on the seat, so that I could see my wife and the Bishop
distinctly, and was talking with them both.

6. Must not the Bishop then have known that you was looking at him ?
Yes, sir.

7. Did you then make any observation either to your wife or to the Bishop on
the subject ?

I made none to the Bishop. I had no opportunity to make any to my wife.

8. How happened it, sir, when you saw the Bishop taking indelicate liberties
with your wife, that you said nothing to him or to your wife 1

Because I was unwilling to expose the Bishop before Mr. Peck, and because,
although I thought it was indelicate, I did not think it of such a character as to
call for remark from me at the time.

9. How far is it from Ithaca to Dryden ?
I think about twelve miles.

10. Did all the improprieties that occurred between the Bishop and your wife
occur during that twelve miles ?

Yes, sir.

11. How long did you stop at Dryden ?

Long'enough to rest the horses and take some refreshment.

12. Did the Bishop take refreshment in company with you and your wife ?
No, sir.

13. Did he take any refreshment at all at Dryden ?
Not that I am aware of.

14. Durjng the whole of the time that the Bishop and your wife sat upon the
back seat, were you turned towards them so rtiat you could see them 1

While it continued light enough to see, I vr a & turned towards them the greater
part of the time.

15. Was this a dark, or a moonlight night ]

It was a cloudy night, and very dark during one pan of it.

16. Was the extreme darkness you speak of after yen left Dryden, or before
you arrived there]

I cannot remember I only remember that Mr. Peck got out on one occasion
to find the road, because it was so dark.

17. Did you hear the conversation that took place between yotr wife and the
Bishop, while they sat together on the back seat 1

I heard and joined in conversation. I do not remember what it was, except that
the Bishop talked much of the bad roads he had passed over, and we ot the bad
roads we had passed over, particularly through the Indian country.

18. Was there any conversation about the badness of the roads through the In-
dian country until you got upon those roads ?

Yes, there was : we told him what a bad road we would have to pass over.

19. Have yon any recollection of the Bishop's having got into a sound sleep,
while sitting on the seat by your wife 1

No ; and I feel sure that he did not, because the conversation did not fail up to
the time of her changing her seat.

20. Have you any recollection of your wife having complained to the Bishop
or to you, that night, that she felt chilly or cold before leaving the seat with the
Bishop ?

None.

21. Are you sure that the carpet-bag you speak of, was between the front seat
and horses, or was it between the front and back seat?

I feel confident that it waa between the front seat and the horses.

22. This back that you have spoken of, to the front seat, was it a wooden back
or a leather strap ?

I cannot recollect.

23. Have you ever, since this occurred, spoken to the Bishop on the subject ?
I have avoided speaking to him upon this or any other subject.

f 24. Do you mean to be understood as saying, that you have never had any con-
versation with the Bishop since you were ordained ?

I mean to be understood to say, that I never have had when I could avoid it.

25. How often have you conversed with him since, when you could not avoid
it, and upon what occasions ?

I cannot remember precisely how often. The first occasion was his passing
through Syracuse keeping some appointment. I heard of his being at Syracuse
House, but did not go until word was sent me by one of the gentlemen of the Ves-
try. There, I sat with him, conversing with him, with other gentlemen, until a
carriage was provided for him to go on with his appointments.

26. Did you then meet him in a friendly manner ?

I treated him as I had determined to do, with civility, no more.

27. You say that one of your vestrymen sent to let you know the Bishop was
there. Did you know he was there before you got such information ?

Yes, sir. I heard it through some source which I have forgotten.

28. How long before ?
Perhaps half an hour.

29. Do you remembei any other occasion on which you saw him and conversed
with him, when you could not avoid it ?

I was at the Convention at Utica, and do not recollect speaking to him except in
the aisle of the church, as he was entering the church. He shook hands with me,
and rapidly passed on. There was nothing more than the morning salutation.-

30. Do you remember any other occasion on which you have spoken to him 1
I unexpectedly to myself met him at dinner at Mr. Irving's, in Geneva.

31. Did you converse with him there ?
Yes, sir.

32. Was this dinner at Mr. Irving's before or after you had told Mr. Irving the
circumstances in relation to your wife ?

I think it was after, and am confirmed in this opinion by Mr. Irving's recently
relating at my table, in Boston, his noticing my coldness of manner towards the
Bishop and his embarrassment to me.

33. Did you go by invitation to dine at Mr. Irving's that day?,
I did.

34. Did you not know that the Bishop was to dine there 1
I did not.

35. Are these the only times you have seen the Bishop to speak with him since
your ordination?

I cannot recall any other times.

36. When you communicated these facts to Mr. Lucas, did you request him to
say nothing about it to anybody '

I believe I did.

37. When you mentioned them to Mr. Irving, did you make the same request of
him?

I did.

38. How was it with Bishop Meade when you communicated to him, did you
make the same request there too ?

I do not remember that I did.

39. What induced you to go to Philadelphia during the sitting of the last General
Convention ? . '

To hear the proceedings of the Convention, and to forward the interests of a new
publication about to be commenced at Boston.

40. Had you received any letter upon this subject from any person in Philadel-
phia, before you went there?

I received no letter from any person in Philadelphia on the subject.

41. Had you a letter from any other place ?

Previous to the examination of the committee on the affairs of the Seminary, I
received a letter from Mr. Gallagher, asking me if I was willing to give my testi-
mony with regard to Bishop Onderdonk's treatment of my wife ; and also one from
Mr. Barnwell, to the same effect.

42. When were these letters received : before you went to Philadelphia ?
Yes : the letter of Mr. Gallagher is dated Sept. 25.

43. Did you know then, before you left Boston, that when you got to Philadel-
phia you would be requested to go before the Committee you have spoken of?

No, I thought I should not.

44. Why did you think so, after having received those letters ]

I had engaged to go with Dr. Vinton, at the beginning of the session of the
General Convention. I had declined to go with him after the receipt of these
letters, for fear that I should be called upon to give my testimony on this subject,
which I had declined doing before the Committee appointed to examine into the
affairs of the Seminary. Not hearing of any movement of examining into the case,
I thought I could go on without my testimony being required.

45. You have stated that you were afraid to go on with Dr. Vinton, lest you might
be called on to testify as to these circumstances do I now understand you that
these fears were dissipated from the mere fact that you had not heard at Boston of
any steps being taken in relation to any investigation of the conduct of Bishop
Benjamin T. Onderdonk ?

Yes ; because Dr. Vinton had promised to write to me if any thing of interest
to me occurred.

46. Had you not a conversation with your wife on this subject, shortly before
you left Boston for Philadelphia ?

I had several conversations with her after the receipt of the letters of Mr. Gal-
lagher and Mr. Barnwell.

47. Aft^r your arrival in Philadelphia, who first spoke to you on this subject ?
I really cannot recollect.

48. Did you make an affidavit there !
Yes.

49. Who drew that affidavit t
I drew it.

50. At whose request ?

I cannot say it was at the request of any one. Bishop Meade asked me if I
would be willing to give my testimony in the case. I said I .would, and I then
drew the affidavit.

51. Do you remember that any body had spoken to you before Bishop Meade, on
that subject T

Dr. Tyng said to me, when he met me, " So you have been sent for, have you ?"
and I said, " No." I recollect Mr. Gallagher's speaking to me, but whether before
or after, I cannot remember. I recollect, the morning that I drew up the affidavit,
Mr. Gallagher and Dr. Hawks were walking together ; Mr. Gallagher asked me if I
had drawn up my affidavit. I told him I had not. He said it was time I should do so.

52. Did Dr. Hawks make any remark 1

I asked Mr. Gallagher, and he told me, if I would ask Dr. Hawks, he would tell
me how to do it. I asked Dr. Hawks if any legal form or phraseology was neces-
sary. He answered that all that was accessary was a simple statement of the
facts as they occurred. That is all I said to him, or he to me, on the subject.

53. If I recollect right, you said that Mr. Gallagher was one of the gentlemen
to whom you mentioned these circumstances.

I did.

54. Did you enjoin secrecy upon him at the same time T
I did so, and received the following letter.

[Copy.]
Rev. and dear Brother: NEW YoRK ' Se P'- 25 > 1844 '

After so long an interval of silence, I am pained to renew an intercourse, for-
merly so agreeable 'to myself, by reverting to a subject which, to a mind like

yours, must be attended with sensations of a revolting nature. 1 I trust, however,
that a sense of duty, which could alone induce me to address you upon such a sub-
ject, will overcome your instinctive repugnance so far, at least, as to leave you free
to consider what course it becomes you to adopt in view of the demands of truth
and righteousness. I am led to address you in consequence of a conversation which
I have held to-day with our brethren Messrs. Trapier and Barnwell, who have been
appointed, as you are aware, on a Committee to investigate _the truth of rumors af-
fecting the Seminary. Among other subjects, the reports of various immoralities
alleged against Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, which have long been afloat, have been
deemed within the scope of their inquiries from his connection with the Institution.
I was surprised to learn from them that your name had been mentioned as one who
had been exceedingly aggrieved, and. would testify to the most serious delinquencies.
You will remember a conversation which I had with you in the year 1839, at Pal-
myra, in which you recounted the aggravated injuries which you had suffered. I
had regarded this.in so confidential a light as never to have mentioned your name in
connection with that of the Bishop, save on one occasion, to our common friend
the Rev. Stuart Hanckel, and that accompanied by the strictest injunction of secre-
cy. I find, however, that Mr. Hanckel has inadvertently communicated the affair
to Mr. Barnwell, who, not being aware of .the confidential nature of the communica-
tion, felt it to be his duty to make it a subject of inquiry. I stated to him that it
ought not to be divulged r ..-ithout your consent, upon which he expressed an inten-
tion to write you on the subject. While I deeply regret that I have been uninten-
tionally the means of thus far extending the knowledge of a transaction of so pain-
ful a 'nature, (which I have learned, however, since my arrival in this city, is ex-
tensively known here,) I trust that you will be willing to mqke that sacrifice of
feeling which the present crisis and the leadings of retributive Providence seem to
demand. How much of the disgrace which has been brought upon the Church by this
guilty individual might have been avoided if his grievous immoralities had met with
that timely exposure which justice demanded ! Now that the question of exposure
has been providentially revived, must not a serious responsibility rest with those
who, by concealment, would be instrumental in continuing a wicked man in a posi-
tion in which he cannot fail to exercise a fatal influence in the Church? In this
opinion our friend Irving, to whom you confided likewise the affair, fully concurs.
Should you express to the Committee your willingness to testify, and should it be
considered by the brethren who have been engaged in this matter a duty to pursue it
to trial, your evidence would not be given before a Convention agitated by party
feeling, but before a Court of Bishops, where there would be no pccasion of publici-
ty, or danger of an unnecessary infringement of delicacy. It would be accompa-
nied by testimony, which, should you consent to appear, can be amply obtained, to
various other acts of intemperance and licentiousness. It would come up freed from
any plausible imputation of party persecution, inasmuch as Mr. Trapier, who is one
of those who would engage in the presentation, is known to be a strict High
Churchman. As your decision upon this subject involves interests of great magni-
tude, and lasting importance to the purity of the Church, I trust that every personal
consideration will be waived, and the severe demands of duty, however painful,
faithfully met.

That God may guide you, in this and in all things, .to a right judgment, is the
sincere prayer of

Your 1 affectionate friend and brother,

J. B. GALLAGHER.

P. S. I should be gratified to hear from you as early as practicable. Address
me, to the care of Hamilton Murray, Esq., No. 58 Pine-street, New York.

Rev. C. M. Butler.

55. Did you answer that letter ?

I did. I declined to appear, on the ground that if ample testimony could be ob-
tained to various other acts of intemperance and licentiousness, regarding, as 1
did at the time, the word licentiousness as having reference to overt acts, I did
not think that I ought to be called upon to testify.

56. How came you to change your mind upon that subject, and consent to testify !

Because, when T arrived at Philadelphia, I found, by Mr. Gallagher's expla-
nation of his letter, that he had in mind such cases as this of which I had know-
. ledge, an.d that it was. important that my testimony should 'be given. Besides this,
as it had bsen well known that I had stated these facts, I felt called upon, as an
honorable man, to abide by the statement, if a trial should be instituted

By the Court.

By Bishop Ives,

1.. Did you always repeat these circumstances with the aggravated one of the
Bishop's attempting to lift the clothes of your wife]

Not always. Sometimes I. stated the general fact of her being insulted in the
carriage. *

2. Can you tell in what cases you did repeat this aggravating circumstance ?
I cannot

3. Did you make affidavit to that circumstance ?

Yes ; and whenever, I should be called upon to state the circumstances in detail.
I should have mentioned that fact, because it was my strong impression, from the
first account given to me by my wife. \ bad never talked with her about the de-
tails, after the first conversation.

4. Do you mean after the first conversation, to the date of the affidavit 1
I do. .

5. What then were the various conversations you spoke of as had with your
wife on this subject, before leaving Boston ?

It was upon Ine painfulness of the whole matter, and her reluctance to have to
testify to it, all in a very general way. ,

6. Did you have a conversation with the Rer. Mr. Norwood of Virginia, on this
subject ?

I cannot remember that I did ; I will not say that I did not.

7. Did you ever have a conversation with the Rev. Dr. Hawks on this subject,
prior to the one related &s occurring at the General Convention ?

Never. . . .

By Bishop DC Lancey.

8. How long an interval elapsed between the times of Bishop Onderdonk's put-
ting his arm arobnd your wife ?

. A short time ; 1 should say not more than five or ten minutes.

9. What interval Occurrjed between the time of her speaking about the sanctity
of his hand, and her removal to the front seat ?

A somewhat lo'nger interval; so that it became from thick dusk quite dark
fifteen or twenty minutes.

10. At what time of the night, then, did she come to sit on your lap, before
dark, or after ]

, After dark.

11. Did the indelicacies which you saw, take place nearer to Dryden or. to
Ithaca ?

Nearer to Itliaca -.soon after ascending the hill.

12. How far were you from- Dryden when she removed to the front seat ?
I cannot remember ; I only remember that the ride seemed long.

13. Did Mrs. Butler say any thing at Dryden about the Bishop's attempting to
lift her clothes ?

She said nothing to counteract my .first impression with regard to it ; and added
a circumstance -that she had not told me .when she first came on my lap ; that ib,
the movement of her dress as he grasped her thigh.

14. Did she ever correct your misapprehension about the Bishop's attempt to
lift her clothes ?

After I showed her the .affidavit, which I had made at Philadelphia, she then
said that I had misapprehended ; that what she had said was, she did not know
but the. Bishop was about to pull up her clothes ; and I understood her as saying
that he attempted to do so.

15. Did you ever hear any person, while you were in' Western New York, re-

ler to this story, connected with the statement of the Bishop's attempt to lift her
clothes ?

I do not remember that I ever did.

16. Did you ever speak of this subject to the Rev. Dr. Hale, of Geneva.

I cannot recollect that I did. I will not say that I did not. I was very inti-
mate with him.

1 7. Did you ever speak to any one about these circumstances, at Utica, during
the Special Convention of '38, and if so, to whom 1

Mr. Hubbard mentioned the rumor of what Mr. Bolles had said, and I mention-
ed that I knew of a similar case. That is the only person to whom I remember
to have mentioned the circumstance.

18. Upon the ride from Ithaca to Syracuse, did you or did your wife go to
sleep 1

It is my strong impression that we did not either of us.

19. Was the Bishop's embarrassment when Mrs. Butler spoke to him about his
hand, very perceptible to the eye ?

It was perceptible by his casting down his eye, and more evident to me from
his making no rejoinder, more than a cold assent of " Yes."

20. Did you observe in the topics of conversation with the Bishop any indica-
tions of intoxication ?

I do not remember the topics of the conversation, further than the one I
have mentioned.

By Bishop Gadsden.

21. Were your relations with the Respondent perfectly friendly before the oc-
currence of this ride ?

Perfectly so. so far as I know.

22. Did I understand you that you were examined by tout one .person before
your ordination 1

I was examined by but one person. Some other person came into the room .
during the examination. The examination consisted of four or five questions.

23. Is it your opinion that the constitution of Mrs. Butler was permanently af-
fected by the occurrence on that ride ! .

It is most decidedly : for she was extremely agitated, and went immediately to
bed on her return home.

24. Did you ever mention this occurrence to your father 1
Never, because I was unwilling to give him pain.

By Bishop Doane.

25. Had any thing led you to be suspicious of the character of the Bishop be-
fore this ride, so that you kept your eye upon him ?

I had heard at Syracuse of the Bishop's drinking too much wine at the Syra-
cuse House with Mr. Todrig, but never of improprieties of this kind.

26. I understood you to say, that you first mentioned this occurrence in the fall
of 1837 ; was it because you then heard of any thing of this kind!

It was. '

27. Was Mrs. Butler perfectly well before this ride ; in good hearth !

She was of a delicate constitution, but enjoyed good health up to this time from
her marriage.

28. How was she affected ?

She was taken at that time with fainting and sick turns.

29. How long did these continue "?

I cannot specify. I only remember she was very feeble during all that period. .

30. What symptoms of disease followed this ?

After her return from Pompey, she had a succession of sick and fainting turns,
by which she was very much prostrated.

31. Does she continue out of health now?

She is of a very delicate constitution, easily prostrated by exposure and fa-
tigue.

32. Have you apprehended any thing like symptoms of consumption ?

I always have, from my first acquaintance with her, previous to her marriage.

33. "\\ as she of the temperament commonly called nervous ?

Not more than ordinarily.

34. Do you remember on what day it was, that you met Mr. Gallagher and
Dr. Hawks together ?

No, I cannot remember.

35. Was it before the subject of Dr. Hawks' consecration came up in the Gen-
eral Convention, or after ?

It was after.

By Bishop De Lancey.

36. Have you any children ?
Yes, sir, two.

37. What is the age of them respectively ?

The one is upwards of six years old, the other is two and a half; the elder was
born on the 3d of April, 1838.

38. Has Mrs. Butler ever had any miscarriages 1

She gave birth to a child, which died one half hour after birth, at Palmyra ?

39. Was her constitution, in your judgment, affected by that circumstance.

No more than the birth of any child would affect a person of delicate constitution.

Direct Examination resumed.

36. Did you know at what time the memorial upon this subject was introduced
to the House of Bishops 1

I did not. I did not know that such a memorial had been made, until after my
arrival in Philadelphia.

37. On your arrival in Philadelphia, did you understand that there had been
such a memorial ?

Soon after my arrival I heard of it.

38. Did you hear of it as having been presented to the House of Bishops ?
. I heard that a memorial had been presented.

39. Did you hear that before you met Mr. Gallagher and Dr. Hawks, in the
way you have testified ?

I am confident I did.

40. Was Mrs. Butler, at the time of your ordination, a communicant of this
Church)

She was.

The Court then adjourned to meet on Monday, the 16th inst., at half
past 9 o'clock, A. M.

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Monday, December Wth, 1844,
half-past 9 o'clock, A.M.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey,, the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, Western New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ;
the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and the South Western Missionary Diccese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The Counsel for the Respondent introduced to the Court, David Graham,
Esq., as his associate Counsel.

The Rev. JAMES A. BOLLES, having been swom in Court on Saturday,
the 14th, was called.

Direct Examination.

1. What is your vocation, and where do you live ?

I am a clergyman, Rector of St. James's Church, Bafavia, Western New York.

2. How long have you been a clergyman ?
Eleven years.

3. In August, 1838, did you accompany the Rt. Rev. Bishop Onderdonk, of
New York, in a stage-coach, anywhere, and where ?

I did ; but I am not certain whether we took the stage at Batavia or at Le Roy.
My impression is, that we took a private conveyance to Le Roy, and there, after
dinner, took the stage for Utica.

4. Who, besides you and the Bishop, were in the stage, and how were the par-
ties located ?

As near as I can remember, there were four persons in the stage when we got
in. The Bishop and myself took the middle seat ; upon the back seat, there was
a young woman, and, I think, a little girl ; there was, I think, a man and a boy
sitting upon the front seat. I am pretty certain. I have an idea that there was a
person in the stage having a large bundle, but whether on that occasion, or some
other, I am not positive.

5. Did the same passengers continue in the stage until your arrival at Utica?
They did not.

6. Who left?

I believe they all left before we arrived at Utica ; they were way-passengers.

7. Did you know any of these passengers, besides Bishop Onderdonk ?
No, sir.

8. Did the Bishop continue on the same seat with you until your arrival at Utica,
and if not, to what seat did he remove ?

I do not remember that the Bishop removed from the seat at all ; but the stage
stopping at Canandaigua, and taking a different set of passengers, I am unable to
say on which seat the Bishop did ride from Canandaigua.

9. During any part of jthis ride, did the Bishop sit upon a seat with a young
lady?

Not that I remember.

10. Was there any conversation between the Bishop and any young lady, or a
lady in the stage ?

There was.

11. When and where did the conversation take place?

I should think it commenced very soon after we left Le Roy, and continued until
the lady left the stage. I do. not mean to say that this was an incessant conversa-
tion with the young lady ; the passengers generally conversed, as passengers do in
a stage-coach.

12. Who was this young lady ?
I do not know.

13. Did the Bishop know her ?
I presume not.

14. What occurred between this young lady and the Bishop in the stage ?
The Bishop took her hand, and conversed with her in that position.

15. Is that all the Bishop did to her?
I did not see him do any thing more.

16. 'Did he put his arm about her ?
Not that I saw.

17. Did the lady withdraw her hand, or seem in any other way annoyed by the
Bishop's conduct ?

She did withdraw her hand, and seemed to be somewhat embarrassed.

18. What did she do ?

I do not remember that she showed this embarrassment in any other way than by
slightly blushing.

19. Did she withdraw herself at a greater distance than she was from the
Bishop?

Not that I remember ; I should think not.

20. How long did the Bishop hold her hand ?

I think the occurrence took place in this way : the Bishop turned around to con-
verse with her, and the lady put her hand upon the strap which crossed between
the seals, and the Bishop put his hand upon hers, and she very soon withdrew it.

. 3 ' -." *'.? ' i

21. Did the lady leave the stage in consequence of this familiarity"? ,

That I cannot say.

22. Did she leave the stage before ^he arrived at her -journey's end? 1

She left the stage at Lhna.; and I previously understaod her to say that she in-
tended to go on to Bloomfieki or Canandaigua -, I do not, remember which.

23. What 4id the Bishop converse about with the. lady ?

That I am unable to say. 'I only remember that some conversation occurred
about the country as we were passing that is, as to the particulars of the conver-
sation and the Bishop took the little girl' and lifted her up to show her something
out of the window, about which -they were conversing. .

24. How large was this little girl |
Eight or ten years old, I think.

25. Was ?he in company with the lady !

I have been trying to recollect whether the little giri got out with the lady, or
whether she belonged .to the man with the boy ; and I do not remember when or
where she got. out.

26. Is your recollection fresh as to the circumstances ihat occurred on that occa-
sion? . .

It is not. .''.'. .'.

27, Was there any thing in the manner of the Bishop towards that lady which
seemed to you; at the time indelicate or improper?

I thought at the time that it was foolish and indiscreet, liable to misconstruction.
.28. Did you regard the mere taking of the lady's hand on that occasion as

foolish and indiscreet ?

Yes. sir. "

29. Did you ever, and when, recapitulate these circumstances to the Bishop ?
I had a. conversation with the Bishop about them, soon after this, at the time of

the Convention at Utica. I think I did not ' fr recapitulate these circumstances to
the Bishop." ".

30. Did you, during the session of that Convention; and while the facts were
fresh in your recollection, communicate the knowledge of them to any person, and
to whom ? '.''.'.

[This question was' objected to hy the Counsel for the Respondent, as tending to
impeach or correct the party's own witness.

The Court sustained the objection ; the Bishop of Ohio dissenting, on the ground
that the. question went to ascertain the strength and nature of the impression made
on the mind of the witness at the time, by the transaction concerning which he was
giving evidence. ]

31. Did any thing else besides that which you .have already stated, occur between
the Bishop and the lady, during their ride together in' the stage ?

. A' circumstance has occurred since I came tp this city, to remind me that the
Bishop took the hand of the lady again, after she had taken it from the strap ; but
I do not distinctly recollect it. '

32. What was the circumstance that occurred to remind you of what you have
stated I (Objected to and overruled.)

33. Have you any recollection of wha't occurred besides what you have stated ?
No, I have 'not.

34. You say you. had a coriyergation vyith the Bishop immediately after, at
Utica ; what was that conversation *

I cannot say what I said, to th-e Bishop, or particularly what he said to me ; but
substantially, I went to the Bishop for the purpose of correcting a report which
had gone abrpad, and also stating to him precisely what I had said. I called upon
the indiyidual who went with me to whom I had stated it, to say to the Bishop
what I had said. Dr. Hawks stated to the Bishop -what I had said, and where
there was a difference of recollection I corrected the Doctor.

35- What'djid the Doctor state, and wherein did you correct him I

The Doctor stated that the Bishop's hand wa.s somewhere near, or oiv, or at the
lady's private parts ; I corrected the Doctor by saying that it was not so.
36. What was your correction how did ryou state it was 1
That is the circumstance' to which I referred a short time ago, as refreshing my

recollection, as to the Bishop's taking the lady's hand a second time ; and I am
quite sure that my correction consisted in saying that the Bishop's hand was near
the lady's lap. His hand rested over the strap.

37. What else did Dr. Hawks say at that time 1

I think that, with the exception of that, the statement was veiy much as I have
given it. I do not remember any other disagreement.

38. Do you remember nothing else that was said by Dr. Hawks, or by yourself,
to the Bishop on that occasion ?

I remember that I expressed to the Bishop my regret that I had mentioned what
had occurred. When the subject of the lady's leaving the stage was mentioned
to me a little while ago in this examination, and I was asked the reason, I said 1
did not knoiv why ; but at the time I drew the inference that the lady stopped be-
fore she had arrived whither she was going. In our conversation with the Bishop
that subject came up ; and I remember that he spoke of the impropriety of draw-
ing any such inference. I remember nothing else stated by me or by Dr. Hawks
in that conversation.

39. What did the Bishop say in that conversation ?

I think the Bishop expressed his surprise, and did not know at first to whom. I
referred. He asked me something about the little girl whether it was her, I think ;
I told him it was not her, but the other. The Bishop, as far as I remember, neither
affirmed nor denied the facts. The witness desires to explain. I referred by
facts to whatever transpired, and to what I said, and the Doctor said for me at
that time.

40. In that conversation you spoke of having regretted that you had mentioned
the subject. To whom did you say that you had mentioned it !

To Dr. Hawks.

41. Did you refer to any other person 1

I did not, and I do not remember having mentioned it to any other person at
that time.

42. What time do you mean ?

The first and only person that I mentioned this to was Dr. Hawks, before the
conversation with the Bishop referred to. Dr. Hawks, in this conversation with
the Bishop, stated that he (Dr. Hawks) had mentioned the circumstance to another
individual. Dr. Hawks made tJiis statement by way of apology for what had oc-
curred, and to exculpate himself from the charge of blame for having made this
public.

43. Was the name of that person used in this conversation ; and if so, what was it ?
I do not remembe^ that it was/'

44. Was any ttmg further said by the Bishop, on that occasion?
I do not remember any thing.

45. Any tiling in reference to communicating the result of that interview to
other persons 1

I do not remember. We shook hands with the Bishop when we came away,
and expressed ourselves satisfied of his integrity, and that he had no evil intentions.

46. Was any thing said about imprudence?

No, sir, I do not think there was. We did not go to reprove the Bishop, but
rather to explain my agency in the exaggerated reports which had been made out
of what I had told to Dr. Hawks.

47. Was the statement of Dr. Hawks, made to Bishop Onderdonk, correct in
all respects, except so far as amended by you at that tune ?

I do not remember any other correction now, but there may have been.

48. Did you make any memorandum of these transactions at the time ?

I have an impression that I did I believe I did but I have not been able to
find it.

49. Did you show that memorandum to any person, and to whom 1
Not to any one, that I remember.

50. What induced you to mention these circumstances to Dr. Hawks at the
time ? [This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent, as tend-
ing to elicit the opinion of the witness, and not facts. The Court sustained the
objection.]

51. Have you any further recollection of what occurred in the stage ?

I have not. I have a recollection that I was exceedingly surprised at Utioa,
that there had been any thing made out of my conversation with Dr. Hawks, to
the extent which was talked of.

Cross- Examina tion .

1. When you say in your direct examination that in this conversation with the
Bishop, at Utica, he neither admitted nor denied the facts stated by you or for you,
do you mean to be understood in speaking of the (acts as they were, after you had
corrected Dr. Hawks ]

Certainly I do. I corrected him immediately, and was surprised that he said
what he did.

2. Have you any doubt in your own mind that there were two persons sitting on
the front seat of the stage during the time that this lady you have spoken of was in
the stage ?

No, I have not.

3. Was this in the day-time or in the evening 1
In the day-time.

4. Did these persons who sat upon the front seat, sit with their backs to the
horses, or to you and the Bishop ?

They sat with their backs to the horses, facing the Bishop. and myself.

5. Are you certain that this lady left the stage at a place short of the one at
which she intended to leave it ?

No, I am not.

By the Court,
By Bishop Ives.

. 1. Are you certain in your own mind that the Bishop did not know this lady *
I have never thought that he did, yet I cannot say that he did not.

2. After this conversation with the Bishop did Dr. Hawks express any opinion
whether it was a sufficient explanation or not as to the Bishop's conduct 1

I do not remember any expression of opinion. I remember that we both shook
hands with the Bishop.

3. Did you have any conversation with Dr. Hawks subsequently on this subject
immediately, I mean ?

I do not remember any immediately ; the subject was dropped, as I understood.

4. Have you since had any conversation with Dr. Hawks on the subject ?
(Waived for the present.)

By Bishop Mcllvaine.

5. You said you remembered the Bishop spoke of the impropriety of your draw-
ing a certain inference concerning the lady's leaving the stage, What was that
inference 1

The inference was, that she had left the stage before reaching her place of des-
tination.

6. What was the impropriety complained of by the Bishop ? *

I thought that the young lady was somewhat embarrassed by the Bishop's atten-
tions, and that she left the stage before she had intended to.

7. Did the Bishop complain of your having inferred the lady left the stage in
any degree on account of his conduct towards her ?

Yes, sir : he thought there was no ground for such an inference.

8. When you and Dr. Hawks left the Bishop, after the conversation with him
at Utica, you expressed yourself satisfied that the Bishop had no evil intentions
in the matter referred to in that conversation had you before that conversation
supposed or suspected that he had evil intentions?

No, I had not any such idea.
By Bishop De Lancey.

9. Did you yourself converse with the lady in the stage ?
Yes.

10. Did the lady partake in the conversation ?
She did.

11. Did the lady say any thing to indicate that she left the stage in consequence
of the Bishop's taking her hand ?

We all got out of the stage at Lima ; it was the place for changing horses ; and
I thought the way in which the lady said she would not go any further, was indica-
tive of some little feeling. She said, "You may take my trunk down, I will not
go any further."

10. In regard to your visit to the Bishop with Dr. Hawks, at Utica, was the Bishop
requested by you or Dr. Hawks to state or explain what did occur in the stage !

Xo. sir, he \vas not.

By Bishop Doane.

13. Did you hear the lady express any intention as to the place to which she
was going, before she left the stage ?

I think she had previously spoken of going to Bloomfield or Canandaigua, and
hence I noticed her getting out at Lima.

14. If she had expressed no such purpose, would you have been struck 'with her
leaving the stage as she did ?

I think I would not.

15. Who helped her out of the stage *

I do not know ; but I am inclined to think the Bishop did.

16. Did the little girl go with her *
I cannot say.

17. Did any one accompany her to the public house at which she stopped *
I think not. Neither the Bishop nor myself went into the house.

18. Was the Convention at Utica a Slated or Special Convention *
I think it was a Special Convention.

19. Are you not certain that it was ?
I am not.

20. What special subject was to ene before that Convention 1 ?

The division of the Diocese ; al it ir<w a Special Convention ; we had an ad-
journed Special Convention afterwards, I think in the city of New York.

21. Had there been any conversation, or was there then current in the Dio-
cese any conversation, as' to an assistant to Bishop Onderdonk, if the Diocese
were not divided ?

Yes, sir, there was

22. What names *"ere prominent as candidates ?
(Waived for tfc present.)

By Bishop Gadsdi-

23. The Presentment says that the Bishop put his arm around the body of the
youn<r w-jman : did you witness any. thing of the kind ?

I dV not.

2/. The Presentment says that the Bishop took other indecent liberties with
l&r person : what were they *

This Presentment has been drawn up without any conversation with me by the
Presenters. I saw no indecent liberties ; I saw none that I considered indecent
liberties, or that could come under that name".

25. So far as you know, did the said young woman endeavor to get beyond the
reach of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk 1

' No, sir.

26. Was the lady seated directly behind the Bishop, or diagonally 1

The lady and a little girl were on the back seat. The Bishop and myself were
on the middle seat. The Bishop, to converse with her, turned around ; and that
would leave the lady more in a diagonal direction from him than immediately be-
hind him.

By Bishop Ives.

27. Did the young; woman sit dyrectly. behind the Bishop or yourself?
Behind the Bishop.

Direct Examination resumed.

52. la your interview wilh the Bishop, accompanied by Dr. Hawks, did you
understand that Dr. Hawks had seen the Bishop before on this subject ?

No, I did not.

53. What was your understanding on the subject *

I am very sure that he had not. I know he felt a little unwilling to go with me.

54. Where was this interview ?

I believe it was at the house of Mr. Hollister, the house where the Bishop was
staying.

55. In the conversation, did Bishop Onderdonk say that he had been spoken to
before on the subject, or was this the first knowledge that he had that this matter
had been spoken of?

I have always supposed that this was the first knowledge the Bishop had of it.

56. Was not this meeting in a church, or in the Vestry-room of a church ?
No, sir.

57. Who was with the Bishop when you went to see him ?

I have a recollection of our going from one room to another a parlor where
we might be alone. Who was present I know not.

58. Was Dr. Taylor there ?

no, I tlank not. He was not present at the interview, and I think he was
not there when we went in. I remember his being consulted about our going.

59. Consulted by whom "?

1 think I saw him ; but whether Dr. Hawks was with me, I know not. I know
he (Dr. Hawks) objected to going.

60. Did you consult Dr. Taylor ? (Objected to, and waived for the present.)

61. Who commenced the conversation with the Bishop, you or Dr. Hawka ?
I believe that I did.

62. Can you now recollect what vrere the terms employed by you in the com-
mencement of that conversation T

I do not remember the terms, nor the language, but I do remember substantially,
that I said to the Bishop that an unfortunate occurrence had taken place that I
had mentioned a small occurrence that took pace during our ride. I think I then
mentioned the fact that Dr. Bayard had been to q e and told me that this circum-
stance had been greatly exaggerated, and that I ha* com e there for the purpose of
an explanation. I referred to Dr. Hawks to tett the Hishop what I had said.

63. Did you say any thing to the Bishop at that time a'out having communicated
it to any other person than Dr. Hawks ? t

I did not. Dr.. Hawks mentioned that he had comnxmicav;d it to Dr. Taylor,
and he (Dr. Hawks) threw the blame upon Dr. Taylor, so f ar as there was
any.

64. Did you say in that conversation that you had spoken to Dr. 1 iylor about it ?
Not that I remember.

Cross-Examination resumed.

6. When you arrived at Lima, you have stated that you all got out of \he sUo-e
and that the lady said to the driver, " Take off my trunk, I will go no further" w^
this said by her before she went into the house ; or had she been in the house, and
then did she come out and give this Direction 1

She said this just as she got out of the stage, before she had been in the house.

7. Did she meet any friends there ?

I do not know. She was undoubtedly acquainted in that part of the country.
She lived about there somewhere. I inferred this from her being a way-passen-
ger, from her having a small hair trunk on the seat with the driver, and from her
conversation.

8. You observed, sir, in your direct examination, that you understood that it was
her intention to proceed in the stage as far as Bloomfield, or Canandaigua. Did
you understand that it was her intention to go on with you on that day, and not to
stop at any intermediate place '

No, I do not know that any thing was said about it

Direct Examination' resumed.

65. You said the Bishop lifted up the little girl, and she sat on the back seat.
How did he do this *

He lifted her up over the strap, and showed her something out of the window. I
remembered nothing about it, except as it was referred to in the conversation
with the Bishop : then I remembered it.

66. Did he replace the little girl on the back seat, or did she remain on the mid-
dle seat 1

I do not remember.

67. Did any other passenger besides yourself notice, as far as you discovered, the
intimacy between the Bishop and the lady ?

Not that I know of. Nothing was said to me about it.

68. You have said that the lady showed some feeling. After further taxing your
recollection, can you say whether she said any thing, and what?

My statement as to her feeling, referred to her getting out of the stage, and to
what she said to the driver.

69. Did the lady hear you address the Bishop by his title ?
I presume she did.

By the Court.
By Bishop Ives.

28. At this time I mean the time of your relating this matter first, or before
the occurrence had you heard of any other case of like impropriety alleged of
the Bishop ?

I had heard the case of Mrs. Butler not before the occurrence, but at the Con-
vention, before I related this. And if I had not heard that, I should probably not
have spoken of this.

29. From whom did you hear it ?

I think I heard it from Dr. Hawks,
By Bishop Hopkins.

30. Was the Bishop seated at your right hand, or at your left ?
I think the Bishop was at the left.

31. When he turned around to converse with the lady, did he turn towards you
or from you 1

He turned towards me.

32. When he took hold of her hand the second time, as it lay near her lap, how
long did he keep hold of '* '

I do not know. I AOuld think not more than two or three minutes.

33. You said s^ seemed embarrassed, and blushed slightly : was this when the
Bishop had h^ f her hand the first or the second time 1

Both ti^s-

34. md the lady make no attempt to withdraw her hand the second time, nor
otherwise notice it?

I did not observe any attempt.
By Bishop Mcllvaine.

35. What interval of time occurred between the Bishop's taking her hand the
first and second time ?

I cannot remember.

36. Can you say about what interval you suppose it was ?

No, sir. I do not recollect any thing which would enable me to judge ; but I
should think not a long time.

Cross-Examination resumed.

9. How long were you with the Bishop in the stage with this lady ?
From Leroy to Lima, twenty-two miles.

10. About what time?
Between three and four hours.

1 1 . Did the stage stop between Leroy and Lima ?

It stopped two or three times probably at Avon for the passengers to get out.

,, T , By the Court.

By Bishop Mcllvaine.

37. About what period of the journey did these things take place ?

They commenced pretty soon perhaps after we had gone half way from Leroy
to Lima.

By Bishop Doane.

38. Did the Bishop seem desirous to avoid observation of what he was doing ?
No, sir.

39. Did what he did, seem to attract the attention of those on the front seat T
Not that I remember.

40. Were you anxious lest it should?
I think I was.

41. Do you remember doing anything to divert the Bishop's mind, so that those
on the front seat might not observe it !

No, I do not.

42. Did you at any such time yourself address the lady, to interrupt any such
proceedings 1

I do not remember addressing her for that purpose.
By Bishop Brownell.

43. Was the lady particularly reserved during the latter part of the journey, or
was she as free to converse as during the first part ?

I have no recollection of any difference in that respect.

Cross-Examination resumed.

12. Did these occurrences of which you have spoken I now mean the Bishop's
taking hold of her hand while iri the stage, in the manner you have stated occur
before your arrival at Avon, or after 1

After we left Avon, and a short time before we reached Lima. I perhaps should
not have thought of the occurrence ; but there being a large Methodist school at
Lima, I did not know but this girl might be a Methodist, and misconstrue the
Bishop's conduct, so as to injure our Church in that vicinity. It made a deeper im-
pression on my mind from that circumstance.

By the Court.
By Bishop Mcllvaine.

44. Did any conversation take place between the Bishop and the lady after the
last taking of her hand 1

Yes.

45. Was that conversation in an ordinary tone of voice,,or in a ^pressed voice T
In an ordinary tone of voice.

By Bishop Doane.

46. How old did this lady seem to be T
I should think abbut twenty-five.

47. Was any thing said of her going to the school at Lima, either as scholar or
teacher ?

Nothing that I remember.

48. Was any thing said of the little girl being taken to the school ?
Nothing that I remember.

49. Did the lady express any interest in the school 1

The school was an object of sight and conversation before we reached Lima. It
stands upon high ground. I have no recollection of any thing to enable me to say
that the girl understood any more than that it was a Methodist school.

50. Did it never occur to you that she might have been connected with the
school, or had friends there ?

I cannot say that it did.
By Bishop Ives.

51. Was there any thing singular in her dress in any way?
She was a plain country girl plain in her dress.

By Bishop Henshaw. ,

52. You said you were apprehensive that misconstruction of the Bishop's
conduct might do injury to the Church in that vicinity had you any fear that a
faithful report of it would prove injurious?

No, I had not, in connection with the fact of his being a Bishop. In a notoriously
bad man such conduct would have been indicative of a bad design ; but it did not

occur to me, nor do I think, that the Bishop had any impure or lustful desires to-
wards the woman.
. By Bishop Mcllvaine.

53. Was if merely your reliance upon the character of the Bishop that prevent-
ed you from supposing that his conduct proceeded from improper desires ?

No, sir. ; Any man of good character in the community it would be wrong to at-
tribute improper desires-to him, simply in consequence of any thing which had oc-
curred. .

By Bishop Doane.

'54. Did you hear of the occurrences with Mrs. Butler before you mentioned this
at all? . .

. I think the occurrence with Mrs. Butler was mentioned at the time, and .before
I mentioned this, in the same conversation.

55. Did you attach serious importance to this occurrence before tha.t of Mrs.
Butler was mentioned ? ' . . /

I did not.

Direct Examination resumed.

70. After the case of Mrs. Butler w*as mentioned, did you attach serious impor-
tance to what you saw in the stage T

No, sir, I did not. I was greatly turprised when I found t>ai it was so regarded
by others. ' i .

By the Court.

By Bishop Doane.

56, In the' case of Mrs. Butler,, as it was stated ** yo> was there any mention
of an attempt to lift her clothes ?

No, sir. .

.Miss HELEN M. RUDDEROW,, havir^r 6een stroro in Court on Saturday,
the 14th, was called.

! Direr* Examination.

1. Where do you live! .
Fiftieth-street, city of New Tort.

2. Are you the sister .of Jhn Ruddwow ? . .
I am.

3. In the month of Jtfte,. 1841', did you ride 'in a carriage with Bishop Onder-
donk, of New York *

I did. r

4: From wha-' place, and to what place ?

From St. James's' Church to Sixty-first street, our former residence.
; 5. Whei is St. 'James'? Church? . .

Sixty-inth street, 'Hamilton Square.

6. jWout what time was that ?

1?L15 of June, 1841. ' . .

?.. Did you'.sit on the same seat with Jhe Bishop'in the carriage?

I did.

8. Who was in the- carriage besides? - .

Rev. James C. Richmond.

. 9. On what seat of the carriage did he sit with his face towards you, or other-
wise 1

On the front seat of the carriage, not facing me.

10. Was there any other person in the carriage on the front seat?
There was not.

11. Did Mr. Richmond drive the horses?
He did.

.12. Was there any other person on the back scat, besides you and 'the Bishop?
No, sir.

13. State clearly and distinctly what the demeanor of the Bishop to you was, on
that occasion.

We had not proceeded very far from the church, when Bishop Onderdonk put
his arm around my neck, and thrust his hand into my bosom : this he continued to
do. I was very much surprised and agitated, and would have jumped from the
carriage, had it not been for exposing him to the Rev. Mr. Richmond. He kept
repeating the offence until we reached home, where he was to dine with us. I
immediately went to the room occupied by my sister and myself, and told her what
had happened. I entreated her to go down and entertain him, as the family were
not yet prepared to do so ; she consented, upon condition that I should follow as
soon as I could sufficiently compose myself; which I did, and found my mother and
sister-in-law with them.

14. Will you excuse me for asking whether or not it was upon your naked bosom
that the Bishop thrust his hand ?

It w*s, sir.

15. L-d or did not his hand extend below the top of your dress ?
It did.

16. What remark, if any, did you make to the Bishop in the carriage ?
I cannot reccllect.

17. What did jou do in the carriage *

I endeavored to insist the insult, but could not.

18. On. which side nf you was the Bishop seated?
On the left side.

19. Had the Bishop been officiating that mornin^ in Church ?
He had.

20. Was it Sunday?
It was.

21. Had there been confirmation that morning?
No.

22. Did the Bishop remain and dint with you ?
He did.

23. Did you live with your brother ?
I did this was his house.

24. Are you a communicant of the Protestani Episcopal Church ?
I am.

25. Were you at that time ?
I was.

The Court then adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTING^AM, Clerk.

Tuesday, December nth, ^844,
half-past 9 o'clock, A. M.

The Co'urt met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont.
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, Western New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Dela-
ware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachu-
setts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

Cross-Examination.
Miss HELEN M. RUDDEROW

1. What is' your present age ?
Thirty-two.

2. Had you been acquainted with Bishop Onderdonk previous to the occasion to
which you have referred ?

I had.

3. How long had you been acquainted with him previously 1
Ten years.

4. Had you conversed with him frequently during that period of ten years, or
at all ?

I had conversed with him occasionally.

5. Had you met him at the house of any friend or relative during that period *
I had not.

6. Where did you meet him on the occasions on which you conversed with him *
At the church.

7. At what church 1
St. Paul's Chapel.

8. Was that the extent of your acquaintance with him your meeting him at
church and conversing with him on those occasions ?

It was.

9. Were those meetings casual ones, after the service of the Church was over *
I sometimes saw him before service, as well as after.

10. Did you see him in the church or in the vestry-room 1

In the Church.

11. Do you mean in coming into JLhe church, or in going out of it ?
Sometimes the one, and sometimes the other.

12. Did any other conversation pass between you and the Bishop on those oc-
casions than the ordinary salutations ?

There did.

13. What was the nature of those conversations!

He sometimes spoke of the state of the Sunday-school, and religious matters.

14. Have you ever, since the occasion spoken of in your direct examination, met
Bishop Onderdonk?

I have.

15. How often 1

Once since that occasion.

16. When and where did you so meet him ?

I saw him at St. James's Church in July, 1843.

17. Was that on Sunday 1
It was,

18. Did the Bishop officiate in that church on that day ?
He did.

19. When did you meet him on that day *

The Bishop came up to me before morning service.

20. Where were you when he came up to you 1
I was in a pew, teaching a class.

21. Was any person in company with you at that time, excepting your class!
There was not.

22. Was any person in company with the Bishop at that time !
The Rev. Mr. Dowdney came to the pew-door with him.

23. Did Mr. Dowdney remain at the pew-door while the Bishop did T
Not all the time.

24. Did the Bishop first address you, or did you first address the Bishop ?
The Bishop first addressed me.

25. What did he say 1

He inquired after my health, and the health of our family.

26. Was there any thing else in that conversation on the part of the Bishop ?
There was not. With the exception that he inquired after my Sunday scholars,

and taught them the Collect for the day.

27. Do I understand you that after your reply to his inquiry, nothing further
passed between you and the Bishop on that occasion ?

Nothing further than I have stated about the Sunday scholars.

28. Did the Bishop remain with you, or near you, while teaching the' Collect to
the scholars ?

He stood a short distance from me.

29. Whither did. he go then ? ' .

He went to an adjoirfing pew,'and spoke to another of the teachers. .

30. Did you shake hands with the Bishop on that occasion ?
I did.

31. Did the Bishop officiate that morning in the church ?
He preached the sermon.

32. Did you meet the Bishop again during that day 1

I met him again in the afternoon, but did not speak to him.

33. Where did you meet him ? . .
At the church. ;

34.' Was that before or after 'the afternoon service 1 .

It was before the service ; I mean before the afternoon service.

35. Did you not meet him at the close of the morning Service that day ?
I did not.

36. Did not you and . your sister remain in the church after the close of the
morning service, and as Bishop Onderdonk was -leaving the chureh, meet him, and
address him in a very friendly manner ?

/ did not. . .

37. Did either of you? i ' . ' .
My sister met him ; I cannot tell her mantier towards him.

38. Did you not speak to him at all on that occasion ?
I did not.

39. Did your sister converse with him on that occasion \
I presutne she did ;. but I was not present. ...

40. Who first spoke on the occasion of thek. meeting the Bishop, or your sister *
I do not know. . .

41. In what part of the church was this ?
In the vestibule.

42. Did you and your sister come out together ? . .
We did riot. .

43. Had you and your sister occupied the same pew that morning ? .
My sister presided at the organ.

44. Were you in the organ-loft with her ? . ; . .
I. was. ;

45. Did you leave the organ-loft together ?
We did not.

46. Did you go down stairs together ? .
No. ; ..

47. How far apart were you in going down , stairs ?

Some distance; I cannot exactly tell how far. I was in the organ-loft, and we
were separated- some sixteen or. seventeen steps, and quite a space.
. 48. Do you mean that you remained in the organ-loft until your sister had got
to the foot of the stairs, or the vestibule of the church '?

I do.

. 49. 'Where did you first join your sister on that occasion, after you left the
organ-loft ?'.

In the body of the church.

50. Did you remain in the organ-loft until the Bishop left your sister?
Nearly all of the time. .,

51. Did you come down at all before the Bishop left yolir sister ?
I did'not.

52. You say that on that occasion your sister met the Bishop did she shake
hands with him when they met ?

As I was not an eye-witness, I cannot tell. .

53. Do you mean that you did not see the Bishop and your sister together at
that tame ? '

' ' 43 **JV ;

[This question' was objected to by Coqnsel for the Presentment, on the ground
that it was 'irrelevant, relating to collateral matters. The point having been ar-
gued by counsel on both fcides, the Court was divided in opinion; the Bifehops.bf
Kentucky, Ohio, Delaware, and Massachusetts sustaining the objection; the
Bishops of Illinois, Conuecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, North Western Missionary
Diocese, Louisiana, .Western New York, and Maryland.; the Assistant Bishop of
Virginia, and the Bishops of Rhode Island, and the Southwestern Missioriary Dio-
cese, overruling the objection. The Bishop of South Carolina declining to give an
opinion in the premises. So by a majority of fhe Court it was overruled.]

I went to. the stairs to see whether. the Bishop had gone, and returned; I found
he had not. .

54. Did you find the Bishop and. your sister . talking together at! that time'
(Objected to.)

'He was talking With others.

55. Was your sister there, at 'the foot of the stairs, or af the .vestibule? (Ob-
jected to.) :.

I cannot exactry say. .

56. Was she among the persons with whom the Bishop was conversing as you
have mentioned ! (Objected 'to.)

She was present certainly. i

57. How long was it after your sister left, : before you went down from the
organ-loft, and found the Bishop still*t the vestibule'! . (Objected to.)

Perhaps five or ten minute's.

58. Djd you remain in the organ-loft for the purpose of avoiding meeting the
Bishop ? (Objected to.)

i did. ..: . .

59. Did you tell your sister so 1 (Objected to.)
I do not remember that J- did.

60. Did you say any thing to your sister respecting the Bishop at that time, of
respecting your reason for not going down with her 1 ; (Objected. to.)

I do not know that I did.

61. You say that your sister -and yourself rriet, after the Bishop had left,. in the
body of the church did you say any thing to . your .sister respecting the Bishop
when you so met ]

It is very probable I did.

62. Can you not be more certain whether you said any thing or not respecting
the Bishop 1

I cannot remember exactly what I -said to her about the -Bishop.

63. Did you reprove your sister for having met and conversed with the Bishop .1
(Objected 'to. Modified thus, after argument by counsel- )

64. Did you reprove your sister for having met,. and, as you presumed, conversed
with the Bishop 1 (This question wa^ waived for the present^)

65. You say that you presume that your sister 'conversed with the Bishop in
the vestibule did you at the time presume that she conversed with him there !

I thought it vva's probable, from circumstances.

66. Had you at. the time a)iy doubt of it*

I had some doubt of.it. . .

67. What were the circumstances which induced you-to suppose that your sister
converged with the Bishop ]

.Others being present, remarks might .have been made if she had not.

68. Did you reprove your sister for having met/and, as you presumed, conversed
with the Bishop] .(Objected to and the following substituted '-)

69. Did you advise your sister to remain in the organ-loft, 'with a view to avoid
the Bishop ?

There was no remark made to my sister upon the subject.

7d. Yon have spoken, of the Rev. Mr. Dowdriey was he present at 'the time
last referred to, when your sister met Bishop Onderdonk at the vestibule of the
Church? ; . .' '

He was. :

71. Did he continue there until you afterwards joined your sister in the body of
the Churcjh as you stated ? (Objected to objection not sustained.)

I presume that he did.

72. Have you any doubt that he did ?
No.

73. .Was your sister with you at the church on the morning of the day when
Bishop Onderdonk laid his hand upon your person, as you have described ?

She was, and was obliged to leave before the service was over ; she was taken
ill with a nervous headache.

74. Was any other member of your family with you at church that morning 1
My brother was ; it was my married brother, Mr. John Rudderow, not the brother

now present.

75. Was it the person present yesterday, during the whole of your direct ex-
amination ?

It was.

76. Did your brother leave the church in company with you ?
He did not.

77. Did you see him when you got into the carriage to ride home 1
I did not.

78. Did you see him after you got home ; and if so, how soon ?
I do not think that I did see him until towards evening.

79. Whose wagon was this in which you rode home 1
It belonged to the Rev. James C. Richmond.

80. Was it a covered wagon or an open one ?
It was a covered wagon.

81. Describe the wagon.

It was a four-wheeled carriage with two seats, the top extending over the whole.

82. Were the sides of the wagon closed ; and if so, how far ?
As far as the back seat extended, and a little beyond.

83. Had the wagon side-doors.
It had not.

84. Were the front and sides of the wagon open, excepting the part extending
to the back seat, and a little beyond 1

They were.

85. How far beyond, or in front of the back seat, was the wagon closed 1
It might have been a quarter of a yard.

86. Could you not plainly see out of the side of the wagon, on either side, as
you sat upon the back seat 1

By leaning a little forward I could do so.

87. Could not a person sitting on the back seat be plainly recognised by persons
meeting the wagon ?

By observing very minutely they might.

88. Could not a person thus sitting be observed in merely passing 1
I should think not.

89. Was this a high wagon or a low one ?
"It was a high carriage.

90. Do you mean to say, now, that a person meeting that carriage directly,
could not discover at once that there were two persons sitting on the back seat T

No, sir, not at once.

91. Was the top of the carriage up or down at that time 1
It was up.

92. Was the back curtain up or down 1
It was down.

93. What kind of a day was this ?
A stormy day.

94. Did you meet any persons on your ride home !
I do not remember seeing any one.

95. How far was your ride 1
Nearly a mile.

96. How long in point of time was your ride 1

I should suppose half an hour.

97. Were the roads muddy !
They were.

98. Before the Bishop put his hand upon your shoulder did he make any re-
mark!

If he did, it was not to me.

99. Did he make any remark to any one !

He might have spoken to the person driving, but I don't recollect.

100. Was there any conversation between you and the Bishop from first to last,
during that ride ?

1 think there was not any thing more than monosyllables passed between us.

101. What were they!

In the conversation that passed between Mr. Richmond and Bishop Onderdonk
I was referred to, and made very short replies. .

102. Did the Bishop and Mr. Richmond converse continually during the ride *
Mr. Richmond talked a great deal.

103. Did the Bishop converse at all!
Yes, sir, somewhat.

104. Do you remember the subject of their conversation !
No, sir, I do not.

105. Did Mr. Richmond turn round, during that ride, to converse !
Partly so.

106. Did he turn round so as to see your face or the Bishop's.
He could see the Bishop's.

107. Did he turu round in this manner repeatedly !
Only occasionally.

108. How long after you left the church was it before the Bishop put his hand
upon you *

Perhaps not five minutes,

109. Did he say any thing te you 'before putting his hand upon you !
He did not.

110. Did he first put his hand upon your breast, in the manner you hare de-
scribed 1

He put his arm around my neck.

111. Did you say any thing to him !
I did not.

112. Did you push his hand away 1
I did.

1 13. How long after that-before he repeated the act !
Immediately.

114. What'did you do then *

I endeavored to move, but could not.

115. Whither did you endeavor to move !
I was tempted to leap from the carriage.

116. Do you mean that }-ou moved for that purpose !
I attempted to do so.

J17. How were you prevented ?

By the consequences that might result.

118. How long did the Bishop's hand continue upon your person the second time !
Until we reached home.

1 19. Did he immediately, after he laid his arm around your neck the second time,
thrust his hand into your bosom, in the way you described !

He did.

120. Did you attempt to remove his hand from your bosom 7
I did.

121. In what way?

By placing my hand upon my breast.

122. Did you attempt in any other way to escape from the embrace of the
Bishop !

I endeavored to remove from him.

123. .Did you do this repeatedly, or only .once 1
Several times.

124. Did these attempts on your part continue until your ride Was terminated 1
They did.

125. Did you in any manner remonstrate with the Bishop ?
I did not : we would have been heard by Mr.. Richmond.

126. Was Mr. Riehmond conversing with the Bishop during any of these at-
tempts on your part to escape T

I think he was.

127. Had you not, previously to this time, been upon terms of great intimacy
with Mr. Richmond ?

He visited our house as our pastor.

128. Had you not corresponded with him, in writing ?
No, sir.

129. You say that immediately upon your return home, you informed your sister
of this occurrence ; did you inform any other member of your family of it that-
day 1

There was a cousin in the room at the-time Miss De Groot.

130. Did you mention it to any other member of your family that day 1
No, for various reasons, I did not.

131. When, and to whom, did you first mention- it, after that day ?

To my married, sister, Mrs. Dr. Eadie, shortly after. I cannot remember, but
within three months after.

132. When, and to whom, did you next mention it ?
To my mother, during the next fall.

133. Have you made any affidavit, or sworn statement, in relation to this mat-
ter 1 ?

Yes.

134. When did you make that affidavit 1
Within the last three months.

135. Who prepared that affidavit for you 1
Mr. Richmond Mr. James C. Richmond.

136. Had you ever told these facts to Mr. Richmond, before he prepared that
affidavit ?

I did.

137. When did you .first tell Mr. Richmond 1-
In 1843, in May.

138. Did you volunteer this statement to him, or did he call upon you on the
subject 1

H asked me what had occurred during the .ride, and I could not speak un-
truly.

139. Did you ever yourself, after the ride, make a memorandum in writing of
the facts ?

Never.

140. How are you enabled to say with certainty the precise day of the month,
week, and year, on which the ride took place V

The Bishop had been administering the rite of confirmation at Astoria during
that month, and that impressed it upon my mind.

141. Where is Astoria'?

Nearly opposite what was then my place of residence, on Long Island.

142. What sort of-a dress did you wear, on the occasion of that ride ?
I had a low-necked dress on..

143. Had you any shawl, or other covering of the neck, upon you 1
I had a shawl.

144. Was the Bishop's arm over or under your shawl T
' It was -over the shawl.

145. Did he part the shawl upon your bosom for the purpose 9f putting his hand
under yodr dress.]

I had not it (the shawl) exactly up upon my throat ; it was thrown loosely, over
my shoulders.

146. After the Bishop's hand was first removed, as you have stated, did yon
draw your shawl around your neck 1 *

I think that I did.

147. When he put his hand upon you the second time, did he open or part
ypur shawl ?

Yes, sir.

By the Court.
By Bishop Doane. , ^

1 . Did vou dine in company with the Bishop on the day of the ride 1
I did.

2. Had you any conversation with him at dinner 1
Very little.

3. Was there a back to the front seat of the carriage in which you rode *
I cannot remember.

By Bishop De Lancey.

4. Who invited you to ride in the carriage with Bishop Onderdonk 1
Mr. Richmond.

5. You mentioned Miss De Groot as present : when you first mentioned the oc-
currence to vour sister, did Miss De Groot hear you mention it?

Yes, sir, I think she did.

Pending the cross-examination of the last witness', the Rev. Thomas
House Taylor, D. D., Rev. Paul Trapier, Rev. Henry M. Beare, and
Mrs. Charlotte E. Beare, respectively appeared in Court, and were seve-
rally sworn by Dayton Hobart, Esq., commissioner.

The Rev. THOMAS HOUSE TAYLOR, D. D., was called as a witness by
Counsel for the Presentment.

Direct examination. .

1. Did you attend the Convention at Utica in 1838 1
I did.

2. What is your vocation, and where do you live * , .

A Presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and
Rector of Grace Church in the city of New York.

3. During the Convention of 1838, at Utica, did you have a conversation with
the Right Reverend Benjamin T. Onderdonk, in respect to certain charges that
had been made against him by the Rev. Mr. Bolles 1 and if you did, please state
the whole of that conversation.

In speaking of events that transpired s.o long ago, I must necessarily be cautious
as to the precise words used ; but the subject-matter of conversation is very fresh
in my recollection. I went to Bishop Onderdonk, not only in consequence of
charges made by Mr. Bolles, but others, which I repeated to the Bishop. I told
him that he was charged with habitual intemperance ; that he had been repeatedly
drunk upon that visitation ; that he was charged with taking improper liberties
w r ith females ; that Mr. Bolles saw him taking indecent liberties with a young
woman in a public stage on the day before ; that Mr. Bolles had mentioned the
circumstance to Dr. Hawks, but, as he said, with no intention that it should be-
come publicly known, but rather that Dr. Hawks should speak to Bishop* Onder-
donk on the subject ; that he (Mr. Bolles) was greatly distressed at finding it so
publicly talked of ; that I had advised Mr. Bolles to come immediately to Bishop
Onderdonk, and tell him the whole story himself; that as to the charge of drunk-
enness, I had told Dr. Hawks I would refer to him for the proofs ; and entreated
Bishop Onderdonk to see Dr. Hawks and Mr. Bolles ; and that I would send them
to him. Bishop Onderdonk assured me that the charges were not true. As to
drunkenness, he had taken nothing but a little port wine and water during that
visitation, which was necessary to correct the effects of the lime-stone water he
was compelled to use ; that as to the circumstance complained of by Mr. Bolles,

the female was a mere child ; that he had lifted her from her seat in order to ena-
ble her to see some object that was engaging the attention of the other passen-
gers, and was in the act of putting her down, when seen by Mr. Bolles ; that, in
short, he regarded every thing I had told him as idle stories, which he prayed I
would not allow to disturb me. (The Bishop saw that I was annoyed, and there-
fore said this.) I then told him that I would send Dr. Hawks and Mr. Bolles
to him ; and then left him.

4. Where was this interview in a church, a private house, or where else ?

In the vestry-room of the Episcopal Church at Utica, where the convention was
held.

5. Who was present beside you and the Bishop ?
No one.

6. How came you and the Bishop in the vestry-room ?

I requested the Bishop, while sitting in the chancel, to allow me a few moments'
conversation with him on matters of the utmost importance to himself. He then
prayed to be excused for a few moments by a crowd of gentlemen who were around
him, and he led the way into the vestry-room of the church. As I entered I turned
the key to secure us from intrusion, and then .commenced the conversation.

7. Had Bishop Onderdonk at this time seen Mr. Bolles 1

He had not, to my knowledge or belief. I do not believe he had seeji him.

8. Did he seem to receive the intelligence, as to the charge made by Mr. Bolles,
as for the first time ?

I should suppose that he did so receive it.

9. Do you know that he was called upon afterwards by Mr. Bolles ?

After leaving Bishop Onderdonk I met Dr. Hawks and Mr. Bolles in the street,
and told them to go immediately to the Bishop, that he was ready to receive them.
They left me and entered the church to see the Bishop.

10. Did you see them with the Bishop ? (Objected to and withdrawn.)

11. In that conversation between you and the Bishop, was there any thing said
about a lady in the stage, not a child \

In the reply of the Bishop, nothing ; my repetition of the charge of Mr. Bolles
was, that the Bishop had taken improper liberties with a young woman.

Cross- Examination.

I. Was there any other statement made by you of the charges which had been
preferred against the Bishop, excepting in the manner stated in your direct exami-
nation !

When I made the charge of drunkenness, the Bishop would reply ; and when I
repeated the charges of Mr. Bolles, he would in like manner reply, as stated in the
direct examination.

Direct Examination resumed.

12. When you repeated the charge of Mr. Bolles that the Bishop had taken im-
proper liberties with a female in the stage the day before, do you mean to say that
he replied to that charge by the declaration, that- he had taken up a little child in
the manner you have stated 1

The Bishop's reply was, as to the charge of Mr. Bolles, she was a mere child,
(that is, to the best of my recollection,) and he had lifted her from her seat in order
to enable her to see something at which the passengers were looking.

By the Court.
By Bishop De Laacey.

1. When the Bishop made this remark about the child, did you repeat the charge
by Mr. Bolles that it was a young woman ?

Not to my recollection.

2. Did you seek from the Bishop any further explanation about any of these
charges at that time, or did you refer him to Mr. Bolles and Dr. Hawks, as the
authors of the charges, with whom the explanations were to be made?

I did not seek for any farther explanation from the Bishop, but referred him to
Dr. Hawks, who told me he had the proofs in his possession as to the charges of
intemperance, and to Mr. Bolles as the author of the charge of improper conduct
with a female, alluding to the case hi the stage.

By Bishop Doane.

3. Did the general expression, " taking improper liberties with females," include
any more than Mr. Bolles' charge 1

It did.

4. Did you refer the Bishop to any person for the proofs of the general charge
of " taking improper liberties with females 1"

I do not remember that I did, for they were vague rumors, not sufficiently defi-
nite to fix my serious attention.

5. Did the statement, then, of Mr. Bolles give importance in your mind to these
vague rumors, so as to lead you to include them in your expostulation with the
Bishop ?

From the manner in which it was first communicated to me, it certainly did

Direct Examination resumed.

13. You stated that the Bishop discovered that you was,annoyed by these ru-
mors ; was he apparently agitated, or otherwise ?

He was not as much agitated as I had supposed he would have been ; but led
me to suppose that he regarded all such accusations as idle tales.

14. As idle tales, not worthy of notice ?

I should hesitate to say that he used that expression. The tone of his reply
was, that there were so many such stories afloat, that it was useless for him .to at-
tempt to meet them, and he assured me that they were entirely without foundation.

Cross -Examination resumed.

2. In your last answer, do yo.u give your own conclusion, from the Bishop's
manner as to the number of stories afloat, and the inutility of an attempt to meet
them, or do you give his language ?

I intended my reply to convey the idea that such was the tenor of his remarks.
I do not pretend to give the language.

By the Court.
By Bishop Whittingham.

6. Did you understand the Bishop, in alluding to the number of idle stories
afloat, to allude to stories concerning himself only ?

I did not understand him as alluding to himself only, but to himself among other
people.

The hour having arrived, the Court adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Wednesday, December ISth, 1844,
half-past 9 o'clock, A. M.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey,
the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York,
South Carolina, Maryland, Delaware' ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ;
the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Mis-
sionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

Miss Jane O. Rudje row, -having been sworn in Court on Saturday, the
14th, was called up as 'a witness by -the Caunsel for the Presentment.

The Counsel for the Presentment read to the Court. the form of an affi-
davit, whicji he proposed to put "in, showing that Am> Wilson, a witness
duly summoned to appear in this case, in behalf o'f the Presentment, had
refused to appear, and asked the interference of the Court to compel the
attendance of said witness.

The Court was then cleared.

Ordered, That the Counsel for the. Presentment be informed that this
Court has not the power, under the Constitution and Canons of- this Church,
to issue a citation to compel a witness to show cause for non-attendance
under penalty of any spiritual censure.

The Bishops .of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Jersey, the
North Western .Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York, South
Carolina,, and Maryland ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bish-
ops of Massachusetts, and the South Western Missionary Diocese, voting
in the affirmative ; the Bishops of Vermont, Kentucky, and Rhode Island,
voting* in the negative : the Bishops of Ohio and Delaware declining to vote.
. The Bishop of Vermont gave notice of his intention to record his dissent.

Ordered by this Court, That any members' of Jhis Church, whether of
the clergy or laity, having been dujy cited, according to the provisions of
Canon third, of eighteen hundred and forty-four, " On the trial of a Bish-
op," to bear testimony in this case, and refusing to comply with said cita-
tion, shall be reported .by the . President and Clerk 'of this' Court to the
-ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese- to which said offending witness or
witnesses may belong, as -refusing to comply with said citation, with a
request to the said ecclesiastical authority to take such order in the case
as, in the judgment of -said ecclesiastical authority, the case may seem to
demand.

The Bishops of Illinois, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, Mary-
land, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and. the South Western Missionary Dio-
cese, voting in the affirmative. The Bishops. of Connecticut, North Caro-
lina, New* Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese, Western New
York-, and South Carolina, voting in the negative.

' The Bishop of South Carolina gave notice of Jiis intention to record his
dissent, with the reasons. :

The undersigned, entertaining the "opinion that there should be a strict construc-
tion of -all penal laws, and not being able to discover in the Canon for the trial of a
Bishop, any authority given to the Court of Bishops, or to any member of the Court,
to issue a citation for the appearance of a witness,. respectfully dissents from the
decision of the Court, in virtue of which they have exercised the power of issuing
a citation to a witness in. the case now before the Court. .

It appears to the undersigned, that under the Canon for the trial of a Bishop, it
is for the Presenters to bring forward " the witnesses, "..for " the .accused to pro-
duce his testimony," and for the Court to declare respectively whether the accused
be guilty, or not guilty, of the charges in the Presentment.

i C. E. GADSDEN,

Bishop of the Dfocese of South Carolina.

Dec. 18, 1844.

Ordered, That a Citation, signed by the. President of. this Court, in the
name thereof, be made to Miss ANN WILSON", to attend on this trial.

The Counsel being admitted,

Miss JANE O. RUDDEROW was again called up as a witness by the Coun-
sel for the Presentment.

: Direct Examination.

1. Where do you live ?

At the foot of Fiftieth street, on the East River.

2. Are you a member of the P. E. Church, in full communion with that church 1
I am. I have been a communicant nine years.

3. Did the Rt. Rev. Bishop Onderdonk of this diocese ever, and when, take
improper liberties with your person ? If he did, please state what they were par-
ticularly, and the time when.

On the 13th of June, 1841, Bishop Onderdonk visited St. James's Church, in this
city. I left church before the close of the morning service, in consequence of a
nervous headache. He returned with my sister Helen to dine, at the house of my
brother, at the foot of 61st street, on the East River. I went down into the draw-
ing room, at sister Helen's request, to see him. He was standing by the centre-
table when I entered. He advanced to meet me with extended hand, and said,
" My daughter, I must cure you of these nervous headaches," and led me to the
sofa. I sat down in the centre of the sofa. ' Bishop Onderdonk immediately in-
sulted me.

4. Please say what he did ?

He thrust his hand in my bosom. I moved to the other end of the sofa.
He followed me, and repeated the insult. I was afraid to scream, or even
reprove hi/n ; for my two brothers were in the hall. I was fearful for his
personal safety, and did not expose him for the sake of the Church. I was
relieved by the entrance of my sister-in-law, Mrs. John Rudderow. We
were summoned to dinner. I was reserved at the table, for I could scarcely
keep from tears. After, dinner we went on to the piazza. Bishop Onderdonk
requested me to show him Mr. Schermerhorn's house ; which I did by walking
to the north end of the piazza. He threw his arm around my neck ; I
retreated into the drawing-room ; where my mother, and sister, and sister-in-law
immediately followed me. It was a stormy day ; and I went to the \Vindow-shade
to go underneath it, but not to raise it, to see if it had ceased raining. We were
determined to go to Sunday-school, though we expected but few children to be
present. Much to my surprise, Bishop Onderdonk was immediately by my side,
and repeated the insult in the same manner as I stated before. I threw his hand
away from me, and retreated from underneath the shade. I observed my mother
regarding me* intently. We repaired to the Sunday-school, and left my mother
and sister-in-law to entertain him.

5. Please state how far the Bishop put his hand in your bosom 1
The first time not very low down. The second, very low.

6. Did he, qr not, put his hand on your naked bosom ]
He did.

7. W T as the back, or the palm of his hand, next to your naked bosom ?
The palm of his hand.

8. Did he, or not, grasp your naked bosom ?
The second time he did.

(Objected to after answer.)

9. What use did he make of his hand when in your bosom T Please state par-
ticularly. . .

He pressed it.

10. Any thing more ]
No.

11. In what way did he press it ?

It is scarcely in my power- to describe.

12. How lo*g had you known Bishop Onderdonk before this occurrence ?
About ten years.'

13. Did he confirm you?

He did.

14. Did he confirm your sister Helen ?

He did, at the same time that I was confirmed.

15. When and where ?

In the year 1835, in St. Paul's Chapel

Cross- Examination .

1 . What is your age 1
Twenty-nine.

2. Have you been in attendance in this building during every day of this trial ?
I have.

3. Did you come here, and return home in company with your sister Helen on
those occasions ?

Certainly.

4. Have you conversed with her respecting the testimony she gave on this trial *
I have.

5. Has she stated to you the testimony which she gave !
Jn part.

6. Do you mean all the material parts of it ?
I 'do.

7. What was the first occasion of your seeing the Bishop, after 13th June, 1841 *
To speak with him, at his study, in November or December, 1842.

8. When you saw the Bishop at his study in November or December, 1842, did
you call upon him, and with whom?

I called upon him with Miss Riker.

9. What dM you state to the Bishop was the object of your call ?

To get his consent to the Benevolent Society of St. James's Church, meeting
in the church to sew. Mr. Dowdney, the Rector of the Church, had objections,
and said, if we had the Bishop's consent, we might meet there.

10. Were you accompanied on that occasion by any male protector ?
No.

11. Did Miss Riker accompany you upon your invitation 1 ?
No, I accompanied Miss Riker upon her invitation.

12. When Miss Riker invited you to accompany her to the Bishop's, did you
state to her the outrages which you have described in your testimony 1

They had been Stated previously to her.

13. Why then did you consent to accompany her 1

She would not go alone ; and our Society would have had to be Abandoned.

14. Had that Society no other members than you and Miss Riker 1
It had.

15. When you entered the Bishop's house did you find him in his study ?
No.

16. How long did you remain there before he came 1
A few minutes.

17. Did he come from another part of the house or from the street T
I presume he came from another part of the house.

18. Did you and Miss Riker rise and shake hands with him as he entered ?
He advanced and extended his hand to us, and we did shake hands with him.

19. How long did you remain in the Bishop's study upon that occasion ?
I should think about twenty minutes or half an hour.

20. Did you converse with the Bishop upon any other subject than the matter
of the Society 1

I can only recollect that we conversed about our families, and about the Society

21. Did you converse freely with the Bishop upon those subjects ?
Upon the Society we did. Not very freely upon the other.

22. Did you shake hands with the Bishop upon leaving his study ?
I did not.

23. Did the Bishop extend his hand to you on leaving 1
I did not turn around to see.

24. Do you mean to say that you took your departure abruptly 1
I do.

25. When and where did you next meet the Bishop ?
r In St. James's Church, in June, 1843.-

26. In what part of the church ?

In a pew where I was teaching my class, near the Vestry-room.

27. Before or after service !
Before service.

28. Did you shake hands with the Bishop on that occasion ?
When the Rev. Mr. Dowdney introduced me.

29. Do you mean to say that you did not recognise the Bishop until introduced
by Mr. Dowdney ?

I do not.

30. Did not Mr. Dowdney know that you were acquainted with the Bishop ?
He did.

31. "Why then did he introduce you ?

Circumstances led Mr. Dowdney to suppose that the Bishop had insulted us, or me.

32. Had you told him the circumstances ? t
No, sir.

33. Did' he ask your permission to introduce the Bishop ?

Xo. but he requested that we would use the Bishop well when he came to the
church.

34. Did you know before you went to church that morning that the Bishop was
expected to officiate '\

We did.

35. Did your sister know it ?
Yes.

36. After the morning service was over, and before you left the church, did
you again meet the Bishop '\

Yes, we usually stayed in church ; we did not go home.

37. Did vou go home that morning 1
No.

38. Where did you meet the Bishop ?

I was standing on the stairs of the gallery when the Bishop was about to paas
out, and I met him there.

39. Did you shake hands with the Bishop on that occasion ?
Not that I recollect.

40. Did he extend his hand to you 1
I do not remember.

41. Did you talk to the Bishop at all at that time 1

I answered the Bishop's compliments about the music.

42. Did you not in return compliment him for the sermon 1
Never.

43. What did you say to the Bishop ?- What conversation passed 1

Tie Bishop complimented me on playing the organ. I told him that he would
possibly say so to me, of course. No, said he, I have said it to Mr. Dowdney hi
the A'estry-room. He said he had not heard as fine music in some time. He
asked me who it was that played while the congregation were going out of church.
I told him that Mr. Oakey played the people out. He said it was not a very
charitable thing, or something to that effect, to play the people out of church.
That is all I can recollect.

44. Did you not come down stairs for the express purpose of meeting the Bishop,
and greet him cordially when you met him "?

I did not either; the greeting was all as I have stated.

45. Were you in the vestibule of the church with the Bishop at that time 1
I was on the stairs that led to it.

46. How long did you remain there ?

A sufficient time for a carriage to come for the Bishop. I cannot be certain that
one did come for him ; the time was about long enough for one to come from the
neighborhood for him ; about five or eisrht minutes.

47. Did this conversation between you and the Bishop continue during that
time ?

No ; he talked to Miss Riker and Mr. Alvord, one of the vestrymen.

48. Did you remain on the stairs until the Bishop left ?

I did. I could not pass into the Church. The Bishop stood in the door.

49. Where was your sister then ?
She was up stairs.

50. Was she up there during the whole of that time 1
She was.

The hour of adjournment having arrived, the Court adjourned.
Attest,

WILLIAM R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Thursday, December IQth, 1844, >
half-past 9 o'clock, A. M. $

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of IJli-
nois, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North-Western Missionary
Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and
Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island, and the Soulh-Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, .and
prayers.

The President read a letter from the Bishop of Connecticut, accounting
for his absence by reason of sickness in his family.

The Counsel for the Respondent submitted to the Court a motion, that the
Court direct the Presenting Bishops to grant the Respondent and his Coun-
sel access to the depositions of the witnesses examined, and to be examined,
on which the Presentment is founded.

The motion was objected to by Counsel for the Presentment, and argued
by the Counsel on both sides.

The Court w!is then cleared.

Opinions were taken in order,' and upon calling for the decision of the
Court, it appeared that the motion was not granted.

The Bishops of North Carolina, New Jersey, Western New York, and
Maryland, voting for granting ; and the Bishops of Illinois, Vermont, Ken-
tucky, Ohio, the North-Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, South
Carolina, and Delaware, the Assistant Bishop of Virginia, and the Bishops
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South- Western Missionary Didbese,
voting against granting.

Upon the declaration of the decision, the. Bishop of Georgia, in behalf
of the Presenting Bishops, then rose and declared the willingness of the
Presenting Bishops to grant the Respondent , and his Counsel access to the
depositions of the witnesses examined,' and to be examined, on which the
Presentment is founded, and liberty to have copies of the same.

The cross-examination of Miss Jane O. Ruddenny then proceeded.

51. When your sister returned from Church on the 13th of June, 1841, did you
see her before you had met the Bishop in the house ?

I did.

52. Where?

In our bedroom, where I was sitting.

53. Did she tell you, or give you. any account of an insult, alleged to have.been
offered to her by the Bishop 1

She did. . .

54. Upon her requesting you to go down and see the Bishop, did you lefuse to
do so f

Yes ; I told her I was afraid.

55. Were any of your brothers in the house at that time ?
Both were. , ' .

56. In what part of the house T
In the hall.

57. When you .met the Bishop, was he in a drawing-room opening from the
hall ?

He was. '.

58. Was he alone in. the room 1
He wag:

59. What were your brothers doing in the hall 1
I cannot answer.

60. Did they remain in the hall while you and the Bishop were together in the
room 1

They did. : . .

61. 'Was the door leading from the hall into the room open or shut?
It was wide open. . .

62. In what part of the room was the sofa I

Between the door which led into the hall and the front window.

63. Did it extend nearly to the casing of the door ?
It did quite,

64. Was the table, at which the Bishop was. standing when you entered the
room, in the centre of the room, fronting the. door ? .

It -was. .

65. What was the' Bishop doing when you entered the room ?

He was standing by the centre-table, with a book in his hand, I think.

66. Had he his fece or his back towards you, as you entered the room 1
He had his face towards me.

67. Can you inform me what wits the distance between the table and th'e ,door
at which you entered \ . ,

About eight or ten feet.

68. Who spoke first, you or the* Bishop 1 . V.
The Bishop.

69. When he led you to the sift, did you pass near the door * .
Idid. ' ,.I ' :

70. How did he lead you to the; sofa 1 ;
By one of my hands.

71. Did you feel ho alarm at that act, after what your sister had just told you 1
I did not, for I was in my own house.

72. What kind of a dress had you on 1
I had a high-neck dress qn.

73. Did it cover your shoulders^ as the dress yen now have on does ]
It could not' be considered, a high-neck dress unless it did.

74. Did it come pretty close arpund your throat f

Not close around nay throat, but as high as ladies' dresses usually are.

75. HOW was it fastened around your waist and chest *
The dress wa's hooked behind, as ladies' dresses usually are.

76. '.Was the dress open upo"n your chest ?

Yes, a little; way down, about the top of the chest-bone. . .

77. Wjis- it a close or loose dress around 1 your waist and chest T
It was a close dress, hdoked behind.

78. When you took your seat on the centre of the sofa, as you have described,
and the Bishop thrust his hand, into your bosom, was he standing or sitting *

He was sitting. .

79. On which side of you was he sitting ?

On my right, between me and the door.

80. Did the door continue wide open during the aggressions of the Bishop,
which you have described ?

It did.

81. When the Bishop first put his hand in your bosom on the sofa; did you re-
monstrate with him in any way ?

I did not ; I was afraid my brothers would hear me.

82. Did the Bishop accompany the first act with any remark ?
He did not speak during the act.

83. Did he say any thing before the act, except what you have stated in your
direct examination !

Not that I recollect.

84. Did the Bishop, during any portion of these transactions, unhook your dress ?
He did not.

85. When you moved to the end of the sofa, after the first act, was it imme-
diately repeated by the Bishop, without any remark on his part ?

It was.

86. How did you disengage yourself at that time from him T

My sister-in-law came into the room almost directly after, and the Bishop start-
ed and moved to the other end of the sofa.

87. Did you see your sister-in-law until after she had entered the room ?
I did not see her, but heard her coming.

88. Had the Bishop moved away from you when you first saw your sister-in-law
in the room 1

He moved away as soon as he heard her coming.

89. You say that the reason why you did not scream, nor reprove the Bishop,
was that your two brothers were in the hall ; how did you know that they were in
the hall?

I saw them there when I came down stairs ; and when I first came into the
room I heard them.

90. Do you feel confident that they were in the hall during the whole time ?
I do not : it is not possible for me to answer.

91. How many inmates were there in the house at the time ?

My mother, brother and wife, my other brother and sister, my aunt, a female
cousin who was staying with us, my brother's four children, and three servants.

92. Where, relatively to the drawing-room, was the dining-room 1

It was opposite^; but the doors were not opposite ; the dining-room door was
about a yard nearer the front of the house.

93. Were the preparations going on for dinner while you and the Bishop were
in the room ?

They were.

94. Describe the preparations going on.

I could scarcely do that ; the entrance from the kitchen to the dining-room was
on the other side, and not by the hall.

95. Was the dining-room door open as you passed into the drawing-room !
I did not notice.

96. Were you summoned to dinner immediately after the entrance of your sister-
in-law into the drawing-room 1

In about a quarter of an hour.

97. Did you remain. in the room during the whole of that time ?
I do not recollect I presume I did.

98. Did your sister-in-law remain 1

She did ; my mother likewise, and my sister Helen.

99. When did your mother and sister enter the room ?

Almost immediately after my sister-in-law did ; my mother entered first.

100. Was there a general conversation in the room, before dinner 1
I do not recollect.

101. Did your nervous headache continue until dinner-time ?

I think it did. My nervous headache, if I had any at that time, was so ab-
sorbed in the fright and astonishment, that I cannot recollect.

''**

100. Who composed the party at dinner that day T

My mother, my sister-in-law, my sister Helen, and I do not recollect whether
my cousin was present or not ; my brothers were not there ; the Bishop and my-
self were also present.

103. Do vou remember how long the dinner lasted T
I do not it was about half an hour or three quarters.

104. Was there a general conversation kept up at the dinner-table, in which you
and your sister participated !

Mv sister and myself did not take much part in the conversation ; it was mostly
carried on by my mother and the Bishop.

105. You said in your direct examination, ' ; After dinner we went on the piazza''
w ho went ?

My sister Helen, and, I think, my mother, and my sister-in-law, the Bishop and
myself. .

'106. Who took the Bishop's arml
I do not know that any one did.

107. Did you all go out to the piazza immediately from the dinner-table ?
We did.

108. Had you any conversation with the Bishop on the piazza, excepting what
you have stated.

I do not recollect.

109. When you walked to the north end of the piazza with the Bishop, were any
of the other persons you have mentioned on the piazza ?

They were all there.

110. Did they all continue upon the piazza until you retreated into the drawing-
room T

I think they did.

111. Was this piazza entirely open from one end to the other *
It was.

112. Was there any lattice- work on either side 1 ?

On the south side there was, but the north side was open.

113. When the Bishop threw his arm around your neck at that time, as you have
stated, was there any thing said by you or by him ?

I do not recollect.

114. Which way were you looking when the Bishop threw his arm around your
neck !

I was looking towards the north.

115. Which way did the Bishop look then?
I do not know.

1 16. Do you mean that he had his arm around your neck before you knew which
way he was looking ?

I did not look at the Bishop at all ; I only knew he was along-side of me.

1 17. Was his back or his face towards you ?

I presume his face was towards me ; I did not look at him. As I said before, I
cannot tell which way he was looking.

118. Did you and he walk together to the end of the piazza *

We did certainly, as he asked me to show him Mr. Schermerhorn's house.

119. Did he put his arm around your neck immediately upon reaching the end of
the piazza T

I think he did.

120. When you say you retreated into the drawing-room, do you mean that yon
abruptlydisengaged yourself from the Bishop, and left the piazza 1

I do.

121. Was this observed by any of the other persons upon the piazza *
I do not know ; for they were plucking roses at the other end.

122. Did the Bishop follow you into the drawing-room, before you went to the
window-shade ?

He did.

123. Did he approach you before you went to the window-shade !

We were all seated in the drawing-room, before I rose to go to the window-shade.

124. Was your object in going to the window-shade to avoid the Bishop 1

It was to see if it rained,, that tt-e might go to the Sunday-school, to avoid the
Bishop's society at home.

125. When he' repeated the insult as you state, were you standing inside of the
window-shade or outside 1

I was standing between the window-shade and. the window.
126; What part of your person was povered by the \vindow-shade T
I was covered by the window-shade about to the middle of my person. . The
window-shades were very long. . '

127. Did the Bishop -raise the window'shade and go under it ?
He did. .

128. How wide was the shade !

About four feet wide, hanging outside of the casing.

129. Of what material wae this window-shade 1

It was a painted window-shade-; dark lemon color.

130. Were the other persons whom you have mentioned as having been on the
piazza, in the room at this time *:

They were. . " .

131. Did this window-shade,' when yon and -the Bishop were under it, conceal
your persons from. the observation of those in the room ?

It did.

132. Did you immediately retreat from the window-shade when you threw his
arm from" you? .

Certainly.

133. Did the Bishop leave at the same time 1
I do not remember. '

134. When you saw the Bishop coming under the window-shade did you attempt
to retreat 1

The. Bishop insulted me as soon a$ I knew he was there.

' 135.. Did he raise up the window-shade, or turn it aside for the .purpose of
going under ? '

As I was standing under the shade it of course raised the shade from the casing.
He raised it a little to come under. He must have done so, I think.

136. Did he raise k above his own head and pass under it, or did he turn it
aside ? . '

I did not observe.

137. How long an interval was there between your being .on the piazza and
going 'under the window-shade !

I do not recollect exactly;. I should think 'some 5 or 10 or. 15 minutes.

138. Did the Bi.shop sit down in .the .room after he came from the piazza, and
if so,, how long 1

He sat down. until I went to the window, and followed me immediately to the
window.

139. Was he conversing with you while you were sitting down ?
I think he was not conversing with fne.

140. Wjth whom was he conversing 1

I do not recollect ; with my mpther, most probably.

1.41. Do you mean to be understood -that the Bishop abruptly left the person
with whom he was conversing, and followed you to the window-shade ?

He must have done so, of course.

142.. Did .you know that the Bishop was to officiate anywhere that afternoon,
and if so, where 1 .

At St. Michael's. Church, Bloomingdale.

143. Did you know at what time he was to leave your brother's house for that
purpose 1

J do not know exactly ;" he wa^. to leave after 2 o'clpck bekween 2 and 3.

144. What was your dinner-hour that day ?

One .o'clock. We always dine at one on Sundays.
. 145. At what time did you go Jo the Sunday-school that afternoon 1
We started from home about o'clock.

146. How long was that affer the occurrence at the window-shade ?
We left as soon as we could put on our bonnets.

147. Had the Bishop left before you did ?
He had not.

148. Did you tell this story to your sister on the way to the Sunday-school!
I did.

149. Did -you tell it to any other person that day 1
I did not.

150. When and to whom did you first tell it after that day?

To my sister, Mrs. Brown, a few weeks after. I cannot be more precise than that.

151. Did you ever tell it to your mother, and when?
I did, the following fall.

152. Did you tell it to your brothers at any time, and when 1

At the time we sent our affidavits to Philadelphia, in October last.

153. Did you tell it to them before you made the affidavits, or after ?
Before.

154. Who prepared your affidavit ?
The Rev. James C. Richmond.

155. Did he request you to make an affidavit of the facts 1
He did.

156. When did you first communicate to Mr. Richmond th facts you have
stated ?

It was in May or June, 1843, when he asked us the question. He asked sister
Helen first, and then I communicated my statement to him.

157. Have you accompanied Mr. Richmond to any other person, to obtain an
affidavit against the Bishop \

I did.

158. When Mr. Richmond asked you to make the affidavit, for what purpose,
and for whom, did he represent it as being intended 1

The purpose was, for the sake of truth, and for the sake of the Church.

159. To whom did he say the affidavit was to be sent, and what use did he say
was to be made of it ?

We understood it was to be sent to the House of Bishops.

160. Did Mr. Richmond tell you so ?

He did not directly, sir ; he simply stated that this thing was going on that
affidavits were being sent in to the House of Bishops ; and of course we under-
stood, by that, that ours would be sent likewise.

161. Did you know at that time that Mr. Richmond had expressed a hostile
feeling towards the Bishop 1 (Objected to, and waived for the present.)

162. When you accompanied Mr. Richmond to the other person referred to, for
the purpose of getting an affidavit against the Bishop, did he go at your request, or
you at his 1

I proposed going with him.

163. Did you know at that time that Mr. Richmond was desirous of getting affi-
davits against the Bishop ]

It was painful for Mr. Richmond to collect any affidavits, but he had been told
where they could be obtained.

164. How do you know that it was painful to Mr. Richmond ?
He expressed himself so.

165. What was the state of the weather when you were out on the piazza 1

I have stated before that it was a stormy day ; but it had ceased raining then.
U5G. At what time in the fall of the. year in which the occurrences you have tes-
tified to took place, did you tell the story-to your mother ?

It \vas ono of the three months of autumn I cannot recollect which.

167. Was that, before or after Mr. Richmond went to Europe?
I think it was after he sailed. I do not recollect.

168. Do you remember when Mr. Richmond went abroad ?

I do-not. I believe, however, it was the autumn of 1841. I think it was I
will not be certain.

169. Do you know when he returned ?

He arrived in Boston ou Easter-day, 1842. I did.not see him until just before
my mother's death, which occurred on the 2d of July, 1843.

170. Do you know that Mr. Richmond returned sooner than he expected 1 (Ob-
jected to, and waived for the present.)

171. Were you present when your affidavit was drawn up by Mr. Richmond ?
I was.

172. After your return from your visit to the Bishop at his study, in 1842, did
you express yourself to the Rev. Mr. Dowdney gratified, or otherwise, with your
visit ?

I do not think I said any thing to him about it

173. Did you ever say any thing to Mr. Dowdney in relation to that visit 1
I do not remember.

Direct Examination resumed.

16. You have stated your object in visiting the Bishop at his study to be to ob-
tain h:5 consent to use the church for the accommodation of a Sewing Society
who got up and mainly sustained that society ?

My sister Helen, Miss Riker, and myself.

17. What accommodations had you for the society 1
None but the church.

18. What was Mr. Dowdney's objection to your using the church for that pur-
poseT

He did not think it a proper place for sewing.

19. For whose benefit did that society sew ?
For the perfectly destitute in the neighborhood.

20. You have stated that you left the Bishop abruptly, when you visited him at
his study why did you leave him abruptly '\ [Objected to by Counsel for Pre-
sentment, upon hearing the answer of the witness, upon the ground that said an-
swer went to opinion, and not fact, and to scandalize his client. The question was
withdrawn, and the following substituted.]

21. Did the Bishop do any thing, and what, at the time you left his study, to
cause you to leave abruptly, as you have stated 1

He put his arm around my neck, and his two fingers inside of my shawl.

22. Was Miss Riker then present ?

Miss Riker was then going out of the study door. I was on my way out.

23. At the dinner table, when you dined with the Bishop, did your manner to-
wards him occasion any and what remark, on the part of your mother ?

[This question was objected to by Counsel for Respondent, and the objection
was sustained by the Court.]

24. At the dinner table what was your manner towards the Bishop ?
It was restrained, for I could scarcely keep from bursting into tears.

25. When the Bishop visited the Church in 1843, as testified to, did the Rev.
Mr. Dowdney intimate a request that the Bishop should be invited to your house
to dinner!

(Objected to by Counsel for Respondent, and waived.)

Cross- Examination resumed.

174. You say that when the Bishop put his arm around your neck, as you were
leaving his study, that Miss Riker was going out of the study door, and you were
on the way out : was Miss Riker in such a position as that she could have seen
the act you have described ?

Her back was towards us.

175. Have you ever sworn to this fact in any affidavit 1

Mr. Graham may find it in my affidavit ; I have not seen the affidavit, nor a
copy, nor any thing of the kind, since it was given.

176. Did you mean in that affidavit that Miss Riker was compelled to quit in haste ?
I cannot answer for Miss Riker ; Miss Riker must answer for herself.

. 177. If you cannot answer for Miss Riker, how did you come to swear in your
affidavit that we were compelled to escape from the door in utmost haste ?

I did not say that I would not swear to it now.

178. Whom did you mean by the word we in your affidavit ?
Miss Riker and myself.

179. Did you tell this to Miss Riker immediately after it occurred ?
I did.

180. Where is Miss Riker now?

1 do not know. I presume she is at home ; I have not seen her within two
weeks.

181. Did you tell it to Miss Riker until after you left the house T
I told her just after we left the steps.

Direct Examination resumed.

26. You stated that Bishop Onderdonk addressed you at the foot of the stairs
in St. James's Church, in 1843, and complimented you for your performance on
the organ : are you a professional performer on the organ ?

No.

27. Was you employed by the Church to play on the organ ?
(Objected to and waived.)

28. You have stated that you proposed to go with Mr. Richmono to get an affi-
davit : whose affidavit was that 1

Mrs. Gabriel L. Lewis.

29. Why did you propose to go with him ?

[This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent, on the ground
of its entering into the secret motives of the witness, not declared by acts. The
objection was overruled by the Court: the Bishops of North Carolina, New Jer-
sey, Western New York, and Maryland, voting to sustain it ; the Bishops of Il-
linois, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana,
South Carolina, and Delaware, the Assistant Bishop of Virginia, and the Bishops
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese,
voting to overrule it.]

To ascertain the lady's views in person.

By the Court.

By Bishop De Lancey.

, 1. Please describe how you sat respectively at the dinner-table when the Bishop
dined at your house !

My mother sat at the head of the table, my sister-in-law at the foot ; on the
right of my mother sat my sister Helen and myself; on the left of my mother sat
Bishop Onderdonk, and my cousin (if she was present, which I do not distinctly
remember) next to the Bishop.

. 2. Did Bishop Onderdonk walk with you from the parlor into the dining-room,
or lead you in T

He did not.

3. Did you communicate to Mr. Richmond your reason for going with him to
obtain the affidavit of Mrs. Lewis 1

I did.

4. Did you converse with him during the ride or walk, or both, on the subject
of charges against Bishop Onderdonk ?

I did.

5. Did you talk freely with him upon that subject?
I did.

By Bishop Doane.

6. You stated that you and Miss Riker left abruptly, in consequence of some-
thing the Bishop did, and yet you state that when he did it, Miss Riker was going
out of the study door and you were on your way : how do you reconcile this 1

I thought I was understood. I did not say that Miss Riker and I were both going
out of the door, but that she was, and I was on my way towards the door.

7. What do you mean then by saying that you left abruptly *
By not bidding adieu, and walking fast out.

8. But did you not say that you were on your way, that is, had started to go
when this occurred ?

We had risen to go, but the Bishop detained us to give us a Journal of the Con-
vention.

9. Then, by saying that you left abruptly, am I to understand that you did not
start abruptly 1

You -are.

By Bishop De Lancey.

10. Did the Bishop grant the request to use the church for the Sewing Society *
He did. '

By Bishop Gadsden.

11. Were there any acts of the Bishop previous to the 13th of June, 1841,
with which you had found fault, and what were they 1

I had always esteemed him most highly. There were not.

12. On parting with Miss Riker, how did the Bishop take leave of her 1
I do not remember.

13. Have you been always a member of St. James's congregation, and if not, of
what other have you l .

Not always of St. James's : for a long time of St. Paul's, and then of Calvary,
then of St. James's, and now of St. Mark's.
By Bishop Whittingham.

14. Had you, previously to the occurrence of 13th of June, 1841, any reason to
suspect Bishop Onderdonk of being capable of impropriety of deportment towards
females '\

I had not.

15. Was your dress on the 13th June, of the same make as that worn by your
sister Helen on the same day *

No, sir.

16. Was your dress on that day made according to the then prevailing fashion?
Not altogether, sir.

Direct Examination resumed.

30. Was there any difficulty in the Bishop's putting his hand in your bosom,
arising from the.fashion of your dress "?
No.

The hour of adjournment having arrived, the Court adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Friday, December 20ih, 1844, >
half-past nine o'clock, A. M. $

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North
Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York, Soufh Carolina,
Maryland, and Delaware; the Assistant Bisliopof Virginia; and the Bishops
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalte'r for the clay, and
prayers.

MKS. CHARLOTTE E. BEAKE, having been s\vorn on Saturday the 14th
instant, was called up as a witness by the Counsel for the Presentment, and
examined.

. . . . .' J . . ..

. . ' : . ( . .

Direct Examination.

1. What is your name ? 5' - l .'
Charlotte E.' Beare. . :

2. Who -is your husband.?
Rev. HenryJM. Beare.

3. Where does he reside ? . . . ;
' At Bayside^ on Long Island. , . -

4v Is he a Rector of a Church there ; and of what Church, and how long has he
been such !.-.

' Ziun Chvireh, Lit.tle Neck; since two years 'ago last. May.

5. When was you married ?

i Eighth of June, 1842. '..'' . . '. '

6. Do yo'u know, the Right Rev. Bishop Onderdonk ?
I-do.

7. When was you first.'introduced to .him.? .

Twelfth of July, 1842. . . .

ft. Did Bishop Qnde'rdonk'ever visit your hoiise ; and when waS the first occa-
sion of. his doing so ?

Seventeenth of July, 1842. . . ': .' . .'

9. Are you a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; in full communion
with the same ? ; . . ' . .'

I am. .''*', '' ,

10. How I6ng -have you been a ebmrnunica.nt ?

Since 1840. , ' .!'<;..

11. On what occasion was it that the'Bisb,op first visited your house ?
To. hold, confirmation in ^ion Church. . :

12. Did you ride in the same carriage w^th him on that day ? .

I did. .. . ;

13.' More than once? . .

I did. ; ' .' '..." '. ''; ; .. ' ; ' j \ ..

14". In what part of the day was the first ride ; and from what .place, and to
what place?

After the morning service ; from church to our home.

15. What was the distance from- the church to your home? *M ;

About a mile: ' . . :

16. Who rode in the carriage with you besides the Bishop V and how were the
parties seated ?

My husband's mothpir and his nephew, who were sitting on Tthie fcorit seat ; 'the :
Bishop and myself qn-the back s.eat.

17. On which side bf the Bi$hop did you sit ? ' . .
At his 'right hand. . '.

18. Will .you please state what occurred between you and the Bishop during
that ride ?' . . ' ' ';'.

The Bishop put his arm argund me in an unbecoming manner, which caused me
. to draw, from liini: There 'is nothing more to state of that ride.

19. pn.wliat part of your body <lid ihe Bishop put hjs hand vyhen.he put his arm
around you as you haVe stated ? ' . . . .

His hand pressed upon my bosom. , ' . .

20. When did you first communicate 'the knowledge of this transaction to any
person, and to \vhom ? '. .

To my hiisband' soon after we returned home; he walked home.

21. What -was said By you 'to your husband when you first communicated th0
fact to him; and what w.as his reply ?

; I told! him in- this way ; that I did not wish to ride wifh the Bishop ia the after-
noon, as 1; thought him too familiar in his manners. He asked me in what way.
I. told him the occurrence of the morning, and he expressed ,great surprise. He
.'-said, u If'ywi can avoid it, do not let it alter your manner. towaids him- whHe he is
in our house." ' That was all.

22. You say you rode with the Bishop a second time that day ; from what place
and to what place ?

From Mrs. Franklin's house to our house ; about a mile and a half.

23. Did the Bishop dine at your house on that day 1
He did ; after the morning service.

24. Who composed the party at dinner ?

My husband's mother, the Bishop, my husband's brother, his nephew, my hus-
band and myself. I think that was all.

.25. What occurred between you and the Bishop at your own house, between the
morning and afternoon service ?

The Bishop put his arm around me, and once raised my head by my chin, and
kissed me.

26. Who was present 1

I think there was no one in the room but my husband's mother.

27. How did you go to church in the afternoon ; and who accompanied you *

I rode with Mr. Thomas' Beare, my husband's brother; the Bishop rode with
my husband, and I think his nephew, in another carriage.

28: Where did you go after the afternoon service ; and who accompanied you ?

To the house of Mr. Joseph L. Franklin. I rode as far as the top of the Jane
with Thomas Beare ; he was going directly home, and not to Mr. Franklin's. 1
left his vehicle and rode the remainder of the way with the Bishop and my hus-
band, which was about a quarter of a mile.

29. How long did you, in company with the Bishop and your husband, remain
at Mr. Franklin's 1 ?

Until about 9 o'clock in the evening.

30. Was Mr. Franklin one of your husband's parishioners ?

He had a pew there ; but did not attend regularly. He belonged to the Flush-
ing Church.

31. How did you ride home with whom and how were the parties seated ?
In a one-horse family barouche, our own, with two seats to accommodate four

persons. The Bishop and myself were on the back seat, my husband and his
nephew on the front.

32. Do you remember on which side of the Bishop you rode ?

At his right hand. My husband sat in front of me ; his nephew in front of the
Bishop.

33. State, as particularly as you can, what occurred between you and the Bishop
on this last ride ?

The Bishop put his arm around my waist ; then raised it, and put it across the
back of my neck ; he thrust his hand into the neck of my dress, down into my
bosom. I threw his hand from there ; he immediately put it upon the Jower part
of my person. I pushed it aside from there, and he then with the other hand re-
peated the same upon the other side of my person ; but removed it towards the
centre of my person. I threw it aside. That is all.

34. When he put his hand in the neck of your dress, on your bosom, was it, or
not, your naked bosom ?

It was my naked bosom.

35. When he put the first hand on the Jower part of your body, as you have tes-
tified, was the outside of the hand, or the palm of the hand, next to yqur person 1

The palm of the hand.

36. What did he do with that hand '\
He pressed it upon my person.

37. When he put the other hand upon your person, and removed it to the
centre of your person, was the outside or the palm of his hand next to your
person 1

The palm of his hand.

38. Please describe what he did with that hand, when on your person.

He placed it near my knee, and moved it along my leg, up to my hip, and the
centre of my person.

39. Is there any further answer to the last question ?
There is not.

40. Did you communicate the knowledge of this transaction to your husband,
and when 1

I went immediately to my room when we reached h>>me>. My husband soon fol-
lowed me. He asked the cause of my agitation ; I told him the Bishop had in-
sulted me. He replied, " Say no more now ; let us join the family, and have our
evening devotions." I calmed myself, and went d<*wn into the room.

41. Was that all that occurred before you went down ? .
Yes ; we went immediately down.

42. In what part of the ride was it that the Pfshop insujted you? .
When we were near our own lane, or the Jdfne leading to our house.

43. Did you say any thing to the Bishop on that occasion, and what ?
Nothing in reference to this.

44. Did you say any thing, and what 1
No, I did not.

45. After the occurrence stated, did you speak to the Bishop before you got to
the house \

I have no recollection of doing so.

46. When did the Bishop leave your house on that occasion ?
The following morning, immediately after breakfast.

47. Did he remain during the night ?
He did.

48. From the time when you was first introduced to the Bishop, to the time h
came to your house, as you have stated, did you see him ?

I did not, until I met him at the church.

49. When did you meet him at the church 1 ?
In the morning of that day, before service.

50. Did he come to your house before that service 1
Ha did not. I think 1 am right when I state, that.

51. With whom did the Bishop leave your house when he took his departure T
My husband took him to College Point, about seven miles from our house.

52. In what manner did he take leave of you when he was about to depart ?
He approached me and took my hand ; and advanced, as I supposed, to kiss me ;

I drew from him, and he did not do it. I did not extend my hand ; .he took it.
After he was seated in the carriage, he raised his hand to his lips, and waved it
to me

Cr oss-Examination.

1. Have you at any time made an affidavit, or any other statement in writing,,
of the transactions to which you have just testified ?

I have made no affidavit. I drew up a statement in writing.

2. Wb>n did you draw it up "\

I think about three weeks since.

3. Is that statement in existence now *
It is destroyed.

4. For what purpose did you prepare it *

To refresh my memory, and to show it to my uncle. He had not previously
known the facts I should say the particulars.

5. Was that statement at any time out of .your possession ?
My husband had it at one time, and so did rny uncle.

6. When did you destroy it T
Some time during the last week.

7. Do you mean since you first attended here to testify on this trial ?

I cannot say that it is destroyed. I have not destroyed it. I left it at home
ing about. I have not seen it since last week.

8. Do you mean that you left it carelessly at home lying about, or that you have
reserved it, so that it cannot be found by any person .?

I cannot say where it is.

9. Have you. at any time read a statement of this matter, prepared by your hus-
band, or by any other person ?

I never saw one.

10. Has any such statement been read to you by any one 1
Never.

11. Do you know that' your husband, or any other person, has prepared a state-
ment purporting to give the particulars of the transactions referred to 1

I know of none but his affidavit. .

12. Have you read his affidavit, or has it been- read to you ?
I have neither seen.nor heard it.

13. Have you stated these transactions to any other persons besides your hus-
band ; and if so, to whom 1

t To my aunt Grosvenor, to my aunt, Mrs. John P. Austin, and to Mrs. Kip, her
mother. To no others before my husband's affidavit was given.

. 14. When was your husband's affidavit given ?

A few days, I think, .before the close of the General Convention.

15.- Do you know whether any person applied to your husband for that affidavit;
and if so, who it was 1

Rev. JameS C. Richmond. He did not give h to him.

16. To whom did he give it?

I really cannot say. It was given in the city of PVuladelphia:
. 17. Did Mr. Richmond apply to you for an affidavit 1

I think he did nqf, to myself.

18. Did he apply to your husband, as you have reastm to believe % far an affidavit
from you ? . . .

T think he did.

19. Was Mr. Richmond going to Philadelphia abont that time !
He was.

20. Did your husband ask you to give your affidavit of the facts T
He did not. '.'.' .

. .21.' Are there any qther persons to whom you stated these facts, previous to the
making of the affidavit referred to,' than those whom you have already mentiohed?
1 spoke, of it to.no one but those I mentioned; and not to. them until I was asked
by my aunt Giiosvenor. I was not directly asked by the .others. ^

22. How long after the occurrences you have testified to, was it when you made
the -first statement to either of the* persons whom you have named ?

About eighteen mchiths. .

23. When did you first see Bishop Onderdonk 'after July 17, '1842, and where I
I th'ink it was about the 10th of May, 1843, at the house of Mr. Franklin-, the

gentleman before referred to.

. -24. Upon what occasion did you see him there at that time 1

The marriage of Miss Franklin, which wa* solemnized by the .Bishop.*

25. Did you know, before you went to Mr. Franklin's, that the Bishop was to
be there ?

I supposed he was. " . >

26. Had you any conversation with the Bishop oh that occasion ?
I had not.

27. Did you speak to him, or he to. you 1

He bowed, and I returned it, as we passed into, the refreshment room.

28. Was your husband with you then ? ' .
He was.

29. Did any^salutation, and if so, what, pass" between your husband and the
Bishop T . . '

^ I do not remember that any words were spoken at that time.' He bowed.

30. Did any conversation, on the occasion of this visit to Mr. Franklin's, pass
between your husband arid the Bishop ?

He will remember that better than I do. ' I cannot say.

31. Did you not shake hands withUhe Bishop prt that occasion ?
I did not.

32. When, and where, did you next meet the Bishop?

At the house of the Rev. Dr. Schroeder on the Bishop's annual visitation in
the village of Flushing. It was, I think, about the 12th of July, 1843.

33. Was it in the day-time, of in the evening V

In the day-time.

34. Was your husband with you 1
He was.

35. How long were you and your husband in company wittf the Bishop on that
occasion ?

Not many minutes. We met him when we entered, ajxi again just before we
left.

36. Did you remain in the same room in which tha / Bishop was during your
stay ? /

We did not. /

37. Describe, then, the circumstances of that vyit, and of your meeting the
Bishop when you entered, and when you left the h<se.

When we entered the room where the Bishop /as sitting, Dr. Wainwright was
in conversation with him ; I was leaning on Dr Schroeder's arm ; Miss Strong
and my husband came after us. We spoke tr the gentlemen sitting there, and
went immediately out of the room. The genfc'emen referred to were the Bishop
and Dr. Wainwright. After going through tie other parts of the building, near the
foot of the stairs leading to the chapel, we rxet the Bishop, Archdeacon Cummings,
and Dr. Schroeder, who had left us in the meanwhile, to meet the Archdeacon, as
I suppose. I do not remember that any conversation occurred there some questions
passed between my husband and the Bishop. We left immediately after that.

38. What was said between yourself your husband, and the Bishop, on your first
meeting, as you have described ?

I remember only the common salutations at meeting.
.39. Do you include in those, shading of hands ?
Not myself.

40. Did the Bishop extend his hand to you !
I do not remember that he did.

41. Are you positive that you did not shake hands with him*
It is my firm belief that I did not.

42. When you and yrur husband again met the Bishop, at the foot of the stairs.
what were the questions which passed between your husband and the Bishop T

They were with rfgard to my husband's examination, and if the Bishop was
coming to our house

43. Did you takt part in the conversation ?
I did not.

4"4. What wen; the words, as near as you can recollect them, of your husband's
inquiry about tie Bishop's coming to your house ?
" Will you oome to my house to dinner V
43. Was ihat expressed coldly, or with apparent cordiality ?
I should think, coldly, as his eyes were averted from the Bishop while asking him.

46. Dia you join in the request ?
I did not

47. What was the Bishop's reply to your husband's request ?

It was in the affirmative. It is impossible for me to remember all the words ; I
know that he assented.

48. Do you not recollect the Bishop's saying that he already had an invitation
to dine with Mr. Franklin on the next day ?

I cannot recall it to my mind.

49. Do you not remember that you and your husband, or one of you, urged the
Bishop, notwithstanding his excuse, to dine with you the next day ?

I remember nothing of the kind.

50. When you say that you remember nothing of the kind, do you mean to be
understood, that nothing of the kind took place, or that it may have taken place,
and you have forgotten it ?

I know that he was not urged.

51. Did not the Bishop say that he would accept your invitation, provided you
would take care that, in doing so, he gave no offence to Mr. Franklin, or to that
effect *

I do not remember that any thing was said about Mr. Franklin.

52. Was there no conversation whatever respecting the invitation to dinner, ex-
cept your husband's question already stated, and the Bishop's reply in the affirma-
tive ?

I remember none.

53. Did you and yiur husband, or either of you, shake hands with the Bishop on
leaving him ?

/ did not ; my husbat/i can answer for himself.

54. I wish you to answn.as to your husband's act, on the occasion just inquired of.
I can simply say that I cid not see him.

55. Am I to understand 7ou from your description of your manner towards the
Bishop, on the occasion of ymr visit to the Rev. Dr. Schroeder's, that it was stu-
diedly repulsive towards the 3ishop T

I cannot say that it was stud/^dly repulsive, for I determined to treat him civilly
as my Bishop.

56. Who accompanied you to your carriage upon leaving Dr. Schroeder's, and
helped you into the carriage ?

I cannot remember any one but my husband.

57. Did not the Bishop !

I cannot remember if he did.

58. Was your object, and that of you: husband, in going to Dr. Schroeder's that
day to meet the Bishop ?

We had a friend with us who was anxrms to see confirmation we arrived too
late to witness it.

59. Who was that friend ?
Miss Strong.

60. Was she staying at your house !
She was.

61. Did she return home with you ?
She did.

62. Was not confirmation to take place in your husbcjid's church the next day T
It was.

63. Was the object you have stated for going to Dr. Schroeder's the only one 1
She expressed a desire to witness confirmation, and als to view Dr. Schroe-
der's institution.

64. The next morning, when you first saw the Bishop, wher did you meet him 1
After the morning-services w r ere concluded, in the vestry-room.

65. Did you not meet him in the vestry-room, before the moming-service 1
I did not.

66. Was your husband in the vestry-room when you met the Bishop there 1
I cannot say as to that.

67. Did you speak to the Bishop when you met him ?

I did, and introduced some friends. They were female friends. I should say,
a female friend.

68. Were you not in the vestry-room before the morning-service, assisting your
husband in making arrangements with the vessels, &c., for the communion!

It is my custom to do so, but I cannot recollect it on that morning.

69. Did you not go to the church that morning with your husband ]

It is my impression that he went before me, to be examined as a candidate for
Priest's Orders, preparatory to his ordination that day.

70. In the vestry-room that morning, before morning-service, do you not re-
member that the Bishop complimented you upon being so good a clergyman's wife,
in consequence of your assisting in preparations for the Holy Communion 1

I do not remember it.

71. Who was the friend whom you introduced to the Bishop in the vestry-room,
after morning-service ?

Mrs. Kip, the mother of my aunt by marriage.

72. Did any conversation take place between you and the Bishop at that time 1
I cannot recall any.

73. I have not asked you what was said, but whether any conveisation took
place between you and the Bishop 1

I must reply as before, that I have no recollection of any.

74. Did you shake hands with the Bishop on that occasion 1
I think I did not.

75. Did he extend his hand to you ?
I do not remember that he did.

76. Did the Bishop ever approach- you without extending his hand to you?

I cannot remember that Re has extended it since that occurrence, except the
morning when he left.

77. Was your manner upon this occasion towards the Bishop such as to impress
upon an observer the idea of coldness on your part towards him ? ,

I do not know what impression it made upon others, but my reserve was marked
by friends.

78. By whom ?

By both Miss Strong and Mrs. Kip.

79. Do you not remember the Bishop's shaking hands with you at that time,
and congratulating you upon your husband's ordination ?

I do not.

80. Did you state to Miss Strong, or to Mrs. Kip, when they remarked iipon
your reserve, that there was any reason for it ?

I did not. I was particularly desirous of keeping it from them.

81. How long after this was it when you told the occurrences of the 17th of
July, 1842, to Mrs. Kip ?

About six months.

82. You say it is usual with you to assist your husband in the vestry-room, in
making arrangements for the Communion : have you any recollection* of having
departed from your usual custom that morning ; if so, for what reason ?

It is my impression that he had already arranged them when I reached the
church, as I did not go over until near church-time, with my friends, and there
were gentlemen in the vestry-room.

83. Then you do recollect departing from your custom that morning 1

I cannot recollect it, but my impression is that when I reached the church, the
things were already arranged'.

84. Did your husband ride or walk to church that morning ?
I cannot say whether he walked or whether he rode.

85. Did you not bring the Communion vessels with you in the carriage to
church ?

It is my impression that my husband took them with him.

86. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether he rode or walked ?
It does not, for he frequently takes them over in his hand.

87. When you left the church to return home that morning, in whose company
did you leave ?

In company with Mrs. Kip and Miss Strong.

88. Where were your husband and the Bishop at that time ?

The Bishop was at the church when we left. I think my husband did not go
home with us. I cannot remember.

89. Do you mean to be understood that you do not rememier whether the Bishop
was accompanied home by your husband, or not 1

I know that they did not come home together ; but I cannot remember whether
Mr. Beare rode with us, or walked with his brother.

90. Did the Bishop come alone 1

The- Rev. Mr. Goodwin brought him to our house, in company with the Rev.
Mr. Sweetzer.

91. Were those gentlemen present at the services in your husband's church
that morning 1

They were.

32. Were they invited to dine at your house that day ?
They did dine' there, so I supple they were ; but I do not remember.
93. When the Bishop and the gentlemen accompanying him reached your house,
did you not shake hands with all of them ?
I did not.

94. pid you with any of them 1

I did not-. . . * J

95. Did you enter into cbnversation with the Bishop after he reached your house !
I had no conversation with him.

96. Did he not speak to you at all, when he reached your house 1
I did not see him when he reached the. house.-

97. When you first saw him, did he speak to you 1

I did not enter the room until the dinner was near ready. I do not remember
his addressing me particularly.

98. Do you mean to say that he. did not addres's you at all before dinner ?
I cannot positively say he did not, but I say I cannot recall it.

99. Did you purposely avoid meeting the Bishop before dinner *

I wished to be in his presence as little as possible. . I must say that I avoided
conversation with him ; but I was busy in my domestic affairs outside.

.100. Who were the party at dinner?

Mrs. Kip, Miss Strong, the Bishop, the Rev. Mr. Goodwin, Rev. Mr. Sweet-
zer, Mr. Thomas Beare, I think his son, i lad of twelve or thirteen years, my hus-
band and myself, and two grand-children of Mrs. Kip, from five to eight years of
age : that is all I remember.
. 101. What seat at table did you occupy!

The head of the table.

102.. Your husband where 1

Opposite me.

103. Where did the Bishop sit 1 ?

It is my impression that he sat the second on my right.

104. Did you converse with the Bishop during dinner 1

I merely helped him to the dishes that were before me. I have no recollection
that any thing further passed between us.

105. ,Did not the Bishop address himself to you at all during dinner *
I cannot recollect that he did.

106. Is it possible that he could have not spoken t6 you during dinner without
your noticing such a circumstance ?

Whether k be possible or not, I cannot recall it.

107. Did you converse with anybody else during that dinner?

I cannot remember that I did ; for my reserve was remarked again by my friends.

108. Did your husband converse with the Bishop, or the Bishop with your hus-
band 1

It is my impression that the conversation was general among the gentlemen I
cannot say.

109. DH you see the Bishop and your husband together, apparently in conversa-
tion, before dinner ?

I did not.

110. Do you mean to say that you treated the Bishop, during dinner, with such
palpable neglect that it was remarked by others ?

I meant to treat \am with civility I cannot say that palpable neglect wae re-
marked, but only my general reserve.

111. How long did 'the dinner, last?

I think we soon concluded, as there was a very short intermission I cannot fix
the time definitely.

112. After dinner,' what became of your husband, yourself, and the Bishop 1 ?
I think we immediately prepared to return to church, and all went to church.

113. Who went with the Bishop*

The Rev. Messrs. Goodwin, and Sweetzer, and I think Mrs. Kip.

114. With whom did you go 1

I think Miss Strong, my husband, his brother, and myself, went in our carriage.

115. Did you meet the Bishop at the church before or after the services of the
afternoon ]

I think we all reached the church at the sarwj time, and went to the vestry-
room. I remember that the Bishop's son opened ihe door at the time I do not
know his name it is my impression it is Henry.

116. Who officiated, that afternoon?

I think Mr. Sweetzer read the service ; the Bishop preached and administered
confirmation.

117. Do you remember how many were confirmed ?

My impression is but. three.

118. Did you meet the Bishop in the vestry-room after the afternoon services
were over ! ' . '

" I think I did, as I remember going in with the Bishop's daughter and his daugh-
ter-in-law.

119. Did you speak to the Bishop in the vestry-room ? . .
I think not. . ' . .

120. I 'desire you to be as distinct as possible in your, recollection, whether you
spoke to the Bishop, or the Bishop to you, in the vestry-room that afternoon.

I have no recollection of exchanging any words with the Bishop; .

121. Is it your belief that you did not ?' . ' . ' ,
.It is my belief.

122. Did nothing pass between you and the Bishop when he {eft the church to
return to Flashing ? ' .

I cannot remember any thing : but I suppose he must have bid. me good after-
noon but 1 cannot remember it.

123. Do you not suppose that he shook hands with you' also ?

No, I do not. .:.'... '.

124. Have you ever met the Bishop since?

I have not met him since-. ' . *'".' " ,_..' /

125. Did the Bishop ever address to you any immodest 'or indelicate 'language !"
He never did. ''./.. !

126. -Were the insults which you have described. in .your 'direct' exarmnatipn r ac-
companied by any expression whatever on the part of the Bishop ?

They were rjot. : . . .

127. You say that the first insult offered you by the Bishop, .was-, on your way
home after morning service, on the l?th of July, -1842. What'tos fixed that pre-
cise date with so much. 'accuracy in yodr memory-?

It was the. time the Bishop appointed for confirmation 1 in pur church, and thg first
lime he visited our parish. ; . :''. -'

128. Have you refreshed your recollection :in anr Wa 7> as to the-tlafe, by refer-
ence to the almanac or any other source 1~

but I think I stated the, truth.

It was a pleasant day in Jiilv

130. Wiil you'descrjbe the wapft in which 'you were riding home that morning?
It was a-one-tioTsefamitytyroachelo accommodate four. ,

131. Was it a 'covered, carriage ? : ... \ ,
It had. a top, but the side-curtains were' up,

sides were 'open frotn ttie back seat forward.

132. Were the sAles of the back seat open,
! They were .closed.

133. "WTas Vie, back curtain upj or down V

It is my impression that it was down. . It w.as. usually .kept ^so.

134. Kad- you and th6 Bishop been in conversation, before be made the first im
proper advances towards you thut you have described-? .. ' .

I : chink the conversation, was general, between the Bishop, my mQther-in-law, and
myself. '...''

.135. Did your mother turn around during -that c'onyersatitfn, so -a,s "to" face.ybor.-
setf and the Bishop* : : V . ; .= '' ' .; ;,'''.,. . '--;'

. I really do: not remember as to that. : . ' / ' .

136. How did the persons in the carriago sit,, .relatively to each other ?

My mother sat in front of 'me, and the little boy in; front of the Bjshop. .
my impression. .'

137. Did the little boy who drove, sit upon the side of the carriage on which the
driver generally does ?

He did not.

138. Your mother then sat upon the driver's seaU
She did. '.

139. Do you remember how long this ride occupied T

I should suppose eight to ten minutes. That would be rather too short.

140. Had you ever conversed with the Bishop, before you got into the carriage
with him that morning ?

On one occasion, once before.

141. You had been introduced to him, I understand you, five days before this
occurrence. Had you had any conversation with him before this occurrence, except
a casual one on your introduction t

I had no conversation with the Bishop, but at the time \vhen I was introduced
to him. We-tlien dined together at the house of the Rev. Mr. Goodwin:

142. Was your conversation then confined to the table, or did you converse with
him apart from the rest of the company 1

We were in the presence of nine or ten clergymen. The Bishop offered me hi
arm, to go in to dinner, and I sat by him at dinner. 1 do not remember that I had
any particular conversation with the Bishop apart by himself.

143. Did the conversation in the carriage cease after the Bishop first placed his
hand upon you "?

I do not remember that it 'did.

144. How long was tl\at before you reached home ?
When we were more than halfway home.

145. Did yourself, your mother, and the Bishop, continue to converse after this T
I cannot recoHect distinctly as to th$t. It. is my impression that they did. I

cannot say distinctly whether / did.

146. Did the Bishop help you out of the carriage when you reached home ?
I think he iqust have done so, but I cannot say distinctly.

147. The secoqd insult in point of time was at your own house between the
morning and evenii^ service, as you stated was it before or after dinner ?

The first at the houa^ occurred before dinner.

148. Was any one prc^nt 1 .
Mother Beare was preset*..

149. Was that the occasion n which the Bishop put his arm around your waist T
It was.

150. Did he press your person on that occasion 1

He put his hand upon my waist ; I cannot say that he pressed it ; his arm wa
around my waist.

151. Have you forgotten whether he pressed any part of your person at that
time !

I have stated he did not.'

152. Did you- pash his arm- from you, or in any wher way disengage yourself
from him ]

I did not push his arm from me. I moved my position.

153. Did he say any thing at the time he took this liberty vith.you?
I do not remember that he did.

154. Were you standing or sitting at that time ?
I was standing in the door.

155. Was your mother standing or sitting 1
I think she was sitting;

156. Did the Bishop advance '. towards you, and if so, from what part o the
room, and how far 1

I was standing in the door, and he approached ; I cannot tell from what part of
the. room-.

157. This, you say, was before dinner ; did you see your husband after this be-
fore dinner \

I cannot remember that I spoke to him ; I suppose that I saw him.

158. Did you relate to him this insult before dinner ?
I did not.

159. Did you ever relate it to him before he made his affidavit ?
I told him all the particulars, and I suppose I included this one.

160. Did you tell him, any time before he made his affidavit, that the Bishop
had kissed you on that day ?

I did tell him.

161. When, particularly, did the Bishop kiss you, in the manner you hare
stated 1

I think it was not long before we left for the afternoon service.

162. In what room was this ?
In our usual sitting-room.

163. Who was in the room besides yourself and the Bishop ?
I recollect no one but my mother Beare.

164. Did she see this?
She did.

1 65. Did you or she make any remark on the subject to the Bishop ?
We did not.

166. Did the Bishop say any thing, when he approached you for this purpose ?
It is my impression, that he made some such expression, as " my daughter."

167. Did you at the time regard these two circumstances in the house as insults
to you ?

I should have done so from any one else but the Bishop ?

168. Why not from the Bishop ?

1 had too much confidence in him to suppose that he would offer me an insult in
my own house.

169. Was not that confidence shaken by what occurred on your morning ride ?
It certainly was somewhat shaken.

170. After afternoon service that day, you say that you rode towards Mr.
Franklin's as far as the top of the lane with Mr. Thomas Beare how far was
that from Mr. Franklin's house ?

About a quarter of a mile.

171. When Mr. Beare stopped to leave you at the top of the lane, where was
the vehicle in which your husband and the Bishop were ?

It was at the same place, it is my impression, waiting for us.

172. Was any person on the seat with the Bishop when you overtook them?
I think he was alone upon the back seat. I cannot say for certain.

173. Who were upon the front seat at that time?

My husband, and I think his nephew. I cannot say distinctly. I forget these
little things.

174. Did you request your brother-in-law to drive you down to Mr. Frank-
lin's ?

I do not think I did.

175. Did you take the same seat with the Bishop without hesitation ?

I took the seat that I was accustomed to in riding. I cannot remember my
thoughts at the time.

176. Did you converse freely with the Bishop during the ride to Mr. Frank-
lin's?

I cannot say that I conversed freely with him ; I do not remember what I did
say.

177. Did you take the Bishop's arm on getting out at Mr. Franklin's ?
I have no recollection of doing it ; though I do not think I did.

178. Did you converse with the Bishop there during the evening ?
I saw very little of him ; there were a number of others present.

179. The question is repeated.
I cannot remember that I did.

180. Was your brother-in-law staying at your husband's house at this time ?
He came to pass the Sunday with us. He stayed at our house that Sunday

night.

181. Who invited the Bishop to Mr. Franklin's that evening ? '
I suppose Mrs. Franklin must have done so.

182. Do you remember what kind of a night that was dark or light *
My impression is, that it was a dark night.

183. Was there any light or lamp upon the carriage T
There was not.

184. How long were you in going home *

I do not know what answer to give Jo that ; the length of time I cannot tell.

185. How long were you in the carriage that night, before the Bishop put his
arm around your waist ?

I have before stated that it was when we were near our lane, which is about
a quarter of a mile long, I think it is-; it might be more or less.

186. Had you conversed with the Bishop before that, after leaving Mr. Frank-
lin's?

We had all been in conversation together.

187. The question is repeated.
I think that I did. .

188. What kind of a dress had you on that night ?

It was a high neck dress, though not as high as the present fashion.

189. Had you any shawl, or outer dress 1
I had Jiot ; simply a collar to my neck.

190. Did the Bishop offer you any indignity before, you had -nearly approached
the lane leading to your house ]

He offered none at that time but what I have stated.

191. After you reached home, were the family devotions performed as usual t
They were.

192. .Who officiated ?

My husband ; the Bishop declined, I think.

193. How long did you sit up after that 1
I retired immediately to my room.

194. Did your husband also 1
He did.

195. Did the Bishop also !

J think he did. I left him in the study.

196. Did the Bishop breakfast with you the next morning 1
He did.

U97. Did you converse with him during breakfast-time ?
I did not.

198. Up to the time of his departure, did you that morning say any thing to
him, or he to you *

I do not remember that any thing passed between us.

199. Did he take leave of you, and shake hands with you, as he left the house *
He approached me, and took my hand.

200. Was that in the house, or on the front steps ]
It was in the study.

201. You say that the Bishop declined performing the family devotions ; did he
not state that when in the house of a clergyman, he always wished that clergyman
to perform the domestic religious exercises 1

I do not remember it at that time : but I remember to have heard him say that
every man was patriarch in his own family.

Direct Examination resumed.

53. Did Mrs. Beare, your mother, breakfast with you and the Bishop, at the
time he left on the occasion of his first visit ?

She did not.

54. Why 1 (Objected to and withdrawn.)

55. On the occasion of your first ride with the Bishop, was it on Sunday 1
It was.

56. Was the Holy Communion administered on that day ?

I think it was. My husband was a Deacon, and could not administer it. I think
he appointed that day for the purpose, in consequence ; that the Bishop might ad-
minister it.

57. You have spoken in your cross-examination, of the conversation at Mr.
Franklin's, do you remember any thing about it ? was it religious conversation, or
what other ?

I do not remember any religious conversation. I remember some remarks that
were made by Mr. Smythe.

58. Were they in the presence or hearing of the Bishop ?

They were in his presence, and I think he could have heard them.

59. What were they ?

Some one remarked to Mr. Smythe, See the liberties the Bishop is taking with
your lady. Miss Franklin was engaged to him. . He replied, Yes, if his office
did not protect him, I would revenge myself.

60. Was this said playfully, or otherwise ?
I considered it playfully.

61. What was the Bishop doing to Miss Franklin?

He put his arm about her, and laid his hand upon her shoulder. That is all I
saw.

62. What church did you go to in the afternoon of the day of the first occurrence ?
To the Chapel at Clintonville the White Stone Chapel.

63. Was the confirmation spoken of in that church ?
It was.

Cross- Examination resumed.

202. Was not Mr. Smythe afterwards married to Miss Franklin 1
He was.

203. Who married them ? .
Bishop Onderdonk.

204. Were you and Mr. Smythe the only persons who saw the affair between
the Bishop and Miss Franklin on the occasion referred to 1

There were several present.

205. Did the Bishop make any reply to this playful remark of Mr. Smythe ?
I do not remember that he did.

By the Court.
By Bishop De Lancey.

1. When the Bishop spent the night at your house, and when you retired for
the night after prayers, did you bid the Bishop " good night T'

It is my impression that he said " good night," and I believe that I replied, but
I cannot tell.

2. Are you positive that the Bishop said " good night" to you first 1 ?

My impression is, that as I went out of the door to go up stairs, the Bishop said
" good night" to me, before I spoke to him.
By Bishop Gadsden.

3. When the Bishop called you " my daughter," were you surprised at the ex-
pression 1

I was not surprised. The first day he met me, he addressed me very affec-
tionately that way.

The Court then adjourned.

Attest,

WM. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Saturday, December 21st, 1844, >
half-past 9 o'clock, A. M. \

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky. Ohio, New Jersey, the North West-
ern Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York, South Carolina,
Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bish-
ops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South- Western Missionary
Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

Gerardus Clark, Esq., of Counsel for the Presentment, put in an affidavit
of the service of citation of this Court upon Miss Ann Wilson, which
affidavit was read, and filed with the Clerk of the Court.

The Counsel for Respondent consented to receive the notice of affidavit
read in Court on the 19th inst., as though it had been duly sworn, and to
have it so filed by' the Clerk.

The Counsel for the Presentment then moved the Court for the appoint-
ment of a Commissary to take the written deposition of Miss Ann Wilson,
whose attendance on the trial cannot be obtained.

The motion was opposed by the Counsel for the Respondent, and argued
by the Counsel on both sides.

The Court granted the motion. The Bishops of North Carolina, New
Jersey, Western New York, South Carolina, and Maryland, dissenting.

The dissenting Bishops directed the Clerk to enter upon the records of
the Court, the following reasons of their dissent :

[COPY.]

The Bishop of North Carolina dissents, on the ground that no sufficient
evidence has been furnished the Court, that the attendance of the witness
cannot be obtained.

(Signed,) L. S. IVES.

[COPY.]

The Bishop of Western New York dissents, because he thinks no suffi-
cient means have been used to induce the witness to attend ; because mere
unwillingness to attend does not appear to be sufficient reason to allow a
Commissary to take the testimony ; because no actual disability on the part
of the witness to attend is proved to the Court ; because if unwilling wit-
nesses are allowed to have their testimony taken out of Court, then the
ends of justice may be defeated.

December 21, 1844.

(Signed,) W. H. DE LANCEY.

The Bishop of New Jersey dissents for the above reasons ; and for the
farther reason, that the construction of the Canon thus adopted, puts the
Respondent in any case at disadvantage, as compared with the Presenters,
who have the selection of their own witnesses, and every opportunity to as-
certain their ability and willingness to testify, before they make the Pre-
sentment.

(Signed,) G. W. DOANE.

The Bishop of Maryland dissents for the above reasons ; and because,
as he understands, the course of the Presentment in this case has tended to
induce the refusal of the witness to attend.

(Signed,) W. R. WHITTINGHAM.

The Court appointed Dayton Hobart, Esq., a Commissary to take the
written deposition of Miss Ann Wilson.

The REV. HENRY M. BEARE was called up as a witness by the Counsel for
the Presentment, and examined.

Direct Examination.

1 . What is your name T:
Henry M. Beare.

2. Occupation ?

A minister of the gospel.

3. Where is your residence T:
At Bayside, Long Island.

4. Are you a Rector of a Church there, and how long have you been such 1

I am ; of Zion Church, Little Neck ; and have been since the 1st Sunday of May,
1842.

5. What is the name of your wife ?
Charlotte E. -Beare.

6. In the year 1842, and what time in that year, was you visited at your house
by the Right Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk 1

I was, on the 17th of July, in that year.

7. For what purpose did the Bishop visit you ?
To hold confirmation in Zion Church, Little Neck.

8. After the morning service did the Bishop return home with you, and if he
did, who accompanied him in the carriage 1

He did come to my house, (he had not been there in the morning,) accompanied
by my wife, my mother, and my nephew.

9. Did the Bishop dine with you that, day 1
. He- did.

10. Did he go to church with you in the afternoon 1
He went to the Clintonville or Whitestone Chapel.

11. After the evening service where did the Bishop go 1
To the house of Mrs. Joseph Franklin.

12. Did he return home with you that night, and at what hour ?
He did ; I think about nine o'clock.

13. In what description of carriage did you ride, and who composed the com-
pany in that carriage 1

It was a one-horse family barouche ; the company consisted of Bishop Onder-
donk, my wife, my nephew, and myself.

14. How were the parties seated 1 ?

Mrs. Beare and Bishop Onderdonk were on the back seat, and my nephew and
myself were on the front scat.

15. How long did the Bishop remain at your house T
Until the next morning after breakfast.

16. Where did lie go 'then, and who went with him ?
He went to College Point ; I accompanied him.

17. Did you accompany him any farther, or did you leave him there ?
I accompanied him no farther, and left him there.

18. When did you next see Bishop Onderdonk ?

I called in company with several clergymen at his house, I think it was about
'ten days afterwards. "

19. What clergymen ?

The Rev. Mr. Higbee, Dr. Milnor, and Dr. Muhlenberg.

20. Did you call on the Bishop at the request of any person, and of whom *
I called at the request of Dr. Muhlenberg.

21. Did you see Bishop Onderdonk, and where ]

I met him in his front-room, (his study,) and he took us into the back-room.

22. Who were present in the back-room at that interview 1

Bishop Onderdonk, Rev. Drs. Muhlenberg and Milnor, and the Rev. Mr. Higbee
and myself.

23. Now please state fully all that was said in the hearing of the Bishop, or by
(he Bishop, in that interview.

As far as I can remember I will state. Bishop Onderdonk commenced by
speaking to me very affectionately, stating what a high regard and respect he had
for me ; and that he would not intentionally, I think that was the woxd, wound the
feelings of Mrs. Beare or myself. I then asked Bishop Onderdonk whether he
denied what Mrs. Beare had said he had been guilty of. He said he did not deny
it, but that Mrs. Beare had misunderstood, or misconstrued his motives. HB then
told me to offer an apology to Mrs. Beare, and if she demanded any further apology
he was willing to make her one. I said I would mention it to Mrs. Beare. I'
think that was the amount of the conversation that passed between me and the
Bishop. Dr. Milnor addressed Bishop Onderdonk, and stated, I think, that there
were rumors about him. I think so ; I was very much agitated at the time ; I do
not know distinctly what Dr. Milnor said. I think he advised the Bishop to be
careful, or cautious. . That is as much as 1 can distinctly recollect of the remarks
made by Dr. Milnor to Bishop Onderdonk. . ^

24. What had been said in that interview to the Bishop, which induced him to
say, that he would not wound the feelings of Mrs. Beare or yourself *

There was no previous conversation. The Bishop commenced it in that way,
taking me by the hand.
. 25. Do you know to what he referred ]

The treatment offered to my wife.

26. How do you know he referred to that 1

Because he had been previously called upon by Dr. Milner, Dr. Muhlenberg,
and Dr. Wainwright.'

27. How do you know that 1

1 was told so by Dr. Muhlenberg.

28. Was any thing said in the interview you have named about that previous
call, and what ? ,.

I think not.

29. Did the Bishop refer to any communication made to him previously by
either of those gentlemen 1

I think he did not.

30. Did you learn, and when, that the Bishop had offered indignity to your wife *
I did, on Sunday morning immediately after morning-service, and in the even-
ing after our return from Mrs. Franklin's.

'31. From whom did you learn this 1

From Mrs. Beare herself.

32. Did you give information of this fact to any person, and to whom, and at
what time ?

I gave information early on the following morning, not in detail, however, to my
brother, Mr. Thomas M. Beare ; afterwards on the same day, at College Point, to
the Rev. John Kerfoot, and to no other person at that time.

.33. Who was Mr. Kerfoot, and where did he reside ?

Mr. Kerfoot was a Professor jn St. Paul's College, and resided there.

34. Where is h.e nowt

I think it is at Hagerstown, Maryland.

35. To whom, and when did you next communicate this fact 1

To my brother, Wm. Beare, about a year since. :

36. Did you ever communicate this intelligence to Dr. Muhlenberg'?

I did, I think, the day after Bishop Onderdonk left College Point. % .

37. Was Mr. Kerfoot present then ?
He was not.

% . 79

38. Did you go to- Dr. Muhlenberg at his own request ? [This question was
objected to by Counsel for Respondent, and waived.J

Cross-Examination .

' 1. When did you first meet Bishop Onderdbnk,' after the 18th of July, 1842,
when you separated at College Point ?

I think it was nine or ten days afterwards, on the occasion referred to in my di-
rect examination, and at the Bishop's house.
2. "When did you next meet him?

I think I called at the Bishop's house a few months previous to my ordination'
to the Priesthood, which took place on the 16th of July, 1843, as I think. It was
on a Sunday morning that I was ordained.

3. How often, and.whe'n, and where have you met him since the call last men-
tioned !

I met Bishop Oriderdonk at Dr. Schroeder's institution on the Saturday previous
to my ordination to the Priesthood : I met him the next day at the church : I
again met him at St. John's Chapel, New York, at the anniversary of the Sunday-
schools of the city, after Easter last : again in the afternoon of the .same day, in
St. Clement's Church : and again at the consecration of Christ Church at Oyster
Bay, on Long Island, in. the latter part of June or July last, (I think it was at that
time.) I do not remember any other times that I have met the Bishop.

1. When you went to the house of the Bishop, in company with the Rev. gen-
tlemen you have named, nine or ten 'days after the 17th of July, 1842, did you go
there for the express purpose of meeting the Bishop upon the subject which was
then conversed about 1
I did.

Jr. Give, if. you can, the words io> which the Bishop first introduced the subject.
As well as 1 can remember I will state it ; I was very much agitated, and can-
not be expected to recollect very accurately.

The Bishop commenced by saying, " Mr. Beare, I have a very high regard and
respect for you, and would not wound your or Mrs. Beare's feelings intentionally.
This is a very painful subject." I think he asked me .to be seated, and he would
explain what had occurred. When we were seated he' said, "I can assure you of
my kind feelings towards you, Mr. Beare, and towards your wife." I 'then said to
Bishop Onderdonk, " Do yon deny, sir, what Mrs. Beare says you were guilty of?"
He said, " I do ndt deny it. But Mrs. Beare has misunderstood or misconstrued
my motives."* Then he said, " Offer an apology to Mrs. Beare, and rf she de-
mand any further apology, I am ready to make it.'" That is, as far as I recol-
lect my having any conversation with the Bishop.

6. Before the question put by you to the Bishop, viz. : " Do you deny, sir, what
Mrs. Beare says you were guilty of?" had any reference been made to Mrs. Beare
by name, or to any statement which she had made ?

.Nothing further than the Bishop's expression of kind feeling towards her.
. 7. Did not the Bishop. express himself to you", in that conversation, in the words
or to the effect following : that, from complaints .which he had heard as proceeding
from you, it had been imputed to him that he had wounded your and your wife's
feelings that this was distressing to his feelings and that he could not, and did not,
admit the truth o&your wife's statements, but that that did not cause .him to be the
less pained by reason of- your feelings having been hurt on the subject ?

He said it was painful to his feelings, but did not deny what Mrs. Beare
said. . . .

8. Was nqt his answer to your question to this effect : that he did not mean to
question your wife's veracity, for that persons might often give wrong impressions
of facts" without intending to deceive?

I understood Bishop Onderdonk to say that he did not deny what Mrs. Beare
stated, but that she misunderstood or misconstrued his motives'.

9: Was not your question in these words, dr to this effect: do you question my
wife's veracity ?

I do not remember putting that question.

10. Is your recollection so distinct as to enable you to say with certainty that
that was not the form of your question ]

That was -not the form of the question.

11. When you left the Bishop's study, did not you and he shake hands together
very warmly ?

I cannot say warmly ; we shook hands, but not warmly.

12. During the 17th July, 1842,- and after your wife made to you the first state-
ment respecting an indignity from the Bishop, did not you and your wife freely
converse with the Bishop !

I cannot say freely.

13. Did your wife take part in any conversation with the Bishop during dinner
that day 1

I do not remember particularly I cannot say decidedly.

14. Is it your belief that she did, or did not?

I think it probable that she treated the Bishop respectfully.

15. Do you not know that she did 1
I cannot say decidedly.

16. Can you not say whether your wife conversed with the Bishop during his
stay at your house on that occasion ?

I heard him conversing with Mrs. Beare in my study.

17. In what part of the day ?

Just after the morning service, and before dinner.

18. Was it after or before her communication to you ?
I think it was before.

19. What was said in that conversation ?

Bishop Onderdonk said he was hap'py to see me so pleasantly situated, (he
remarked this to both of us we were standing together,) and happy to be with
us. I do not remember any further conversation.

20. Did your wife make any remark at that time 1
I cannot say positively.

. 21. How long did you and your wife, and the Bishop, remain in the study at the
time just referred to ?

. A short time, dinner being near ready. The Bishop went to an upper room
to wash his hands ; and I think he said he had some letters from his son, which he
wished to read.

22. On your return from Mr. Franklin's that evening, how long did you and
your wife sit up, in company with the Bishop ?

From ten to fifteen minutes.

23. How was that time occupied ?

In offering up family prayer. Mrs. Beare immediately retired then to her
room, and the Bishop soon went to his room.

24. Did you request the Bishop to officiate at family prayer, and what reply
did he make ?

I offered the Bishop the prayer-book, and asked him to officiate. I think he
simply declined at that time.

25. Did he not say that it was his rule, 1 that in the house of a clergyman, the
clergyman himself should perform family devotions ?

I do not recollect his saying that.

26. Did you not know that that was his rule ?

I heard him make a remark somewhat similar to that, when I asked him to ask
a blessing at dinner.

27. Did the Bishop shake hands with you and your wife before you separated
that night ?

I think not with Mrs. Beare, but with myself, I think.

28. Did your wife and the Bishop converse together the next morning at break-
fast ]

I remember no conversation passing between them.

29. Do you mean to be understood' that nothing was said by the Bishop to your
wife, or by her to him, during breakfast-time that morning ?

I remjember of no conversation passing between them.

30. Did any conversation pass between them before he left the house ?
I heard no conversation between them.

31. "When the Bishop started in the wagon with you, did he take leave of your
wife, and if so, in what manner ?

He did take leave of her, and took her hand.*

32. Was your mother with you at breakfast that morning ?
She was not.

33. Did she not come down stairs to take leave of the Bishop ?
Xot for that express purpose.

34. Did she take leave or the Bishop 1
I cannot say from personal observation.

35. Was the Bishop treated by yourself and wife, while at your house, after the
morning ride on Sunday, until he left your house the next day, with marked coldness *

I would not say with marked coldness.

36. Did your wife in your presence ever, after the occurrence of 17th of July,
1842, converse with the Bishop 1

She had no conversation it may be a few questions were proposed at table,
respecting the dishes before her.

37. Was her manner such as to show a disinclination to converse with the
Bishop, in every instance when they met, after the occurrence referred to 1 "

Yes, sir ; whenever in my presence, I think so.

38. Must not the Bishop have observed this 1
'I should suppose so.

39. Was your manner to him reserved, on all occasions, when you met him
after those occurrences'?

Not cordial, as it had formerly been.

40. Was it reserved, so as to be apparent ?

I wished it always to be respectful, as to my Bishop.

41. The question is repeated.
I should suppose so.

.42. On the Saturday before your ordination to ihe priesthood, when you met the
Bishop at Dr. Schroeder's, did you invite him to dine with you the next day 1
I said to him, " Bishop Onderdonk, will you take dinner with me to-morrow V

43. What was his reply ?

I think he said, " I thank you, sir."

44. Did he not say that he had an invitation to dine at Mr. Franklin's ?
.1 did not hear him say so.

45. Did you not urge him. to dine with you, in consequence of some excuse he
made ?

I do not recollect of urging him.

46. Did he not make some excuse which induced you to repeat the request *
I really cannot remember that I repeated the request. .

47. Was your manner cordial in giving the invitation, or was it formal and cold *
It was not cordial, but respectful.

48. Was your wife in the vestry-room of your church the next morning, while
you and the Bishop were in the room, before service ?

I think not.

49. Was she after service 1
She was. ,

50. Did the Bishop shake hands with you -and her, in congratulation upon your
ordination that morning ?

I did not see the Bishop shake hands with my wife. I think he did with me.

51. Was your ordination that day the subject of conversation between yourself,
your wife, and the Bishop, after you reached home ?

I do not remember of my wife engaging in any conversation with the Bishop.

52. Was her manner at dinner that day so reserved as to be apparent ?

It was. Shall I go on to explain 1 I wish merely to remark that it was noticed
by Mrs. Kip, of Brooklyn, and .Miss Strong, of this city. [To what follows " it was,"
in this answer, objection was made by Counsel for the Respondent, but waived ; so
the answer stood.]

82-

53. Did your wife converse with the Bishop during dinner, the day of the ordi-
nation t

She did not.

54. Did she speak to him at all ! .

She asked him to partake of the dish that was before her.

55. Do you remember in what way the communion vessels were carried to the
church on the day of your ordination 1

I carried them myself, in a box, in which the vessels are always-taken.

56. Did you walk or ride, to the church 1
I think I walked.

57. Who usually prepares the vessels, -linen, &c., for the communion at the
church on communion days *

Sometimes I, and sometimes my wife, takes them frota the box. They are pre-
pared at home, wrapped up in a cloth, and taken out in the vestry-room. I then
place them upon the table.

58. How large was this box which you carried to church that morning 1
It is a tin box, about fifteen inches' by seven or nine. I can easily carry it.

59. How came you to carry that box as you walked to church that morning ?
I often do so.

60. How did your wife go to church that morning V

She went in a wagon, with Mrs. Kip, Miss Strong, and I think my brother
Thomas Beare, who drove.

61. Was the night of the 17th July, 1842, a light or.a dark one ?
I do not think it was very dark.

62. Was it moonlight ?
I cannot remember.

63. Was it light enough to enable you to distinguish the persons of your wife
and Bishop Onderdonk, on the back seat of the wagon, as you rode home 1

I did not turn around to see.

64. Did you converse with the Bishop on your way home that night ?
I did.

65. Did you not during the conversation direct your face towards him ?
I think not, for I was driving.

66. Was the communion administered in- your' church on the 17th of July, 1$42 1
I think not. It was the day of confirmation ; I belfeve-the bishop did not' ad-
minister the communion.

67. Did your brother, Thomas Beare, dine with you on the day of your ordination 1.
He did.

68. Is he the brother to whom ypu mentioned, on the 18th of July, 1842, the
Bishop's treatment of your wife, on th,e preceding day ?

He is.

69. Had not your wife told you, before ! your visit to Mr. Franklin's with the
Bishop, and your ride home with him that night, of the alleged insult of the
morning!

She had.

70. Have you at any time since the occurrence of 17th July, 1842, spoken to
any person in very friendly terms 'of the Bishop ^

I know of no one to whom I have spoken iri that way.

71. Have you spoken in that way to the -Rev. Mr. Goodwin* ,
I cannot remember it.

72. Or to the Bishop's sons, Henry and William, or either of them ?

I have inquired of those sons respecting the Bishop^how his health was.

73. Have you to either of them spoken with satisfaction of the Bishop's having
dined with you in July, 1843 ?

I have no recollection of it.

74. What is your impression as to the fact ?
I think not.

75. Did you not, in a conversation with one of the- Bishop's sons, lay particular
stress on the fact, that you had induced the Bishop to dine with you in July, 1843,
notwithstanding he had another invitation 1

. . 83

I have no remembrance of such a thing.

76. When did you first make a memorandum, or statement in writing, of the
transactions to which you have "referred in your testimony ? .

'In the month of June, 1844, during the General Convention. On or aboiit the
21st of October, 1844. My first answer of June was a lapsus lingua.

77. Did any person, and if so, who, apply to you for an affidavit 1
Yes, ir, the Rev. James C. Richmond.

7&. When did he so apply ! . '

On the Friday night previous to thei closing of the General Convention.

79. Did he apply to yon for your wife's affidavit 1
He did. ' . .

80. Where did he make this application f
At my house, Bayside r Long Island.

81. Did you express yourself, upon leaving the house of the Bishop, at the in-
terview, in the. presence .of the Rev. gentlemen, whom you have named,, or after
that interview, satisfied with the explanation 'of the Bishop ?.

\ .Not satisfied with the apology made for his conduct, but because he said he did
not deny what Mrs. Beare had stated.

.. 82. Is that the only expression you have made in relation to the Bishop's ex-
planation 1

I cannot call to mind any other.

83. Was it not remarked among the :Rev. gentlemen who accompanied you, and
assented to -by you, after leaving the Bishop's house, that the matter was settled,
and there was an end of it, or' to that effect 1

' I think that Dr. Muhlenberg remarked, " We will say no more about this matter."

84. Did you assent to that remark 1 \

I kept perfectly quiet ; I left the matter, in their hands.

Direct Examination resumed.

. 39. . WhaJ induced you to ask the question of Bishop Onderdonk, "Whether he
denied the statement made by your wife 1 ?" {Objected to and withdrawn.)

You have stated in your cross-examination, " I asked "Bishop Onderdonk whether
he denied the facts stated by my wife ;" what induced you to ask that question ?

[This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent, and after
argument by the Counsel on both sides, the objection was sustained; the
Bishops of North Carolina, N*ew Jersey, Western New York, South Caro-
lina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the
Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary
Diocese, sustaining the objection ; and the Bishops of Illinois, Vermont, Ken-
tucky, Ohio, the North Western Missionary Diocese, and Louisiana, dissenting.}

' By the Court.
By Bishop 'Doane.

.1. Did you go to the Bishop, after Mrs. Beare's statement to you, and tell him
his fault T
I did not. .
By Bishop Gadsden.

2. In the carriage in which you rode with the Bishop, how near was you to the
Bishop ? ...

I sat on the right haftd of the front seat, and the Bishop on the left hand of the
back seat.

3. Did your wife sit behind you T
She did.

4. How near was she to you 1

1 cannot state. exactly the distance.

5. Was she near enough to toucli you with her hand ?
Yes, sir.

6. What is the age of your wife \
She is in her 25th year.

. 7. What is your age V
I was born Sept. 14, 1815.

8. How long had you been married at the time of this transaction ?
I was married on the 8th of June, preceding, in the same year.
By .Bishop Ives.

9. Did I understand you rightly, that in riding with the Bishop in the evening,
after having heard of the Bishop's insult to your wife, in the morning, you did not
turn your face around during that ride to observe him ?

I do not particularly remember doing so.
By Bishop De Lancey.

10. When the Bishop and you separated', on the night that the Bishop spent at
your house, did he bid you " Good-night ]"

He did.

11. Did he bid your wife "Good-night" when she retired to her room, after

prayers

I naturally suppose that he did.

12. Did your wife bid the Bishop " Good-night V
I cannot say positively-

13. Did you bid the Bishop " Good-night V
I did.

14. Did the Bishop administer the communion in your church at any time after
the alleged indignity to your wife 1

He did.

15. Did you partake- of it at his hands \
I did.

16. Did your wife partake of it at his hands ?
She did. "

17. Have you said to any person, since the alleged indignity to your wife, that
you had nothing to say, or bring, against Bishop Onderdonk, or words to that
effect ?

I have not said so.
By Bishop Eastburn.

18. On what occasion did you receive the holy communion at the hands of the
Bishop, after this occurrence '?

At the time of my ordination to the priesthood.
By Bishop Johns.

19. Was that the only occasion 1

I now remember no other, with reference either to my wife or myself.
By Bishop De Lancey.

20. While you were in Deacon's orders did the Bishop ever administer the
communion for you, at your church 1

I do not remember his doing it.

The Rev. James Milnor, D. D.. was called up as a witness by the
Counsel for the Presentment, and sworn by Dayton Hobart, Esq., commis-
sioner. . * , '

It was ordered by the Court, that next week, besides the morning session,
on every day except Christmas day and the day before Christmas, the
Court will .hold evening sessions, to commence at 7 o'clock.

The hour of adjournment having arrived, the Court then adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Monday, Dec. S3d, 1844, )
liaif-past 9 A. M. \

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North

Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, South Carolina, Maryland, and
Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayer.

A letter was received from the Bishop of Western New York, excusing
his absence on the ground of illness.

The REV. JAMES MILNOR, D. D., having been sworn on Saturday the
21st, was called up as a witness by the Counsel for the Presentment, and
examined.

Direct Examination.

1 . What is your vocation '\

A. minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and Rector of St. George's
Church in this city.

2. In or about the month of July, 1842, did you visit Bishop Onderdonk, of this
city, at his house, in company with the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg, and others ; and if
so, who accompanied you on that occasion T

I did, in company with the Rev. Dr. Wainwright, Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg, and
Rev. Dr. Higbee.

3. Did you see the Bishop on that occasion ; and if so, please state what conver-
sation was had between you, the Bisbop, and the other gentlemen 1

We did, in his study. I had been requested to introduce to the Bishop's atten-
tion the subject on which we called. I accordingly stated to him the purpose of
our visit ; this was an allegation made by the Rev. Mr. Beare, of improper famil-
iarities on the part of the Bishop towards his wife. I told him that these were
said to have occurred in a carriage, in which he rode with Mrs. Beare, in the first
place in going to or from church in the forenoon. The church was, as I under-
stood, the church at Little Neck, where the Bishop confirmed that day. That
familiarities of a still more objectionable kind had been offered by the Bishop, in
the evening, in riding from a house where they had taken tea the house of a pa-
rishioner, I understood to Mr. Beare's house. That Mr. Beare had communica-
ted the facts to the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg, who committed them to writing ; and I
think I requested Dr. Muhlenberg to read the statement ; which he did. In my
communication to the Bishop, I stated that I understood from Dr. Muhlenberg, that
he had advised Mr. Beare to have this matter brought before the Bishop : that
he, Dr. Muhlenberg, offered to come down to the city on the business ; and that
I had been waited upon by Dr. Wainwright and Dr. Muhlenberg-. and requested to
accompany them. After the subject had been presented to Bishop Onderdonk, he
positively denied the charge : and expressed his astonishment, that a lady of re-
spectable character, as he presumed Mrs. Beare to be, should make such asser-
tions. Mr. Beare was not present, nor had I seen him since the alleged occur-
rence, nor communicated with him in any manner with reference to it. Mrs. Beare
I had never seen, (nor have I to this hour.) The Bishop was asked, either by
myself or one of the gentlemen, I do not recollect which, whether he would be
willing to see Mr. Beare. He said he had no objection. We then took our leave
of the Bishop.

4. What was the manner of the Bishop, when he made the denial of the state-
ment, as presented by Dr. Muhlenberg ?

Perfectly composed. *

5. Did he or not seem indignant at the charge ?
His expression, as already stated, indicated that.

6. When the Bishop expressed a willingness to see Mr. Beare, was any, and
what remark, made by Dr. Muhlenberg, as to seeing Mr. Beare?

I think he said he would send him word to come clown the next day.

7. Did you call upon the Bishop again on this subject ; and if so, when, and in
company with whom ?

I called the next day, in company with the Rev. Messrs. Beare, Muhlenberg,
and Higbee Dr. Wainwright having sent an apology for his absence, on account
of the occurrence of a domestic affliction since the dav before.

8. Before you went the second time, had Mr. Beare, to your knowledge, been
informed of what occurred in the interview the day before 1

He had.

9. Will you please state, according to the best of your recollection, what occur-
red, and what was said by the Bishop, and the other gentlemen present, in the
second interview 1

We found the Bishop as before, in his study his front study. He took us into
the back-room, I think, and closed the door. He addressed himself to Mr. Beare,
and expressed his regret that any circumstances should have occurred to offend
the feelings of Mrs. Beare ; that he had a great regard for him and his wife, and
had certainly not intended to wound her feelings. Mr. Beare asked him, in sub-
stance, whether he denied the allegations of Mrs. Beare, to which he answered in
the negative ; but said, she had put a misconstruction upon what had occurred. I think
it right to state, that at this interview the Bishop was much affected. Tears stood
in his eyes as he made this declaration, and Mr. Beare was also much affected.
The protestations of the Bishop as to his having no improper intention, were re-
peated several times. If I am not much mistaken in my recollection, the question
was more than once put by Mr. Beare to the Bishop, whether he meant to say that
Mrs. Beare's assertions were not true ; to which, as often as it was proposed,
which I believe was more than once, the Bishop answered that he did not ; but
that she had misconstrued his motives. There does not any thing else occur to
me at this moment, in regard to the conversation or occurrences at that interview.

10. Did you say any thing, and what, on that occasion, to Bishop Onderdonk *

I do not remember that I did, until the conclusion of the conference ; but I may
have done so.

11. What did you say at the conclusion of the conference ?

I cannot, probably, recollect the very words ; but, on rising to retire, as I believe,
after we were on our feet, I intimated to the Bishop that I hoped what had occurred
in this instance would put him on his guard in future ; that I had heard rumors of
a similar kind. To which the Bishop replied in words of this import : " In regard
to rumors of this kind, Doctor, about clergymen, there are few who have not, at
some time, had occasion to encounter them." To which I answered, that I did
not know how that might be, but, in regard to myself, I had been nearly thirty
years in the ministry, and had never had occasion to encounter such a difficulty.
That is, I believe, the substance of what occurred before we left the presence of
the Bishop.

12. Will you state, as well as you remember, what the allegations of improprie-
ty, on the part of Bishop Onderdonk towards Mrs. Beare, were, as they were
stated by yourself to the Bishop *

I think it right to state as preliminary to the answer to this question, that I never
made a note in writing in reference to any thing connected -with this subject ; and
that I forbore to speak in relation to it until it became a subject of conversation in
the city of Philadelphia, during the sitting of the last General Convention. I
mention this to account for any inaccuracy that may occur in what I shall state in
regard to the incidents themselves. The substance, I think, was to this effect.
That in the morning of the day of the Confirmation by the Bishop at the Church at
Little Neck, Mrs. Beare rode in the same carriage and on the same seat with
Bishop Onderdonk x either in going to or from church I do not recollect which.
That, in the afternoon, when they went to the other church of Mr. Beare, which is,
I think, at Clintonville, where a second Confirmation was to be held, Mrs. Beare
objected to riding with the Bishop, and on her husband inquiring the reason why
she so objected, she answered that she did not like to ride with the Bishop, he was
too familiar. Accordingly, as I understood it, she did not ride to the church in
the afternoon with the Bishop, but in another carriage with her brother. That,
after the afternoon service, she rode in the same carriage with her brother, to the
house where they took tea if I remember right, a Mr. Franklin's. That, in going
home in the evening, from this house to Mr. Beare's, there was no other convey-
ance for Mrs. Beare but her husband's carriage. Accordingly, she rode in the
same carriage and on the same seat with Bishop Onderdonk, to Mr. Beare's. That
in the course of that ride the familiarities complained of were offered, which con-

aisted in the Bishop's sitting very close to her, feeling her person in a way which she
considered indecent, and at length putting his. hand down her bosom her naked
bosom, I think. That she resented these advances, so far as to put his hand away
from her bosom, and so on. I do not know that there was stated in the Bishop's
presence, the reasons why she did not make any outcry, and therefore I presume I
am not at liberty to state what was alleged on that subject.

13. Did you leave the Bishop's house in company with Dr. -Muhlenberg, Mr.
Higbee, and Mr. Beare ?

I did.

14. Immediately on leaving the house, was any opinion expressed by Mr. Hig-
bee and Dr. Muhlenberg, as to the Bishdp's acknowledgments and statements on
that occasion 1

[This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent, and the ob-
jection was sustained by the Court, the opinions being severally taken, and unani-
mous.]

Cross- Examination .

, 1. Were the statements made by you to the Bishop, and given in answer to the
12th direct interrogatory, made upon the occasion of your first visit to the Bishop,
in company with the Rev. Drs. Wainwright, Muhlenberg, and Higbee 1
I believe they were.

2. Have you a distinct recollection of the particulars of that interview, or' have
you intended to give the substance of it merely 1

As I have already mentioned, having never made any memorandum on this sub-
ject, I can at this distance of time only state the substance of what passed ; but I
have a distinct recollection, that I left the Bishop's house under the impression
that he positively denied the charge. It was that impression, made during the
conversation, that induced me to propose that Mr. Beare should be confronted
with the Bishop.

3. Was this denial made by the Bishop after your narration of the charge made
against him ]

I think it was.

4. Did not the Bishop at that interview say that he was certain that if he could
see Mr. Beare, and have a conversation with him, he could satisfy him that his
wife must have been mistaken, and express a hope that he would see Mr. Beare
the next day, at the consecration of Christ Church, Brooklyn 1

I think I recollect something of the kind stated in the first part of the question ;
the latter I do not remember.

5. Are you certain that Dr. Muhlenberg read the statement on that occasion, to
which you have referred in your direct examination 1

That is my impression.

6. Have you a distinct recollection that the Bishop's denial related to the facts,
and not to the impressions given by Mrs. Beare 1

I do not know that I could make that distinction. It appeared to me like a posi-
tive denial of the whole thing.

7. Do you recollect the form of expression in which that denial 'was made ?

He said the charge was utterly unfounded. I mentioned in my direct examina-
tion the same thing.

8. Did he, in making this general denial, refer to the whole statement you had
made ?

I presumed so at the time. When I so speak, I refer only to the statement of
charges of impropriety against him.

9. Was any thing said by Dr. Muhlenberg at the first interview, on the au-
thority of Mr. Beare, respecting the Bishop's deportment at Mr. Franklin's
towards Miss Franklin, wfio was engaged to be married to Mr. Smythe, a gentle-
man present at Mr. Franklin's at the time 1 If so, please state what it was.

I recollect no such circumstance:

10. Was any reference made, either at the first or second interview, to the
Bishop's having put his arm around the waist of Mrs. Beare, or his having kissed
her at Mr. Beare's house, in the interval between the morning and afternoon ser-
vice, on the day of the alleged improprieties'?

I recollect having heard such a circumstance, but do not remember whether it
was mentioned in either of our conferences with the Bishop or not.

11. You have stated in your direct examination that Mr. Beare asked the
Bishop, in substance, whether he denied the allegations of Mrs. Beare ; to which
the Bishop answered in the negative, but said that she had put a misconstruction
upon what had occurred ; do you mean in that answer to give the words which
were used by the parties, or their substance, as you now recollect them 1

The latter.

12. May not the Bishop have said, in answer to Mr. Beare's question, that he
did not mean to charge Mrs. Beare with intentional falsehood T

I believe the Bishop did say so.

13. Did not the Bishop refer to Mrs. Beare's excitement and agitation, as a rea-
son why she might, though unconsciously, have made erroneous statements !

I have no recollection of any such thing.

14. Did you, or any of the other Rev. gentlemen present, take part in the con-
versation between the Bishop and Mr. Beare 1

I do not remember whether we did or not.

15. Do you remember that at the close of the conversation, and as the Bishop
and Mr. Beare were separating, they clasped each other warmly, by the hand, and
parted from each other with emotion.

I remember that the Bishop offered his hand to Mr. Beare, and that Mr. Beare
accepted it ; and that the Bishop expressed his sorrow, that any thing should have
occurred to offend the feelings of Mrs. Beare ; and I think he added, that if any
further apology to Mrs. Beare was necessary, he was ready to make it. There
was emotion manifested, both on the part of the Bishop and Mr. Beare.

16. Did not Mr. Beare say to the Bishop that he was satisfied, and trusted his
wife would be ?

I have no recollection that he did.

17. May not such a remark have been made at the time they separated, and
you have forgotten it ]

I think, if it had been, I should have remembered it ; because there were sub-
sequent circumstances inconsistent with it. [Here a discussion arose before the
Court.] Since this matter has been under discussion, a circumstance has occur-
red to me in regard to Mr. Beare's expression of satisfaction, which I think was
mentioned in the presence of the Bishop. This was, that Mr. Beare stated that
he was satisfied with the Bishop's withdrawal of his denial of Mrs. Beare's alle-
gations ; on which subject Mr. Beare had, all along, expressed the greatest sensi-
bility.

Direct Examination resumed.

15. You were asked on the cross-examination, " Are you certain that Dr. Muhlen-
berg, on that occasion to which you have referred in your direct examination,
read the statement made by him of the charges against the Bishop by Mr. Beare ;"
I will ask, did you hear that statement read more than once 1

If I am wrong in my recollection of Dr. Muhlenberg having read it before the
Bishop, then I have heard it but once, which was before we went there.

By the Court.

By Bishop Johns.

The proposal to send for the Rev. Mr. Beare to confront him with the
Bishop did that proposal originate with the Bishop, or with the gentlemen who
waited upon him 1

I think I proposed it.

Cross- Examination resumed.

18. You said upon your direct examination, that the Bishop expressed a wil-
lingness to see Mr. Beare ; was not that expression made promptly and unhesi-
tatingly, when you made the suggestion referred to in the last preceding answer ?

It was.

The Counsel for the Presentment proposed that two members of the
Court assist in the examination of Miss Ann Wilson by the Commissary
already appointed.

An agreement of the Counsel in the case to that effect was read and
adopted, with the insertion of the names of the Bishops of North Carolina
and Ohio, in the following form, viz :

It is agreed, That the examination of the witness Miss Ann Wilson, be
conducted before the Commissary already appointed, by and in the pres-
ence and under the direction of the Rt. Rev. Bishops Ives and Mcllvaine ;
the presence of Counsel, and the use of written interrogatories furnished
by the parties, being dispensed with.

Other witnesses, whose testimony was desired by the Counsel for the
Presentment, not being in attendance,

The Court adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WIIITTINGHAM, Clerk,

Tuesday, December 24/*, 1844, )
half -past 9 o'clock, A. M. \

The Court met pursuant to- adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky,
Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary .Diocese, Louisiana,
South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Vir-
ginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South
Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The Rev. Wm. A. Muhlenberg, D. D., being called as a witness by
the Counsel for the Presentment ;

The Rev. John F. Schroeder, D. D., the Rev. Frederick J. Goodwin,
and the Rev. Henry W. Swcetzer, being called as witnesses by the Coun-
sel for the Respondent, were severally sworn by Dayton Hobart, Esq., the
commissioner.

The REV. WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, D. D., was called as a wit-
ness by Counsel for Presentment, and examined.

Direct Examination.

1 . What is your vocation 1
A clergyman.

2. In or about the month of July, 1842, did you visit Bishop Onderdonk of this
city, ;it his house, in company with Rev. Dr. Milnor and others ; and if PO, who
accompanied you on that occasion ?

I did, accompanied by Dr. Milnor, Dr. Higbee, and Dr. Waimvright.

3. Did you see the Bishop on that occasion have any conversation with him ;
and if you did, please state fully and in detail' what that conversation was, as well
between you and the Bishop, as all the other conversation that occurred on that
occasion in the presence and hearing of the Bishop ?

I saw the Bishop ; but at this distance of time I cannot be sure of the precise
words that were used by either party on that occasion. According to the best of
my recollection, what passed was in substance as follows : After Dr. Milnor had
stated the object of the interview, I related to the Bishop what I had received
from Mr. Beare a few days previous, concerning certain liberties which Mr. Beare
said the Bishop had taken with his wife. I entered into the particulars from notea

which I took when Mr. Beare related the circumstances to me. (I have not those
notes they have been destroyed ; they were mere catch-words, and perfectly un-
intelligible to any one besides myself.) The Bishop denied each of the particu-
lars as I stated them ; I mean the particulars of the offences alleged. The Bishop
said, that if he saw Mr. Beare he thought the thing could be explained, or words
to that -effect. I replied, I will bring Mr. Beare. The Bishop said he would be
happy to see him ; and we made an appointment to meet on the morrow.

4. What were the alleged offences, as you stated them to the Bishop ?

The Bishop had kissed Mrs. Beare ; that he had put his hand on her naked bo-
som ; and on her body below the corset-bone, outside of her dress.

5. Did you state the particulars to the Bishop fully, as they had been stated to
you by Mr. Beare ?

I did.

6. Did the Bishop deny those particulars in general, or in particular 1 ?

He denied them one by one, as I proceeded, except that of kissing Mrs. Beare.

7. What was the manner of the Bishop when he made these denials ?
It seemed to be that of great astonishment.

. 8. Did you call the next day ; and if so, who accompanied you ?
I did, in company with Dr. Milnor, Dr. Higbee, and Mr. Beare.

9. Did you .see the Bishop on that occasion, and have any conversation with
him ; and if so, please state all the conversation during the interview, and in the
Bishop's presence, as well between you and the Bishop, as all the other conversa-
tion'?

I saw the Bishop, and almost all that was said came from the Bishop himself.
He b.egan with saying how much he was grieved that any thing had occurred at
his visit to Mr. Beare's that had given Mr. Beare or his wife any pain. He re-
peated this in a variety of language, expressive of his deep regret for having
wounded Mr. Beare's feelings: Mr. Beare asked the Bishop, whether he denied
the truth of the things which I had stated the day previous. He said, no ; but Mrs.
Beare misunderstood me, or words to that effect. The Bishop said he had a warm
and affectionate manner, which might sometimes be misconstrued. After a while,
Mr. Beare repeated the question whether the Bishop meant to deny Mrs. Beare's
statements, as given by me. The Bishop again said, no, and went on to explain
how Mrs. Beare might be mistaken.

10. Did he explain putting his hand on her naked bosom ; and if so, how 1

No ; he referred to no particulars in any of his- explanations, I think. He dwelt
upon his intentions to do nothing wro.ng. He frequently assured Mr. Beare to that
effect ; and apologized to him if he had done any thing which had offended Mr. or
Mrs. Beare.. That was the substance of what passed. The interview lasted about
half an hour.

11. What was the Bishop's manner during this second interview was he cajm,
or agitated ?

He seemed much agitated, and said he had passed a very unhappy night.

12. Did Dr. Milnor say any thing to the Bishop, and what, at the close of that
conversation ?

At the close of one of the interviews, I do not recollect which, in the way of
respectful admonition, I should say, on the importance of great prudence and cir-
cumspection OH the part of the Bishop, as evil reports of the like 'nature had got
abroad. That, I think, was the import of what Dr. Milnor said.
. 13. What did the Bishop say in reply to that '\

That all men' in. public life were more or less subject to evil report, or something
to that effect.

. 14. Was any. thing said in the hearing of the Bishop, as to his explanations,
whether satisfactory or not! . :

T cannot speak positively that any thing was said in the presence of the Bishop.
The Bishop having several times apologized to Mr. Beare, asked whether he could
do any thing more.

Cross-Examination.

1, When the Bishop, after having made the apologies you have spoken of, asked

. 91

if he could do any thing more, was any thing said in reply to that question by any-
body, and by whom !

I think Mr. Beare said that he was satisfied. My recollection is indistinct; I
was so engrossed with my own feelings, that I cannot now .testify precisely what
was said by either party.

2. I want TOO, if you can, to try and recollect the words used by the Bishop in
answer to the question pat to him by Mr. Beare, whether he denied what Mrs.
Beare said. Did not the Bishop say, " I do pot mean to question the truth of ve-
racity of Mrs. Beare, but she has misconstrued or misunderstood what took
place P . '

As far as I can recollect, the Bishop's words were, " No, my dear-brother, I do
not deny Mrs. Beare's word ; but I think she misunderstood inc."

3. At this second interview at the Bishop's, were the particulars of the charges,
as had been stated by you at the first meeting, repeated by anybody ?

They were not.

4. Do you recollect,- at the first interview at the Bishop's of which yon have
spoken, stating any thing, of Mr. Beare having stated to yon, impropriety of .con-
duct on the part of the Bishop with a Miss Franklin !

I do not recollect. Upon further reflection L think I did, and that it was among
the notes which I had taken on the statement of Mr. Beare, I recollect it dis-
tinctly now that it is brought to my mind.

5. Do you recollect what the statement referring to Miss Franklin was *

I cannot speak with respect to improprieties, but I understock that Mr. Smythe
was not willing that Miss Franklin should go up and take a seat upon a tree be-
side the Bishop.

6. Do you recollect any thing being said at that first interview in connection
with the reference to Miss Franklin, that the Bishop's conduct towards her had
been such as very much to hurt the feelings of Mr. Smythe, or words to that effect j

I can only say, I have no distinct recollection. .

7. When the Bishop answered the question put to him by Mr. Beare, -whether
he denied what Mrs. Beare had said, was there any thing to induce you to believe
at that time that the Bishop referred to the particular charges which had bees
made against him, or generally to any charge being made against his purity or
morality !

I thought he referred to those particular statements..

8. You have said in your, direct examination that Mr. Beare's question to (he
Bishop was, whether he meant to deny Mrs. Beare's statements, as mentioned, by
you the day before ; I want to know- whether yon mean to be positive about the
latter part, or whether you merely inferred that the statement referred to by Mr.
Beare, was the one made by you the day before ?

I am positive that Mr. Beare's question referred to the statement I had made
the day before. He said so ; his language was,." Bishop, do you deny what was
stated by Dr. Muhlenberg, yesterday 1" or words to that effect.

By the Court'

By Bishop Mcllvaine.

1 . When you say that Mr. Beare expressed himself satisfied & the conclusion
of the interview, did you understand him as meaning, that 'he was satisfied with :
the Bishop's apology, or with his having declared that he-. did not deny -Mrs.
Beare's statements ?

I was not.

By Bishop Doane.

3. You have stated that in 'the second interview the Bishop appeaiAmuch agi-
tated, and began with words designed to sooth Mr. Beare : was th^tany thing
in Mr. Beare's manner to produce such feeling in the Bishop, and to^ttd to. such
language ? . >

I do not recollect that there was..

n r> -L.- j

Cross-Examination resumed.

9. Do you remember whether the Bishop and Mr. Beare, upon meeting at that
interview, shook hands together ; and whether there was or was not mutual emo-
tion at the time 1

I do not remember. I think the Bishop shook hands with us all.

10. Did he also shake hands with you all, including Mr. Beare, at parting 1

I think he shook hands with us all ; but I have already, said, I felt so badly my-
self, I cannot say what took place with others.

The evidence for the Presentment was here closed, with the exception of
that of Miss Ann Wilson, to be presented in writing.

9.3

The REV. JOHN FREDERICK SCHROEDER, D. D., was then called as a
witness b Counsel for the Respondent, and examined.

Direct Examination.

I. Wlsat is your occupation and place of residence ?
I am a Presbyter '.of the Diocese of New York, and reside in Flushing.
2. Ar? yon acquainted with the Rev. Henry M. Beare and his wife !
I am.

3. Htve yon any recollection of seeing Mr. Beare and his wife in company
with Bishop Onderdonk, any time in the year 1843 !

I hare.

4. At what place did you then see them so in company, and at what time of the
year?

In the middle of July, at St. Ann's Hall, Flashing, and at Little Neck, near
Flushing.

5. Did any. and what, conversation take place between Mr. Beare, or his wife,
or both ef them, with the Bishop, at those times ; if so, state as near as you can
recollect what passed in that conversation ?'

At Flushiilg,' the only topic of conversation that I remember, was the dining of
the-Bishop on the next day at the Rev. Mr. Beare's. In my house at Flushing, Mr.
and Mrs. Beare were presented to the Bishop by me ; and during that interview
the request was made by Mr. Beare, that the Bishop would dine with him the next
day. The Bishop plead a previous engagement. The Rev. M*. Beare urged,
and the Bishop then consented. At Little Neck, on the next day, after the ordi-
nation of the Tic v. Mr. Beare, in the vestry-room of his church, I beard the Bish-
op congratulate Mrs.- Beare, on the advancement of her husband to the Priesthood ;
to which -she replied with evident satisfaction. I remember no other conversation.

6. At the meeting at your house, between the Bishop and Mr. and Mrs. Beare.
do you recollect whether they shook hands together, and appeared glad to see the
Bishop !

I do 'not remember that they shook hands; but I expected, and thought I ob-
served, great cordiality on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Beare.

7. Have you any recollection whether Mrs. Beare did or did not join her hus-
band in urging the Bishop to dine with them the next day \

I hav^not.

8. Did you perceive in either of those interviews, in your own house, or at the
church at Little Neck, any thing like coldness towards the Bishop, on the part
either of Mr or Mrs. Beare ?

I did not.

!J. Du you remember at what particular place in your house it was, that this in-
ritation to dinner was given ?
In the front parlor of that part of the house called the Rectory.

Cross- Examination.

1 . Is there any thing, and what, that impressed the conversations to whit h yon
have alf'nded on your memory \

There is : a conversation with the Rev. Mr. Beare and his wife/JH a recur-
rence tc observations made by myself at the time to others.

;?. When and where was the conversation referred to, with Mr. and Mrs. Beare 1

At his honse, three weeks ago.

3. For what purpose did you go to his bouse ?

.To refresh my memory, and aid him in refreshing his, on the subject of Charges
brought against the Bishop. .

4. Who requested you to go to his house V . .
No" one.

5. Had yoH, prior to going to his housf, mentioned your knowledge of these
conversations to the.Bishop 1

I had not. :

6. Had you mentioned it to any other person or persons, and to whom 1
To-several members of my family, and to the Rev. Mr. Goodwin. I believe to

no other. .

7. How came you tp mention it to your" family V

'. . From hearing that Mr. Beare' and his wife were acting in a manner which 1
thought fn9on6istent with their past conduct^ since alleged difficulties.

8. How came you to mention it to Mr. Goodwin 1 .
Because he was present at my house, on the day when Mr. and Mrs. Beare were

there, and i thought that he might have observed, what I did not.

9. Where was Mr. 'Goodwin wheu you made this communication to him 1
At. No;. 20 John-street, in this city. ,

. ,10. JFbf what purpose did you. go to see. Mr! Goodwin, when you mentioned it

to him? ''.'

I*met him casually. ;

- 11. Is/20 John-street a. private house !

No it ie the depository of the Slmd.ay-Schobl Union t)f our Church.
12. Who commenced the 1 conversation between you and Mr. Goodwin, relative
'to Mr.. Fearel; ' : '

.' . / . I th\nk that /-did. . .

IS. Have' you any doubt that you did !
: .--.' My .answer implies that, of course. I am not certain, but I think so.

14. Before- seeing JM. Goodwin, as you have stated, had you seen, the Bishop
' .,\-bn this subject, or anyone on his behalf!

I had not seen the Bishop, nor any one on his behalf..

15. Was you in doubt as to the conversations, testified to by you, wkh Mr. and
Mrs. Beare^ before you visited them three weeks ago, as stated ?.

I was not. '. i .'-':..-

' . ; i. >l * AQ. Why, then, did -you: gay that you visited theih for the purpose of refreshing
* : : y u r recollection T ' ', \ /'...-'

To refresh my recollection as to facts, anij not 'words, '
-. ,'..'.;-.."'17. Whatfactsf ;'/ " -

Their apparent cordiality, especially Mrs; Beare's accepting my inyitatkiin to be
:y*:/ % , presented to the Bishop. ...

18, Had; you any flonbt of these facts before you visited them.?
'!. *' ' / . I had .rial, myself, but heard they had.

19. From' whom did you hear that they had ? , .

'. From tnaiiy persons, xvho~ spoke of affidavits which tbey had made.

' ' \ . 20. Name the persons ! ' .

'..v... ; I remember Mr, TKomas,C. Butler, at 20- John-street. .Of others I cannot
.' speak by.name: ..'.'';" i'^- . '

21. Do yoa mean Ufittyou dp not recollect the names of others '?
' v : . . It was a topic of such common remark, th'at'I cannot specify.

22. Can .you specify no name, but that of Mr. Butler ?
< . , I think not. ' .

'} 23". JDid yoii inform Mr.- and Mrs. Beire r 'when you yisijte'd. thm, three weeks
ago, of the object of your visit ? . ', .-..''

'V,- Tdid. . ' * '

24. What did you say- to them, in Teepect to the object of yo'nr visit \ State
particularly. " ' . '. . ,' '

I stated.tiiat I called ta ascertain, whether they remembered what / d^d.

25. Were Mr. and Mrs. Beare both present^ ;

They -were. , . '

86. Was any. other person present, ind who!

My soft, Johtt Frederick, a lad of seventeen.

27. Did you state to Mr. and Mrs. Bear-e why you wished to obtain information
from them, such as you have referred to 1

I did.

28. What did you say in reference to that 1
That I wished our testimony to be alike.

29. Did you say, then, that you was going to be a witness in this matter ?
I did not.

30. Had you been subpoenaed as a witness *
I had not.

31. Had you been requested to attend by anybody, and by whom, as a witness 1
. I had not, at that time.

32. Why, then, was you desirous of knowing whether your testimony and Mr:
and Mrs. Scare's would agree ?

I thought their conduct since they were at my house, as stated, to be inconsistent
with their conduct- at that time ; and I thought that I might possibly be summoned
as a witness.'

33. Did you say so to Mr. Beare 1

I did. ,

34. Did you, or not, tell Mr. Beare that you came to visit him as his friend ?

I did n,ot in words, but have often visited him as his friend, since his residence
at Little Neck.

35. Did you ever tell any .person, and what person, the conversation which oc-
curred between you and Mr. Beare, on the visit last referred to ?

I have told members of my own family, and the Rev. Mr. Goodwin, and the
Counsel, last evening. I told the Bishop last night, and once before, since my in-
terview with Mr. Beare,*which was .the first time I spoke with the Bishop on the
subject which are the only times I have spoken with the Bishop on the subject.

36. How long after you visited Mr. Beare did you communicate to the Bishop
the first time, the conversation which then took place"?

It was during the same week.

37. On what day of the week was the visit made to Mr. Beare ?
On Wednesday, at noon.

38. On what day did you make the communication to the Bishpp 1
On Thursday or Friday of the same week:

39. Where 'was the Bishep when you made the communication to him ?
In his study.

40. Did you come to the city on purpose to make that communication ?
I did not.

41. Did you go- to visit Mr. and Mrs. Beare for the purpose of getting state-
ments from them, to be communicated to Bishop .Onderdonk 1

I did not.

42: At the conversations testified to by you, between Mr. and Mrs. Beare, and
Bishop Onderdonk, who was present besides yourself and them 1

At my house the conversation as stated, was by the do'or of my front parlor, in
the presence of the Bishop alone ; and at Little Neck in the presence of several
clergymen.
. 43. What clergymen T

There were in the. vestry-room, the Archdeacon of Trinidad, the Rev. Mr.
Goodwin, the Rev. Mr. Sweetzer, I think the Rev. Dr. McVickar also, and the
Rev. Mr. 'Beare: . '"',

44. Were these gentlemen all present when.Mrs. Beare entered the vestry-room 1
. I think they all were, I know that several were.

45. Was Mrs. Beare, when she entered, accompanied by any person, and by
whom 1

By a lady ; I think Miss Strong.

46. Did she introduce the lady to. the Bishop 1
I do not know.

47. Did the lady say any thing to the Bishop ?
I did not hear her say any thing.

48. Was the lady with her all the time that she remained in the vestry-room !
I do not remember, there were so many in the vestry-room, which was small.

49. Were there more ladies in the vestry-room than Mrs. Beare and Miss
Strong.

I think not.

50. When Mr. and Mrs. Beare were presented hy yon to the Bishop, as you
have testified, had they just entered the room, and were they unattended ?

I had been with them to my green-house, heard them regret that they were too
late for the Confirmation, proposed to them to be presented to the Bishop, and they
promptly consented, and were presented by me then, without delay, in the front
parlor, to which we proceeded from the green-house.

51. Who walked from the green-house with you?
Mrs. Beare, who accepted my arm.

52. Who walked with .Mr. Beare *

A lady, whose name, I think, was Miss Strong.

53. Do you know Miss Strong ?

She was introduced to me, I think, on lhat occasion.

54. Did you all enter the room where ^the Bishop was, together 1
We did not.

55. Who did not *

Mr. Beare and the lady with him, Miss Strong.

56. Did you and Mrs. Beare alone enter the room where the Bishop was T

We went together through the open door of the parlor, leading to the portico :
and in about a minute Mr. Beare, alone, followed us, leaving the lady on the portico.

57. Was Mrs. Beare presented before Mr. Beare came up ?
The moment before.

58. You have stated that you do not recollect that she shook hands with the
Bishop, but as you expected, you thought you observed, great cordiality ; what
were the manifestations on her part of-such cordiality T please describe.

Her countenance and manner.

59. During the presentation of Mrs. Beare, did she still hold on to your arm T
"When I presented her she was on my arm.

60. Did she say any thing 1

I do not remember what she may have said.

.61. The question is repeated ?

Had she not, I think I must have taken notice of it.

62. I ask you now again, Did she shake hands with the Bishop ?
I do not remember.

63. If she had not shaken hands would you not have noticed it 1
I think not.

64. If you had not expected that her reception of the Bishop would be cordial,
would you have noticed her manner of reception ?

I had no reason to expect any thing but cordiality between them, and therefore
expected it, and must have observed any seeming coldness.

65. After your presentation of Mrs. Beare, did Miss Strong enter the room where
the Bishop was ?

I do not remember.

66. Was Miss Strong presented to the Bishop ?
Not by me, nor at all that I know of.

67. Can you recollect the words used by Mr. Beare ID the invitation of the
Bishop to dinner ?

The request I well remember, hut not the words.

68. When was your attention first called to this conversation, after it occurred *
I spoke of it immediately .that I heard of their feelings towards the Bishop.

69. When was that *

Since the meeting of the General Convention^.

70. Did you present any other person to the Bishop on that day ?

I did, several; eight or ten ladies, several of the clergy, and other gentlemen.

71. Can you, at this time, recall the manner of either of these persons when pre-
sented to the Bishop, besides that of Mr. and' Mrs. Beare ?

97 ' V \ *'

I can recall nothing inconsistent with .the prevailing'cordiality.of the occasion.

72. If there had been different shades- of cordiality exhibited on the part of per r
eons presented, do you think you could now. recall the difference of those shades of
cordiality ?

I think that I could remember anything inconsistent with the good feeling of
the occasion.

73. You have said, in your direct examination, that the Bishop congratulated
Mrs. Beare on the advancement of her husband 1 to the priesthpod ; t'o Which sh'o
replied with evident satisfaction.. What did she say ?

Her precise words I do not remember ; but her manner, I distinctly remember.
74. ' Did she say any thing ?
1 think she did', or I must have taken notice of.it.

75s Did you not feel, Doctor, on both the occasions .testified to, at your house,
and at the church, happy yourself!
.1 did.

76. Was any person present with the Bishop when you entered. the parlor at
your own house ]

There may have been in a remote part of the room, but I do not remember ; the
room is large.

77. What was the Bishop doing at that time 1

He had gone into the room after dinner, but whether alone or w^th company, I
cannot say.

78. Was Dr. Wainwright in the room 1

I think not at that time .at the time of the presentation referred Jo.

. Direct 'Examination resumed.

10. You have stated that during the interview at which Mr. and Mrs. Beare
were presented to the Bishop by you, the request was made by Mr. Beare that the
Bishop would dine with -him the next day, and that the Bishop, after pleading a*
pre.vious engagement, and being thereupon urged by Mr. Beare, accepted the invi-
tation. Are there any circumstances which fix your recollection of that fact? and
if so, please to state them.

[This question was objected to bv" the Counsel for the Presentment, and its ad-
missibility argued by Counsel on both. sides, and the objection overruled by th'e
Court, on the withdrawal of the last clause and alteration of its form by the Counsel
for the Respondent, as follows, viz :]

You have stated that during the interview at which Mr. and Mrs. Beare were
presented to the Bishop by you, the request was made by Mr. Beare that the Bish-
op. 'would dine wijh him the next day, and. that th,e Bishop, after pleading an en-
gagement, and being thereupon urged by Mr. Beare, accepted the invitation. Did
any circumstance occur, soon after, tending to fix <hat conversation in your mem-
ory T

A. circumstance did occur the next day to fix it firmly. .

11. You have stated -that you. do hot recollect the names, of persons other than.
Mr. Thomas C. Butler, who referred .to statements by Mr. and Mrs.. Beare, at va-
riance witii your recollection, because it was a topic of such C9Himt)n remark as to
prevent your specifying names. .At wh'at time was it such- topic T

. At the time of the General Cunvuntion. I never 'heard it before. . I mean:
that I never heard of any difficulty between the fajni-ly of Mr. Beare and the Bishop
until that time, and suspected none.

12. -When. you proposed to Mr: and ^Irs. Beaxe to be presented to the Bishop,
and.they promptly consented, upon what part of the premises were you ?

At the green-liouse. . . ' . ' .

13. How far was that from the room in, which the presentation took place!
' About 100 feel. '-.

14. After you had presented Mrs. Beare to the Bishop, did she hold on to / onr
arm; or let ii go I -

She let. it go. I turned to see and present Mr. Beare, and then presented him.
J5. How long was il before slie resumed yoiir arm T
:.. 13

The time occupied by the conversation between Mr. Beare and the Bishop, about
two or three minutes; after which we proceeded to view the premises with their
female friend Miss Strong.

16. You have stated that you well remember the request of Mr. Beare to the
Bishop to dine with him, but not the words do you remember the manner, and if
so, describe it.

I remember that the manner was cordial, for I must have observed the contrary.

17. Do you recollect who waited on Mrs. Beare to her carriage, when she left
your house 1

The Bishop and myself.

Cross- Examination resumed.

79. Do I understand you as saying that you never heard of any difficulty between
Bishop Onderdonk and Mr. or Mrs. Beare, before the meeting of the General
Convention ]

I never had heard of it before, and then heard it with surprise.

80. Had you never heard before of a meeting of several clergymen at the house
of the Bishop, to converse with him on the subject of an alleged insult to Mrs.
Beare 1

I never heard- of it until the time of the General Convention]

81. Why did you say you expected the meeting of Mrs. Beare and Bishop On-
derdonk would be cordial 1

Because the Bishop had always spoken to me in the kindest terms of Mr. and
Mrs. Beare, and was to ordain him on the next day.

82. Where was Mr. Beare, when you and the Bishop handed Mrs. Beare to her
carriage ?

I think that he was already in the carriage, having just unfastened the rein of
his horse, and brought the carriage to the door.

83. Was Miss Strong in the carriage ?
I think not.

84. Did you not see her get in the carriage 1

I must have seen her, of course. I do not distinctly remember the particulars of
her getting in.

85. Who attended Miss Strong to the carriage ?

We all went together from the house to the carriage. By " all" I mean the
Bishop, the two ladies, and myself.

86. Are you sure that Mr. Beare did not attend his wife, or Miss Strong, to the
carriage 1

I have a reason for thinking that he did not I am not sure. His uniform prac-
tice to bring his own horse from '.the post at the stable, to the door, leads me to
think that he did so on that occasion.'

87. Did both you and the Bishop have hold of the hand or arm of Mrs. Beare,
in conducting her to her carriage !

I do not remember that either did.

88. By wailing upon her to her carriage, then, you mean that you and the Bishop
walked with her to the carriage ?

I mean that we descended the stairs leading from the door of the house to. the
carriage at the foot of the stairs.

89. Can you now say that Mr. Beare did not hand his wife to the carriage 1
It is my impression that he did not.

90. Can you be more positive ?
J cannot.

The hour of adjournment having arrived, f,he Court adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

99 -.

Thursday, December 26th, 1844,
half. past 9 o'clock, A. M.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, Connecticut, North Carolina, 'Vermont, Kentucky', Ohio, New Jersey,
the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana,. Western New York,
South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Vir-
ginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South
Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the. Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The Rev. Frederick J. C4oodwin was called up as a witness by the
Counsel for the Respondent.

Henry A. Smythe, called up as a witness by the Counsel for the Re-
spondent, was sworn by Dayton Hobart, Esq., the Commissioner appointed
by the Clerk.

The Rev. FREDERICK J. GOODWIN was examined.

Direct Examination.

1. What is your profession, and where do you reside ?

I am a Presbyter of the Diocese of New York, and reside in Brooklyn.

2. How long nave you resided there 1

I went there in January last, remaining until the first of June, and returned the
7th of November.

3. Where did you reside during the years 1842 and 1843 1

In Flushing ; except that I was absent 2 or 3 months. I commenced residing'
there in December, 1837, and left January, 1844.

4. Do you know the Rev. Henry M. Beare and his wife, and if so, how long
have you known them ]

I do know them, and have known them from their first residence at Little Neck,
in the town of Flushing.

5. Were you present at the ordination of Mr. Beare to the Priesthood, in Jiily,
3843?

I was.

6. Where did it take place T
In the church at Little Neck.

7. Were you in the vestry-room of that church after morning service !
I was.

8. Whom did you see there on that occasion ?

The Bishop of New York, the Rev. Mr. Sweetzer, the Rev. Dr. Schroeder, I
think, Mrs. Beare, and a Miss .Strong 1 perhaps s6me others, though I do not par-
ticularly recollect. The Rev. Mr. Beare was present.

9. Did you hear any conversation between the Bishop and Mrs. Beare, or ob-
serve their deportment towards each other ; if so, state and describe both ?

I do not recollect of hearing any conversation that passed between them at that
time. Their deportment towards each other seemed perfectly kind, and friendly
and cordial in every respect.

10. Did you dine at the house of the Rev. Mr. Beare on that day 1
I did.

11. Who composed the party at dinner ?

The Bishop, the Rev. Mr. Swdbtzer, the Rev. Mr. Bease and wife, Miss Strong,
and myself. There may have been one or two others, though I do not recollect of
any.

12. Do you recollect whether or not Mr. Beare and his wife, or either of them,
conversed with the Bishop during dinner ]

I do. They both conversed with the Bishop.

13. Describe the manner of that conversation, whether free and cordial, or con-
strained and reserved, on the part of Mr. or Mrs. Beare \

100

On the part f both of them it seemed to me perfectly free and eordial.

14. Do you know whether the Bishop had been invited to dine at Mr. Franklin's
on that day; and' state the circumstances of your knowledge, and how and when
the invitation was given 1 : - . '

The Bishop was invited to dine at Mr. Franklin's on that day. The invitation
was given me some few' <Iays previous by Mrs. Franklhi, to be" extended to the
Bishop. I did extend that invitation oa the- arrival of the Bishop in Flushing, on
the Fri'day preceding the Sunday.

15. Drd you .at any time, and when, meet Mr. Beare on board the .Flushing
steamboat; had you any conversation with him in which the Bishop was referred '
la ; if so, state as near 33 you can the particulars of that conversation !

I did meet Mr. Be^re, abdut 14 months since, oil board the Flushing steamboat.
He did speak of the Bishop. The circumstances which led to it are as follows :
He remarked to me that he had subscribed for the Protestant Churchman. I sug-
gested to him, that it might .be regarded by some as arraying himself against the
JBishop. He replied he sh6uld 'be sorry to have it so regarded ; .that he had none
but kind feelings to the Bishop'; that he had taken the paper because he thought
it. would prove a practical family paper, such as he believed was . needed in this
Diocese. This was ihe. substance of the language,. and I have reason to believe,
almost the very words. I felt it due to Mr. Beare, to state this- conversation to
the Bishop; which I did the very day, or if not the very day, certainly within 'a
few days.

16. What- was the manner of Mr. Beare in his allusion to the Bishpp^ .

It was such as led me to believe that he had the highest esteem &nd respect for,
the Bishop.

17.. Was this conversation before or after the dinner at Mr. Beare's, about
which you have. testified !

As near, as I can recollect j it must have been about two months after the dinner,
at Mr. Beare's.

18. With w'hpm did you ride from the church to Mr. Beare's, ihe day you dined .
there *

I rode, I think, with the Bishop and the Rev. Mr. Sweetzer.

19. Have you any doubt that you rode with the Bishop 1

I cannot recollect, with certainty with whom I rode from, the. church to Mr.
Beare's house.

20. Were you present at the reception, of the Bishop by Mr. and. Mrs. Beare, at
their house, and did you see them together before dinner, and if so, describe the
manner of Mr.' and Mrs. Beare towards the Bishop, in those instances.

. I was present during 'the interval between services, with the Bishop' and "Rev.
Mr, Sweetzer, at Mr. Beare's tiotfse. The manner of the Rev. Mr. Beare and
his wife towards the Bishop, before dinner ? at the table, and after dinner, was.per-
fectly. kind, friendly, and respectful.

.Cross-Examination.'

1. 'At the dfnner about which you have testified, do you recollect whether Mrs.
Beare said any thing, and what, to the Bishop ?.

I recollect, that she spoke to the Bishop. What she said I do not 'recollect.

2. At the vestry-room whaj did .Mrs. Beare say.fo the Bishop T

I do not recollect that she said any thing-; it 'is very possible that she might ;
and I am inclined to believe that ;she did.

3. Before the dinner or meeting in the vestry-room, had you ever heard 'that
Bishop On'derdonk h'ad insulted Mrs. Beare ! '

Never. . '

4. Had you before these rimes ever heard that there had been any difficulties
whatever, between Mr. Beare,. or Mrs. Beare, and the Bishop T

Never.

Direct Examination resumed.

21. Was there any .thing in the manner of Mr. and Mrs. Beare, or either at

them, towards the Bishop, on any of the occasions to which you have testified, ra-
dicating that there was any difficulty or coldness between them ?

Not in the slightest degree ; their manner towards the Bishop was as kind and
friendly in every respect, as it could well have been.

By the Court.

By Bishop Mcllvaine.

1. When were you first led to review the transactions to which you have testi-
fied, and to examine your recollection of them ]

Within some 3 or 4 weeks past.
By Bishop De Lancey.

2. Was the manner of Mr. and Mrs. Beare, on the occasion of the dinner, leee
kind, or cordial, or friendly towards Bishop Onderdonk, than it waa to yourself, or'
to the other clergymen present ]

It was not.

The REV. HENRY W. SWEETZER, having been sworn on Tuesday, the
24th inst., was called by the Counsel for the Respondent, and examined.

Direct Examination.

1. What is your profession, and where do you reside?

I 'am a Presbyter of the Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of New York. My
residence is at the Astoria Institute, at Astoria, on Long Island, about four and a>-
half miles from Flushing.

2. How long have you resided there ?
Since two years ago last October.

3. Were you at the church at Little Neck, of which the Rev. Mr. Beare i
minister, on the morning of his ordination to the Priesthood ?

I was present.

4. When did you arrive at the church*, and by whom were you accompanied ?

It was some time before the commencement of the morning prayer ; I do not
remember how long. I was in company with Bishop Onderdonk, and the Rev.
Mr. Goodwin, of Flushing.

5. On your arrival at the church, did you enter the vestry-room, and if so r
who was there at the time, or at any time, before the commencement of morning
service ]

I went immediately into the vestry-room with the persons before named. There
were present, besides Rev. Mr. Beare, Archdeacon Gumming of Trinidad, Rev.
Dr. McVickar, Rev. DP. Schroeder, Rev. Mr. Van Bokkeen. These are all the
persons whom I distinctly remember as present.

6. Did you see Mrs. Beare in the vestry-room before the commencement of the
morning service 1

I have an indistinct recollection of Mrs. Beare being present ; but, from a re-
mark that was made to her, commendatory of her qualifications as a clergyman's
wife, made some time during the day that I was there, my impressions are that it
must have been in the vestry-room.

7. What was the remark, and by whom made ?

I cannot remember the words distinctly that were used ; but the substance of the
remark was that she made a very excellent clergyman's wife. The remark was
made by the Bishop to Mrs. Beare.

8. What circumstance led to the making of that remark 1

It was in reference to her preparing the elements for being placed upon the
altar in the church.

9. Do you remember how she received the remark of the Bishop *
I have no recollection on that point.

10. Did you see Mr. and Mrs. Beare in the vestry-room after morning service?
I did.

11. Who besides were there ?

There was one lady present, a. Miss Strong ; there were some of the clergymen
before mentioned, present ; but I do not remember which. . The Bishop was pre-
sent.

12. Did you hear any conversation between the Bishop and Mr. or Airs. Beare,
in the vestry-room, or observe their deportment towards each other, and if so, state
and describe them.

I did hear conversation between them, and observed their deportment. I do not
remember the words used by the Bishop ; in substance, he congratulated Mrs.
Deare upon the elevation of her husband to the office of the Priesthood. Mrs.
Beare received the congratulation with much apparent satisfaction and good
feeling.

In regard to Mr. Beare's deportment, I do not recollect, but he appeared, so far
as I remember, much gratified.

13. Did you dine at the house of Mr. Beare on that day. and if so, who com-
posed the pa'rty at dinner ?

I did dine there. The persons present, so far as I remember, were Miss Strong,
lh Bishop, Rev. Mr. Goodwin. I remember no others besides the members of
the family. I mean Mr. and Mrs. Beare.

14. With whom did you ride to the house of Mr. Beare from the church ?
I have no distinct recollection.

15. Were 'you present at the reception of the Bishop by Mr. and Mrs. Beare, at
the house, or did you see them together before dinner ? If so, describe the manner
of Mr. and Mrs. Beare towards the Bishop, in those instances.

1 was present. I did see them in the same room before dinner. I thought their
maaner of receiving the Bishop was very respectful and courteous. I mean to
include both their reception of the Bishop and the interval which occurred before
dinner.

16. Do you recollect whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Beare, or either of them,
conversed with the Bishop during dinner *

I remember nothing except the ordinary courtesies of the table.

17. Will you describe the manner of Mr. and Mrs. Beare at dinner, towards the
Bishop, whether free and cordial, or constrained and reserved !

So far as I remember, it was free and cordial.

18. Was there any thing in the manner of Mr. and Mrs. Beare, or either of
them, towards the Bishop, during any part of that day, indicating any difficulty be-
tween them, or coldness on their part towards him ?

I saw nothing whatever to induce such a belief.

Cross- Examination .

1. When, after the dinner spoken of, did you first speak of the manner of Mr.
and Mrs. Beare towards the Bishop on that occasion, and to whom 1

I do not remember the time, nor the person.

2. Was it before the session of the General Convention ?
I think it was not.

3. Did you ever speak to Mr. Goodwin on the subject, and when ?
I have spoken with him, but I do not remember when.

4. Wag it since this investigation commenced, or before ?
I cannot distinctly remember, but I think it was since.

6. Did you first speak to Mr. Goodwin on this subject, or he to you ?
I do not remember.

C Did you ever speak to Bishop Onderdonk on the subject, and when 1
I have had conversation with him, on Monday evening of this week.

7. Never before ?
Never before.

8. Yoi; say you heard conversation between Mrs. Beare and Bishop Onderdonk,
in the vestry- r6om ; what did she say in that conversation 1

I do not remember.

103

^j_ I * r i ^ LX^*'4Utt * "

9. Did she say any thing 1
I think she did.

By the Court.

By Bishop De Lancey.

1. Was the manner of Mr. and Mrs. Beare towards the Bishop, on the occasion '
of the dinner, or on any of the occasions when yon saw them together, less eer-
dial, kind, or friendly, than it was to yourself, or other clergymen present 1

It was not.

Cross- Examination resumed.

10. Have you any recollection of the particular manner of Mrs. Beare toward*
either of the clergymen present at the dinner, or elsewhere T

I have no recollection of any thing in particular, except her deportment toward*
the Bishop as before mentioned, and towards myself. I mean her treatment ra
general, of the Bishop.

11. Can you now remember that she said any thing, and what, to the Bishop
that day ?

I remember only of her speaking with the Bishop ; the particulars of the con-
versation I do not remember.

12. Are you sure it was a conversation ?

I cannot remember whether it was a conversation between the Bishop and her--'
self alone.

13. Do you remember any one observation made that day by Mrs. Beare to the
Bishop ; and if so, what was it ?

1 do not remember any particular observation.

14. Do I understand you as saying any thing more than this : That tne de-
meanor ot Mrs. Beare on that day, in her own house, was lady-like to her Base-
band's guests !

I can only testify in respect to her general deportment, which was, eertaiaJjy
lady-like.

Direct Examination resumed.

19. If there had been any coldness or reserve on the part of Mrs. Beare toward*
the Bishop, would you, or not, have observed it *
I most certainly should hare observed it.

Cross-Examination resumed.

15. Had you heard of any difficulties before that time between Mrs. Beare %p4
the Bishop !

I had heard nothing.

By the Court.

By Bishop Whittinsbam.

2. Would you ever have suspected the existence of difficulties between Mr. aaf
Mrs. Beare and the Bishop, in consequence of what you then bsenred!

I never should have suspected any thing of the kind. I was very much ast0f-
ished when I heard of the difficulty.

HENRY A. SMVTHE was called up as a witness for the Respondent
examined.

Direct Examination.

1. What is your occupation, and place of residence ?

I am a merchant in Pine-street, and reside at the comer of Thompson aa
Amity streets.

104

8. Are you a married man, and what was the maiden name of your wife ?
I am. My wife's maiden name was Mary F. Franklin.

3. What was your wife's father's name, and where does he now reside, and
^rhere did he reside in the summer of 1842 ?

Joseph L. Franklin at Bayside, Flushing, where he has resided several years.

4. Were you married in the summer of 1842, or when were you married ?
I was married in May, 1843.

5. Did your wife, then Miss Franklin, reside with her father at Bayside in the-
summer of 1842 t

She did.

6. Have-you any recollection of being at the house of your father-in-law at any
time in the month of July, 1842, in company with Bishop Onderdonk and the
Rev. Mr. Beare and his wife *

I have.

7. Was this in the evening T
It was in the afternoon.

8. Do you remember how long the Bishop and Mr. and Mrs. Beare remained
at Mr. Franklin's that evening ?

Until after tea.

9. Was it dark at the time they left, or did they leave before 1

I do not remember ; but it strikes me they were, anxious to leave before dark ;
[ do not remember particularly.

10. Have you any recollection, during the time they were at Mr. Franklin's,
of seeing the Bishop take any improper liberties with your present wife V

No, sir. I may add, that she was not a person who would encourage those things.

11. Have you any recollection of having said at that time; in consequence of
seeing the Bishop's conduct towards Miss Franklin, that if it was not for his sta-
tion, you would take satisfaction of him, or any words to that effect ?

It would be well for me to remark, that I had known Bishop Onderdonk for
several years, and in different parts of the State, and felt well acquainted, or on
terms of jesting occasionally ; and I believe I made some such remark in jest ;
which I should not have done if I had felt that the Bishop had ever taken any
improper liberties, within my knowledge.

12. Was that remark made by you to the Bishop himself, or to any third person I
It being a joke, it was intended for him' to hear. I might remark, at the same

time, that the Bishop went on a platform in a tree, in front of the piazza, with my
intended at that time, after my inviting her to go, and her playfully refusing to go
with me which called these remarks from me in jest.

13. Who married you ?
Bishop Onderdonk.

14. Has Bishop Onderdonk, ever since this occurred, continued to be on terms
of intimacy with your father-in-law's family, and with yourself and wife ?

I cannot say as to my father-in-law's family. I know he has been in the habit
of visiting them, whenever he has visited the churches in that quarter. As for
myself, I have invited the Bishop, when I have seen him, to visit me ; which he
has not done, as I have been a housekeeper but a short time.

Cross-Examination.

1. Do you remember on what day of the week it was when you saw the Bishop
at Mr. Franklin's, as you have testified 1

I do not. I generally visitedthere from. Saturday until Monday. I should t'hir.k
it likely this was on Saturday ; at any rate, there were some services the next
4ay, I should judge, as hear as I remember ;' it is my impression the Bishop was
expected there at dinner the next day. .

2. When the Bishop went up in the tree on the platform, and Miss Franklin
was with him, she having playfully refused to go up there with you, did the Bishop
humor the joke 1

We were all in the spirit of joking.

3. Did the Bishop lay his hand or his arm on Miss Franklin's shoulder !

I should judge not ; for those things generally do not take place without
encouragement on the part of the female.

4. Do you mean to say that the Bishop did not do so 1

Not to my knowledge : and I generally took some notice of my intended's
ways ; a man is not apt to be blind in that quarter.

5. Would you have considered it an indignity worthy of your notice, if the
Bishop had playfully pat his arm on Miss Franklin's shoulder ?

No, sir ; inasmuch as he was intimate with the family, and looked upon in the
light that he was.

6. Please recollect, with more certainty if you can, whether this occurrence
was on Saturday or Sunday ! .

My impression is it was Saturday.

Pending this cross-examination, Mrs. Mary Franklin, the RCT. John
Dowdney, and John F. Schroeder, Jr.. appeared in Court as witnesses for
the Respondent, and* were severally sworn by Dayton Hobart, Esq., Com-
missioner.

Direct Examination resumed.

15. Did you meet the Bishop at the house of Mr. Franklin on any other day
during that year, than the one of which you make mention 1

I cannot say that I did : never in company with Mr. and Mrs. Beare, except tt
that time.

16. Did you observe whether there was any coldness or reserve on the part
either of Mr*, or Mrs. Beare towards the Bishop during that afternoon or eve-
ning ?

I did not observe any.

17. If there had been any sucE coldness or reserve on the part of Mr. or
Mrs. Beare, towards the Bishop, would you have observed ft ?

I think I should, most certainly. There were no persons present but the fami-
ly. Mr. and Mrs. Beare, and the Bishop. If there had been a large party I might
not have observed it.

Mrs. MAKT FnA:nci.ra was called up. as a witness by the Counsel for the
Respondent, and examined.

Direct Examination.

1 . What is your husband's name ?
Joseph L. Franklin.

2. Where did you reside in July, 1843, and where have you ever since resided?
At Bayside. Flushing.

3. In the summer of 1842. was Bishop Onderdonk at your boose, in company
with Rev. Mr. Beare and his wife 1

They were at my house, and spent the afternoon there. I think it most have
been at the time of Confirmation in Mr. Beare's church.

4. Do you remember bow late they stayed at that time I

I do not. I think they left early, as he was in the habit of leaving early.

5. Before or after dark ?
It was after tea.

6. Did Mr. and Mrs. Beare, or either of them, show any coldness or reserve to-
wards the Bishop, on that visit to your house !

I did not see any thing like it.

7. Do you recollect the period of the ordination of Mr. Beare t the Priesthood t
I do.

8. Had you invited Bishop Onderdonk. to dine with you, on the Sunday upon
which that ordination took place ! and if so, through whom had you given the in-
vitation *

108

I did, through the Rev. Mr. Goodwin, to dine that day, or make U3 a visit when-
ever most convenient to him.

9. Did you expect him to dine with you on that day 1
j[ did and went to the church to bring him home.

10. Did you, or not, speak to him on the subject after the morning service, and
tell him you had come for him "?

I did speak to the Bishop, and tell him that I came expressly for him. He said
fee would be most happy, but seemed to feel himself engaged to Mr. Beare. The
words I cannot remember, but he seemed to consider himself engaged, and referred
me to Mr. Beare to make arrangements ; and that if Mr. Beare gave him up, ho
would return with me.

11. Did you see Mr. Beare ; and if so, what passed between you and him on
<he subject ?

I djd see Mr. Beare, and urged him to give up the Bishop, and allow him to re-
turn with me. I do not remember the words Mr. Beare used, but he refused me,
and I went home without the Bishop.

12. Where was this conversation .between you and Mr. Beare ?
In the front of the chancel of the church at Little Neck.

13. On the first occasion of which you have spoken, when the Bishop was at
your house, in company with Mr. and Mrs. Beare, did you observe any improprie-
ty, or undue freedom, on the part of the Bishop, towards your daughter, now Mrs.

I did not.

Cross- Examination .

I. Did you observe any playful liberties towards your daughter, on. the part of
Hie Bishop *

Nothing more than he was in the habit of doing patting her on her shoulder,
ad calling her " my child." 7

By the Court.

By Bishop De Lancey.

1. Did Mrs. Beare hear the conversation between you and her husband, about
ibe Bishop's dining with you or with them ?

That I cannot say. I merely spoke to Mrs. Beare that day, but cannot say
where she stood when I spoke to Mr. Beare.

Direct Examination resumed.

14. Upon the occasion when the Bishop spent the afternoon at your house, as
you mentioned, in company with Mr. and Mrs. Beare, did you invite or expect
<fee Bishop to spend the night at your house 1

E did. His trunk was brought down and put in his room, expecting him to re-
jeain with us.' I mean the room which he had previously occupied, two or three
years before when he visited us.

15. Had he stayed at your house the night before *
He had not.

16. Why did the Bishop not stay at your house that Sunday night !

Mr. Beare took him home with him ; and I felt a little hurt at Mr. Beare, as he
knew that we expected the Bishop to remain at our house. That was one reason
why I thought Mr. Beare ought to have allowed him to dine with us on the subse-
<jaeot occasion, having taken him previously.

Cross- Examination resumed.

9. Do you remember that any thing was said by Mr. Beare, and what, as to the
Bishop's going home with him that night 1
I do not remember what passed at the time.

107

- 4. C& *

3. Did you ask Mr. Beare to give the Bishop up on that occasion, or did yea
only invite the Bishop himself to remain ?

I have not a distinct recollection of what passed at that time.

4. Do you remember whether or not the Bishop declined when invited to remain
that night T

I do not remember.

5. What day of the week was it when Mr. and Mrs. Beare visited you, in com-
pany with the Bishop ?

Having nothing to designate it, I do not recollect.

6. Do you remember whether it was on the day of Confirmation ?

I am not positive ; but I think it was the day before. I may be mistaken in tt>e
day.

Direct Examination resumed.

17. You say that Mr. Beare knew that the Bishop was to stay at your house
that night ; how do you know that ?

I received a note from Mr. Beare, wishing to borrow Mr. Franklin's horses to
send for him. I wrote to Mr. Beare, saying, (he had said his horse was not aM#
to go,) he need take no trouble about bringing the Bishop, as I would see that he
came we expected him at our house. I then invited Mr. and Mrs. Beare to meet
him there, which was the cause of their coming.

18. Did you inform them, in that note, that you expected the Bishop to stay at
your house 1

I think I did.

19. Did your horses and carriage bring the Bishop to the church that morning?
Our horses did not, they were engaged ; and Mr. Goodwin brought the Bis&op

to our house.

20. Did the Bishop go from your honso that morning to church 1
He did not go from our house ; he had not been at our house.

21. When was the Bishop's trunk brought to your house ?
The afternoon that Mr. and Mrs. Beare met him there.

22. Was his trunk left at your house that night ]

I am under the impression it was. There was a great deal of difficulty about
taking it in Mr. Beare's wagon. The arrangement was to leave the trunk, and
that the Bishop should call for it in the morning. Mr. Beare brought the
round the next morning, on his way to the Point, which makes me think that
trunk was left.

23. When the difficulty arose about getting the trunk in the wagon, did you say
any thing about the Bishop's staying at your house that night ?

I have not a distinct recollection, but most probably I did, aa we were ail disap-
pointed in his not remaining there that night.

24. Did yon express that disappointment at the time 1
Certainly. It w.as understood by all.

C^ross- Examination resumed.

7. Can you now recollect whether the Bishop declined to remain during the
night ?

I do not.

8. Did you see the Bishop on his first arrival at your house that afternoon ?
I did.

9. Who accompanied him ?

Mr. Goodwin brought him down, as 1 have, stated.

10. Were Mr. and Mrs. Beare at your house when fce arrived ?
They were not.

11. How long afterwards did they arrive?
I cannot say positively how long.

12. Did Mr. Goodwin remain at your house with the Bishop any, and whs*
length of time ?

108

t do not recollect whether he stayed to tea or not, but I think not.

13. Did any other person accompany the Bishop besides Mr. Goodwin ?
I think not.

14. When was this note written by you to Mr. Beare on the day of his visit to
yon, or the day before ?

I think the day before ; certainly not that day. I rode to Flushing to see Mr.
Goodwin to make arrangements about bringing the Bishop to our house, as our
horses would be in' the city.

15. Was this on the occasion of the ordination or confirmation ?
Confirmation.

16. Did you see the Bishop that morning, after morning service at the church?
I do not recollect whether I spoke to him after church ; I was there at the con-
firmation.

17. After you wrote the note, then, you .did not speak to the Bishop until he
was brought to your house in the afternoon by Mr. Goodwin?

I did not.

The Rev. JOHN DOWDXKY was called up as a witness by the Counsel for
the Respondent, and examined.

Direct Examination.

1. What is your profession, and where do you reside ?

I am a Presbyter of the Church in the Diocese of New York, and reside at pres-
ent in the city of New York.

2. Are you the Rector of a church in this city?

I am the Rector of St. James's Church, and have been connected with it for more
than three years; one year as assistant minister, the last two as Rector.

3. During your connection with that church, did you know Helen M. and Jane
O. Rudderow as attendants at and communicants of that churcli ; and if so, up to
what time ?

They were parishioners of St. James's Church until within the last sixteen
months. They left a year ago last July.

4. Do you remember any occasion during the year 1843, when Bishop Onder-
donk had been officiating at that church, when any interview took place between
him and the Misses Rudderow, either or both of them, in that church 1 if so, state
the particulars thereof, as nearly as you can recollect them.

I was present at two interviews on the same day, in the morning one before,
the other after service. It was on the occasion of a confirmation. I brought the
Bishop to the church that morning from his residence in Franklin-street. As we
came into the church before service, the Misses Rudderow were sitting near the
chancel rail, engaged in teaching their Sunday-school classes. I walked with the
Bishop towards the vestry-room, and in so doing we passed very near the Misses
Rudderow. They were sitting almost in the passage. I then saw mutual saluta-
tions, of a very friendly character, between the Bishop and the two Misses Rud-
derow.

There was a good deal of conversation at the time on both sides, between the
Bishop and these ladies, which lasted, I think, several minutes. We remained
there during the conversation, and then passed into the vestry-room. That, I be-
lieve, is the substance of all that took place during that interview.

There were several questions asked and answered ; but I do not remember the
particulars of the conversation. Of this, however, I have a distinct recollection,
that there were very friendly greetings and remarks on both sides. The conver-
sation was, I think, generally on the state of the parish, and the increase of schol-
ars in the Sunday-school.

There was some inquiry made as to the Psalm or Hymn to be sung, on the part
of the Misses Rudderow. I ought to say that the confirmation did not take place
until the afternoon ; the Bishop engaging to spend the day with me, I preferred
having the confirmation at the second service.

109

.5. Do you remember whether either or both of the ladies shook bands with tho
Bishop, on occasion of their first meeting ]

I believe they both shook hands with him very cordially.

6. Have you any -doubt on'that point?.
I have not.

7. Proceed now to state the particulars of the second, interview between the,
Bishop and these ladies in the church ?

.After the morning service, 1 1 accompanied the Bishop towards the door of the
church. There is but one door, the centre door. .As we passed out ; of \\\e church
into the vestibule, we again met the Misses Rudderow - t at that second interview
there was conversation, and friendly greeting between them and the Bishop, 'of the
same ftiendly character as before service. The conversation, I think, continued
for some time^ and was very animated ; that is, for two or three minutes-^for three'
or four minutes, I should think so, particularly on the' part of Miss Jane Rud-
derow. -.There was laughing,- and loud remarks on the part of Miss J.arie Rudde.-
row. . .

I heard something said about the music at that time. I do not . now re-
member what the conversation .was about in other respects. I remember dis-
tinctly there was something about the music. I will merely say, as explanatory,
there were several parishioners standing near us, and during the conversation 'I
was talking with them in the vestibule, arid near the outer door. . What I have
said to the Court,' and what I may say, is founded upon my very' best recollection
of the circumstances occurring at the time. '

As to the general statement, I .am quite positive ; as to the minor particulars I
do not feel quite so positive. I would also add a word in illustration of my mean-
ing: as to the shaking hands, and friendly salutations and remarks, I feel quite
positive ; but as to the words that passed in conversation, I am. not so positive. I
would also add : during the second interview, I might have left the Bishop for a
moment Or so, for the purpose of conversing with my paris'hioners.

8. Are you certain that the t\\o Misses Rudderow were present and took part
in the conversation at the second interview just described-]"

Of that I feel quite certain.

9. Did they, or either of them, shake hands with the Bishop, on meeting at that
'second interview ? ,

Of' that 1 cannot speak with certainty. My impression, however, is, that they
did, as the Bishop left the church. . '

. . 10. Where did the Bishop and the ladies- stand, relatively (o .each other, at the
second interview ?

In the vestibule near the inner -door. Neither of the parties was on the stairs
to my knowledge. .1 would add in continuation of that, one of the Misses Rudde-
row, Miss Helen Rudderow,. might have been on the lower step. The 'stairs start
immediately from the inner door." 1 . . '. .-

11. Do you remember that any thing was said by either of the ladies in' that
conversation, in reference to the Bishop's sermon that morning ?

I do remember very distinctly, that one or both-'of them,- 1 think Jane, spoke in'
great praise of the sermon 1 spoke very highly of the sermon rsaying that it was
a good High Church sermon, and'that she liked it very much. . The remark w.aa
made to the Bishop.

12. What were the circumstances which led to the visit of 'Miss Jane Rudde-
row to the Bishop's study, relative to 'the' benevolent 'society of your Church, as
you knew them yourself, and as you learned them from her ] Please state them
fully.

A benevolent society "\vas formed in the parish, of which Mrs. Thomas Addis
Emmet was the 'Directress.' Understanding from the Misses Rudderow that they
intended to use the church for the purpose f cutting out garments, sewing them
together, and* fitting them to the- persons for whom they were intended,'! strongly
advised them not to think of meeting ip the church for any such purpose ; alleging
as my reason, that it was contrary to the lavv;s of the Church that such use should
be made of its consecrated edifices. Perceiving that' my advice had very little
effect upon the Misses Rudderow, I read to them portions of the Consecration Set-

110

vice, in the Prayer-book ; particularly that portion which declares that after conse-
cration, the building is set apart for holy uses, and not to be used for anything un-
hallowed or common. This advice of mine still having no effect. I stated to them
the Bishop's well-known opinion on that subject, in the hope that they would re-
spect the Bishop's authority and wishes. When I spoke of the Bishop. Miss Jane
Rudderow said that the Bishop would waive, in their case, any personal objections
that he might have to the use of the church for such a purpose. Miss Jane Rud-
derow at once said, that she would call herself upon the Bishop, being sure that he
would grant her permission ; and giving as a reason for such a permission on the
part of the Bishop, his previous kindness to them.

The remark was, when I spoke o.f the Bishop's objection, " Oh, if that's all, the
Bishop will grant us any favor."

They asked, me if I would consent, in the event of the Bishop's granting them
permission. I told them again and again, that the Bishop's permission in that mat-
ter would not change my own opinion, as to the impropriety of such use of the
ichurch.

I also added, that I was bound by higher considerations than the Bishop's
opinion ; viz. the law of the Church, which expressly forbade such use of its con-
secrated edifices. I said to them, repeatedly, that it was not necessary for them
to use the church, as they could meet at each other's houses. I also offered to
provide a suitable room for them, for the use of their society.

Still perceiving that Miss Jane Rudderow was bent upon having a personal in-
terview with the Bishop in relation to this matter, I endeavored to dissuade her
from going to the Bishop's study, by saying that that would appear improper in the
estimation of my parishioners, and that they ought to be satisfied with my consci-
entious objections to such use of the church. I wish to add, that the members of
our congregation generally disapproved of their intended visit to the Bishop, being
disposed to sustain me in my decision.

13. Did you see Miss Jane Rudderow after her visit to the Bishop at his study ;
and if so, how long after 1

I saw her and her sister the next day,, or within a few days after.

14. Did Miss Jane Rudderow at that time say any thing respecting her visit to
the Bishop ; and if so, what did she say ?

She said the Bishop treated her very politely, and gave his consent to the pro-
posed use of the church. I expressed very* great regret and sorrow, on hearing
that they had been to the Bishop, to them, and to others in the parish.

15. What reply did she make to that I

I do not remember the words exactly ; but I told them that my own opinion and
purpose were unchanged.

Pending the examination, the hour for adjournment having arrived, the
. Court adjourned.

Attest.

W. R. WHITT1NGHAM, Clerk.

Thursday, Dec 26, 1344,
7 o'cfcei, P. M.

The Court 'met pursuant to adjournment.
. Present as in the morning.

The Rev. E. Y. Higbee. D. D., called -up as a witness hy the Counsel
for the Respondent, was sworn by Richardson, Esq.. as commis-
sioner, duly authorized by the State of New York to administer an path,
and appointed by the Clerk pro hac vice a Commissioner of this Court.

The examination of the REV. JOHN DOWDNEY was then proceeded with.

16. Was any thing further than what you have stated, said in that conversation
respecting the interview with the Bishop in his study ?

There was nothing of any consequence nothing having a direct bearing upon
this subject.

Witness here desired to correct a part of his testimony given in answer to ques-
tion 4. Having stated that the Misses Rudderow were seated with their classes
near the chancel rail, he would correct it, by saying that they were in the PEWS
ne/irfst to the chancel rail.

Cross- Examination .

1. You have said that Miss Jane Rudderow visited the Bishop at his study did
any person accompany her, and who was that person 1

I believe that she was accompanied by Mi^s Riker.

2. Did she request Miss Riker to accompany her to the Bishop's, or did Miss Hi-
ker request Miss Jane Rndderow to accompany her?

I have every reason to believe that she requested Miss Riker to accompany her.
3. Who is Miss Riker !

She is a member of St James's parish. She is a communicant.

4. Did you ever converse with her on the subject of this visit * . -
I did. '

5. More than once 1

I conversed with her in the presence and hearing of Miss Rudderow ; I beliCTa

on different occasions.

G. When did you last converse with Miss Riker on the subject T

I do not remember to have conversed with her since the time of their visit to the

Bishop's study.

7. When did yon last converse with Miss Riker ! ,
Yesterday.

8. Have you not. in any recent conversation with Miss Riker, referred to this
visit ?

I believe not. I wish to correct myself. It now occurs to me that I have. Ifc
was just named by Miss Riker. not by myself, for a moment. It was just alluded tow

9. When was that ?

It was a little over two weeks ago.

10. Was you requested by Bishop Onderdonk, or any other person, to see Miss
Riker on this subject, since the commencement of this trial ?

I cannot say that there was any direct request made of me. I offered, myself,
to converse with her.

11. To whom did you make the offer 1

It was, I believe, to the Bishop, and others, I cannot remember whom. I be-
lieve. however, Mr. Graham was one.
1-2! Who else ?
I do not remember distinctly ; they, however, were friends to the Bishop.

13. Within what time was this offer made 1

It was, I believe, within a month or six weeks..

14. Do you now say that you cannot recollect the names of the persons to whom
you made this offer !

I do not recollect the names of all . I gave the names of two. My impressioa
is that I did not converse with any others very directly on the snbject. It was
with the Bishop and his Counsel. 1 wish to state on what point I was to converse
with her. I had understood that Miss Jane Rudderow complained of some insult
on the part of the Bishop, at that interview ; and knowing that Miss Riker was
present, I wished to know from Miss RikT whether there was any truth in Miss
Jane Rudderow's complaint. That was the only object for which 1 held any con-
versation with Mi.-ss Riker. I asked Miss Riker if she would testify to what took
place at that interview, because I believed she would testify to the truth. Thai, I
believe, was my first and only conversation with Miss Riker on the subject, for a
few moments only.

15. Is that the conversation which you have before referred to, between you
and Miss Riker on the subject ?

I think it is the only conversation I have had with Miss Riker on the subject,
since these proceedings were commenced.

113
16. Who commenced thai conversation ?

I did. '

17. What did you mean just now by testifying under your oalh, that the subject'
was alluded to by Miss Hiker and not by you 1

The visit to the Bishop's study was there alluded to, by Miss Riker, and'. not the
general Subject upon which I was just questioned. I wish to add, that my con-
. versat'ion with Miss Riker was particularly to ask her whether she would testify
as to whether the 'Bishop hail insulted' Miss Rudderow.

18. Did you tell. Miss RLker at that time that you was requested to see her on
the -subject, by Bishop Onderdonk and .Dr. Seabury, or either of them?

.- I now remember;: the mention -of f)r. Seabury's. name reminds me that I raen-
. tioned the subject to him. I had some conversation with him on the subject ; his
name did not occur to me before. I do not know that I said that I was requested
to do so ; J offered to do- so, and the gentlemen 'before-mentioned, the Bishop and
Dr. Seabury, expressed a wish that I should do so. I do not remember that I told
h&r that 1 had offered ; I might have said* that it was the Bishop's wish I should
see her ; I do not remember very distinctly ; I might have said so.

1.9. Where did you see her on the occasion referred to? '
: AtvSt. James'fi church. ' .

' 2D.. Was it since Miss 'Jane Ruddeiow gave her testimony irr this cause ?
. ' It was, I believe, previous to her giving testimony ; several days previous.

21. When did you first hear that Miss J*ane Rudderow complained of ill-treat-.
' inent at the Bishop's study?

I believe that I first heard of it from Dr. S.eabury, since these proceedings were
. commenced ; I may have heard it from the Bishop, but I think it was from. Dr.

Seabury. J can speak confidently now, that it was-from Dr. Seabury.
, '22. Where did you receive this communication from Dr. Seabury \
. At Dr. Seabury's residence.

23., Did he send for .you to make this- communicalion to you %
I do not think that Dr. Seabury sent for me. .1 felt anxious to hear from. Df.
Seabury ; when I heard there were affidavits made, T was anxious to know what
. they were about. My object in going' to' Dr.' Seabufy's was to get information in.
legation 'to the charges brought against ihe Bishop.
. . 24. What affidavits do yon refer to V '

' The. affidavits on which the .Presentment is founded. I never.heavd until within
a short time before' the Presentment was made', what the charges against the
' . Bishop were, except in one case, and 1 believe that Dr. Seabnry gave me' the first
information on the subject. .

25. Did 'he give you that information 'when you went td t see him, as you have
.before testified?.

I cftmnot say when 1 might have, seen "him on' other occasions.

26. Did not Dr. Seabury request you at the time when you went to see him, to
call on Miss Riker, in'.respect to any insult alleged to have been offered to Miss
Jane Rudderow 1

.He did nb't request me; I told him that I had th'e means of getting informatioo
on the subject, as Miss Rik'er was one of- my' parishioners ; I also told him that I
would see her and ascertain something about it. Dr. Seabury replied,'" I wish
you would."

27. After you had seen Miss Riker, did you report to Dr- Seabury what she
said? . -

. 1 might haVe told Dr.- Seabury afterwards what Miss Riker said. I believe- it
\vas some time after that, that I saw Dr. Seabury. I did not see him immediately
afterwards. I did noj see him, either, for the purpose of telling him what had
been said. ' ;

28. Did you report to Dr. Seabury 1 ' . . '

Nd ; that implies that I was sent by Dr. Seabury. and. went in obedience to
his order, and reported what 1 hafl heard. ' I wish to say that Dr. Seabury and
myself conversed together on this subject' as members of the same Diocese and
friends of the Bishop, and without any plan or design.

29. Did you tell Dr. Seabury what "Miss Riker -said to you?

118 :; .

I do not recollect. I spoke of the interview and the conversation ; but I bc-
Jieve that I told Dr. Seabury of the interview and of the remarks of Miss Rikerj
and said that she did not wish her name mentioned in this matter.

I wish to say to the Court that, having heard a good deal of conversation in re-
lation to these proceeding's, and having spoken with a number of clergymen on the
subject, I cannot remember distinctly what occurred in every case.

30. Before Miss Jane Rudderow went to see the Bishop, as you have testified,
how many interviews did she have with you on the subject of the contemplated
visit'?

1 cannot say exactly ; we always met. at the church, and at Sunday-school, on
Sunday and other days of service. A great deal of conversation passed at different
times. There were scarcely any other persons present but the Misses Rudderow
and Miss Riker. I think that she spoke several times of her intention of* going to
the Bishop.

31. Were there any other persons, and who, in your congregation, that took an
active interest in the benevolent society spoken of, except these three ladies ?

There were several others. I do not remember all their names, as I believe I
never met but once with them in their society. t I would name, however, Miss
Harriet Delafield, Miss Margaret Grenzebach, Mrs. Emmet I believe that Mrs.
Peter Schermerhorn was an officer of the society I think she was. I will add '
two more names Miss Kniffen and Miss Rutter.

32. How many of these ladies did you ever see and converse with, on the sub-
ject of tire s6ciety 1

All that I have named, with the exception of Mrs. Schermerhorn. I now recol-
lect two other names Mrs. White and Miss Mills ; and a third, Miss Moore.

33. Did you ever see, in reference to the society, any but the three ladies first
referred to, except the once, when you met with the society?

Yes, s{r.

34. Who were the most efficient members of the society ?

On the occasion that I refer to, there were seven or eight members at work.
The three persons first named the Misses Rudderow, and Miss Riker.

35. You mentioned that you offered to get a room for the society, do you mean
that you offered to hire and pay for a room ?

I said that I should be willing to do that, rather than that they should meet in the,
church. There was a room, however, which we hired for the purpose of holding
religious -services on Sunday afternoon, which, room was offered to them for their .
use.

36. Where was that room ?

It was about three quarters of a mile from St. James's Church. It was used for
general purposes. It was not a dwelling-house. It was two stories high.

37. Was a tavern kept in that building ?
No, sir.

38. Who lived in the house 1

Nopersonsoccupied.it. I first offered them a room .very near the church,
within a few yards of the church ; objections were made to that, as there was a
.tavern in the house. It was a tavern. There was a bar in the lower room.

39. What objection was made 'by the ladiek to the other building 1
The objection, I believe, was its distance from the church.

40. You have', said, that other members of the congregation, or that members of
the congregation agreed with you in thinking that, the visit should not b.e paid to
the Bishop. Who were they T

I cannot remember the names now. I know that Miss Grenzebach, and Mrs.
White, and Miss Rutter, made objections.

41. After the visit to the Bishop, when and where was it, that Misa Jane Rud-
derow expressed herself gratified with her interview with the Bishop ?

It was at the church, and very soon after : I do not remember exactly when. ' .

42. Who was present besides you and Miss Jane Rudderow 1

I believe that Miss Helen Rudderow and Miss Riker were present I can say
positively that they were. They were generally together.

43. Do you remember the language employed by Miss Jane Rudderow ?

15 ..

114

1 do not remember the precise words. The word "politely" was used in con-
nection with the subject.

44. Are you sure that it was not Miss Riker who gave this account of the in-
terview ?

Miss Riker also spoke of the interview. I am sure that it was not Miss Riker.
They both spoke of the interview in terms of gratification.

45. When you and the Bishop entered the church, in 1JB43, and saw the Misses
Rudderow attending to their classes, did you, or not, introduce the ladies to the
Bishop ?

I have no recollection whatever of introducing the ladies to the Bishop.

46. Can you answer the last question move positively ?
I think that I could say, positively, that I did not.

. 47. Before that time was you aware that the Misses Rudderow felt unpleasant-
ly towards the Bishop ?

I was aware that Miss Helen Rudderow felt unpleasantly towards the Bishop, but
I was not aware that Miss Jane Rudderow did, except so far as she sympathized
with her sister not from any personal reason.

48. Had you, before that time, requested these ladies to treat the Bishop kindly
or respectfully, when he should visit the Church ?

No, sir. 1 would add, I believe I expressed to them a wish that every thing
connected with the services might pass off pleasantly. '

49. Do you recollect what the young ladies said to the Bishop before the morn-
ing-service T

I do not remember, further than what I said this morning in my direct examin-
ation.

50. When you said to the young ladies, that- you .hoped every thing would paas
oft* pleasantly, what did they reply ?

I do not remember the exact words of the reply.

51. Were they not these words, " We shall not forget that we are ladies ?"

I do not believe that such words were used ; at least I have no recollection of
hearing such words.

52. After the morning service, are you sure that both of the Misses Rudderovr
were present during the conversation with the Bishop to which you have testified
in your direct examination 1

They were both present, both very near the Bishop.

53. What other persons were present ? Please name them.

Mr. Alonzo Alvord, one of the Vestrv of the parish, was present, and heard the
conversation. He waa waiting for us to accompany him to his residence ; w6
were going to dine with him ; he was standing with us, and bore part in the con-
versation. There were several' of the parishioners who were very near us. I
cannot name them now. Mr. Peter Schermerhorn was, I know ; Mrs. Jones and
Miss Delafield, I believe, were present, and very near us at the time.

54. Was Miss Riker present '!
I believe she was near us.

55. When was your attention first called to these transactions, after the day of
their occurrence T

At no .time, by any other person. I mentioned recently, however, that such
transactions had taken place.

56. When did you first speak of them 1

It was recently, within a few weeks. I think it was after the General Con-
vention. It might have been -during the Convention.

At ten o'clock the Court adjourned.
Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

115

Friday, Dec. 27, 1844,
fa:f-pa*t 9, A. M.

The Court met. pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois- Connecticut. North Carolina, Vermont.
Kentucky. Ohio. New Jersey, .the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Lou:- York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware;

the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter and prayers.

The examination of the Rev. JOHN DOWDXET was resumed.

Direct Examination rtstuned.

17. When was die first conversation which yon had with Miss Riker alone up-
on the subject of the visit to the Bishop!

A little more dan two weeks ago.

18. Have you had any other conversation with her alone on the subject ?

19. When yon spoke in your cross-examination of conversations with Miss Ri-
ker. shortly after die visit to the Bishop's, who did yon mean to be understood were
present at those conversations !

-s Helen and Miss Jane Rudderow were always present.

20. When yon called upon Miss Riker about two weeks ago, did you first allude
to die subject of die alleged inaoh to Miss Jane Rudderow on die visit to ibe Bish-
op's, or did she *

She did ; I commenced conversation on die general subject. Dining die conver-
sation she alluded to die visit to die Bishop's. I then stated to her die object of my
conversation. I asked her if she would testify as to what took place at.the Bishop's.

'21. Did the benevolent society of which you hare spoken, after your objection
to the use of the church, use either of die rooms which you had previously pro-
posed, and if so. which of diem ?

They used die public room of which I have spoken ; not die tavern, but die cue
in die two-story boose I have described.

Was, or not. that room a more suitable or central place for die use intended
dan the church *

It was a much more suitable and central place.

J3. Wben Miss Jane Rudderow communicated to yon the circumstances of her
visit to die Bishop's study, did you say any thin? to her, and if so, what, upon the
subject of her going to die Bishop's, as connected with her sister's difficulty *

I said to her that I wondered she should go, under the circumstances of Helen's
insult : and wished her not to mention that insult again, as no one-would credit
die statement, she (Jane) having put herself in die Bishop's way without any suf-
ficient reason. She always told me that Helen alone was insulted, aad dut she
(Jaae Rudderow) had always beem treated very politely by die Bishop.

Cross- Eiaaination returned.

57. Did yon doubt that die two Misses Rudderow and Miss Riker sincerely de-
siied die use of die church for the benevolent society *

I have reason to believe that they were anxious for die good of die parish.

58. The question is repeated.

They wished die use of die church ; I did not think they were sincere.

59. Why did yon doubt their sincerity ?

Because there were many things in die conduct of the Misses Rudderow. at
times, which led me to doubt their sincerity.

60. Did you doubt the sincerity of Miss Riker *

I have always believed Miss Riker to be a sincere and excellent person.

61. The question is repeated.

J cannot answer in anv other war.

62. The question is repeated.

I cannot judge correctly as to Miss Riker's sincerity in that particular : I always
thought that she was too much under the influence of the Misses Rudderow.

63. You have said, in your direct examination, that you stated to Miss Jane
Rudderow that you wondered she should go to the Bishop's under the circum-
stances of Helen's insult, and wished her riotlo mention that insult again, as no
one would credit the statement ; when was that, where, and who were present ?

It was said at St. James's Church, in the hearing of Miss Helen Rudderow and
Miss Riker, subsequent to the visit to the Bishop's study.

64.- In what year ?

The visit to the Bishop was in ihe winter of 1842-3. I cannot say whether
this conversation was in '42 or '43.

65. Did you ever have more than one conversation with the Misses Rudderovr
and Miss Riker, all together, upon the subject of the visit, after it was made * .
. . .I cannot say, on that particular subject, our conversations being of a general
character.
66. In speaking of an fnsuh to. Miss Helen, what insult did you refer to ?

This question was objected to by the Counsel 'for the Respondent, and
the opinions of the Court being severally taken-, the objection was sus-
tained.

The Bishops of Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, Western New
York, South Carolina, and Maryland ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia,
and ihe Bishops of Massachusetts, 'Rhode Island, and the South W r estern
Missionary Diocese, sustaining : and the Bishops of Connecticut, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, and
Delaware, dissenting.

67. You have said, in your direct examination, that she. Jane Rudderow, al-
ways told you that Helen alone was insulted ; and that she, Jane, had always
been treated very politely by the Bishop : when and where were you so told by

. Miss Jane Rudderow ]

During our conversations on the subject at St. James's Church. The precise
time when. I cannot state.

68. More than once ?
Yes.

69. When first t

The subject was so often named when we were present, that I cannot remem-
ber when it was first named. They very often talke'd about it, and always seemed
to take pleasure in talking about it, which they did against my own wish.

70. Can you now. specify one occasion, time, and place, when they, talked
about it T

I cannot distinctly specify the time :or times. The place was St. James's
Church.

71. What did they, or either of them say^ in any one -of these conversations on
this subject 1

This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent ; and
the opinions of the Court being severally taken, the objection was over-'
ruled.

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina. Vermont, Ken-
tucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisi-
ana and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bi?hops of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island,- and the South Western Missionary Diocese,
overruling : the Bishops of Western New York and Maryland dissenting;
and the Bishop of South Carolina declining to give an. opinion.

117 .'I-'

I do not remember the precise words. The conversations took place during
a year and a half. I do not remember the days of the month on which we con-
yersed on the subject. It was first named to me very soon after my connection
with the parish, by Miss Helen M. Rudderow, in the presence of her sister and
Miss Hiker. The reason why she named it, I think, was this : she wished to
disparage the Bishop in my estimation, she disapproving very much ef the Bishop's
conduct, in his opposition to the plans of the Rev. James C. Richmond.

72. What did she say on that occasion 1 "

She did not state to me the particulars of the insult ; but I remember asking
her why she did not resent it at the time. On other occasions, I asked them what
the insult was. They said they would not tell me. , I then said, " Do not men-
tion it to me again."

73. Did they ever mention it to you again ?
They afterwards spoke of it.

74. How came Miss Jane Rudderow to tell you that the Bishop had always
treated her politely : what called for such a remark on her part ?

She gave it as a reason why it was not improper for her to go to the Bishop's
study.

75. Did Miss Jane Rudderow ever say, in any of the conversations spoken of,
that she would not go alone to the Bishop's study ! - . .

I do not believe that she ever said so.

76. Do you know why she was accompanied by Miss Riker on that visit"?
I do not ; I think, however, that Miss Riker offered to go with her. ...

77. Did not Miss Riker, to your knowledge, in offering to go with her, say that
she would protect her, or words to that effect ?

No.

Have you endeavored to procure testimony for Bishop Onderdonk on this
trial?
I have

79. Any besides that of Miss Riker ?

Yes. .

80. What other?

Mr. Alonzo A. Alvord and Miss Rutter.

81. When, and at whose request 1

At the request of the Counsel for the Bishop..

62. Have you met and conferred with Counsel on the subject ?

[This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent, and under
advice of the Court, withdrawn, and modified by Counsel as follows: Apart from
mentioning to Counsel what you could testify in -the cause, have you conferred
with them upon the defence of the Respondent, and aided them- by your advice and
services, in making ont that defence *

Objection being again taken to the modified form, the opinions of the Court
were severally taken, when the objection was overruled, the Bishops of Illinois,
Vermont, Kentucky. Ohio, the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana* and
Delaware, the Assistant Bishop of Virginia, and the Bishops of Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and the South Western ^Iissionarv Diocese, overruling it ; and the
Bishops of Connecticut. North Carolina, New Jersey, Western New York, South
Carolina, and Maryland dissenting.]

I have acted. I trust, in this matter, entirely under a sense of duty to my Church ;
I have conferred with Counsel as to what 1 knew of the interview of the Misses
Rudderow with the Bishop.

83. Is that all that has passed between you and the Counsel ?

That is substantially, I believe, all' that has passed, connecting with it the names
of Mr. Alvord and Miss Rutter, as beforesaid '1 offered to go and see them on
this matter.

84. Have you not exerted yourself to. prevent this trial of the Bishop?

I certainly was very anxious that the trial should not take place if it could be
avoided ;*I, however, have made no direct exertion to prevent it.
So. Have you made any indirect exertion-? .

118

I think I have not made any exertion to prevent it, having uniformly said that,
if the Bishop were guilty of the charges, we ought to know it.

86. Have you done any thing, and what, to suppress this inquiry \
I have done nothing to prevent the trial.

87. After you learned from Miss Helen Rudderow that she had had a diffi-
culty with the Bishop, were you and the Misses Rudderow upon friendly terms 1

Yes.

88. Were they active and useful members of your church ?

[This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent, and the ob-
jection was sustained by the Court, the Bishop of the North Western Missionary
Diocese dissenting.]

Pending the examination of this witness, HENRY M. ONUERDONK was
called up as a witness by the Counsel for the Respondent, and sworn by
Dayton Hobart, Esq., the Commissioner appointed by the Clerk.

The REV. EDWARD Y. HIGBEE, D.. D., was therr called by the Counsel
for the Respondent, and examined.

Direct Examination.

1. What is your profession, and place of residence 1

I am a Clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and reside in the city
of New York.

8. Did you, in or about the month of July, 1842, visit Bishop Onderdonk, in
company with the Rev. Drs. Muhlenberg, Milnor, and Wainwright ; and if so,
state where that interview with the Bishop took place, and all that passed during
the interview ?

I did visit Bishop Onderdonk, in company with those gentlemen, in or about the
month of July, 1842. The interview took place in the Bishop's own house. As
nearly as I can recollect, Dr. Milnor stated, in general terms, that a complaint had
been made by the Rev. Mr. Beare, of the conduct of the Bishop at a recent visita-
tion of Mr. Beare's parish. I should have said, improper conduct in relation to
Mrs. Beare.

Dr. Milnqr, I think, stated the matter only, in general terms ; that the improper
conduct alleged, took place in a carriage while riding to or from church. After
this general statement by Dr. Milnor, I think that Dr. Milnor referred to Dr. Muh-
lenberg for a more specific statement. Whereupon Dr. Muhlenberg drew, I think,
from his pocket, a paper containing notes which he had made previously to the in-
terview.

The statement thus made by Dr. Muhlenberg from his notes, was not, to my
mind, a clear one. The Bishop listened very attentively to the statements of both
gentlemen, and manifested a great deal of astonishment, and I thought at the time,
indignation. He stated in reply, in very few words, that he had always been in
the habit of meeting Mr. and Mrs. Beare as a father would his children ; (I speak
now the substance, rather than the precise words that were said ;) that he was
perfectly aware that his manner was familiar, but that if there was any impurity
of feeling, or evil thought, (or something to that effect,) in relation to his deport-
ment, or the mutual deportment of the parties, it was not to be attributed to him.
He stated that he should deeply regfct to impute any such feeling to Mrs. Beare ;
but that if such a statement was persevered in, it would be unavoidable.

It was then proposed I had thought by the Bishop himself, until I was corrected
by Dr. Milnor, in a conversation- with him, as I believe that Mr. Beare should
have an interview with the Bishop, on the next day, in our presence. This was
agreed upon, and we left the Bishop.

3. Do you recollect what was the language, or manner, or both, of the Bishop,
in assenting to the proposal to see Mr. Beare the next day ?

I hardly know how to answer that question, as I was under the impression, until
a few days since, that the Bishop made the proposal himself.

lift ..

4. Can you state what Dr. Muhlenberg stated on that occasion, in relation to tho
charges referred to ?

I cannot. I confess it was, to my mind, a confused statement. I do not remem-
ber it.

5. Did the proposed visit to the Bishop take place the next day, in company
with Mr. Beare ; and if so, state fully what took place on the occasion of that visit 1

. The proposed visit did take .place on the next day, in company with Mr. Beare.
Dr. Muhlenberg, and Dr. Milnor, with myself, were present. Dr. Wainwright was
not there.

The former interview had taken place in the study ; this, I think, was held in
the room back of the study. The Bishop began the interview, by saying to Mr.
Beare, (I now will speak substantially, I do not pretend to recollect the very words,)
that he had heard with great pain, or that he was deeply grieved at having heard,
that some part of his conduct or deportment had given offence to him and his
wife. He assured Mr. Beare that he was free from all intention of giving of-
fence. He expressed his regret, and desired Mr. Beare to express the same to
Mrs. Beare.

He then, in reply to some question or suggestion, said that he had no design in
any thing he had said, to impeach the motives or veracity of Mrs. Beare ; but that
she was mistaken, or some word to that effect. I do not recollect that after that,
any conversation of importance took place, until we were about leaving ; when we
all shook hands with the Bishop, and Dr. Milnor said, in substance, to the Bishop :
I hope, Bishop, that this will show us all, or show you, the necessity of being very
cautious, or very careful, in all our deportment.

The Bishop's reply was, that he felt the kindness of Dr. Milnor's advice, but
that he supposed Dr. Milnor knew well, or. was aware of, the liability of clergy-
men to evil reports, and that scarcely any one, or no one, had been as long in
the ministry as he (the Bishop) had without slanderous reports being raised
against him.

Dr. Milnor's reply was : that he did not know as to the general fact ; but that
HO such false reports, or no such reports, as far as he knew, had been raised against
himself.

He stated, also, how long he had been in the ministry. The interview ended
there ; at least, I do not recollect any thing further.

6. You state that the Bishop, in reply to some question or suggestion, said that
he had no design in any thing he had' said to impeach the motives or veracity of
Mrs. Beare, but that she was mistaken, or some word to that eiFect ; was that said
in reply to a question put by Mr. Beare !

I believe it wns, though f had forgotten that fact until it was brought to my mind,
I think by Dr. Milnor.

7. Was. or not, Mr. Beare under the influence of strong emotion, during the
whole interview ]

I think he was.

8. Was, or not, the Bishop deeply affected !
The Bishop appeared much affected.

Miss MICHAL ROBERTS RUTTER, and WILLIAM H. ONDEKDONK, being
called as witnesses by the Counsel for the Respondent, were respectively
sworn by James P. Howard, Esq., a Commissioner duly authorized to ad-
minister oaths, by the State of New York, and appointed by the Clerk of
the Court a Commissioner of the Court for that pdrpose pro hac vice.

The REV. EDWARD Y. HIGBEE, D.D., was then cross-examined by the
Counsel for the Presentment.

Cross-Eramination.

1. You have said, in your direct examination, that your recollection of the facts
occurring at the interviews with Bishop Onderdonk had been corrected by Dr.
Milnor ; I now ask, have you much confidence in your own recollection of those
facts !

. 120

I answer that I did not say that my recollection of the facts in general was cor-
rected by Dr. Milhor, or did not mean to say so, if I did ; but I specified two facts
-I intended to do so. Of those two particular facts I cannot speak, of course, with
the confidence of one who recollects.for himself.

2. Have you much confidence in your own recollection of the facts in general?
I have confidence in my recollection of the -facts that I have stated.

3. Before you went to the Bishop's the first time, did Dr. Muhlenberg state to
you charges of impropriety of conduct made by Mr. Beare against Bishop On-
derdonk !

Either Dr. Muhlenberg or Dr. Milhor did ; I do not remember distinctly which.
It was a subject of conversation when I was with them, and before we went to the
Bishop:

4. Were those charges so stated to you before you went to the Bishop, restated
in the presence of the Bishop ?

This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent, and after
argument by the Counsel on both sides, the objection was overruled by the
Court. The Bishops of Vermont, the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops
of Massachusetts., Rhode Island, .and the South Western Missionary Diocese,
overruling it ; and the Bishops of Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, New
Jersey,. Western New York, South Carolina, and Maryland, dissenting.

They, were not stated in the same manner to the Bishop, that they were stated
to me before.

5. Did you not comprehend the statement as made to the Bishop T

I knew very well what Dr. Muhlenberg intended- to state tp the Bishop ; but as
a statement I thought it confused. .1 intended to say, that had I obtained my
first knowledge from that statement, my knowledge would have been most imperfect.

6. Was any thing, and. what, said in the statement made before the Bishop
about the Bishop's putting 'his hand on the. naked bosom of Mrs. Beare !

I recollect an allusjon to it, but exceedingly indistinct, as it seemed to me, owing
to the evident embarrassment of Dr. Muhlenberg.

7. Was the idea conveyed to the Bishop that he was charged by Mrs. Beare
with, putting his hand upon her naked bosom I

I really can speak rather of the ideas conveyed to my own mind, than of those
conveyed to the mind of the Bishop, or of any other person; There was nothing
in the language of the Bishop^that I recollect, which showed that such an idea
had been Conveyed tor his. mind.

8. Was'there any thing said in that 'conversation with the Bishop respecting a
charge that he had put his hand upon the thigti of Mrs. Beare, and other parts of
her body ?

I do not remember that any thing was said of the kind.

9. What were the charges that the Bishop heard with astonishment, and indig-
nantly denied, as you have stated ?

I .have not so stated : J did riot' use the- words " indignantly denied." I stated,
or meant to state, that the Bishop received the communication from those gentle-
men with astonishment, and, as it see'med to me, indignation.

10. What were the alleged charges against the Bishop, made at the first inter-
view ? .

Dr. Milnor stated generally, and with clearness, that while riding to or from
church, the Bishop in the same carriage with Mrs. Beare, and sitting on the same
seat, had used familiarities at which both Mr. and Mre. Beare felt deeply aggrieved.

I do not pretend' to recollect the words. I only speak substantially. I do not
recollect, that Dr. Milnor was more specific than 1 have stated. I think he then
referred to Dr. Muhlenberg, who spoke from his paper with evident embarrass
ment and confusion, as I thought.
. 11. Were the familiarities specified ?

121 ;.-;

Dr. Muhlenberg evidently meant to do so-. I did not think his statemerit a suc-
cessful one.

12. Did the Bishop demand further particulars !
I do not recollect that he did.

13. Did the Bishop say, in that conversation, directly or indirectly, that Mrs.
Beare's motives must have been impure ?

He said, if there were impure thoughts, or motives, or feelings (I -am .not sure
of the word) in the case, they were not to be attributed to biin ; that the person
imputing them was responsible for them, if any existed. He also stated, that he
should regret to impute such feelings to Mrs. Beare ; but that if such a story was,
persevered in, it could not be avoided ; or words to that effect.

14. At the second interview, were the particulars of alleged familiarity
stated *

No.

15. What was the difference in the manner of the Bishopat the first and second
interviews ] did that difference strike you, and was it afterwards the subject of
remark by you !

There was a difference in the manner of the Bihop in the first and second in-
terview. The difference did strike me.; but I do not recollect whether it \fcas
the subject of remark or not it may, or may not have been.

16. If the difference did strike you, can you not now state what that difference
was ! and if you can, do so. ' .

At the first interview the Bishop appeared, as I have sajd, astonished and indig-
nant ; at the second interview the Bishop, as I thought, met Mr. Beare with sor-
row rather than with indignation.

17. Was you not disappointed at the manner in which the Bishop met Mr.
Beare on the second day !

I do not know that I was so much disappointed as displeased. _*'

18. Why displeased ?

I had never seen Mr. Beare before never heard of him; that I knovr of. I
knew him first in his connection with this story! My own peculiar temperament
led me to think that he ought to have been met (supposing his story to be untrue,
which I did) with severe rebuke.

19. Did you not express to the Reverend gentlemen with you, immediately after
you left after the second visit, your feelings of disappointment or displeasure at
the conduct of the Bishop in the reception of Mr. Beare ; and if you did, what
did you say ?

I may have done so. I think it very likely I did ; though I dp not recollect the
fact.

20. Did Mr. Beare. at the second interview, call upon the Bishop more than
once, to know whether lie denied the statements of Mrs. Beare 1

I do not recollect that he so called ypon him at all.

21. Did any person, during that interview, call upon the Bishop, to know if he
denied the statements of Mrs. Beare ?

I certainly do not recollect any such demand.

22. Will you say, that during .the second interview. Mr. Beare did not call upon
the Bishop more than, once, to know whether he denied the statements of his
wife 1

Either Mr. Beare,. or some one in his behalf, asked a question, or made a sug-
gestion, relative to the Bishop's intending to impute falsehood to, or question the
veracity of, Mrs. Beare. But I do not recollect anything said about the statement
of Mrs. Beare in that connection.

23. ^as that suggestion or question made. more than once during the conver-
sation * . ; . .

It may have been ; though my impression is that it was not ; the interview hav-
ing been very short.

24. Did you feel ot express displeasure af the manner in' which the Bishop re-
plied to that question ?

I felt displeasure at the tune, and may have expressed it ; though I do not ro-
collect ; I said nothing certainly in the Bishop's presence

122

Direct Examination resumed.

9. Did you then feel, or express, or have you at any time since, entertained or
expressed any opinion adverse to the innocence of the Bishop, of the charges re-
ferred to in the two interviews you have spoken of? (Objected to and modified.)

In any expression of displeasure you may .have made at the manner of the Bish-
op, on the second interview, could you have meant to convey, or did you convey,
any opinion adverse to the innocence of the Bishop in respect to the charges re-
ferred to ? (Objected to and modified.)

9. Did your displeasure, as stated at the conclusion of the second interview,
arise from any doubt at that time, of the Bishop's innocence of the alleged
charges 1

(Objected to, and objection unanimously overruled.)

It is somewhat hard to recollect the mingled emotions of an occasion of excite-
ment go long ago. I have to say that my displeasure arose, chiefly because I thought
that the answer of the Bishop might seem to give a color to an infamous charge ;
though my own act, conjointly with the gentlemen with me, immediately after we
left the Bishop, shows that I could not have believed in his criminality. That act
was the agreement between us that the matter ought to be considered as finally
settled, and that we should not speak of it again.

The Court then adjourned to meet at 7 o'clock the same evening.
Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Friday, December 21th, 1844.
7 o'clock, P. M.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the -North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop
of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Rhode Island, and the South Western Mis-
sionary Diocese.

The .examination of the Rev. E. Y. HIGBEE, D. D., was continued.

By tlie Court.

By Bishop Doane.

1. You said in your direct examination in answer to the question, What was the
language and manner, or both, of the Bishop in assenting to the proposal to see Mr.
Beare the next day ] " I hardly know how to answer that question, as I was under
the impression, until a few days ago, that the Bishop made the proposal himself,
meaning by that that you were under that impression until corrected by Dr. Milnor."
If such a proposition had been made to the Bishop, and not,- as you yourself tup-
posed, by him, do you think you could have forgotten the Bishop's reception of it ?

I do not believe that I should have forgotten the Bishop's" opposition to it, had
he opposed it.

2. Did not the Bishop, as yon may now recollect, himself say that if he saw
Mr. Beare, he thought the thing could be explained, or words to that effect, and
did not Dr. Muhlenherg reply, I will bring Mr. Beare ?

I am under the impression that in effect, the Bishop did say some such thing,
which led to my impression, that the proposition originated with the Bishop.

3. Are you certain, now, that the proposition did not originate with the Bishop T
No ; I am not positive from rny own recollection, except as my memory haa

been refreshed, as I believe, by Dr. Milnor : who did not seek to refresh my mem-
ory ; but it was a casual observation between us, in which we spoke of our com-
mon recollections on the subject.

123

By Bishop Ives.

4. Was any thing said at the "second interview which must have revived in the
mind of the Bishop the particulars of alleged indiscretions, as stated at the first?

I do not recollect that any thing of the kind was said.

5. Did, or did not, the answer of the Bishop at the second interview, to the in-
quiry whether he intended to question the veracity of Mrs. Beare, show that his
mind was rather fixed upon the impurities alleged, than upon the particular state-
ments made '?

I do not recollect any thing which indicated that the Bishop referred to the par-
ticular statements.

6. Did you understand the Bishop .as admitting, on- the second interview, what
he had denied on the first ?

No ; I cannot say that I did.
By Bishop Me Tlvaine.

7. Did Dr. Muhlenberg, on the first interview, when he slated the allegations
made by Mrs. Beare against the Bishop, go into particulars concerning the acts
complained of?

It appeared to be his object to do so, but his statement was confused.

8. Can you remember, now, any of the particulars of his statement, and if any,
what ?

I cannot recollect them as stated by him. The only recollection I have, was an
allusion of which I spoke this morning ; the allusion was to an allegation of
Mrs. Beare, that the Bishop had put his hand upon her bosom.

By Bishop Lee.

9. Did Mr. Beare say any thing, and what, at the second interview 1

Mr. Beare said, certainly, very little. I recollect nothing that he did say, un-
less it was he who made the suggestion, or asked the question of the Bishop, rela-
tive to the Bishop's impeachment of his wife's veracity.

By Bishop Johns.

10. Did the Bishop, at the interview on the first day, deny the particulars of the
charges, as stated by Dr. Muhlenberg ?

I understood the Bishop as replying to the general charge of impropriety > or
impurity, entering into no particulars, so far as I remember.

11. Did you regard that as a reply to Dr. Muhlenberg's statement".'?

I regarded it as a general reply to the allegations made. I supposed then, and
still suppose, that the Bishop derived his knowledge of the allegations chiefly from
Dr. Milnor. I regarded it as a reply to the allegations made both by the one and
the other.

12. Did you consider all the allegations, as stated by both of the gentlemen, as
denied by the Bishop on that occasion ?

I certainly regarded all the allegations, so far as impurity or impropriety were
charged, as denied by the Bishop.

13. At the interview of the second day, do you remember whether there was
any similar denial of the same allegations on the part of the Bishop ]

On the second day there were no allegations made, in general, or in detail. In
the Bishop's expression of regret that anything had occurred which could give pain
to Mr. or Mrs. Beare, he again, I think, alluded to his paternal feeling for them, but
disavowed any intentional offence, or any intentional impropriety ; and again, in
what the Bishop said in relation to Mrs. Beare's veracity or motives, I under-
stood the Bishop to say she was mistaken.

14. Did you regard the Bishop as intending to say, that Mrs. Beare was mis-
taken as to his motives, or as to the facts as alleged ?

I regarded the Bishop as intending to say, that she was mistaken as to the gen-
eral charge of impropriety, and mistaken as to the facts, so far as they had been
communicated to him, and involved the charge of impurity and impropriety.
By Bishop Mcllvaine.

15. You have said in a late answer that you supposed, at the first interview, and
do still suppose, that the Bishop derived his knowledge chiefly from Dr. Milnor ;
was his statement of Mrs. Beare's allegations, or was Dr. Muhlenberg's the more
particular and distinct !

124

Dr. MilnorV statement was quite distinct, but not a very particular one ; so far
as I recollect, it was general, and not particular. It was much more distinct than
Dr. Muhlenberg's, and as Dr. Muhlenberg's was not a distinct statement, I am
unable to compare the two as to particularity.

16. You have said that Dr. Muhlenberg, in his statement, did speak of the par-
ticular statement of Mrs. Beare, as to the Bishop's placing his hand on her bosom ;
did the Bishop deny that particular of Mrs. Beare's statement 1

I have said that Dr. Muhlenberg' made an allusion to it. 1 understood it, I pre-
sume, from the fact of my having been made acquainted with the particulars before
we went to the Bishop's. I have no evidence that the Bishop understood the par-
ticulars as attempted to be stated by Dr. Muhlenberg. I understood him to reply,
to the general allegation of improprieties.

By Bishop IVBS.

17. Did you- understand Mr. Beare as feeing satisfied with the explanation of the
Bishop at the interview referred to ? .

' Mr. Beare, I think, did not say whether he was or not. He shook hands with
the Bishop at parting, and the parting appeared to be mutually kind and friendly.
'By Bishop Whittingham.

18. Do you recollect whether any conversation passed between the Bishop and
Dr. Mnhlenberg while the latter was making his statement in the first interview ^

I do not recollect that fact ; such a conversation may have taken place, but I do
not recollect it.

19. You spoke, in your direct examination, of a paper which Dr. Muhlenberg
drew from his pocket, as you thought, when he made his statement ; did he appear
to you to read from that paper 1

No, he did not. The paper appeared to contain short notes, which he used to
refresh his memory.

By Bishop Henshaw.

.20. You have stated that you considered the Bishop's denial at the first inter-
view to relate to a general allegation -of impurity or impropriety. Did Dr. Milnor,
or Dr. Muhlenberg, or yourself, make any such general allegation at that inter-
view, or was the allegation Deferred to by either or all of you at that interview
confined to the .specific allegations of Mrs. Beare ?

I stated that the Bishop's reply related to the general allegation made on that
occasion, by which I meant a general charge of impropriety in connection with the
case of Mrs. Beare.

By Bishop Polk.

21. You" have stated that you did not know whether Mr. Beare was satisfied
with the explanation of the Bishop or not. Wer,e you, and the gentlemen who ac-
companied you- to the Bishop, satisfied with the explanation ?

I have stated that I do not- recollect whether Mr. Beare said he was satisfied or
not.. In regard to my own. satisfaction, and. that of the gentlemen with me, I can
only say, that we were so far satisfied of the absence of criminality, that we agreed
that the matter ought to be considered as then and there settled.

By Bishop .Mcllvajne.

22. Did Mr. Beare concur in that conclusion ?

I do not speak of the conclusion of the absence of criminality as having been ex-
pressed in so many words, but of the. agreement that the matter ought to be con-
sidered as then and there settled ; at which agreement I think Mr, Beare was
present, though I am not perfectly certain.

23. When you speak of the concurrence of the other gentlemen with you as to
the absence of criminality, do you mean only that you inferred,<such to have been
their conclusion, from the fact of the agreement, that the patier ought to be con-
sidered as then and there settled ?

So far as the other gentlemen are concerned, I mean it as an inference from
the fact of that agreement; because I, as an honest man, could not, with a belief
of the Bishop's criminality, have consented to allow it to be settled in that way.

Cross-Examination resumed.
25. When and where was the agreement just referred to, made?

126

It was immediately after we left the Bishop's, before we parted, in the street.

26. Did you converse on the subject before the agreement was made?
There was very little conversation passed between us, I think.

27. In that conversation, or in making the agreement referred to, or at any time
before you separated, did either you or Dr. Milnor, Dr. Muhlenberg, or Mr.
Beare, say that you believed the Bishop innocent, or any words to that effect?.'

Ido not recollect that it was said by any of us.

28. Did either of the gentlemen named, including yourself, say any thing at that
-time unfavorable to the Bishop ?

I do not remember. I was, as I stated this morning, displeased with certain
parts of the Bishop's manner at the interview, and may have expressed if,
though I 'do not recollect that I did.

29. Did you not say at that time, that you believed the Bishop guilty, or words
to that effect \

No.

Direct Examination resumed.

10. Was the purpose of the interview on .the first day fully completed before
the suggestion as. to Mr. Beare's meeting the Bishop the next day, or was it-
suspended upon that suggestion being made, to be renewed the next day ?

The object proposed in going to the Bishop was, as 1 understood the matter,
accomplished ; it beipg simply to state to the Bishop the report that we had
heard, and receive his explanation.

11. Was it any part of your purpose to- suggest a meeting with Mr. Beare in
.your presence !

I qever thought of it, and I do not think any thing was said of it by the other
gentlemen.

12. On the second day was any suggestion made before you parted .from the
Bishop, either on the part of Mr. Beare, or any' of the other gentlemen, in-
cluding yourself, as to a necessity for .further explanation with the Bishop?

I heard no such suggestion made, and I made none. . '

13. When did Dr. Milnor recall to your recollection, as you have stated, the
circumstances of these interviews, or any of them ?

I had a conversation with Dr. Milnor on the general subject, during the General
Convention in Philadelphia; I do not recoHect precisely what passed then. J
.had subsequently a conversation with him on the first or second day of this
trial, when we met casually. ;

14. When you speak of a conversation withr Dr. Milnor on the general subject,
do you mean the subject generally of charges against the Bishop, or the subject '
of the case of Mrs. Beare ?

I mean the s.ubject of the case of Mrs. Beare. .

15. Did you then understand that 'that case 'was. to/be included in the charges
against the Bishop ? '.

I did. I understood so from Dr.-MiJnor.

Cross-Examination resumed.

30. Who sought the interview in Philadelphia on this subject, you or Dr.
Milnor? ' .

' 'Dr. Milnor -in Philadelphia.'

31. Did you then say to Dr. Milnor, or at any other time, that you had forgot-
ten nearly the occurrences in the interviews spoken of, or words to that effect?

I do 'not recoHect whether it was in Philadelphia or here ; but I remember
stating to him and to others, that after our second interview with the Bishop, as
we regarded the matt,er settled, I had dismissed it from my' mind, and now found '
difficulty in. recalling the order of the occurrences, 'or something to that effect.

32. That statement I presume was true ?

That statement was true. Dr. Milnor said the same thing.

33. I understood you to ay substantially that Dr. Muhlenberg intended to make

126

.^\ , _ ^_. ^.^ <-.^. ^_ >

a particular statement of the alleged improprieties of the Bishop in his demeanor
towards Mrs. Beare ; can you now say that the Bishop did not understand the
particulars which Dr. Muhlenberg endeavored to .state ?

1 certainly cannot say that he did or did not understand them.

34. If he did understand the particulars stated, or attempted to be stated, by
Dr. Muhlenberg, did he or not deny the truth of those particulars *

Objected to, and modified as follows :

Were the terms of the Bishop's denial such that if he did understand the par-
ticulars, his answer would have amounted to a denial of them ]

This was again objected to, but the objection was overruled The Bish-
ops of Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops
of Rhode Island and the South Western Missionary Diocese, overruling it.

The Bishops of North Carolina. New Jersey, and Maryland, dissenting ;

the Bishop of South Carolina declining to vote.

I understood the Bishop to deny the charge of impropriety or impurity. I am
unable to express the opinion which appears to be demanded by the question.

35. Can you now recollect any more particularly than you have stated, the terms
of the Bishop's denial 1

I have stated the whole matter to the best of my recollection.

Direct Examination resumed.

16. Had you more than one interview with Dr. Milnor on this subject in Philv
delphia ?

I believe not.

The Court then adjourned.

Attest,
W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Saturday, December 28th, 1844,
half-past nine o'clock, A. M.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, Western. New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ;
the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese. .

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The Counsel for the Respondent read, to the Court the affidavit of the
Rev. C. M. Butler, a letter of the Rev. C. M. Butler to the Rt. Rev. Wm.
Meade, D. D., explanatory of Mr. Butler's affidavit, but not in evidence ;
the affidavits of Jane O. 'Rudderow and Helen M. Rudderow ; and the
affidavit of the Rev, Henry M. Beare.

127

Copy of the affidavit of the Rev. Clement M. Butler, in the matter of
the Presentment against the Rt. Rev. Benj. T. Onderdonk :

I, Clement Moore Butler, testify, according to the best of my recollection, to
the following facts, which occurred on the day and night previous to my ordination
as a Presbyter of the Diocese of New York, in the- spring of the year 1837 ; the
precise date of which ordination can be ascertained by a reference to the Journal of
the Convention of the Diocese of New York for that year.

The day previous to my ordination, I and my wife, and Mr. Peck, a member of
my then parish of Syracuse, went in a carriage to Ithaca, for the purpose of bring-
ing the Rt. Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk to Syracuse, the distance being about
50 miles. We left Ithaca about one hour before sunset, the Bishop and my wife
being in the back seat, and myself and Mr. Peck, who drove the carriage, on the
front seat. Very soon after leaving Ithaca, it was evident to me that the 'Bishop,
had been drinking wine or other stimulant to such .a degree as greatly to elevate
his spirits, as also to affect his speech. I observed, also, that he had his arm about
my w y ife, and occasionally pressed her to him in a way which seemed to me im-
proper and indelicate. She felt it to be so, and removed his hand two or three
times, in a way that she thought would prevent his doing it again ; and finding that
it did not prevent him, the last time she removed his hand she endeavored to re-
call him to a sense of his impropriety of conduct, by making a remark to the effect
that that hand was a sacred thing, which she regarded with great interest, as hav-
ing been laid upon her head in confirmation, and upon the heads of so many or-
dained to the ministry, and so soon to be laid upon the head of her husband. After
it became dark, the conversation of the Bishop, and the fumes of the carriage,
convinced me more fully that he was under the influence of wine or other stimu-
lant a conviction which was confirmed when my wife touched me upon the
shoulder, and whispered to me that she could not sit there, and must come and sit
with me. She quickly changed her seat, and sat in my lap, in great agitation and
distress. When we stopped for the first time at a tavern to rest the -horses, and we
got out, she told me that the Bishop's conduct had become grossly improper; that,
as she supposed, scarcely knowing what he did, he began to pull up her clothes.
Then it was that she immediately changed her seat. Under the excitement of the
moment, in great agony of mind, I told her that I should go to the Bishop and
tell him that I would not ride with him, that I'would not be ordained by him, and
that I would expose him.

She literally held me back from going, and it was from regard to her feelings,
and from realizing the force of the remark, that I was not in a fit state of mind to
speak to him as 1 ought, that I refrained.

During the greater part of the remainder of the journey, the Bishop slept or
dozed ; and Mr. Peck and myself and wife occupied the front seat all the way into
the village of Syracuse. I was ordained that morning, at a service which com-
menced at 1 1 o'clock. Whether or no Mr. Peck observed the condition of ti:o
Bishop, who sat immediately behind him, or conjectured the reason why my wife
left the seat, I cannot tell, as I never conversed with him upon the .subject.

It may be proper to add, that during my ride home, my mind revolved the ques-
tion, under the greatest, agitation and distress, whether 1 ought to refuse to be or-
dained by the Bishop, and give an account of his conduct to the Standing Commit-
tee. I confess that it did seem to me to be my duty, but as I was called upon to
decide hastily, as I was inexperienced in the ministry, as ] shrank frum publicity,
and from the exposure of one occupying so high a station in the Church, and above
all, as I was so indignant at the insult, that knowing I should act under tha most
intense excitement, I feared I should act rashly and improperly, T resolved to say
nothing. I, therefore, did the greatest violence to my feelings that I hav ever
done, and was ordained ; and when the day closed, I felt it to have been, as I feel
it now, the most painful one of my life. That I have not since instituted any action,
has arisen from a feeling that the proper time had been allowed to pass ; and also,
no doubt, from a shrinking from the making public of an event to me and my wife
so painful.

On the day of rny ordination I declined to dine with the Bishop, on the ground

128

of fatigue and illness, under which I was really suffering. My wife went to her
bed, and was confined to it and her chamber for several week.?, from the effect, aa
she believed, and I believe, of her great agitation and distress, a sickness which
I have always thought was a permanent injury to her delicate constitution-. This
event was the more distressing to her, that 'she had, until that time, ever regarded
the Bishop with the greatest reverence and respect, as her father's friend and her
own- spiritual father and guide.

(Signed,) CLEMENT MOORE BUTLER.
Sworn and subscribed, ihe 16th day of)
October, A. D. 1844, before me, $

(Signed,) PETER HAY, Alderman.

. I certify the above to be a true and faithful copy, made and collated
by me, .

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk of the Court.
Dec. 21, 1844.

Copy of a letter of the Rev. Clement M.' Butler, (under date of Nov. 1,
1844,) relative to his affidavit in the matter of the Presentment against the
Rt. Rev. Benj. T . Onderdonk, D. D.

[ COPY. ]

BOSTON, Nov. 1, '44.
'RT. REV. AND DEAR SIR

The circumstances under which my deposition with regard to Bishop Benj.
Onderdonk's treatment of my- wife was made, are, I believe, well known to you.
I went to Philadelphia without any knowledge that I should be called upon to state
the facts ; and, therefore, when I was suddenly called upon for my testimony, not
having the opportunity of conferring with my wife, I was under the necessity of
hastily recalling the main circumstances as best I could. I had never made
the particulars of that trying scene the subject of conversation with my wife, and
could, therefore, only refer to my own impressions of it somewhat dimmer in
some of the details, but painfully vivi3 with regard to the main facts. Upon yes-
terday reading the deposition to my wife, I found that in some slight particulars I
had misapprehended her, and that in some others her recollection corrected my
own. My anxiety that the case, precisely as it occurred no better nor worse
should be before you, induces me to make the correction of the details. I should
have done this repulsive as the- task is before now, had I known where to di-
rect you. I now write in some uncertainty, but a friend in New York, to whom I
inclose it, will be able, 1 hope, by inquiry, to find where you are.

My wife fully confirms, by her recollection, my statement of the Bishop's in-
toxication as she does not hesitate to call it. In what she said when she re-
moved the Bishop's hand, she did not, as I supposed, include the remark that his
hand had been laid upon, her head in confirmation, as she was not confirmed by him.
That which caused her to leave her seat was not precisely as I have stated it, but
similar. It seems that he placed his hand upon her breast and pressed it. She
hastily removed it, and he again placed it upon her leg, and in a very improper
way squeezed it, and in so doing slightly raised her clothes. Then it was that
ehe struck it away, as she expresses -it, and immediately whispered to me that she
would sit with me. My own strong impression was, and 'is, that we rode all the
way into Syracuse with the Bishop alone on the .back seat, and the three in front.
She states it, however, as her distinct recollection, that some' time before we en-
tered into Syracuse,- (after it became' light.) I sat with the Bishop on the back.
As I do not claim a distinct recollection of this point, and she does. I suppose her
to be in the right. Lastlv, with'regard to her sickness, I find- from her that she
left her room about a week after the event, and after another week's feebly keep-
ing up, she was taken very ill and .continued- so for several weeks. I had con-
founded the two attacks as one in time, as I had always believed her sickness at

... l29

the time to have ofigiaated hi the excitement and distress of that night. Indeed,
nay recollection of e'rents in detail always imperfect is in this case made the
more dim by the excitement of my mind in dwelling upon the fact of the Bishop's
condition, and his insult of my wife, and the absorbing character of my medita-
tions as to what coutse I ought to pursue.

I do. not think 1?hat these particulars are of moment, but I am anxious that the
statements should be accurately correct. - ...

- On reading this over to my wife, she says it is perfectly correct, according to
her recollection. ..'_' , -

Respectfully and truly,

Your obedient servant,
(Signed) C. M. BUTLER.

I certify the foregoing to be a true an.d faithful copy, made by my hand,
this 21st of December, 1844.

W. R. WHITTINGHAM ;

Clerk of Court, fyc. fyc.

Copy of the affidavits of Jane O. Rudderow, and Helen M. Rudderow,
in the matter of the Presentment against the Right Reverend Benjamin T.
Onderdonk, D. D. : .

NEW YORK, Oct. 11, 1844.

I testify that between the month of May and July, A. D. 1841, Benjamin
Tied well Onderdomk, D. D., Bishop of th.e Diocese of New York, visited St.
James's Church, Hamilton square, New York city. A't the close of the .morning
service, he came to my brother John Rudderow's house, in a one-horse four-
wheeled carriage, with seats for four persons. My sister Helen Maria Rudderow
came to our chamber, -where I S3' with a female cousin. My sister Helen burst
into tears, and in the greatest agitation told u that she' had been grossly insulted in
the carriage ; that had it not been for exposing the Bishop to the Rev. Mr. Richmond,
who was driving, on the front seat, she would have sprung from the carriage ; that
she pushed his hands away fvorn her bosom : and very low. down in her bosom ; and
then begged me to go down to the parlo*, where the Bishop was, lest my brother
should discover the trouble. I went down. He was standing by the centre-table. He
took my hand. I sat down on the centre'of the sofa. He sat down near me ; and in an
instant, as quick as thought, he thrust his hand into my bosom, very low. I start-
ed from him to the end of the sofa'; he .followed and repeated the insolence ; at that
moment footsteps were heard, and through the already open door entered my sister-
in-law, Mrs. 'John Rudderow, when he sprang to the other side of the sofa; and
I cannot remember what immediately followed. My mother soon came in; dinner
was served, and we hardly spoke to him at 'the table ; for which our mother after-
ward3 reproved us. After dinner, rny sister, and mother, and sister-in-law being
still iii the room, I went to the window. and lifted the ghade to see if it still rained, a*
we 'were determined to go at once to Sunday-school, to get rid of him, though we knew
there would be no children at the Sunday-school; for it rained very hard. We left him
almost unceremoniously ; and once afterwards? (on a matter of business,) with Miss
R. R., (not my sister, who refused to gOf) thinking that with a stranger^ and saying
that we would be safe, we were compelled to escape from the door in the utmost
haste. I should have stated that he repeated his insolent behavior, doing the
name thing, under the window-shade. I thrust his hand against the window, and
pushed out. My mother afterwards asked me, " Jane, what did the Bishop do to
you,. that made you look so when you came from the window] for I can read your
face like a book; and you looked so deeply mortified." His whole visit at our
house 'did not exceed two or three hours ; as Mr. Richmond called to take him to
St. Michael's Church, Bloomingdale. Dinner and all, we were not in the same
house with him more than an hour and a half. The Rey. Mr. Dowdney several
times requested us to have the Bishop at dinner, on' his visit, June 18th, 1843, bat

130

I answered, (and Helen also,) " He never shall dine at our house again ; or if so,
we will not be present."

(Signed) JANE O. RUDDEROW.
Sworn to before me, >
Oct. 12, 1844. $

(Signed) JAMES HARPER, Mayor.

I testify that every word of the above is true. He grossly insulted me in the
carriage. I should prefer saying that Mr. Dowdney hinted at our having the
Bishop at dinner.

(Signed) . HELEN M. RUDDEROW.
Sworn to, this 12th day of 1
Oct., 1844, before me, J

(Signed) JOHN Me CAHILL, Notary Public.

I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original, duly collated, and
found correct.

WIL.LIAM R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk of the Court. -
Dec. 21, 1844.

Copy of the Affidavit of the Rev. Henry M. Beare.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, SS.

I, the Rev. Henry M. Beare, minister of Zion Church, Little Neck, Long
Island, New York, do depose to the following facts :

In the month of July, A.D. 184,2, the Right Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk,
Bishop, of New York, came to my parish to hold a Confirmation, I having charge,
at that time, of two places of worship, viz -. Zion Church, and Whitestone Chapel.

On the morning of the appointed day, the- Bishop went from my house to Zion
Church, and there held a Confirmation ; the services being over, the Bishop re-
turned to my house, in my two-seated wagoh, in company with my wife and
mother, and, as I believe, with my young nephew, a lad then of 11 or 12 years of
age.

The Bishop and my wife occupied the back seat, my mother and nephew were
on the front seat, with their backs to, the Bishop'; my nephew was driving. I
walked home, (about a mile,) and as soon as I reached home, my wife, in some.
agitation, took me to her room, and then informed me that she thought the Bishop
was too familiar, and had taken liberties with her which she did not like ; that on
her ride home from church the Bishep had put his arm around her, and drawn her
close to him, while with his hand he had felt her bosom ; that she had quietly re-
moved his hand, and endeavored to draw herself away from him as .far as the seat
would allow, in which she succeeded. I, at that time, had heard nothing wf similar
acts of misconduct on the part of the Bishop, and therefore told my wife that per-
haps she had misunderstood his motives ; but she persisted in her belief, that his
motives were impure.

In the afternoon the Bishop.wentto hold a Confirmation in the other church under
my charge, viz., at Whitestone Chapel, my wife, privately to me, declining to ride
in the same carriage with him. My wife, accordingly, rode to the chapel with my
brother, Thomas M. Beare, in his carriage or buggy, while the Bishop rode in my
barouche-wagon, with my nephew and myself.

The services being ended, we all returned in the same vehicle in which we had
gone, until we came to the gate and lane leading from the main road to the resi-
dence of Joseph Franklin, Esq. We had engaged to lake tea with Mr. Frank-
lin's family, and at the gate my brother Thomas (not intending to be one of the
party at Mr. Franklin's) left us and drove onward to my own house, my wife
coming into the carriage where I was, in order to ride up the lane to Mr: Frank-
lin's house. About six or half-past six in the evening, we reached Mr. Franklin'a
residence, where we spent the evening ; and about nine at night, we, that is, the
Bishop, my wife, I, and my Joung nephew, before.. mentioned, started in my
barouche-wagon for home. The Bishop and my wife occupied the back seat, I

131

ad nor nephew were in front : I drore ; and, op to a short period after ray arrival
at home, 1 still though* that my wife had been mistaken as to the Bishop's conduct
of the morning, and I bad not the least suspicion of him. Immediately afler we
reached home, my wife again spoke to me, in private, and told me that the Bishop
bad repeated his indecencies: I told her we would hare family prayers im-
mediately, when we could retire, and she could then inform me of particulars.
When we were in oar chamber alone, my wife told me that the Bishop had, as in
the morning, pat his arm around her, drawn her forcibly to him, and thrust hi?
hand within her dress, so that it was on her naked bosom, that she indignant]*
threw it from her, that he repeated it, when she again threw it off angrily, anc
nothing prevented her from screaming oat, instantly, bat the fact that my little
nephew was by my side, -and that, through his agency, the natter would then be
made public, and she dragged into a notoriety painfully distressing to a virtuous
and respectable female ; besides this, she recollected that the distance from her
home was short, and that she would therefore soon be delivered from his presence.
After she had thus indignantly thrown his hand off several times, in die manner
above stated, the Bishop, she informed me, in a most indecent manner passed his
hand down her bodv, and the bone of her corset alone protected her from the gross
indignity of having his Band pressed upon the private parts of her body.

She spent the Bight in a state of mind bordering on madness* and my agor.r
was but link short of hers. The next day (Monday) the Bishop was to be at Di.
Muhleaberg's school, at College Point, seven or eight miles distant. Immediately
after breakfast he was to take his departure, and approached my wife to take
leave seemingly offering to kiss her. She. drew back. As the wagon left, th*
house be turned, and kissed his hand to fcer once or twice. I had no servant-
san to send with him to Dr. Kohlenberg's ; I did not like to trust my nephew
a distance so far, and besides, I wished very much to see some of my' brethren
aa soon as I eouid, for consultation, aad I knew I should meet them at Coflegr
Point ; I therefore resolved to take him there myself. On our ride very little
tras said between us, and my manner was so cold and reserved that I suppose
he most have remarked it. When we arrived at the Point, I sought for the Rev.
Mr. Kerfoot, (now of Maryland,) and told him my story, asking his advice. He
proposed to me that we 'should ask God's direction, and we knelt down together,
he making a short prayer asking for guidance. He then said he would confer
with Dr. MuUenberg, and 1 immediately returned home. It was a few days after
this that I received a note from Dr. Muftlecberg, desiring to see me at College
Point, where I immediately went ; and in reply to Dr. Muhknberjr's inquiries. 1
told him the story as already set forth in this paper ; and as I proceeded, the Doctor
took notes of it in writing, so framed as to be unintelligible to any one, should they
be lost ; and the Doctor said he would see the Bishop on the subject.

I beard no more from Dr. Muhlenberg until about a week's time, when 1 received
. note from him asking me to meet him, at Flashing, that I might accompany him
'. York. I did meet him, and we rode down together in his wagon. On our
tide be told me that on the day before, he, Dr. Milnor, and Dr. Waiawrigbt ha*!
gone to the Bisbop^aod that Dr Milnor had opened the subject of 15s, the Bishop's,
misconduct towards ra^g wife ; when Dr. Molileaberg went on with it, he, the Sno-
op, denied fact after faR, restated by Dr. Muhlenberg. Dr. Muhleuberg then read
to him from the no^sffiaffed taken, when the Bishop said that he. would like to see
Mr. Beare. and expiahi the matter to him. Dr. Muhlenberg then said to him,
" Would yoa like to see Mr. Beare V The Bishop answered, " Yes." " Then,"
replied Dr. Muhlenberg, " yon shall see him " Dr. Muhlenberg went on to inform
me, that it was to fulfil that promise he wished me to go to New York, and that an
appointment bad been mide for me lo see the Bishop that afternoon at four o'clock.
Accordingly, at four o'clock, Dr. Milnor, Dr. Muhlenberg, the Rev. M.-. Higher,
aad I, roe: at the Bishop's bouse, wJieb the Bishop took us into a private roca .
and his manner betrayed great agitation. The Bishop began by addressing him-
self to me, and said it v. is a very painful subject, and that my wife had misunder-
stood his intentions. I ssid :o him, ** Do yot deny the facts, sir '" He answered
with embarrassment and a?. ' ' would not deny tbatwh:..

wrfe says is true, but she has misconceived iny motives." He then weal on with

1 -}'J

extravagant professions of regard for me., said he would not think of insulting me
or my wife, and much to the same purpose. There was other conversation between
him and me on the subject, the exact particulars of which I cannot undertake to
give, as to me it was Very painful : suffice it to say x that -his agitation and embar-
rassment were very grea.t, that he finally burst into tears, said he would not contra^
diet the statement. of facts my wife had made to me, thai he begged my forgive-
ness, and would beg that of my wife also, and was ready to make any reparation I
would demand. Up to this t\m& the other gentlemen, I think, had said nothing-
After this, Dr. Milnor, in a very dignified manner, spoke to the Bishop of rumors
affecting his character, and entreated Tiirn to, be circumspect. We then left the
Bishop's house; and on parting with the gentlemen, they said they thought my
wife and I had shown great Christian forbearance.

(Signed,).
..-.-. . HENRY M. BEARE,

. . Minister of Xion Church, Little Neck, L. 1.
Sworn and subscribed, on this 21st day )
of October, A. D. 1844, before me. $

(Signed,) Gfio. GRISCOM, Alderman. '

I certify the above to be a faithful and correct copy of the original, duly .
collated with the same, this 30th of Dec., 1844.

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

The Counsel for. the Presentment read in Court .a certificate of John
Rudderow, showing that the attendance of Miss Rebecca P. Riker, a wit-
ness-desired by the Counsel for the Presentment, could not be procured ;'
and asked the interposition of the. Court, by a- citation to said witness to
attend forthwith. -

Ordered, That the Clerk issue a citation to Miss Rebecca P. Riker, to
attend the Court forthwith..

Miss Michal Roberts Rutter was called as a witness by the Counsel for
the' Respondent, and having been sworn on the 37th instant, was examined.

' '. --. '

1.. What is your name! . ; *.

Michal Roberts Tlutter.
' 2. Where do you reside 1
.... At Yorkville.

3. Are you a member of the Episcopal Church T.

I attend it, but I am not a communicant. ,
- 4. Are you a member of the Benevolent Spqiety of St. James's Church*

I was. . . . ..-.-. . '

5. Are you acquainted with Miss Jane O. Rudderow?

Slightly. '*.:,... . . ' '''', . .'

.6. Was she a member -of that .Society with you' in the month of December,
18421 .

She was. *? ' ^ * >'

7k Have you any recollection of a conversation upon the subject of calling ot(
the Bishop, to see whether he would not give his consent to your society meeting in
the church i

Yes. - ' / : . '/:.'

8. Was Jane O. Rudderow present at that conversation ?
She was. . . . '

9. Will you be kind enough, to. statd what passed in that conversation, and par->
ticularly what was said by Jane O. Rudderow 1

On Mr. Dowdney's objeeting to enf sewing in the cfiiirch, I said, "Never minS
Mr. Dawdney's consent. We will obtain the Bishop's leave." Miss Jane O.
Rudderow said, " I will call on the Bishop." I said, " Do you know Kim 3" She
said, " Yes, intimately." That is alj I recoliect that. passed.

133

10. Did you ever-hear her say any thing after this of her. having called ..upon
the Bishop ] . . . . : '. . ' r .

I did not: .. '

The Counsel .for the Respondent moved the Gontf, that the 'summing up
by Counsel might be so arranged, as that Cojunsej flight alternate," the last
turn being given to one of -the Counsel for {he Respondent; Pending the
discussion on the motion, addresses were .made tp- the ;Cburl. by the '.Bishops
of Virginia and Tennessee, objecting to it as Presenting Bishops, 'in their
own names. . . -, . ''..' \ '< "

The motion was refused. . . ' . . v : . ; ."

The Bishops of IHinois, .Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio> Louisiana, and f)ela-.
ware; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of.Massachu*
setts, Rhode Island, and the South Western -Missionary Diocese, refusing ;
and the Bishops .of North Carolina, New Jersey, the" North Western 'Mrs ;
sionary Diocese, Western New York, South Carolina, and Maryland, Dis-
senting.

Aaron L. Poyer, a witness called by the Counsel for the Respondent,
and the Rev. Jonathan M. Wainwright, D. D., : a witness, caljed^by the
Counsel for the Presentment, were 'severally sworn by Day tori. Hobart, Esq.,
the commissioner fbr.that purpose.

The REV. JONATHAN M. WAINWRIGHT, D. D., was thep examined.

Direct Examination.

1. W)?at is your profession, and where do you reside 1

I am a clergyman, and reside in the city of New York, No. 10 Hubert-street.

2. In or about the month of July, 1842, did you, in. -company with Dr. Milnor,
'Dr. Muhlenberg, and Dr. Higbee, visit Bishop Onderdonk'of this cityj at his own

house ; and if so, did you see him 1
I did. . . Y '

3. Was the object of your visit communicated to him'; and-. if so, by whom ?
Before going further in answering the questions that may be put to me, I wish

to explain the circumstances under which I made that visit"; as it wjjl exhibit .to the
Court the reason why I am not enabled now to give more definite 'answers to such
questions as may be put to me. A very dear child of my own had died suddenly
the night before. Being in great affliction, I went, not intending to take any active .
part in the interview, but merely because I would not permit my brethren to go on
a painful errand, in reference to which I had been the means of inviting them, with-
out accompanying them. In other words, I did not think it right to allow my pri-
vate griefs to. prevent my sustaining th?m,asfar as need be, by my presence. I now
answer : my impression is that Dr. Mil nor first stated that we had come upon an
unpleasant errand, or words to that effect. After further introductory observations,
the purport of which I do not remember, he referred to Dr. Muhlenberg for a fuHer
statement of the object of the visit.

4. Did Dr. Muhlenberg proceed to give such statement ; and if so, wa's -it a 1
statement in detail or not 1

My recollection is too indistinct to say to what extent it was in detail.

5. Do you remember any facts which he communicated on that occasion 1

I cannot at this time discriminate between what was mentioned then, and. what
he had told me previously. What I mean to say is this, that' within two,, or three"
days certain facts were commnnicated to me by Dr. Mublenberg ; and I cannot at
this period of time assign this statement of facts to one day or the other..

6. Can you remember whether the statement of facts, made before you saw the
Bishop, and in the interview with the Bishop, corresponded ?

[Objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent/ and the objection sus-
tained by the Court. The Bishops of Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Ohio.
New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New

134

York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ;

and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the Southwestern Mission-
ary Diocese, sustaining it ; and the Bishop of Illinois dissenting.]

7. Can you remember whether the statement made by Dr. Muhlenberg to the
Bishop \vas from written notes or not !

I cannot remember.

8. Was it a long or a short statement 1

I wish here to refer to my preliminary observations. My child was dead in my
house, and I was there simply because I would not withhold my personal presence
from my brethren yi their discharge of a painful duty. The whole matter is ex-
ceedingly indistinct in my recollection, I must confess, and I cannot separate in
my own mind, at. this distance of time, what Dr. Muhlenberg said at the Bishop's,
in connection with this subject, and what he had previously communicated to me.

9. Did the statement of Dr. Muhlenberg occupy five minutes, ten minutes, or
fifteen minutes ? State as nearly as you can recollect.

My impression is that it must have been from fiv<> to ten minntes, but I have not
a distinct recollection enough to be more explicit.

10. Was the statement of Dr. Muhlenberg clear or indistinct?

It was clear enough to me from knowing the previous circumstances, but wheth-
er it would have been clear to any one else I am sure I cannot recollect.
.11: With what was the. Bishop charged on that occasion 1

I did not .understand him to be charged with any tiling by us, I mean. The
object of our visit was to state that he had been charged by Mr. Beare with using
indecent familiarity"'' with his wife, and our object was to let him know that this
charge had been made. We did not charge it ourselves.

12. What allegations of impropriety of conduct were stated to th* Bishop on
; that occasion ?

I before answered that my memory did not serve me for details in that iMerview
at this distance of time.

Cross-Examinaticm.
.

1. Have yqu any recollection of any thing being said at that time of the propri-
ety of an interview between the Bishop and Mr. Beare upon this subject ; if any
thing was said on that subject, have you any recollection by whom it was first sug-
gested 1 '

I recollect that there was something said on the subject of the propriety of such
on interview, but from whom the suggestion first came I cannot recollect.

2. Have yo'u any recollection whether the Bishop did or did not, if the original
suggestion did not come from him, readily assent to kt

My strong impression is that he readily assented to it.

By the Court.

By Bishop Johns.

1: Did the statement made by Dr. Muhlenberg, at the Bishop's, meet your ex-
pectation of what it would be ?

I had formed no expectation about it ; because there was no previous arrange-
ment, to my knowledge, as to who should or who should not make statements of the
matter. The gentlemen went to the Bishop's without me. They left me at my
house, finding my child was dead, after a brief interview with me; I not in-
tending to go with them, and they not desiring me to go ; but after they had left my
house a few minutes- together, I was so strongly impressed that I ought not to let
my private griefs interfere with what 1 esteemed a public duty, that I followed
them, and overtook them just as they were entering the Bishop's study ; therefore
I knew of no arrangeriient as to who was to speak in the matter.

2. Do you recollect whether you were at the time struck with any want of
clearness in Dr: Muhlenberg's statement ?

I do not recollect to have been struck with any want of clearness I do not
remember to have been, impressed, one way or the other, in reference to this point of
;!earness of statement.

: '

'' ' ..." ' f '

135

By Bishop Ives.

3. Do yon recollect any thing about it ?

No. As to the details of the whole matter, my impression is too indistinct tc
give any testimony.

By Bishop Johns.

1. Was tiiere, on the part of the Bishop, any denial of the troth of the statement
made by Dr. Muhlenberg 1

I understood the Bishop to deny it.

By Bishop Whiltingham. .

5. Did you so understand hjrn with reference to the details, or to the genera!
purport of the statement? '.

I must answer, to the general purport of the statement; because it is .not dis-
tinct in -ray own mind how far details were charged at that lime.
By Bishop Polk.

6. When you left the house of the Bishop, did yon feel that you had performed
the duty yon went to discharge, as you have stated in* your answer to question 11
in your direct examination ?

I did feel that I had performed my duty, in being instrumental in bringing to the
JTishnp's knowledge the charge made against him by Mr. Beare.

AARON L. POYKR was then 'examined.

Direct Examination.

I. Where do you reside, and what is your business ?
No. 37 West Broadway. My occupation is that of a hair-dresser ?
*J. Are you a member of the Episcopal Church ?
I am. ;

3. Are you a communicant, and how long have you been so ?
1 am, and have been for about 13 years.

4. Are you acquainted with the Re\\ Henry M. Beare, of Long Island !
Perfectly so.

5. Does he often come to your shop *
He does every 6 or 7 weeks.

6. Have yoa any recollection of a conversation with him in your shop-during
Xhe last summer, in relation to Bishop Onderaonk 1

Mi. Beare declared the Bishop to be a great favorite of his ; and whenever he
came to the shop I asked him about his friend, the Bishop.

7. The question is repeated 1 .

Nothing more than my inquiring bosv the Bishop was, and when he had seen
btm.

8. What answer did he make when you asked him- that question?
If lie had seen the Bishop he would tell uie he was very well.

9. Is that all tl)e conversation you remember to frave had 'last summer T

Yes, sir; that I remember. Bishop OuderdoHk and Mr. Beare met in my shop
ihe last summer, and they appeared to be very sociable and friendly together.

Cross-Examined.

I.* What did they aay to each other*

I cannot say ; they shook hands, and appeared to be Tory friendly.

The Rev. James Milnor, D. !>., was then again called as a witness by
the Counsel for the Presentment,, and examined by them.

Direct Examination resumed,*
Rev. JAMES MILNOR, T). D., recalled.

10. When you was before the Ourt on a former occasion* yon spoke of a stata*
ment made by Dr. Muhlenberg to Bishop Onderdonk, in your presence, and that of

. .

,36

. - . .' . f ' A. ' IL. ' . -

J ' ^ ! .**

pr'..Wainwright, and Dr. Higbee ; will you now state -whether that statement was
a 1 clear and distinct one, .er confused and indistinct *

. ' .{This question was objected to by the Counsellor the Respondent ; wlu-n the
objection was unanimously overruled by the Gourt.J

I have a not very exact recollection: of the character of that statement; but so
far as I rernember, it wag. sufficiently clear and distinct. I recollect no remark at
that -interview, on'the'paft of any dne, to the contrary.
.11. Was 'Bishop Onderdonk. informed -at that time' of .the specific allegations' of

acts of impfppriety, alleged -to. have, been committed by him towards Mrs.'Beare 1

[Objected to and withdrawn.]

18. '.After you left the house of the.Bishop, at the second interview, and before you
separated from Dr. Higbee, do you .remember what was said by him. as to.the guilt
or innodenoe of the Bishop 1 .

! V." Yes, sir. ' . v

19. Please state.it.' .' > . :

* :>r. Higbee said to me, with some emotion in his manner, " What a lie he told !"
That remark was. made to- me ; whether & was made so that Jhe rest could hear,
I cannot say.. . i . ' ,

; In justice to DP. Htgbee t I ought to. state, that since the pendency of this trial he
; has mentioned to me that he rfid irot jnecollect having used that expression ; but

'. added, I felt very indignant, and' I might have said so. Before we separated,.! think

: at the corner f Broadway and either Franklin or Walker street, DC- Higbee made

..." a remark of this. kind to'Mr' v Be'are.:. ":You were vorv forbearing with the Bishop ;

but'if he had trealed' my wife so, I would have 'kicked him out of the house." That

:. remark I distinctly recollect.

>20. ; DM you, and thfe Reverend gentlemen who accompanied you from the house

of the Bishop, after the sdcopd interview, come to any agreement before you sepa-
' /rated, -that tbe Bishop wa^ innocent? . '.

[This question was objected to by the Counsel for the Respondent ; when the
objection was. overruled'by the Codrt.

. ... The Bisliops of Illinois, Connecticut,- Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, the North
'' ..' '". Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York, and Delaware ; the

-.Assistant Bishep of Vi^iniav and the Bishops of Massachusetts,' Rhode Island,
. and the.'South.Western Afissionarj- Diocese, overruling it. The Bishops of North

Carolina^ Nfcw Jersjejr, South Carolina, and. Maryland, dissenting.]
' ;. WedidnoU " . . ' . ...:,'. , '':''

' . 21; Did 'you 1 agrree that you would say nothing about it, and did you state your
'..'.. Teasdris. for" that agjeement af the .time ; and if so, what were they !

We did agree that, -at least.it was a sort of understanding, I do not remember the
exact terms' in which it was said,- 1 that we would not speak of the transaction. I do
not .remember tbat any reasohs were given at the time.

; . . . . : . . , uross-axammation.

19. ,Whe"n.^i$ you first mention these matters after their occurrence 1
,1 may, in a single, instance, have confidentially Spoken of the .matter I

gyman ; at what time-since the occurrence, I cannot remember.
. 26: Who was that clergyman ?

vlt.wa* Rev. Dr. Turner. ' .1 ihink it proper } should add, that I should not have
remembered U had it.not since been mentioned to me by Dr. Turner^ Neither to
my wife, noi> any member of my family, nor any other person, so far as I believe

or recollect, have I-ever mentioned the circumstance until durihgthle late General
Conventi&n. .... .

xM . Did you. mention it m Philadelphia daring the session of the GeneraKCon*

* Mention-'; and if so, to whom ?

To the Presenting Bishops. Th6 difficultiee of the Bishop became'a subject of i
conversation. Many persons spoke to. me on the subject ; some appearing U> have
no knowledge' of my acquaintance with, the -affair, but communicating it to me a
new information, ' To such I did not ciommuaicate the fact ; I 'received the infoi-

^ **!*>'*.. - ; .'. ' * &'- .'"*.' '" ' -

'..... :.'-!..' . Y. - *> J "
i';' l ; l*fV; ;

mation, but said nothing myself. In -other instances, persons spoke to me, who had
heard of our interviews with the_ Bishop; and in those cases I either confirmed or'
corrected the statements they made,. according as. the facts required.

22. Was Dr. Hawks .one of the persons with whom you conversed on the sub-
ject in Philadelphia ? ; : ;.; ... '. :.: ; . '...

' He was hot, to my .recollection.

23, Were you called upon by any person-,- and if -so, by whom, for the purpose
of obtaining from you a statement of the facts, with a vifew to the presentment of '.
the Bishop 1 > .-..;.

I received a written communication, signed by five membep-s of the House 'of!
Clerical and Lay Deputies', to the purport that they understood I was acquainted
with the fact of indecencies offered to th person of the wife of the R!ev,'M,r..
'Beare, and also with instances of intemperance -on the part oft the Bishop, and-re-
questing me to make, an affidavit of the facts,. to be laid before the Presenting 1 .
Bishops, I think. I sent them a written answer, declining io tnake a voluntary af-
fidavit, in that extra-judicial way ; but when legally of cano4jcally called upon, ?F .
should be. ready to "testify to what. I knew. I communicated to Dr, Wainwright
and Dr. Higbee the letter and my : answer; of which answer | they 'expressed their
approbation.

By the Court.' . ' .;

.'.'. - i - . ' "!'. : '

- . i ' . . '. : -.

By Bishop Ivesv . ;, ' -._ -. ' ..

1. 'Had you, before the first interview with the Bishop^ a full ajid distinct
knowledge <f the facts alleged. by Mr. Beare. -

They were communicated to me by Dr. Wainwright and Dr. Muhlenberg, when
they .called Hpon me to accompany them to the Bishop's. i

2. Can you be certain that-you WjCre not aided in your understanding of wfijat
Dr> Muhlenberg stated to the Bishop, by y'our .previous and particular knowledge .
of the facts 1 . .

I think I made the first communication, and. not Dr. Muhlenberg. The facto
were stated tome in my study. They might hav.e aided my- understanding 'of
what Dr.- Muhlenberg stated in the presence of the Bishop; but I remember.no
confusion in that statement. .

-5. Was -Dr. Higbee, in making the remark as you have stated, after the second
interview, apparently under strong excitement ?

'Dr. Higbee's statement to me, as'. I; have already 'given it, sufficiently indicates'
the state of his mind. He said he was indignant; To any state of feeling thai
was indicated by Dr. Higbee, 1 would by no m,eans apply ^he.terrja-f strong excit^- . '.
ment." ' . ; ' ' ; '.' '.'-';'

By Brshop De. Lancey. ..,'.'

4. Was Dr. Muhlenberg at all agitated in making, his .statement to Bishop On-
derdouk, in the interview. with him T ..

I do not' remember that he Was. ' . ' .. '.

5. Was Mr. Beare a party to the understanding had after you left the Bishop,
not to speak of the transaction t :

i do not recollect that he said any thing on the subject^ but! considered him in-
cluded in that understanding, and hd so considered himself. ' '

6. Was the Rev, James C. Richmond one of the persons with whom ypu cqa- .
versed oft this subject in Philadelphia, or elsewhere ?

Mr. Richmond several times -attempted to speak with me -upon, the subject, and
I as often declined conference with him" with regard to it. ' .' . ' '. "_>. .

.7. You said .that you received a letter in Philadelphia from five members of th
Hbuse of .Clerical and Lay'Deputicis ; what was the date of that letter t

1 do not recollect, but, will, furnish .the date; it ^as during the sitting of th
General Convention.

Q. What are the names of the persons by whom 'that letter was signed ? '..'

Rev.- Paul Tcapi^r, Hon: Mr. Memminger, Col. -Morris, these three of South
Carolina; Revv Mr. Gallagher, of Georgia, and Dr. Dubois; of Ohio. .

1 18 ' ' ; .'

* *,..

* *> . 'll . . "

139

. s

By Bishop Gadsden.

9. You said there was a mutual understanding that you and the gentlemen would
aay no more about it ; were any reasons," and what, given for coming to such an
understanding ?

I do not remember that any statement of reasons was made at that time.

10. What were the reasons in your own mind for coming to that understanding 1
[Objected to and withdrawn ]

You have said Col. Morris was of South Carolina ; do you kmnr whether or
not he was a member of the late Convention of the Diocese of New York ?

I saw him there, and presume he. was ;' but I understood he was a delegate from
the Diocese of South Carolina to the last General Convention.

By Bishop Mcllvaine.

11. In the understanding spoken of after you left the Bishop's, was it understood
by you and the other gentlemen present, that, the matter of. which you had then
spoken to the Bishop was to be considered as finally settled and disposed of?

I do not remember any such terms being used in the course of our conversation
It may be proper for me to add, that we endeavored, all of us, to soothe the feei-
iriga of Mr. Beare as much as possible.

12. Were there any facts or remarks which served to explain .Dr. Higbee'a
words, " what a lie he told," and- if so, state what these farls or remarks were ?.

I cannot state the precise words which may have passed, but I well remember
our speaking to each other of the difference in the Bishop's treatment of the mat-
ter on the first and second interview ; that is, his positive denial on the first day,
and. his appeals to Mr. Beare on the second. From all that passed, he undoubtedly
referred to the denial of the 'Bishop on the first day.

By Bishop Whittingham.

13. Are you quite sure that ydu could not- have misunderstood Mr. Higbee, and
that he had reference to no other person bat the Bishop, when he spoke of a lie
having been told?

From, all that passed, I feel certain that he could have referred to nothing else.

14. What did pass, to make you feel so certain?

I think I have already stated-that the difference in the conduct of the Bishop on
the first and second occasion, was the subject of conversation among us all, in-
cluding Dr. Higbee.

15. But does that make you certain that Mr Higbee referred to the denial of
she Bishop of the first day ?

From all that passed I could infer nothing else.

16. Do you now recollect any. thing to authorize your inference that the Bishop's
statement or conduct on ihe first day, and not on the second, were in Dr. Higbee's
mind when he used the words spoken of?

I infer it from 4he whole conversation.

17. May I conclude, then, that you recollect nothing more on the subject than
you have stated T

I do not at this time.

18. Did Mr. Higbee, in ihe remark which you stated that he addressed to Mr.
Beare before you separated, say or do any thing which indicated that he meant to
affirm that the Bishop had treated Mr. Beare's wife in the way alleged, or to
make you quite sure that he did not intend ironically to reproach Mr. Beare with
what he considered inconsistent tergiversation ?

In answer to the first part of this question, I say that every thing in the con-
versation held after leaving the Bishop's, led me to the conclusion that there was
no difference between us as to the truth of Mrs. Beare's statement. As to his
ipeaking ironically, I have never had any such conception.

The Court then adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

139

Monday, December 3CM, 1844,
half-past 9 o'clock, A.M.

The Court met pursuant to 'adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, Western New York. South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ;
the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode-
Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The President laid before the Court a letter- from the Rev. James Mil-
nor, D. D., : inclosing a letter from the Rev. Paul Trapicr and others, to
him, Dr. Mihior ; and his, Dr. Milnor's reply : said letters having been re-
ferred to in the evidence on Saturday,, the 28th, and then promised by. Dr.
Mil nor in his testimony.

The Bishop of North Carolina made to the Court a return of the com-
mission for the examination of Miss Ann W T ilson, on whidi he had been
appointed on Monday, the 23d inst. ; which return was read and ordered
to be entered on the record, as follows, viz;

The undersigned, the Commissioners with D. Hobart, Esq., appointed -by the
Court of Bishops in the matter of the Presentment of the Rt. Rev. Benjamin T.
Onderdonk, Bishop of New York, beg leave respeotfidjy to make the following
report :

On Thursday, the 26th of December, in pursuance of our duty, we called at the
house of Miss Ann Wilson, No. 16 Varick Place, and were received by a.servant,
who immediately informed Miss Wilson of our presence. She returned for an-
swer, that she was too much indisposed to see company. Whereupon xve request-
ed the servant to inform Miss Wilson that we had called to inquire whether she
would consent to give her testimony as required. The servant replied, that tbc
message would be useless, as her mistress had resolved not to see any one on tht-
subject of her testimony. Upon our insisting upon the message being taken t(>
her, the servant left us, and returned for answer, that Miss Wilson positively Ire-
fused to speak with any one on the subject.

Whereupon, upon the suggestion of the Bishop of Ohio, the Bishop of NortL
Carolma, on the same day, addressed to Miss Wilson the following note ; and the
subjoined answer was returned.

L. S. IVES,
Bishop of North Carolina.

CHAS. P. McILVAINE,
Bishop of the Diocese of Ohio.

[Copy.]

Bishop Ives respectfully informs Miss Ann Wilson, that with Rt. Rev. Dr.
Melhainc, and D. Hobart, Esq., he has been appointed by the Court of Bishops
to take her testimony, and requests that she will reply in writing whether she
will consent to give the same in the case of Bishop Onderdonk ; and if so, at what
time and place.

New York, Dec, 2G, 1844.

[Copy.]

A communication under date of 26th inst., addressed by Bishop Ives to Miss Wil-
son, has this day been received ; antf in reply to the inquiry whether Miss W. will
consent to give bet testimony in the case of Bishop Onderdonk, Bishop Ives is re-

140

j * -. " i '''-.

spectfully informed, under Miss W.' authority, 'that no testimony can be given by
her in the ease in question. And the use 6f her nanie being Altogether unauthorized,
thi* opportunity is taken to request that Bishop Tves will adopt such measures as
may seem proper to hare i,t withdrawal from the! proceedings..
( :?fM York, Dec. 28, 1844. ...

i ' I

The BjshGp of- Virginia, in behalf of (he Presenting Bishops, addressed
the Court, making a statenient concerning the fourth article of the Pre-

.'.'* The REV. ^ED'WARD Y.>HIGBEE, D. D., wds again called up as^a witness

hy' the Counsel for the Respondent.

* .'*

Direct Examination resumed.
'..*.-,

,..' 17. It has. been stated in testimony,, "by the Rev. Dr. Milnor, that npon leaving
the house .of the Bishop, after the second interview to which you have testified,
you said to Dr. Milnor with some emotion in your manner, " What a lie he told "
Will you pjease to 'state' to the Court whether you used such an expression, or if
not, what opinion you expressed or intended to convey to Dr. Milnor and to the other
gentlemen, respecting either, or both of your Visits to the Bishop 1 State fully
ypuf language-and opinions on, the subject at that time, with all the- attendant eir-
eurnst.anceB.

,1 de not'recollect using sueban expression, neither is it quite in my usual style

f 1 speaking ; yet from the state of my mind at 'the time, as nearly as I can recol-

lect itn, I rtipy have used such an expression. I believe I have already stated to.

.. .the Court that' I wetrt away from the Bishop's displeased with the interview.

' 'f Ia'id ( greal stress upon what seemed to mq not entirely consistent between the

conversation of the 'Bishpp at -the first and second interviews. ,At the first in-

' : tebriew the Bishop spoke witft apparent indignation of such a story being told by

'Mr. 'and Mrs. Beare, and I thought his remarks did not exonerate the motives of

! 'Mrs! Beafie ; at the second iritervjew, the Bishop, I thought, was too anxious to

relieve Mrs: Beare's motives^ and to avoid impeaching her ireracity. If I used

t3ie expression 'referred, to it; must have .referred to this.

J8. Did you intend to convey the ideaiy any such expression., that the Bishop
.^a^ admitted his guilt at. the second 'interview,. and therefore had falsely denied it
at .the first?
1 could haves- meant no sujch thing, for the -Bishop did not admit his guilt at the

-second interview. 1 say this because ! could not have forgotten such an admis-
sion) and' because the conversation }vhich took place between th Bishop and Dr.
Mjlnor at the^ close . of the second" interview, was inconsistent' with such an admis-
sion havin'gbeen.made. ,

19. it has also been testified toby Dr. Mijhor, that before you and the other gen-

- tlernen separated after the second interview, and, as he. thought, at the corner of
Broadway and either Franklin or Walker street, yon made a remark of this kind to
Mr. Beare : '''You were very forbearing with the Bishop, but if he had treated, my
wHe 6oj 1 would have kicked him out of the house." .Do you remember that or
any similar remark on your part, and if so, what induced yoa to make it! If not,
state the remark you did make, and the idea you intended to convey to Mr.] Beare.

I think it very likely {hat I . made such a remark, though l,do not remember
.'fct/ It, however, is a somewhat 'lighter form of expression than I should be
likely to. use on such an occasion 5 for I believed then asl believe now, that any
than who really thought that such outrages had been committed upon his wife,
would have deerjied thttt the smallest possible measure of punishment. I certainly
could not have intended by tliat remark to imply my belief in the Bishop's guilt.
I recollect perfectly well at the time that ^believed the conduct of Mr. Beare, in
his forbearance, inconsistent with the charges which, .he was said to have presented.
; "120. Did any thing pass-after the close of;the second interview at the Bishop's,
and before you and the oth,er gentlemen separated, which induced you te believe
. ." ' '." '';':

141

that Dr. Milnor did not entertain a conviction of the Bishop's guilt of the indecen-
cies alleged ? If so, state what it was".

I was not aware wheti we separated, that (here was any difference olf opinion in
the matter, between Dr. Milnor and myself. -'I do .not recollect any. declaration of
Dr. Miln'or's indicating such a difference, but supposed that Ac, no more than I, be-
lieved in the Bishop's criminality ; for I most assuredly could not have agreed with
him and Dr. Muhlenberg, to arrest the matter there.* had I believed for one moment,
that the Bishop was almost an adulterer in fact, and quite an adulterer in heart.

By the Court.

By Bishop Gadsden.

24. Was there an agreement or was there not, on the part of yourself, Dr.
Muhlenberg;, Mr. Beare, and Dr. Milnor, that the matter should not be made known
to any one *

There teas such an agreement between Dr. . Muhlenberg, Dr. Milnor, and
jmyself. Mr: Beare^ I. think, was present, and assented", but I am not perfectly
sure.

25. Was there any thing s*id by either of the gentlemen present, on the subject
of this agreement V

I remember only the fact of our agreement what \ria'-said particularly I do not
remember. . . ' . ' .

By Bishop De Laocey.' . '

26. Was this a written or a verbal -agreement !

Verbal. ' ;

27. 'Do you recollect who first suggested or proposed the agreement ?

1 do not. It was not a subject which occasioned any difficulty or discussion.

28: How long a time 'did you gentlemen continue together after you left the
Bishop's house ; and where did you separate !

< I do not think we could have, continued together longer than fifteen or twenty
minutes. I think we seoarated somewhere in Franklin street- the street in which
the Bishop resides.

Cross-Examinalion resumed.

36. Was the agreement spoken of, express or implied 1

It was certainly not an implied one. As' nearly as I can recollect, it was ex-
pressed ; and I have conversed with Dr. Milnor on the subject since. He told me
in Philadelphia, during the session of the General Convention, that he had sacredlj
observed the agreement, or Words to that effect ; that he had mentioned the matter
to no one, not even to his. wife.

By the Court.

By Bishop Doane.

29. You said you did not recollect who first proposed the agreement; can you
recollect whether you did yourself?

I cannot recollect that I did. It seemed to be a result in which we consented
almost without suggestion.

The Rev. JOHN DOWDNEY was again called up as a witness by the Coun-
sel for the Respondent.

Direct Examination resumed.

24. Were you familiar with, the house, which was occupied by the family of the
Misses Rudderow, in the summer of 1841 ?

I have been frequently there.

25. Have you, within a few days past, examined the width of the windows of
the front room in the first story, which .was occupied in 1841, as a drawing-room T

142

'
I have

26. What was the width of each of those windows

(The witness produces a string, measured in Court as two feet nine and a quarter
inches.) This is the width of the opening in the wall, from jamb to jamb.

27. How deep is the recess in each of those windows 1

(The witness produces a string, measured in Court as one and a half inches.) That
is the depth.

38. What kind of a house is that"?

A frame house ; an old-fashioned frame house.

29. Do you recollect the position of the stairs, leading from the first to the sec-
ond story ; and if so, were they so situated as to enable a person coming down to
see into the drawing-room, the door being opened ?

The stairs start nearly opposite the door of this drawing-room, so that any per-
son coming down stairs might readily perceive what was going on in the room near
the windows. .

30. Can you state the width and length of the hall ?

I should think the width of. the hall about six feet; the length, from the front
door to the back door, I should think twenty-five feet.

Cross- Examination resumed.

89. Did you measure these windows yourself, personally 1
I did.

90. Are you used to measuring windows ?
No, sir.

91. Can you be quite sure that, you were accurate in this measurement ?
I endeavored to be very accurate.

92. How did you measure ?

I had assistance. A boy held the string at one end ; I held it at the other, and
cut it off with my knife.

93. Who is that boy ]

A son of Alderman Towle.

94. Did you visit that house at the time when the Rudderows lived there, so a*
to know that the room in which you measured the windows, was the drawing-
room 1 ?

No, sir.

95. Were there any fixtures for blinds on the inside when you went there T

I went there to see a parishioner of mine, who removed into the house after the
Rudderows left it Mr. Wm. H. Mott.

96. Did you never visit that house when the Rudderows lived there ?
I never did.

97. Were there any fixtures for shades when you went there 1
I do not recollect ; I cannot say positively.

98. On which side, as you enter, from the river front, is the drawing-room the
right or left T

On the left as you enter from the river ; on the right as you face the river.

99. Which way does the door open into the drawing-room !

I cannot say with certainty. I think the door' opens towards the window. It
swings that way. I do not wish to be positive.

100. How many windows are there in the room T
There are two, and a door opening into another room.

101. Who lives there now T
It is empty ; unoccupied.

,
Direct Examination resumed.

31. Is there a crevice between the door and the casing, when it is open ; and if
so, what is the width of it ?

Yes, about an inch wide.

143

Cross-Examination resumed.
102. Did you measure that crevice ?
No.

By the Court.
By Bishop Lee.

1. What should you estimate, as nearly as possible, the size of the drawing-
room in question to be !

I cannot say. The room is not a large one : there are four rooms on the floor.
Bv Bishop De Lancey.

2. Did you examine the windows of the other rooms of the house on the sanw
floor 1

I did examine other windows, and found them of the same width.

The Counsel for the Respondent read to the Court the letter from the
[lev. James Milnor. D. D., laid before the Court by the President, and the
letter from the Rev. Dr. Milnor to the Rev. Paul Trapier, and others,
therein enclosed.

The Counsel for the Presentment read to the Court the letter from the
Rev. Paul Trapier, and others, to which the letter of Dr. Milnor just read
was a reply.

The Counsel on both sides jointly moved an adjournment, that they
might have time to prepare for summing up.

The motion was granted.

The Bishop of South Carolina moved the Court to pass an order, in the
following terms, viz :

That inasmuch as each of the oharges in the Presentment has been
sustained by only one witness, contrary to the injunction laid down by the
Apostle Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, v. 19, that the Presentors have
leave to withdraw it.

The Court, on motion, heard the written opinion of the Bishop of South
Carolina, and proceeded in the discussion of the motion to pass the order
proposed by him. After the delivery of opinions by several members, the
Court postponed the order for future advisement; such advisement when
taken, to be without further discussion.

The Court then adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Tuesday, December 31st, 1844, >
half-past 9 o'clock, A. M. \

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois. Connecticut. North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio. New Jersey, the Xorth Western Missionary Diocese,
Louisiana, Western Xow York, South Carolina, Man-land, and Dela-
ware ; the Assistant Bishop ot' Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachu-
setts Rhode Island, ami the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The Clerk moved the Court that he be allowed the assistance of a sworn
reporter, to take the arguments of Counsel in the summing up.

Ordered, That the motion of the Clerk be granted, provided the Counsel
on both sides consent, and app rr > v e qf the person employed as reporter.

The Bishop of South Caroana obtained consent of the Court to make
the following entry on the record, viz. :

144

The Bishop of South Carolina, though he has the utmost confidence in
the principle he asserted in the order which he prepared for consideration
yesterday, yet asks leave to withdraw it, for the present.

JOHN RUDDEROW was called up as a. witness, by the Counsel for the
Presentment, and sworn by Dayton Hobart, Esq., the Commissioner, &c.

JAMES ALEX. HOUSTON, M. D., was sworn, faithfully and trirly to re-
pODt the arguments and proceedings in this Court, for the use of the Court,
ml to communicate the same to none others, by Dayton Hobart, Esq., the
Commissioner, &c.

JOHN RUDDEROW was examined.

Direct Examination.
JOHN RUDDEROW duly sworn.

1. Are you the brother of Miss Jane^O. Rudderow *
I arn.

2. Did she reside with you in 1841, and where? .
She did, in 61st-street, near the East River.

3. Do you remember the occasion when Bishop Ohderdonk dined at your house *
I remember that he did dine there.

4. At the time of his dining there in 1841, was this one of the shades (Counsel
kolds up a window-shade) before .one of the drawing-room windows ?

It was.

5. Were the windows alike, and the shades of the same dimensions ?
They were.

6. Have you measured this shade ? If so, what is the rength ald breadth T
I have. It is seven feet long by three feet three inches broad.

7. Did it come down below the glass of the window ?
It did, about 18 inches.

8. How was this shade hung outside of the casing, or inside; and how far
from the window ?

It was hung outside of the casing; and from the fixtures, I think it was about
four inches out from the glass of the lower Bash.

9. Did you hang it yourself?
I did. '

10. What is the length and breadth of the hall ?
I never measured it. I cannot answer.

Cross-Examination.

1. What was the height of the bottom of the- window from the floor.?
About two and a half feei.

2. What were the dimensions of that room ?

I cannot tell. I never had occasion to .measure it myself.. If I should guess (it-
is nearly "three years since we lived there) it is about' 10 by 1&.

By the Court.

By Bishop De Lancey,

1. Did the recess of the window extend to the floor ?

It being a hard-finished wall, there was a wooden wainscoting immediately below
each window.

2. Did the % lower sill of the window extend into the room ?
I am not very certain about that. I-think it likely it was.
By Bishop Hopkins.

3. How deep was the whole wall of the house, from the inside plastering to the
outside of the weather-boards ?

I never measured that. I should think from six to eight inches.

Direct Examination resumed. ' ,

11. You said the recess was how deep *

Two inches and a half, from the lower sash to 'the outside of, the 'casing

Cross-Examination resumed. '

3. Is it more thatran inch and a half from the outside of the: moulding?
It is two and a half inches to the sash- I should judge it was one and a half
inch to the moulding; : .. . " ,',.'/--.

The Counsel for the Presentment put in an affidavit of the -service , of the
citation of the Court upon Miss Rebecca P. Hiker, which was read, and , did-
dered to be filed. . ' .

DAVID. GRAHAM, Esq., of Counsel for the Respondent, .then pro-
ceeded to address the Court, as follows :

May it please the Court ': We have at length reached that stage- in this
important and solemn investigation, -Avhen.it becomes my duty^ as one of
the Counsel for- the accused, to. address you on his behalf. 'In .entering'
upon the performance of my duty, I but do justice to my own feelings.
when I say, that I do so-with a degree of embarrassment .such as -it : has
rarely been my lot to experience. It 5s not froni any want of confidencje
in the innocence and integrity of m'y .client, /and it! certainly is not from
any distrust of the impartiality of- his judges, that I say this ; but, feeling
as I sensibly do, the novelty of my own position appreciating the- extra-
ordinary course wliich has characterized this prosecution,- and disappointed,
as I certainly am, at the manner in which it. has been .conducted, after the
professions of fairness and impartiality' which Avere made in the- opening
of the 1 case, I cannot but entertain the sentiment to. which I have referred.

At the outset of thig case, the Court, the accused, and his Counsel, were
led to believe that the Counsel who represented the. prosecutors,, and the .
Right Reverend Presenters themselves, intended.simply to .place the facts
before the Court, as ivell on the part of the accused, as on that of th
Presentment; and the learned gentlemen. who represent the prosecution
here, certainly did not hold out any reason to justify the Court' in believ-
ing, that it Avould be conducted on the-principles on which controversies in
oourts of law are conducted; or that the zeal and ingenuity. of. Counsel .
were ta.be pressed into the case, for the purpose of, enforcing pn the judg-
ment of tho Court; a conclusion favorable to' the side on which their selr- ' .
vices were enlisted.

ciate,
defei

be easy, and that my responsibility would be light. I supposed tliat the
extent of my task woiilij be to aid,' by counsel and advice:, the 'accused, .by
offering suggestions as to his legal rights. I 'had no idea had 1 enter-
tained su'ch an idea, I. would have shrunk from this contest that I was
entering here on the trial of a case' strictly as Counsel, to perform the mere
duties of that office, or that I was coming, before the Court for the -pur-
pose of contending, with -the learned. Counsel. on the 'other side, in a st-rjjfe
for victory and success. '

I make these remarks, may it please the Court, nof'for the purpose 'of.
impeaching the motrves of the learned Counsel oh .'the bthr 'side, or.thp^ 1 '
whom, they represent on' this occasion .;' but 1 maie them for the purpose

... .19

' . *

146

; i '. ' ' ' r^ i

of directing the attention of this venerable Court to tho duty which they
are now called upon to perform. I'am sensible that in the discharge of
my duty, .1 shall fall far short of what may be expected not of mj self, for
I know that little can be expected from me-r-but far short of that which the
occasion calls for, a,nd which the duty to the accused, on thg part of Coun-
sel, would seem to impose on those occupying that relation to him. So
much the more is the responsibility of this Court enhanced ; so much the
more solemn becomes the duty they are called upon to discharge. And I
have said what I have, that the responsibility may be thrown from me,
and devolved entirely upon those wno, in the event of this case, are to
determine on the guilt or innocence of the accused. . You, his judges,
stand hereto determine an issue infinitely -.more important to him than
one of life or death. You stand here to determine whether a man who has
grown grey in the midst of this community who has partaken, in no limit-
ed measure, of th(J honors and ttie respect of the society in which he has
lived who has risen to dignity and rank .in the Church of which he has
long been an honored minister, and is now an honored head, is to be dis-
graced, in the bosom of that Church and in the centre of that society to
which h^ 'has been an ornament. You, I say, are to dispose .of this
issue, and I trust that I am not travelling beyond my duty in saying that I
anticipate from the result at which you are to arrive, a full realization of all
thfe consequences which may follow an adverse judgment. If the accused
be guilty of immorality if he have dishonored and disgraced the Church
of which he is one of the heads if he have become an unworthy member
of ths community in which he lives, you, as the fathers of that Church,
are bound to punish him, and to punish him severely. But if this assault
has been made upon him for other and ulterior purposes if you are sought
to be made the instruments of striking him down for the purpose of grati-
fying other motives than those which should have been legitimately con-
nected with this prosecution and if you find that of these charges he is
not guilty, and that the motives alleged did not properly attach themselves
to his conduct, then I call upon you to perform what I know will be to you
all. a grateful and pleasing duty, that of restoring him with unblemished
reputation to society, to the Church, and to the bosom of that family of
which he is the honored and revered head.

With these preliminary remarks, which are perhaps entirely unneces-
sary to the tribunal before whom I have now the honor of appearing, I
shall proceed, as briefly as possible, to discharge the duty which rests upon
me. In doing so, it will be to me a matter of deep regret that I shall be
compelled to occupy necessarily much of the time of the Court; but I
trust that my apology will be amply found in the satisfaction which every
member of the Court will experience, in having given a full and fair hear-
ing to the grounds of defence which that duty will. require me to present.

In order that the remarks which I have to make may be the more
readily understood, and that each portion of. the argument which. I intend
to address to the Court may naturally follow upon the other, I shall divide
the consideration of this case into three grand propositions.

In the FIRST place, I shall inquire what is the charge upon which the
accused is on trial ?

In the SECOND place. I shall direct the attention of the Court to those prin-
ciples' of divine and human law ly which the determination of that charge is
to be ascertained and proved :

147

An-J in the THIRD place, I shall proceed lo consider the evidence ly which
the charge is sought to be sustained.

First, then what is the charge against the accused ?

By the recent Canon adopted by the General Convention, it is provided
that the trial of a Bishop shall be on a presentment in writing, specifying
the oft'enccs of which the accused is alleged to have been guilty, with rea-
sonable reference to time, place, and circumstance. Such presentment
may be made for any crime or immorality for heresy or for violation
of the constitution or Canons of the Church. The Canon then proceeds to
prescribe the mode in which the presentment is to be made. Under this
Canon. the Rt. Rev. Presenters, being three of the Bishops of the Church,
have made a Presentment, the charge in which is in the following words :
14 The undersigned, that is to say, the Rt. Rev. William Meade, Bishop of
the said Church in the Diocese of Virginia ; the Rt. Rev. James Hery'ey
Ott y, Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of Tennessee ; the Rt. Rev.
Stephen -Elliott, Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of Georgia, do
hereby, in. virtue of the canonical authority reposed in them, present to
their brother Bishops, the Rt. Rev. Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, Bish-
op of the said Church in the Diocese of New York, as being guilty 'of im-
.norality and impurity in the several specifications hereinafter more par-
ticularly set forth : and they do hereby solemnly demand a trial of -the
said Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, pursuant to the provisions of the
Canons of' the General Convention of the said Ch'urch in such case made
and provided." They, present the Rt. Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk as
"being guilty of immorality and impurity." That is the charge and
this charge is sought to be sustained, both by the specifications subsequent-
ly set forth, and the evidence adduced in their support. The charge
against the Bishop then is, that he is guilty of immorality and impurity ;
and the question now before this Court is, whether that charge has been
justained by the evidence adduced.

From the course of the trial it would seem to have been supposed by
the learned Counsel on the other side, (and some of the members of the
CJourt may have entertained a similar impression,) that the only question
before this Court is, whether the several specifications which are set forth
as evidence of this charge, have been proved, and whether the Respondent
is guilty of the matters contained in those specifications. I desire to call
the attention of the Court to what I. regard as an error in this respect.
The question is one of immorality and impurity on the part of the Bishop,
with -reference to the time of presenting this charge, unfitting him for the
discharge of the duties of his office ; and the specifications- are but the
particulars of the facts from which the inference of this present immorality
and impurity is sought to be drawn, on the part of the Presenters. The
question before the Court, then, and the decision sought in this case, is
whether the Respondent, by reason of any facts which are proved or al-
leged against him, possesses now such an immoral and impure heart and
mind as to render it improper that he should be longer allowed to minister
in the sacred office which he fills.

As an illustration of the correctness of this position, and to show that I am
quite correct in stating this to be the true and only issue before the Court,
let me suppose a case fully exemplifying the meaning of my argument.
Suppose- that the charge was, that the Respondent is guilty of immorality
and impurity by reason of certain specifications, setting forth, .that on a

single occasion, seven years ago, he had been intoxicated that oo another
occasion, eigttt years aga, he had been intoxicated and that in another
instance, six years ago, he had been intoxicated and setting forth six* or
seven different occasions on which he had been in a state of intood'catioa,
all of them occurring moce than three years ago, but without any allega-
tion .of a habit of intoxication, would the Court, though every one of the
specifications we.re proved precisely as alleged, presume the Respondent
tp be immoral and impure, by reason of the truth of thee specifications ?
Would they not permit the principle of forgiveness. and atonement of these,
errors on his part ?. Would they not say, that although the facts were
.proved, yet that ihey were isqlated facts, not entering iijto the general
compositioa: of his character? Would .they .riot say that they did riot
proVe a gerie'ral -habit of intoxication, and, as a consequence, that he was
not lo be regarded as thereby unfitted for the exercise of the holy office
. 'frprh which' he was sought to be deposed ?

I put thjs as an illustration ; .and it is the stronger, .inasmuch as one of
the. very specifications, in -this Presentment contains an allegation jb'at in
J.B37 he had allowed -himself, to .drink too freely of vinous or spirituous
lujuors.; and 1 therefore adduce.it as an illustration, not as a possible case,
-*-but one growing out of the facts now before the Court ; and I agajn ask,
Whether,.;!! such speqifications had been made as of themselves did not show
an uniform habit unfitting, the Respondent for the performance of the du-
ties of his Episcopal office on a -general charge of immorality; he could*
.be convicted, ? .-. "...' ' . ' . .

I shall : perljaps have occasion, hereafter, to enlarge upon- this argument ;
butjn the /outlet I -lay down this proposition without stopping further to il-'
lustrate it. . But while upon'this subject I "take leave to call the attention of
the Court to another error winch seems to have crept into the management
of this case-oil the,part of the prosecution, and of \yhich it is. proper that tbe :
mind of -the 'Court should, .be 'disabused/ I have already referred to what
I regard as the error of corisidering these specifications : as specific crimes
alleged ag'atyist the Respondent, on account, of which, if he should be .con-
victed,' this Court tvould be' bound to inflict punishment upon him. I now
refer to another, and which, when presented to the mind of the Court, will
'strike them.,' I tiling, with very .-great force. . ',;

It seems to have, been supposed by the learned Cqunsel oil the other side
$at this Court are sitting in the. investigation of these charges; in the char-
acter and capacity of a jury; and that it is. their duty simply. to find the
facts, and; to determine whether the truth or falsity of the specifications has
been ascertained and established.

In the courts pf law, where the different functions of judge, and jury are
distributed among different officers, and ulterior poyvers are asig'ned not
merely to the court, but also to executive; officers, in relation to;a charge
. Jyreferredj.tlus. position would be perfectly sound. In such a court, when
the party .is- charged with. any particular offence, he is called upon to plead
. ' to the imlidment ; the issue upon, which is to v be sub'mitt.ed tp the -jury as to
the truth or falsity of the. fact alleged. The jury have nothing, to do but.
to determine whether the charge bepro\'ed or not. and a verdict of " guilty,"
or "not guilty, ".is the mere traverse of the issue, whether the charge be true
or fale. Thip function of the jury then ceases ; and the function of -the
court begins ;' and the question for them is, whether^ assuming the .facts to
bep>oved as tlie jury have found, them, they constitute a crime for which

' ' ' ' - '. .'."'"

149

the party can legally be punished. If there be no crime, it is then the duty
of the court, notwithstanding the finding of the jury, to arrest the judgment,
and not permit the party, to be sentenced on the conviction. If, on the other
hand, they find that there is a crime in the matters alleged, the function of
the Court then is to pronounce judgment on the guilty party. If the case
should be of such a character as that that judgment should not be carried
into effect, by reason of a long life of virtue after the commission of the
offence, or other facts and circumstances entitling the party to the merciful
consideration of the government, the executive function then commences,
and the act of pardon becomes its province.

Here, then, we have in the civil government three separate functions ; that
of the jury to find the fact; that of the Court to determine whether a crime
be involved in tha.t fact, and whether sentence is to be pronounced ; and
that'of the executive, to decide whether under the fact as proved, and the
sentence as pronounced, judgment should be carried into effect. In eccle-
siastical cases, this. Court unite in their action the functions of all these de-
partments, which in the civil institutions of .the State are distributed as I
have just described. In such cases it is for this Court to decide, first, wheth-
er, if the charges be proved, they constitute a crime, subjecting the accused
to punishment ; in the second place, whether, if they do constitute a crime,
such a length of time .have not intervened, or such a course of virtuous life
apd action have not been shown, .as to render the Respondent not a fit sub-
ject of punishment, but to entitle him to be discharged from the bar of the
Court.' In a word, this. Court is to decide the fact the question of crime
the sentence and whether the sentence is to be carried into effect.:

I therefore suppose that in narrowing, as the opposite Counsel have en-
deavored to do, the inquiry to the mere ground of ascertaining whether the
facts alleged are proved or not, there is an e.ntire misapprehension as to the
nature of the functions of this-Court, and the character of their duty, and
that they must pass upon the, questions I have suggested,. be fore (hey arrive
at the result of their deliberations in this case. And the result of thes
principles is that the Court must, if it decide that the specifications, not the
charge for I wish that distinotion to be borne in mind have been proved
then proceed to determine whether after all, a crime has been committed
.whetherthe existing "immorality and -impurity, "charged in the Presentment,
be in point of fact a necessary consequence of the truth of these facts, and even
then, if the'Court arrive at this conclusion, that they are to take into view
the life and character of the party, the rarity of the acts charged, and the
various motives to be attributed to them, and as a consequence of all, to de-
termine whether he is. a proper object of censure or punishment.

If I am correct in the view. which I have suggested, that this is a charge
of present " immorality," and that it is a question of the present unfitness of
the Bishop for continuance. in his office, let me again suggest to the mind
of the Court, not for the purpose of inducing' them to reconsider the decision
which I .understand them to have made, that no legal bar or limitation, by
reason of mere lapse of time, would be recognised, how far the charge of
present immorality can be sustained by the proof offacts long gone by, and
not of themselves necessarily rendering the .mind of the party accused im-
pure and immoral ? In other words, I may put to the Court the question,
aijd I do so, as' introductory to the discussion of the second proposition of
my argument, upon which I now enter, whether, as a matter of legal con-
clusion or fair inference, without invoking any arbitrary rule of law in it8
support, the charge of present unfitness, arising from " immorality and

150

impurity," can for one moment be sustained by isolated instances, if you
please, of intoxication, occurring several years back ? In doing so, I shall not,
however, present it as matter of mere legal objection to which they are bound
to yield, but, in anofher view, when I come, as { presently shall, to the char-
acter of the evidence by which the charges against the accused must be
sustained.

Ft is conceded on all hands, that there is no charge, no pretence of charge,
ngainst the Respondent, excepting those which appear in the specifications
before the Court. It is, I say, conceded, for although I am aware that there
is in the specifications themselves, and the last one particularly, which was
stricken out by the Court, a clause, imputing general immorality to the Re-
spondent, and though I am fully aware that efforts have been studiously
made to poison the mind of this whole community, and which may prob.ibly
have reached the'ears of this Court, with the belief that other and numer-
ous similar charges can truly be alleged, yet I call upon the learned Coun-
sel to join with me in the admission, that there is no pretence of any charge,
except the four or five cases attempted to have been proved, occurring du-
ring the last seven or eight years against the accused. And the very re-
mark made by the Counsel, at the close of the evidence, that the Court are
bound to exclude from their consideration every matter not proved in evi-
dence, not being even authorized to decide on any information which they
themselves possess, though it might be positive information on matter of fact,
if independent of the evidence offered on the trial, I invoke, in support of
the allegation, that on this record, in every incident and instance, except-
ing the four or five cases which are presented before the Court, the Re-
spondent stands before this community, and before this Court, without taint
and without reproach.

Assuming it then as true, that there is one offence in 1837 another in
1833 two others in 1841 and one in 1842 I ask the attention of the
Court to the principles on which a case involving such facts, occurring at
such remote periods of time, ought to be determined.

The learned Counsel will not deny the proposition, which I do not in-
voke the aid of authority to sustain, because I am not desirous of burden-
ing, unnecessarily, the patience of the Court that it is a principle well
settled, and long practised upon at common law, until reduced to the form
of a statute, that in the prosecution of any demand, or in the case of an
allegation of crime of a stale character, every intendment is to be made
in favor of the innocence of the party. It was, and is, indeed, a principle
of law, that every person is to be held innocent until proved guilty : but
when the charge was an ancient one when by reason of the impossibility
of explanation or of recollecting distinctly the circumstances in which the
party was placed at the time it was fairly presumable, as a moral con-
clusion, that the party might be innocent, and yet not able ^o prove himself
so, the common law applied this principle with greater force, and pre-
sumed the innocence of the party more strongly than in a case of nee nt
origin. It was a ruie, applicable not merely to the enforcement of private
right, but also to the punishment of public wrong, that if a case were
brought before the Court after a great lapse of time, it might be fairly in-
ferred, that although the evidence might be strong against him, the party
might be at a loss to explain, consistently with his innocence, and the law,
therefore, stepped in and afforded, or at least presumed, a sufficient expla-
nation.

This principle existed at common law, and was applied to the peculiar

151

facts and circumstances of each particular case. There was -no precise
period limited within which a debt could be sued for, or a crime prosecuted,
or the assertion of private right, or vindication of public right against pub-
lic wrong, presented. But in each particular case, according to its cir-
cumstances, the presumption was made in favor of the party. The evi-
dence of this principle, and the necessity of establishing some general, and
if you please, arbitrary rule, led to the enactment in England, and in the
States of this Union, of the statute of limitations. This statute was not de-
signed to lay down any new rule or principle. It was not intended for the
first time to assert the principle that a strong presumption existed against
the fairness of an attempt to overhaul' an old transaction, but it was design-
ed to limit the lime when causes of action could be presented for judicial
inquiry. By it an action on a bond was limited to twenty years on a book
account, or mercantile transaction, or contract, evidenced, for example, by a
promissory note, to six years for assault and battery to four years for
slander to two years. So also in criminal cases ; according to the statutes
of Great Britain, and, I believe, of every State in this Union, a party can-
not be called on to answer any criminal accusation, or placed on his
defence on any criminal charge, after the lapse of three years from the time
of the alleged commission of the offence ; the only exception being in the
case of murder, for the obvious reason, that discovery may not take place
till long after the act, from the flight of the guilty party or other causes,
which may render the prosecution impossible within any definite period of
time. But in treason a capital offence in highway robbery in arson
in all the higher, and lower, and intermediate grades of offences, the pro-
visions of the statute have fixed the period of three years as that beyond
which no inquiry shall be made into any criminal accusation against a
party. The guilt is not the less flagrant ; but the law wisely and humane-
ly presumes an actual explanation to be impossible, by reason of the lapse
of time, and throws around him its protecting shield. It does not. grant im-
punity to crime, nor does it regard the punishment of the offenci as less
desirable for all the purposes for which punishment is inflicted ; but it will
not permit a man to be put upon the necessity of explanation or defence of
acts apparently inconsistent with his innocence, after tlio lime to which I
have alluded, from considerations of policy as wise as they an? humane.

I allude to this principle, not, as 1 have said, for the purpose of inducing
the Court to reconsider or change their decision that no legal bar exists, but
for the purpose of inviting their attention to the wisdom of the common law
rule, or limitation, on this subject, in order that its soundness may, in some de-
gree, guide their judgment and discretion in determining upon the character
and degree of proof and explanation required on the part of the Respondent,
accused as he is of transactions which have long since occurred, and which,
at this distance of time, however innocent he may be, it is impossible to ex-
plaiu. Surely, if it be wise and politic that a man who has offended against
the laws of the State by the most flagrant criminality, shall not be called
upon to defend his acts after three years have elapsed from the time of their
commission surely, upon every principle of common sense, and reason,
and humanity, this Court should say that the Respondent ought not to be
called upon to explain acts evanescent in their character, committed five, six,
or seven years, or, as in one of the instances in this case, eight years ago.
And surely, acting on this sound and benign principle of the common law,
you will make the intendment which both the statute and common law have

152

made, and give the party the benefit of the presumption of innocence,. even
although entirely unable to explain his conduct. '

The Counsel on the other side will probably say that I am invoking
principles and statutes which have been frowned upon by the Courts as
bolstering up dishonest defences, and that in a court of conscience like this,
they should not prevail. Lest such an argument, which is. not an uncom-
mon one, should be resorted to against me, 1 invite the attention of the
Court to the language of one of the most eminent jurists in the land
Mr. Justice Story upon the character and effect of these presumptions, and
of the statutes to which I have alluded, as designed lo give them perfect ef-
ficacy. In the case of -Bell vs. Morrison, 1 Peters' U.' S. Reports, 360,
that learned judge observes : " It has often been a matter of regret, in
modern times, that in the construction of the statute of limitations, the deci-
sions bad not proceeded upon -principles better adapted to carry into effect
the r^al objects of the statute ; that, instead of being viewed in an unfavor-
able light as an unjust and discreditable defence, it had received such sup-
port as. would have made it what it was intended to be., emphatically, a stat-
ute of repose. It is a wise a.nd beneficial law, not designed merely to raise
a presumption of payment of a just debt, from lapse of time, but to -afford
security against stale demands," (and for a stronger reason, against stale
prosecutions,] "after the true state of the transaction may have been for-
gotten, or be incapable of explanation, by reason of the death or removal
pf Witnesses. It has a manifest, tendency to produce speedy settlements of
accounts, and lo suppress those prejudices. which may rise up at a distonct
of lime, and baffle every honest effort lo counteract or overcome them."

To this last expression I particularly call the attention .of the Court, as
embodying most strongly the reason of the rule of construction so clearly
enforced, and as most emphatically applicable to the case now before them ;
as 1 will be, perhaps, more apparent when we come to look at some of the mo-
tives which have influenced this prosecution.

Here, then, is a principle of the common law carried out in the statute*
of every state in this Union, taken from the early establishment of the prin-
ciple, both at common law and by statute, in the mother country, regarded
as a statute or principle of repose, for the protection of a party from being
called upon to answer to an unjust demand, or an unjust allegation, after a
period of time when the law steps in with its. wise and benign presumption,
and says he ought not to be called upon to answer, because, presuming him
to be innocent, from the very staleness of the allegation or charge itself,'
and by reason of accidents to which human nature is subject, calculated to
prevent the proof of his innocence; they will regard his defence as estab-
lished by the mere presumption of the law itself.

But to show that this rule is not confined to the courts of common law,
but has been applied by the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, I will now
advert to an authority more analogous to the principles on which this Court
proceeds, and perhaps therefore the more binding on the consciences of the
members of. this venerable tribunal. I refer to the case of Bennett vs. Bo-
naker, decided in the Arches Courtrof Canterbury, in 1838, and .reported in
3 Haggard's Ecclesiastical Reports, 17-56. It was a suit brought under
letters of request from the Chancellor of Worcester, by William Bennett,
described- as a parishioner and church-warden of Churchhorieybourne,
Against the Rev. William Baldwin Bonaker, the Vicar of that parish, for
neglect of duty, and other irregularities, and was comrnenced in 1828. The

substance of the charge was, u for neglect of, and irregularity in the per.
fprmance of divine offices as Vicar of the- said parish, and for indecently
and irreverently digging .the soil orground of the chiirch-yard, and the said
parish, and thereby disturbing the bodies of the f dead buried therein, and for
other irregularities and excesses." These charges were based upon.twen-
ty-seven specifications^ the most of them alleging the acts to ; have been com-
mitted in 1824 four years before the institution of the proceedings. And
in. reference to this fzjct, Sir John XichoU, in his very elaborate judgment.
resulting in a dismissal of the charges, observes (p. 26) '"When the
charges were brought in. it was strongly complained, on the part of the de-
fendant, by his Counsel, that he was called to answer these charges four
years after most of them were alleged tp have happened* The Court felt,
in a considerable degree, the justice of that complaint, but was of opinion
[as this Court has determined in the present case] that it formed no legal bar
to the prosecution. All the Court could do, was,^tr*, to expect clear proof
of the charges, it being a criminal uit ; and, secondly, on the part of the
defendant, to allow of general explanation ; for after such a lapse of .time,
it was hardly possible to produce direct contradiction or distinct explanation
of each specific charge of neglect of duty."

Upon this weight of authority, then, and? upon the reasons .adduced in its
support, I confidently call upon the Court to apply these principles to 4he
present case ; : and although no kgal bar exists to this prosecution or upon
which the evidence brought to support it can be excluded to presume
strongly the innocence of the Respondent, and, as was done in the case just
cited first, to require of the prosecution clear proof of; the gharges; and,
secondly, on the part of the Respondent, to allow a general explanation ; in-
asmuch as after such a lapse of time, it is hardly possible to produce direct
contradiction -or distinct explanation of each of the specifications embraced
in this presentment. And I call upon the Court to adopt, as the first propo-
sition in relation to Ihe .rule of evidence on this subject, that every inference,
as against these charges, by reason of their antiquity, is to be drawn by the
Court that not merely, the presumption of the common law in favor of the .
innocence of the accused party should be applied, but that in a case of stale
charges like the present, that presumption should be more strongly ap-
. plied ; that the prosecution should be required to produce proof of 1 the clear-
est character ; and that the Court should receive, on the part of the defend-
ant, the most general explanation, and give him the fullest benefit of the in-
ference of his. innocence on account of the utter impossibility, after/so great
a lapse of time, of explaining facts distinctly and clearly, HO .matter how
innocent he may be of the accusations which they embrace.

Another proposition' upon the rules of evidence, to which I desire the at-
tention of the Court, is one which, it strikes me, it is in this case, pecu-
liarly incumbent on them to admit, and carry with them fn their examina-
tion of these specifications ; "and as bearing, on the proof brought forward
to sustain them.

Here are some four or five different allegations; some pf them, it wil!
be admitted, proved very lightly, wijile others, it "will be contended, have
been very strongly established. The learned Counsel qq the other side, will
probably insist that the^case which is thoroughly-' proved, gives strength to
that not so fully proved ; and that the effect pf the whole, is to establish a
series of concurrent acts, all demonstrative" of the genefal charge alleged.
The Court will at once perceive tie fallacy of aach an argument. Nothing, ft

154

seems to me, can be clearer than that that which is partly proved can borrow
no strength, as far as the inference of its proof is concerned, from an-
other fact partly or even \vholly proved ; and -that each circumstance of
the case, constituting one of the minor facts, tending to the establishment
of the general charge, must be proved with as great particularity and con-
olusiveness as the general: charge itself ; and the argument cannot be sound
which assumes, as it must necessarily do, that because the charge in the
case of Mrs. Beare, for instance, is proved, therefore also that in' the case, re-
ferred to by Mr. Bolles is proved. The true and correct rule on the subject
is, that each specific charge must be taken up, and the inquiry be made,
independently of any others, is it proved ? When each is proved as dis-
tinctly and as clearly as if it were the only issue, then, and then only, the
Court are at liberty to put them together, in order to ascertain what is the
character and extent of the general charge.

The Court will permit me on this point to refer to an elementary work
on Evidence, of unquestioned authority, (Mr. Starkie,) in which it is laid
down, (vol. 1, p. 571, 7th American edition,) "that the circumstances
from which the conclusion is drawn, should be fully established. If the
basis be unsound, the superstructure cannot be secure. The party upon
whom the burden of proof rests, is bound to prove every single circum-
stance which is essential to the conclusion, in the same manner, and to the
same extent, as if the whole issue had rested upon the proof of each in-
dividual and essential circumstance."

Relying upon the clearness and force with which the proposition itself,
and the reasons in its support are thus stated, I commend it with confidence
to the favorable consideration of the Court.

Another proposition for which 1 shall contend, and the discussion of
which [approach with a great degree of diffidence, as it involves the ex-
amination of matters with which I ain not professionally very familiar,
and it is the last and most controlling one in determining the weight of the
testimony, relates to the character of the evidence, which this Court, sitting
as a spiritual tribunal, is bound to require at the hands of those who pre-
sent these charges against the character and conduct of the Respondent.
On this point I shall not make' the vain endeavor of enlightening the
members of this Court by any argument of my own, (for certainly it would
be a most presumptuous attempt on my part,) on a subject with which they
are necessarily, by reason of their sac red office, so thoroughly conversant.
I shall, therefore, in justice to myself, and in deference to the Court, con-
tent myself with .a reference to such evidence of the rule to which I jvre
about to refer, as has fallen within my reach.

And first, I refer to the Jewish law, as- found in the Old Testament,
xvhich appears to be the original foundation of all the rules on the subject,
Thus, in Deut'. xvii. 6, it is said : "At the mouth of two witnesses, oMbreer
witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death," be put to death ; but at the?
mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." So in Numbers, x.x.xv.
30 : " Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shatt .be put K> death by the
mouth of witnesses ; but one witness shall not testify against any person
to cause him to die." And again, in Deut. xix. 15: "One witness sshall
not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any s:rc that
he sinnetli ; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three: wit-
nesses, shall the matter be established."

These are all the references which I shall make relative to- the rule, a

155

it existed under the old dispensation ; and submitting them without com-
ment, I pass to the more important consideration of the rule, as it is derived
from divine authority, under the dispensation of our Saviour as it was
recognised and regarded by the primitive Church and as it has descended
to us from the earliest period of the history of the Church to the present
time.

And first, I invite the attention of the Court to the words of our Saviour,
as they will be found in Matt, xviii. 16. " But if he will not hear thee.
then take with theeone or two more ; that in the mouth of two or three wit-
nesses every word may be established." And again, in John. viii. 17, " It is
also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true/' These
passages show, that the rule under the old dispensation already cited, waa
recognised and regarded, as I reverentially submit, by our Saviour as a sub-
sisting and binding regulation. But as a more direct authority on the sub-
ject, emanating from one of the Apostles, in the early formation of the Chris-
tian Church, and carrying with it the implied, if not the express sanction of
his Divine Master, I refer to the first epistle of Paul to Timothy, the 5th
chapter, 19tb verse, wherein it is written, "Against an elder, receive not
an accusation but before two or three witnesses."

n this passage, the slight opportunity which I have been able to em-
brace since the closing of the testimony, has placed within my reach a num-
ber of expositions, to which I shall respectfully invite the consideration of
the Court. Before proceeding to do so, however, I will refer to the fact that
in the Apostolical canons, containing the discipline of the primitive Church,
and by some ancients as well as moderns believed to have been framed, or
at least to have been the very rules observed by the Apostles themselves, i*
to be found this very striking provision : " Admit not an heretic to give in
evidence against a bishop, nor any one single witness, though he be a com-
municant : for the Scripture sailh, ' At the mouth of two or three witnesses
shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at tha mouth of one
witness he shall not be put to death.' " It is the 67th canon in the edition to
which I refer.

Bishop DOAJSE. It is the 75th of this collection.

Mr. GRAHAM. I now return to the passage I have cited from Paul's
Epistle to Timothy, and I would here remark that the words of the original
have not, in the received translation, been correctly, or at least literally ren-
dered. The words which are translated ' unless before" are in the original
; JMJ eft, the literal translation of which is, " without unless upon," [or
" by,"] being an evident pleonasm, which the translator has endeavored to ob-
viate in the accepted version, by the substhution of words conveying, as b
supposed, the meaning, though not the literal sense of the original. I have
also the authority of Dr. Macbnigkt, in his translation, for this criticism,
ans'ation is, " Against an elder receive not an accusation unless by
two witnesses," or as he renders it more literally, " Against an elder, rohe-
tkerhc be a bishop, a president, or a deacon, receive not an accusation, unless
H is offered to be proved by two or three credible witnesses.*' And in his
note to his literal translation, " unless by two or three witnesses," he observes :
" This, I think, is the proper translation of the clause. For I see no reason
why an accusation against an elder should not be received, unless in At
presence of witnesses. But I see a good reason for not receiving such an
accusation, unless it is offered to be proved by a sufficient number of credi-
ble witnesses. Tbis method of proceeding puts a stop to groundless accu-

156

sations of the ministers of religion." (Macknight on the Epistles, vol. 4, pp.
248, 249, 1st Am. Ed.) So also in Rosenmiiller's commentary on the same
passage, it is said : " By the term ' tfpso'/SuTSpou' or ' elder,' as here used,
some understand one who is of advanced age; others understand elder by
rank, which is more in accordance with the preceding words. By the law
of Moses, no one could be condemned of a crime unless the accusation was
proved .by two witnesses. But a common man (vir plebeius) could be taken,
or an inquisition against him could be commenced at the word of one wit-
ness ; but not so against a Senator, to whom a presbyter (or elder) was re-
garded as equal. The reason is simple. Those who correct the crimes of
others are always accustomed to suffer the hatred of many, and, the judg-
ment of the whole people in favor of the elder when he is elected, easily
outweighs one witness." (Rosenmulleri Schol. in Nov. Test. vol. 5, p. 56,
Nuremberg Ed. of 1808.)

To the same effect, also, it is said in Pole's Synopsis of the Critics and
other interpreters of the Scriptures, " Against an elder (presbyterum) either
1, by age, or rather 2, by rank or dignity, as the context teaches, receive
not an accusation (that is, an ecclesiastical censure) unless, &c. There is
here a pleonasm or double negation, sxrog M sift, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 5, and
xv. 2. He appears here to instruct the president, (prassidem,) who is called
the bishop, #irfxoiro, for it was the duty of such to direct or supervise the
actions of the elder. Timothy was then a bishop in the Ephesian presby.
tery. Query ? What need was there of this new precept concerning elders,
when in every accusation it had a place? Deut. xvii. 6. Hence some have
supposed that it ought to be expunged as superfluous. But the accusation is
one thing, the judgment upon the accused, of the judge acquitting or con-
demning him, another. By the law of Moses, no one could be condemned
of a crime unless upon an accusation proved by two witnesses. But by the
testimony of one witness, who was not infamous, a common man (vir ple-
beius) could be taken, or an inquisition could be commenced against him ;
but not so against a Senator, to whom an elder was regarded as equal. In
the trials (judiciis) of the Jews there were three parts or stages: 1. The
admission of the cause or suit, when the Judge receives the accusation. 2.
The proof of the cause, by the oath of the accuser. (Heb. vi. 16.) 3.
The examination of the cause, by the arguments adduced on both sides.
Observe, it is not said condemn not, but receive not an accusation ; repel those
who bring the charge. And why not ? Ans. 1. On account of the weight
of the party, and the dignity of his office, he is not therefore to be spoken
against without strong reason, for his infamy is connected with the public
scandal of the whale Church ; wherefore, it is for the interest of the whole
Church that his character be not easily injured. 2. Because the opinion in
his favor, of the whole people, when he is elected, easily outweighs one
witness.

Mr. KETCHUM. The whole people ?

Mr. GRAHAM. Not, I suppose, in the democratic sense, in which that term
would now be understood.

Bishop HOPKINS.' In the primitive church it was always done in the most
democratic manner.

Mr. GRAHAM proceeded with his quotation.

" 3. Because depraved persons are always ready to exaggerate against
their prelates and pastors, their faults. For those who correct the crimea
of others are wont to incur the hatred of many, which is the malignity of

157

th-> Immaa mind." (Pile's Synopsis; vol. 4, p. 1080, Lend. edit, of
1676.)

A- further showing {he sense 'in which this passage 'has ^>pen under-
stood, I beg leave also to refer to the observations of a learned com-
mentator, of another. branch of; the Christian church. I' allude to Henry :
-!tion of the Old and New Testament, .in which, In commenting on
this passage, are to be found tbe following observations : ".Concerning
the accusation of ministers, (v. 19.) ' Against an elder receive not .an
accusation bift before two or three witnesses*' Here is. the- scripture method
of proceeding against an elder when accused of any crime. Observe.
1st. There must be an accusation; it must not be> a flying, uncertain
report; but an accusation, containing a certain charge, must be drawn
up. Further, He is not to be proceeded aga'inst by way of inquiry; this
is according to the modern practice of the Inquisition, which draws up arti-
cles for men to purge themselves of such crimes, or else to accuse them-
selves ; but, according to the advice of St. Paul, there must be an accusa-
tion brought against an elder. 2d. This accusation . is not to be received
unless supported by two or three credible "witnesses. And the accusation
must be received before them ; that is, the accused must have the accusers
face to face, because the reputation of a minister, is, in a particular manner,
a tender thing; and therefore, before anything be done in the least to
blemish that reputation, great care must, be' taken that the thing alleged
against him be well proved, that he be not reproached upon an uncertain
surmise." (Henry's Bible,' vol. 6, on 1st Tim. y. 19.)

In addition to these authorities, it will be found, that 'in the Constitution of
the Presbyterian Church, in this country, this rule has been expressly adopted.
It is provided in the Chapters respecting the forms of process in the judica-
tories of that Church, that no complaint, or information, on the subject of
personal and private injuries, shall be admitted, unless those means of recon-
ciliation, and of privately reclaiming the offender, have been used, which
are required by Christ.. (Maith. xviii. 15, 16.) And that in all cases, the
ecclesiastical authorities, in receiving accusations, in conducting processes,
or inflicting censures, .ought; to avoid, as far as possible, the divulging of
offences to the scandal of the 1 Church, because the unnecessary spreading
of scandal hardens and enrages the guilty, grieves the godly, and dishonors
religion. And again, that the judicatory, in many cases, may find it more
for edification to send some members to converse in a private manner with
the accused person, and if he confess guilt, to endeavor to bring him to
repentance, "than fo proceed immediately to citation. And, especially, in
respect to process against a Bishop or minister, they have provided, that a?
it is the duty of all Christians to be very cautious in taking up an ill report
of any man, it is especially so of a minister of the gospel. If, therefore,
any man know a minister guilty of a private censurable fault, he should
warn him in private ; .but if he persist in it, or it become public, he should
apply- to some other Bishop of the presbytery for his advice in the matter.
And following up the spirit of these injunctiohs, based as they are upon the
precepts and example of our Saviour himself, and 'therefore the most fitting
guide of the discipline of his Church, they have solemnly declared, in the
7th article of the first of the chapters to which I have referred, that " no
crime shall be considered as established by a single witness." (Const.
Presh. Church, pp. 4-2*. 42a. 433-. Philad. Ed: of 1806.)

This rule, then, deriving its authority, as it unquestionably does, from .

J58

the. old dispensation, .from the fact that it was referred to by cur Saviour
in at least two instances, as a subsisting regulation from its enforcement
by one of'his earliest and chosen followers and Apostles from its recog-
nition in (he canons of the Primitive Church, and from the additional fact
that it has been traced down through the .regulations of all the Christian
denominations, and approved by the most learned commentators of every
st;ct in the Christian Church, would of itself, I contend, in this Court, ad-
ministering judgment according to the obligations imposed upon it by the
discipline of that Church, be of unanswerable force and authority. It will
be found, however, that it has been regarded in the Ecclesiastical Courts,
in England, as a very practical rule, and as not necessarily going back \fi
the source to which I have referred, but as in itself a wise and proper
regulation. And accordingly, the Court will find, in the Ecclesiastical
Law, it is laid down, as a distinct rule of evidence.- I cite, on this head,
from Bum's Ecclesiastical Law, (a work regarded by the ecclesiastical
courts in England as of the highest authority,) under the title Evidence, thf
following passage: "A single witness is not sufficient in the civil lav, :
and the spiritual court will not allow of one witness only, but there must
be two at the least ; and if the point is merely spiritual, the tempora 1
courts will not grant a prohibition." And in a note to this passage, it is
said: "The canonists have borrowed this, as they have most of their
rules of evidence, from the civil law, which does not permit a single wit-
ness to be heard. Unius testis responsio non audialur, eliamsi pr&clarcF
curia honore prcefulgeat. Cod. 4, 20, 9. Dig. 22, 5, 12. A cause therefore
which rested on the testimony of a single witness, uncorroborated by any other
evidence, was to be dismissed without tendering the supplctory oath. Noodt
ad Dig. 22, 5." To the same effect, also, I refer to Gibson's Codex, foil.

These authorities, of which I can only say that regarding them, as
I do, of the very highest ecclesiastical authority, binding upon the con-
science of an ecclesiastical court, and designed by our Saviour, and
those who have carried out his precepts, to be the guide and rule of
conduct of spiritual judicatories, I submit to the Court, as entirely conclu-
sive on this subject. But I do not stop here. There are other reason*
showing the propriety of the rule ; for it is not necessary that it should b<
regarded though I think it is the bounden duty of the Court so to regard
it as a mere abstract and imperative rule, aside from the reasons on wlm-h
it rests. Even in the civil courts there are two instances perfectly fami-
liar to every lawyer, and analogous in principle to the case before the
Court, in which the testimony of two witnesses is- necessary ; and without
which the party cannot be convicted, no matter how respectable, honora-
ble, or above reproach, the character of the single witness may be. First.
I refer to the law of evidence, in the case of treason. It is a common law
principle, enforced in England by statutory regulation, and in this country
by constitutional provision, that no man shall be convicted of that crim
unless on the testimony of two witnesses. What is the reason of the rule ?
As given in all the elementary writers on the subject, and by most learned
judges who have enforced its application, it is this : that the fidelity of a
man to his allegiance shall be presumed, and he shall have the benefit as
against every single witness, of his own assertion and declaration in favor
of his allegiance. Now let me apply the rule and its reason to this case.
What is the charge against the Respondent ? It is that in violation of hi.*
consecration vow in breach of his high trust in treason therefore to that

159

religion, which he was bound to preach and practise, and 'to his solemn
oath, he has committed the acts alleged against him. These are the alle-
gations, and if true, they are, 'the re fore, within every analogy, so many
acts of treason to his vow and obligation. Now if in a court of law, the
veriest vagrant cannot be convicted of treason t3 the state, en the cath of
' the most respectable citizen, can it be possible that this Court of a Chris-
. tian Church -will apply a more lax rule in determining upon the guilt c-f &
Bishop, upon a charge of treason to the Church and to his God, than that
which, in the civil courts, protects the life and liberty of a party under
impeachment for the crime of treason against his government? .The
analogy appears to me to be perfect, and so satisfied am I of its applica-
bility in the present case, that I would have no hesitation in resting this
defence, even were there no other 'analogy, on this single principle which
the common law, with all its rigor and. severity, has yet sanctioned and-
adopted.

But there is, if possible, a still stronger analogy. I refer to the case of
perjury. It is known to every tyro- in the law, that a party cannot be
indicted, or accused, or convicted of perjury, unless -on .the evidence of two
witnesses ; ' and no matter how degraded the accused- party may be no
matter how obviously false the oath which he has taken yet if the fact
of its untruth be supported by only one witness, the party cannot even be
put upon his defence. The moral ascertainment of the fact of his guilt
may be perfectly clear and certain ; but yet the law gives the most de-
graded outcast the benefit of his own oath as against that of any one wit-
ness against him, and he cannot be convicted, unless upon the preponder-
ating evidence of another witness establishing the same fact. Is there, let
me ask, no analogy between that case and the present?- Is not perjury
in its worst sense imputed to the respondent ? What is the. language of
these specifications? W'hy, that in violation of his consecration . vow,
the most solemn oath that can be taken by man in disregard of the awful
responsibility which it imposes in contempt of his holy office, perjuring
himsolf before his God, he has coinrnitfed the offences charged upon him!
in the name of all that is reasonable and just in the name not of hu-
manity, but of right and justice, I ask whether the accused in such a case
ought riot to be allowed the benefit of his own oath, against which the con-
ouiTont testimony of two witnesses ought to be required ? Surely, even
if there be no soundness' in the reasons given by the learned commentators
whom I have cited for the rule, as they lay it down, based upon the respect
for the office, and the presumption that malicious and evil-disposed persons
may fabricate charges against a party holding 'the highest office in the
Church, it can hardly be possible, where .the crime of perjury is involved
in the question of his guilt, that that wise and just principle of the law
which i.s extended for the protection of the most degraded outcast, on a
charge of perjury, will be refused to a. Bishop of the Church, 'when charged
with the enhanced and aggravated guilt of a violation of his consecration
vow. It seems to me, and I respectfully, sutumit it as unanswerable, that
.in (he first place, the authority of the Christian Church demands of -you
.to give weight to, and to be bound by the rulb to which I have referred ;
and that, in the second place, the- reason of the common law,- with all its
stringency and severity against crime presents, in the cases to which I
have referred, a complete and conclusive analogy. And I therefore, in
conclusion of this branch of my argument, submit with'.confidenco to the

. 160

' Court, that qothing can? bo ckatfeiy both upon Authority and .upon jxrinci-
|)!o, than that the testimony of at-le#st two witnesses should concur 'to es-
tablish the.fa^t of guilt kga^rist the Respondent ; and that it should 'riot con-
cur, as the learned counsel will say it may, by the establishment, of differ-

*.O if iV VV^pAOlALUL^Vl lil\-? Wl*l Y) lk7OU^. L/VIWA,^ L11O V/V^UAb* A L If \JIA1VJ.' W l^^J. H. ^ 11 J

i: absurd tojsay that, you have two witnesses to. the guilt of "the party,, when"

. ; r 'in reality feach of the distinct: specifications which must be distinctly and

; . . 'iadependendy established, is proved . by . the oath of but a single .witness.

It would be 3 oing violence" both .to reason and language to say that-such- a

. -fallacy i 'within', either, the 'letter or spirit of the rule, that 'no charge shall

; .be made. against a party, unless! proved 'by the testimony- of. at' least two

roncurriug 'witnesses. :

* t ; '|R^gretting that I haye so loijg' trespassed upon the attention of the Court,

fa 'dwelling, upon' these points, which I regard as the general propositions

; .rtjpning through the whole of. this case, and which must go.vern the Court

1 :'"'' "fn 'their deliberations, I shall now proceed, with as much brevity as possible.

under- the third artd only remaining point of the analysis originaljy presented

in the outset of my remarks, to : call your attention to the proofs vy which

. th'esc charges apd speciTicatioris are' sought to be sustained., 'In doing so, I

. . ' shall consider together- the first 'two specifications, because they have refer-

V ehce to the same. occurrehce-^the. case of Mrs. Butler. '
f '. '.. The first specification charges,- that " the said Benjamin T. Ooderdonk, eVi

or.ibout -tire first day_of June, 1837. being then Bishop of the said Church
JU' the Diocese of New' York, was engaged in a tour of official duty, and

*-.': .was proceeding to the town of Syracuse, in Onond-aga county, in said Dio-

- cese of 'New York, for "the. 'pilrpase, among other martters, of ordaining the
Rev. Clemetrt M'. Butler to the Priesthood ; that on his way to ancl near the

.; t tbwri-'of Syracuse, the said Clement M. Butler, together with h'is wife, mat
him in a carriage, for the purpose of conducting him, the said Benjam.in T.
i Onderdpnk, to tlie said town ; that .thq said Behja.mii} T. Onderdpnlv entered

. . the said carriage ahd -took his s6at on the back seat thereof by the side of
the said lady ; that they two alone occupied that seat; the said Clement M.
Butler aVid a 'person driving, occupying the' front seat, with their backs-
1 . ' tuhied towards the back seat,j ihat thereupon, afterwards, the said Benja-
' rnih T.'Opderdonk irnpur'ely and nnchastely put his arm around the bbdy of.
said lady, and in an impure and unbecoming manner pressed the .said lady
. ' towards him; that the said lady endeavored to repress the said familiarities,
and to bring the said Benjamin. T. Ond.erdonk to a just sense of his duty m
'', that behalf; that die night carae on before the said parties reached the e-nd
. y { of their'jcrurney, and thaf after It became dark, the said Benjamin T. On-
. '.derdonk renewed .his-said'improper conduct, and. impurely and unchastely
. . did pass his -hand xlown and along the person and the'legs of the said lady.
.- ' - ! afiid did 6ther\vise .behave' towards' her. in so, rude and indece'nt a manner
. ;* '; that the said wife of jhe said- Clement M. Butler was obliged -to claim .tin?
. ,' ' protection of .her husband; and' thereupon left her -seat in the said, carrjage.
,' , :' . .; and rode upon the front seat thereof for- the rest of the journby, in .doing,'

; which she was. obliged to sit upon her husband's lap ; and that owing to

. ' '.' .and.'in'boftsequence of the said; conduct 'of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk,

.' . : the saicji lady bedame serioosly :sick. and her health was so much affected

' ' as ! permanently to. injure her jponstitiition. All which said actings on the

part of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, the said Bishops presenting do
charge as being in violation of his duty as 'a Bishop, and contrary to his
consecration vow in that behalf, and to the great scandal of the Church of
Christ."

The second specification charges, ' : that the said 'Benjamin T. Onder-
donk, Bishop, aforesaid, at the said time and place mentioned in the last
specification, was under the influence of and improperly excited by vinous
or spirituous liquors, drunk by him, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk,
contrary to his duty as Bishop and his consecration vow in that behalf
made, and to the scandal and injury of the said Church."

Before considering the teslimonyin support of these two specifications
which I shall do with very great brevity,, the- more especia-lly as I had not
the advantage of being present in Court and hearing the testimony of the
witnesses in their support I must be permitted to call the attention of the
Court to a fact applicable to all the specifications except one, and I cer-
tainly do it without intending to impute to the Right Rev. Presenters any
design or desire to transcend their duty.; at the same time I cannot forbear
adverting to the fact that the Right Rev. Respondent has been placed upon
trial, upon a Presentment founded on charges, only one of which was at-
tempted to be sustained by the oath of any party directly cognizant of an
alleged offence at the time the Presentment was made.

Bishop GADSDEN. I wish the Counsel to repeat the last observation.

Mr. GRAHAM. This Presentment, I mean to say, was made upon mere
rumor, mere hearsay evidence, in regard to every charge embraced in it.
except one. It is so in the case of Mrs. Butler ; in the case referred to but
not proved by Mr. Bolles ; in the case of Mrs. Beare ; and in the case of Miss
Helen Rudderow. In the case of Miss Jane Rudderow alone, was the affi-
davit of the party alleged to have been insulted, before the Presenters. I
advert to this matter with becoming delicacy, I trust, but at the same time
I cannot help adverting to it as revolting to my sense, at least, of what is due
to the character and rights of every citizen, and. as a circumstance'which, if
it had occurred in a civil tribunal, would- have been frowned upon most in-
dignantly by the Court. Here then is a party charged with high crimes
and misdemeanors made the gazing-stock of the whole public upon affi-
davits and statements not one of which could be received in a court of law,
or even in this Court, where the rules of evidence are not so stringent, in
support of the charge ; and yet here he is placed upon his trial upon
eight or nine charges involving, as is supposed, the most heinous guilt,
when but one of them was proved by any thing like legal testimony, before
the presenting body.

What would be thought of a grand jury (to whose duties- those of the
Presenters in this case are clearly analogous) who should indict a man for
any crime, no matter what, upon hearsay merely, without the testimony of
a single witness cognizant of the facts? These affidavits may have been,
untrue when made, and I Will show this Court that the statements referred
to in many of them were so ; and yet, by the course adopted, the Re-
spondent has been subjected to the harassing process of this trial
scarcely on the pretence of proof in the hands of the Presenters, w.hen the
charges were preferred. I advert to this as a fact which ought to in-
duce the Court to scrutinize very closely the testimony upon which it is
now sought to establish these charges. And, as I have already said, I
do so without the slightest intention of doing what I regret to say one of

the Rt. Rev. Presenters permitted himself to do, with respect to the Coun-
sel for the Respondent arraigning the motives of those who have made
this Presentment.

But to return to the specifications themselves. How is this charge on
the part of Mrs. Butler sustained? Carrying out the general principles
and rules already laid down, and which I advanced as preliminary to my
examination of the evidence, in order to obviate the necessity of repeating
them it is, at the most, sustained only by a single witness. That will not,
I suppose, be controverted. But let us see how far it is sustained even by
that witness. If I understand the English language., it is not only not sup-
ported, but expressly contradicted, and therefore in no sense is it sustained
even by this single witness.: What is the. story which she tells ? In the
first place, furnishing a key in the outset of her testimony for- some charity
towards the accused, she states that from her -infancy up to girlhood and
womanhood, she had been intimately acquainted with the accused, and that
he was in the habit of extending to her marks of affection and paternal
caresses, which, whatever the Courfmay. think with regard to their discre-
tion, certainly in themselves involved nothing criminal, and cannot be so
construed as to justify the charge of immorality and impurity.

She next states that she perceived, shortly after the commencement of
the ride in question, that the Bishop had been drinking, and then goes on to
say : " When I first noticed that his breath was tainted by something he
had been drinking, I was neither surprised nor pained by it; because I was
aware that he habitually used wine and ardent spirits, and was not aware
to what extent. After he had finished reading his letters, I found, with
some alarm, that he became unusually talkative, and that he spoke so' in-
distinctly that I could not always understand him. He. first put his arm
around my waist, and drew me towards him ; this, he repeated once, per-
haps twice. He had often done this when I was unmarried; and I had
permitted jt, although always disagreeable to me, because I 'believed him
incapable of wrong. At this time,, however, I. removed his hand each time,
because I saw he was not himself. I Was . excessively fearful lest our
driver should discover it, -as he was'a man .who had but recently become
interested in Church affairs, and for whose spiritual interest my husband
was deeply solicitous ; and also because, during our ride to Ithaca, he had
stronsly spoken of the inconsistencies of professing Christians, as having been
a stumbling-block 'in his way to Heaven. The Bishop 'persisted in putting
his arm about me, and raised his hand so as to press my bosom. I then
rose, and withdrew his arm from behind me, and laid* the hand upon his
knee, and said to- him in a raised tone of voice hoping to bring him to
himself, and wishing <o attract Mr. Butler's attention that a Bishop's
hands were sacred in my eyes, and that his were, particularly so, because
they had been laid upon the heads of many I loved, in confirmation, and
were about to be laid on my husband's head in ordination. He made but
little answer, but for some little time let me alone. During this time, I
thought of the awful disgrace that would come upon him and his family,
and upon the Church, if his state and conduct that night was known. I
had a lingering hope that he had been betrayed into taking more than was
habitual to him, and that in this way he had been betrayed into -intoxica-
tion ; and I hoped that his insult to me was unintentional. I therefore de-
cided upon keeping silence upon the subject, and upon preventing, so far as
in me lay, its ever becoming known. While sitting in thought, I found he

again moving.' I waited tq' see whether' he might not be merely
steady ing' himself in his seat, as the roads^were rough, when he suddenly
arid violently again .brought, his hand upon my bosom, pressed and clasped
it.. In 'some horror, Tstruck the. hand with all my force, and he withdrew
it, But' immediately grasped*- my leg in th'e most indelicate' manner. 'I
sprang forward t'o.my husband, and told hjrifi I could no longer sit with the ^
Bishop-* I must sit with him. I was greatly distressed, and he/Mr. Butler,
held me/ on. 'his kn.ee for some time-; arid after that', I 1 rode sometimes .on -Jus
knee, and sometimes on a carpet- bag at his feet. We slept twice during
the night, resting at Homer an hour or two, so- nearly, as I can recollect.
During, aft our. time of stay .at those 'places, mywhole efforts were needed
by my husb'and,'tq soothe him the being violently incensed, and .declaring
'that Bishop Onderdonk should not ordain him. We stopped that morning .
about day-break, at a place about ten miles distant From Syracuse, perhaps
fifteen. Here we again rested, and breakfasted. During the .ride -from
% Homer- to.' this latter place, the Bishop s.lept heavily. When we left the
'last; stopping-place, I .persuaded Mr. Butler to sh 'back with the Bishop, in
order to avoid the remark which would be occasioned by his sitling alone.
No .conversation passed between the -Bishop and myself after I changed my
seat ; nor have I since seen him, except at Convention, until now."

These, 'then, ace the, 'circumstances as detailed by Mrs. Butler. . Now,
.suppose that evfery word were true, what is the gravamen of the charge
agains,t the- Bish6p ? I apprehend .it is. the intoxication. It is, indeed,
. made the subject of a specific. charge. ' I respectfully submit, then, that
this is. the gravamen of the charge- put. forth by Mr. and Mrs. 'Butler; be-
cause, . if he were ' in the state' described by the latter, then the moral
motive could' not have attached independently of the act of intoxication; .
and. on. this subject, without -dwelling' upon it, for I do not medh to make it
a prominent ground of -defence, 'I offer the .very. sound rule of law as to
liow.far intoxication may. be taken as explaining the motive of, a supposed
crime. \ I am'awiare that. the general' principle jn courts df law, is, that
intoxication aggravates , the crime, because- the party, is then guilty in a
double se'rise,- having first made'himself an irrational being, and then com-
mitted the offence. But, when the* crime depends on motive, or intent, the
law admits the distinction that'.then the intoxication may be regarded upon
the question of motive, 'and the crime itself, so far as intent is concerned,
may -be held' not to have been committed. ,1 refer on this subject to
1 Rus&ell on Crimes', p. &, where' it is said, that '.' although voluntary
drunkenness cannot excuse from the- commission .of a crime, yet when, as
upon a- .charge of .'murder, the material question' is, whether an act was
premeditated', .of done only with sudden heat and impulse, the fact of the
party being' intoxicated has been holden'to -be a circumstance proper to be
taken into consideration." There/ as here, the question is 'one simply of
.intent. If is that.whrch constitutes, the crime ; and the circumstance of
intoxication is, therefore, proper to be taken irito" consideration, for the pb-
v-ious- reason that it goes' to show 'that the act was induced by a state of
feeling .which; of itself -deprives it of deliberate intent, and renders the al-
, legation of immo.rality and impurity on the part^of the- Respondent entirely
untenable. I put it to the Caurt, then, as a consideration entitled to great
weight, npt as controverting the general principle respecting the immorality
of intoxication, bu't as showing, that the intent. and motive are explained 1
away Jb'y the attendant circumstances.

There is on6 other feature about .the. testimony of 'Mrs. Butler which
will probably strike the Court more forcibly than myself, as i did not
hear h'er give her evidence, and which I also submit. Here is' a lady
coming forward and testifying,, seven or eight years dfter they occurred, to
these circumstances, and" testifying to' them too with' a degree of precision
and accuracy only reconcilable with the inference which 'I suggest, -with-
out imputing- any improper design to her that they have been exceedingly
well digested. I ask whether it .is within the range of possibility or -prpb-
ability, that a witness who, according to her own account, has not even
conversed with her own husband on the subject since the occurrence took
place, seven or eight years ago, could' yet, with entire adherence to 'truth,
come forward now with a perfect narratioa of all that took place, even to
the minutest 'details. ? . It is here proper to bear in_mind that clear proof
not such as this witness has given, a precise narrative but proof which
has probability on the .face of it proof surrounded by a little forgetful-
ness, and deriving from that very fact additional confirmation that proof
of this character should 'be insisted on in a case like the present. Is it
not, I repeat, most extraordinary, in connection with the remark just of-
fered, that -this witness, according to her own story, has not had' the ad-
vantage of refreshing her memory by conversation with her husband ;
and yet her evidence is given with a precision of style as remarkable as
if her story had been wrkten and carefully committed to .memory,? To
my mind, at least, it is not reconcilable with probability- 1 with the accu-
racy of the story with its actual and real .truth, (and here again I disclaim
any. purpose of imputing a corrupt motive to the witness,) that testimony
of. this character should be implicitly or safely relied upon as free from
that spirit of exaggeration, which, without imputing falsehood^ should yet
detract greatly from its credibility. Arid, in connection with this idea,
ihere is a fact in the story of Mrs. Butler, which struck my mind as hav-
hvg a most controlling influence on the interpretation of her evidence. On
tht 1 ? occasion when the first aggression was made-; which. was, as she de-
scribes it, as gross as any thing -could be she represents herself as seated
beside a man in a state of intoxication, and who had just placed "his arm
under and around her, and pressed her b&som. She supposed this act to
be unintentional, and explained it on the ground that it was an innocent
freedom, such as he had been in- -the habit of taking occasionally from her
infancy. Now, if 'she is so charitable in relation to the first aggression,
the apology being just as applicable to the second, though not to the same
extent, why may she not be. mistaken in the construction how 'placed Upon
the Second 'incident- to which she refers ? XVhy'not, fd.r some motive or
cause impossible for us to divine, and which, after the lapse of years', it is
impossible to explain, may she not have .been induced to . exaggerate the
subsequent portion of her story ,. and from the state of her alarm and ner-
vousness, produced by the condition in which she says she found the Bish-.
op, why may she not have been led mistakenly to suppose that the latter
circumstance proceeded from some bad' motive^ indicating. an immoral or-
impure state of mind on the part of the Bishop ? Is.it pot perfectly, rea-
sonable is it not fairiy reconcilable with every just presumption of fact,
that such was the case ? B*ut, again, it is a most .remarkable fact ? ' (and I
make this observation in relation 'not only to. this witness, but to every,
other of the witnesses testifying to these acts of aggression,) that an indig-'
nity of so gross a character could have, been committed upon her, and that

.human nature did not at the moment break over every barrier, and resent
the affront. Can" it 'be possible that men possessing the ordinary feelings
and-emotions.of men, "can believe that the frivolous excuse offered in this
tasc that is, the fear of jeopardizing the- spiritual welfare of the driver,

.'Peek would. have been sufficient to account for her tame submission to
such gross in-sults ? Can it be possible that any rational, thinking man,
can regard with favor an excuse like that, when the impulse of a' wronged
and offended 'woman must have overcome every restraint, and when tlie
man guilty of committing such an indignity on her person mus.t have been
punished on the spot to. the full extent of female vengeance? It seems to
me too absurd for belief. In cases of. this kind all motives of prudence
are overcome, because nafure herself governs the action, and breaks over
every obstacle to her struggle for protection against insult and aggression.
I say, therefore, it is incredible that if this lady had sustained this indig-
nity, she could have silently submitted to it for the flimsy reason she has
given- her concern for the spiritual condition of Mr. Peck, the driver a
reason which I oiust say almost seems as if it had been given in mockery
of that {jiety which it affects to exhibit. And are not these gross improb-
abilities such an explanation as comes within the rule to which I have
referred, and which ought to be received with -regard to an occurrence-
taking place.many years ago, and of which a direct contradiction or ex-
planation is impossible ? ' And ought they not to be regarded as a full and
sufficient defence against such. an allegation as the present?

But it -seems this.story was known in Utica in July, 1838. It was .there"
the subject of conversation, and was known ta the Rev. Dr. Hawks, and
others of the clergy of the Church. Is it not your duty to believe, if you
attach to these gentlemen responsibility for faithfulness in the discharge
of their duty to the Church, that if these charges had then readied their
present ' aggravated form, some attempt would have been then made to
bring the Bishop to punishment, or to ah account for. the offence ? But
whatdo we find ? Why, that six and a half years after these facts were
detailed to Dr. Hawks, Dr. Taylor, and others high in the Church, and by

them passed over, they are now brought forward -and made the .foundation
of -a Presentment Against the Bishop ; and all this after the charges had
been communicated to, and set aside by, men bound by the most solemn

.obligations to discharge their duty to the Church and to the cause of
religion and virtue, ajid who are not, I. believe, to be suspected of any
such warm persoilal attachment to the accused as to warrant the be-
lief that regard for him .interfered with tlicir conscientious discharge
of duty-! I say, therefore,, that .there is something more than mere
lapse of .time to be taken into view, as an explanation of these charges,
.The offence complained of by Mrs. Butler was a thing talked of, can-
vassed, and dismissed years ago, and only revived now, when it becomes
necessary for other purposes, having no connection with the complaint it-
self. 'For these purposes it is now raked up, and the Bishop is held to the
conclusion of guilt, according to the argument of the opposite Counsel, un-
less, after this lapse of time, he can satisfactorily explain the circumstan-
ces, and establish his innocence. ' I say, then, that the motives appearing-
on the face of- the prosecution itself, the long silence respecting the accu-
sation, the passing it over under the circumstances already referred to, the
peculiar^ incidents connected with its reproduction now, the extreme mi-
nuteness of the evidence of the single . witness' who sustains it, the frivolous

166

excuse, offered by her for her inexplicable conduct on the occasion in ques-
tion, all constitute grounds pf defenpe which in my judgment the Court
cannot possibly resist. . >

But. the -Counsel will gay that .Mrs. Butler is sustained by another wit- -
ness, and will refer you to the testimony of her husband. What is Jhat
testimony ? It appears that Mr. Butler was riding with his .wife on that
occasion, and in his affidavit before the Presenters, he stated that the Bfshop
attempted to 'raise the clothes of Mrs. Butler ; and I have very good rea-
son for believing that. that single fact, stated in the affidavit, was the only
one on which, upon the ground that no charitable answer could be given to
it, strong reliance was placed, as rendering this prosecution of the Bishop
necessary. In regard to all the other facts, some 'explanation, it was aid-
mitted, might be conceived. The fact pf putting an arm around a
lady's .waist could be. explained, consistently with the absence of vicious
motive, and might have been the result of mere accident and without de-
sign. But the fact of raising her clothes could not be -explained so as to
remove the imputation of immorality and impurity. And | yet, strange to
say, acting under the full knowledge of this fact, he would have you T>e-
. lieve that he permits. the Bishop to remain in his carriage, takes him to the
place of his destination, and permits, him to lay his unhallowed hands .upon
his head the next day in ordination ! I ask whether it is hp.t charity to
Mr. Butler to discredit his story, and infer that he p acted under some other
motive,' and that he did not 'believe that any thing was done by the Bishop
designed to be offensive, or which he as a husband oughf to have construed
as offensive.? Can U be possible ?' Is there a mantle of charity broad
enough, or a principle of Christianity that could cover the conduct of. a
man whp could be present and permit such an indignity 'to be offered' to his
wife without attempting to resent it?' Is it conceivable that any man
would .permit it without, Iwas going to say/punisliing, but, as applied to
this meek minister, I will, say admbnishing the guilty party ?. . Is it possi-
ble to conceive that the husband who.believfcd'such a story of wrong to,- his
wffe, could allow, the author of the indignity tp be the instrument by whom'
he- himself was admitted into the ministry of God ? . I cannot believe it.. I
cannot believes that any man on the face of the earth is depraved enough
to- exhibit such an utter want of sensibility, such an utter want of all -that
is due to the dignity of man. And yet that is the story which Mr. Butler,
would have you believe !

But is there nothing else to contradict it ? He is bro'ught..here for the
purpose-of confirming the testimony of his wife. He is the man through
whem. this accusation has found its way into this Presentment..'' And
coupled with the very affidavit on which .this Presentment was founded, you'
have an apologetic letter, taking back the most aggravated features of the
charge to. which he permitted himself to sweat. In view of the fact that
he has stated- in his. affidavit that attempts were made to raise his wife's,
clothes, and that he retracts it in his letter,, how can this Court, say 'thathe is
to be relied upon ;n all or any of the other essential particulars to which he-
has testified ?. If in the very gravamen of the charge he has been so greatly-
mistaken, or as he -very modestly expresses it'in his letter, showing riot a
very high sense of morality, I must say, fallen into a " trifling." inaccura-
cy in his statement, how can the Court rest satisfied-of his accuracy with
regard to the other, and in comparison, minor, points of his. testimony ?. I .
regard his sjtory as a tissue of 'exaggeration from' beginning to end'; and I

submit that the whole story of Mrs. Butler,, and the motives attributed to
the Bishop in the first instance, have since received their exaggeration for
some reason not avowed in this case, or that at least it is impossible for the
Court to say to what precise extent 'that story is true. And no principle is
better settled, than that when it: is impossible to ascertain how much,of a,
story is true, and what part is false, the whole is to be discarded- You
cannot .rely upon certain portions likely to" be true, when your moral cer-
tainty has been shaken by the fact that a portion of the story is certainly
untrue or clearly improbable.

But \ve have been called on to explain this charge ; and I ask again,
what explanation can be given under .the circumstances ? Can it be ex-
plained by any human testimony- whatever ? or can any defence, be 'offered
except that afforded by a close examination of the allegation itself, and 'the
testimony offered in its support, resulting in a conviction of the improbabil-
ity of the greater portion of the story as tested by the ordinary motives 'of
human action ? .'..."

I will npt venture to suppose that such a charge could be presented
against any member of this Court ; but let each member place himself in
the position of the Respondent, and say how, after such a lapse of time, he
could make a more -satisfactory explanation than that now offered by the
accused 3 Nay, in the very Presentment we are deprived of the opportunity
of explanation-. - In the affidavit oj" Mr. Butler, the name 'of Mr. Peck is
given as a party wha was present on the occasion in question ; but in the
specification the name is omitted, and Mr. Peck . is described as a person
unknown : and we are thus precluded, until the trial has commenced, frpnv
the possibility of gaining any clue tp the testimony, or even the name of
that individual. It >vas incumbent on .the prosecution to have, produced
that witness.. He, according to this account, was cognizant of scenes and
circumstances which Jie"could riot have readily forgotten. I do not say that
the name of this witness has been designedly withheld for the.purpose which
has been effected, but I do complain that it has not been furnished to us;
within the spirit of the Canon under which the charge is made. I pass over,
with these remarks, the charge in relation to Mrs. Butler r leaving to my.
learned associate, who so ably conducted her cross-examination, and whose
impression of the evidence in that case will necessarily l>e stronger on that ac-
count. Tn rnmnlpto thp ansilvi<: and royiou- of tko tostij-po}' in Support of

the first two specifications. I shall, before leaving this- subject,! however,
refer for a moment to the charge. of intoxication. Suppose it .to be proved,
as it is charged, that the Respondent, on a certain occasion, seven or eight
years ago, .had drunk too freely 'of wine, and was somewhat excited. by it.
Is it not sufficient to say that that is the only charge, and only preteece of :
any accusation of that character throughout the whole of fhat time ? And
I ask, whether, even supposing that fact to have been admitted by the Re-
spondent, any member of the Court woukl hesitate a moment in discharging
him, from any necessity oferitering on an explanation of that circumstance,
or even any penitence on the subject, by reason of the fact that his whole
course of life, both before and since that occurrence's a sufficient, atone-
ment for that exception to his general conduct. This of 'itself is a reason,
and.-strong argument in fayor of the position which I. assumed at the outset
of my remarks, that the present immorality the- present unfitness the
present condition of mind of thfe party is, after all, whatever the forni of
the specifications, the only legitimate subject of inquiry.'

168

I come now to the charge attempted to be sustained by the testimony of
Mr. .Bolles the third specification, -which alleges, " that on or about the
21st of August, 1838, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, being then Bishop
as aforesaid, was travelling in a public stage from Batavia to Utica, both
in the same Diocese of New York, for the purpose of attending the meeting
of the Convention of the said Diocese, then about to be holden at Utica ;
that the only passengers in the said stage were the said Bishop, the Rev'.
James A. Bolles; and a young woman, to the said Presenting Bishops un-
known, and whose name they are not able to furnish ; that the said Bishop
and young woman occupied the back seat, and the said James A. Bolles
the middle seat of the said stage; and thereupon afterwards, the said Ben-
jamin T.. Onderdonk impurely and unchastely put his arm aroujld the body
of the said' young woman, and took other indecent liberties with her per-
son, and behaved in so improper and unbecoming a manner that the said
young woman endeavored to get beyond the reach of the said Benjamin T.
Onderdonk ; and finally, with a view to escape his rudeness, left the stage
before reaching the place of her destination ; which said conduct of the
said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, the said Bishops present as contrary to his
consecration vow in that behalf, and to the scandal and injury of the Church
aforesaid."

I do not know that I am justified in occupying the attention of the Court
with any remarks on this charge, as it is most manifestly unsustained by
the evidence offered in its support. The Counsel on the other side may not,
however, take that view of it. At all events, I will be able to show, with-
out occupying much time, that the acts described in the testimony of Mr.
Bolles, so far from indicating any immorality, of impurity, or indelicacy, on
the part of the Bishop, were of the most innocent character, without any
motive whatever, and altogether free from any such imputation as that de-
scribed in such glowing terms in the specification which we are now exam-
ining.

Upon this branch of the case, however, there were three questions put to
Mr. .Bolles by the Right Rev. Bishop of South Carolina, (Bishop GADSDEN,)
the answers to which entirely dispose of the charge in question. As they
appear in the record they are :

" By Bishop '(TADSDE.N The Presentment says the. Bishop put his arm
around the body of the young woman ; did you witness any thing of the
kind? No, sir, I did not."

"By same The ' Presentment says that he took other indecent liberties
with her person .; what, were they ? Ans. This Presentment was drawn up
without any consultation with me .by the Presenters. I saw none that I
considered indecent liberties, or that could come under that name/'

" By same So far as'you know, did the said young woman endeavor to
get beyond the reach of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk ? Ans. No."

It was notwithstanding attempted to be proved here, for the purpose of
showing that the Bishop was guilty 6f impurity, that on a special occasion,
when waited on upon this subject, he attempted to denycertain facts proved
!>y Mr. Bolles. The conversation, so far as he was concerned, however,
had reference to a fact testified to by Mr. Bolles, namely, that the Bishop
had taken up a child from the back seat of the carriage, in order to show
it something .which attracted attention as they we*e passing along the road ;
.and so determined was the disposition to eke something out of this conver-
sation prejudicial to the Bishop, that the Counsel for the prosecution, failing

169

entirely in the case itself, as it stood on the testimony of Mr. Bolles, the
only witness cognizant of the facts, have endeavored by the evidence of Dr.
Taylor to cast suspicion upon the transaction. If the learned" Counsel had
intended to redeem the pledge given in the opening, he would at once have
abandoned that charge,. and asked permission of the Court to strike it from
the Presentment. I do not know whether he intends to press it now or not,
or whether or not his entertains the idea -that there is anything in this
charge. But' 1 put it to the Court, on their recollection of the evidence,
whether it -can. for a moment be sustained. Their own witness has failed
them, and in the face of his 1 positive testimony, how can they expect the
Court to credit the charge ?

I- come now to wJiat I suppose the opposite Counsel regard as one of the
most important charges the fifth resting on the testimony of Miss Helen
Rudderow ;' passing over the fourth specification the 'witness to. whom it
refers having sent a letter to the Court, from which it seems that the charge
was made without her authority, and which is therefore understood to be
abandoned. The fifth specification charges, " that between the months of
May and July, 1341, to wit, on or about Sunday, the 13th day of June, in
said last mentioned year, the said Benjamin T. Onderxionk, then being
Bishop as aforesaid, visited St. James's Church, Hamilton-square, New York
city; that soon after the services of the church Were ended, and on the day
jast aforesaid, he left the said church in a carriage, in company with Miss
Helen M. Rudderow, a young lady, to proceed a"s a guest to the house of
her brother, John Rudderow, Esq. ; that while riding in the said carriage,
by the side of the said young lady, he, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk,
impurely and unchastely thrust his hand beneath her dress, upon the bosom
of the said Helen Rudderow, to her great shame and consternation, and in
violation of the proper duty of a Bishop, and in breach of the consecration
vow of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, and to the great scandal and in-
jury of the Church of Christ."

Before discussing the evidence bearing upon this charge. I take occasion
to say, that it is not my intention to weary the patience of the Court by ex-
ami'ning the minor discrepancies in, and contradictions of, the testimony of
any of the witnesses, but merely to advert to the leading facts as testified to
by them, and to call the attention of the Court to what I deem the most pal-
pable improbabilities in these statements, as well as to adduce from extrin-
sic source?!, such contradictions as may tend to show the stories ought not
to be believed.

And first, then, T ask whether a more improbable story on its face was
over told, than that- by Helen Rudderow in relation to the insult alleged to
have been offered to her by the Bishop 1 What is it? In substance it is
.this: that after church service on the morning in question, an invitation
was extended to the Bishop ,to dine at the house of her brother ; that she
and the Bishop got into the carriage of the Rev. Mr. Richmond, the Rector
of the church, to go to the house of Mr. Rudderow; that the distance was
about three quarters of a mile, and. that the time occupied in performing the
journey was half an hour (a mast unusual length of time, certainly ;)
that immediately after getting into the'carriage r -the Bishop made a most in-
delicate assault upon the person, of 'the lady,- without being noticed by Mr.'
Richmond, who, although driving the horse, was yet engaged in conversa-
tion with the Bishop, and was not absolutely obliged to have an eye on the
animal constantly country clergymen's horses not being, I believe, partic-

170

ularly -addicted to-running away (a laugh.) She says that after the -first
advance, which she 'repelled, the Bishop thrust his ha'nd into her bosom, and
kept "it there during the whole of the ride that this was done, with a third
party, a clergyman, sitting in the 'same carriage, on the front seat, engaged
too in- constant conversation with the Bishop with many persons probably
passing along the road ; in fact, with -every thing, as to time, and .'place, and
circumstance the .most likeiy to lead .to observation, detection, and expo-
sure.

[Bishop HOPKIXS That is not exactly the testimony.

Bishop MclLVAiNE She states that the Bishop " continued to thrust his
hand into her bosom."

Mr. GRAHAM rThe statement is, I think, as I have given it ; hut, suppo-
sing it to.be as suggested, that the 'attempt was frequently repeated, it ohly
renders the story more improbable, as it shows the greater probability of
detection-.

Bishop HOPKINS So that we have the testimony right, sir, it is all that
we want.]

. Mr. GRAHAM proceeded Upon this statement, then, I ask the Court, is it
possible that any man/could have acted in the manner in which the Bishop
is represented to have acted by this witness ? Is it possible that any man
of sense; without saying one word -without making A. single a.dvance in
the shape of language, either indelicate or otherwise, as she states with a
lady of whom he knew, very little, could take such liberties as those de-'
scribed-? Is it at all within the limits of possibility, that a man could,
while riding, in broad daylight, in. a wagon in company with a clergyman
with whom he was constantly engaged in conversation, take such liberties
with a lady sitting by his side thrust his hand into her bosom repeatedly.
and keep it there : and yet escape detection and exposure ? Is it at all prob-
able that any man could have been guilty of such folly' as to incur such a
risk ? Did the Bishop know -that the lady would not at once resent the in-
: Suit ? Had he any reason to suppose, assuming her story to be true, that
her sense of the insdlt would not have broken forth, and at once exposed
him ? Certainly she haS .given, us no ground for supposing that she was of
such a frivolous or wanton disposition, as to warrant the beji'ef that she was
not likely to resent such an affront with the promptitude and decision of. a
virtuous and indignant' female. Yet she would have us believe that the
Bishop actually committed the offence with the certainty before^him of in-
stant exposure !

But let me ask the Court, fs it possible that the circumstances could have
occurred, consistently with -any of the motives which ordinarily attach to
human action ? Is it at all possible that this conduct could have been un-
observed by Mr. Richmond, with whom not only the .Bishop, but the lady
herself, -was conversing all the time, to the extent on her part, as she cau-
tiously avers, of returning very sho.rt answers'to the remarks addressed to
her? '-a circumstance o? itself calculated to excite attention. I repeat,
can it be possible that a gentleman could thrust his hand into the bosom
of a lady, sitting beside him in a carriage, she having a High-necked dress?
too, and do this repeatedly, and. yet escape the observation of a third party
sitting- immediately in frbht of them, and engaged in conversation with
them ? ' .

[Bishop FREEMAN- I feel it to be my duty to confirm the original state-
. ment of the Counsel. When asked, " How. long did the Bishop's hand con-
. : ' & "

171'

tinue on your person the. second time ?" she replied, " Till w.e readied,
home." . . . .'.,'

Bishop LEE. I wish here to make a correction. The Counsel spoke' of
her dress as' being a " high-necked" 'one-
Mr. GRAHAM I was about ' to correct myself on" that point. I believe
she said it was a low-necked, dress but thai, as is obvious, only renders
the story more improbable,, inasmuch as with such a dress. detection, was.
still more likely, the hand being more readily observable.]

Mr. GRAHAM proceeded. I now come to Jhe testimony of the other Miss
Rudderow, in ' relation to whom the sixth specification charges, " that on
tke same day mentioned in the last specification, the said Benja:man T. On-
derdonk, Bishop as aforesaid,, was received at the house of the said John
Riidderbw, in the'parlor thereof, by Jane O. Rudderow, and that thereupon .
the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk impurely and unchastely thr.ust his hand
into the bosom of the said Jane O. Rudderow, and upon being repelled,
took other indecent and unbecoming liberties with the said lady, in viola-
tion- of his duty as a .Bishop and his consecration vow in that behalf, and
to the great scandal and disgrace of his said office."- '
, Now.-if the story told, by Helen Rudderow be improbable, 'as. I think i
most manifest, what will the Court think of that of the other young lady,
'her sister?' It appears that immediately after Miss Helen had returned
home, she went up stairs and found her sister, who by reason of a sick'
headache, had left church; early and returned home ; that Miss Helen at
once -communicated to Jane what the' Bishop had done, and requested her
.to go down stairs and "entertain him," she promising, to go down- herself"
as soon as she. 'could .become somewhat more composed ; and that in con-
sequence of this 1 request,, Jane immediately, and without .the slightest hesi-
tation whatever, went down stairs,' and although perfectly apprized of the
state of rnihd attributed to the Bishop on the 'part of Helen, at once has-
tened to entertain him. She found the Bishop standing at the centre-table;
he immediately accosted her ; said he must 1 cure .her of her sick head-
ache, and taking her by the hand, 'which she gave without any -reluctance,
led-her-to the sofa, which stood near. tHe door; which was open, and her
brothers being at the same time in the entry; and then, without 'say ing a
wqrd, the Bishop committed upon her the first indecency of which she
complains, as she describes it in her testimony. Well, then, it seems that
without being at' all alarmed by t'his conduct on the part of the Bishop,
and with the story of her sister's wrongs yet ringing in 'her ears, she re-
.mained. in the room, contenting herself with the precautionary measure of
merely m6ving J'o the other, end of the sofa- upon which, the Bishop, as
she says, followed her, and repeated the insult. Still she gave no alarm.
It would indeed appear, that all these-ladies who have been insulted in this
gross way, are actuated by very 'different principles of resentment from
those which usually, manifest themselves in the sex, and, the total absence
of which, under circumstances like these, is, I apprehend, wholly, ihexpli-
cable. From an unwillingness to give any alarm which would attract the
notice of her brothers in. the entry, she remained perfectly quiet! She
heard footsteps on the stairs', and the Bishop, hearing them also, hastily
moved to the other end of the sofa ; rushed,' I think .she says.
[Bishop LEE" Sprang."]

Mr. GRAHAM ^-That's the word : " sprang" to the other end of the sofa.
Well, the lady whose footsteps were heard, entered the room. She was

172

the 'sister-in-law 1 of the young lady, and if the story of the witness be true,
is it possible that she could have failed to observe some evidence of confu-
sion or embarrassment on the part of one or both of the parties on -the
sofa ? Yet she is not produced here, and no attempt is made to offer any
corroborative evidence on her part, by showing what she could, not but
have observed. I ask, is not 'this of itself significant? And is it not a
fact, at least worthy of attention, that not a single member of that house-
hold, some of whom must have- observed some evidences of the qccurreh-
ces described, is produced on this occasion ?

And here, no.w, let me inquire, is the story of the young lady probable ?
Is the statement at all reasonable ? Does it carry with it probability on its
face, that the Bishop could, in a room with the door wide open, accessible to
the 'lady's mother and sister-in-law, with hei brothers in the entry, with all
the certain means of detection, with an absolute impossibility of escape,
without any knowledge of the disposition, certainly of tl\e willingness of the
party, have acted as this witness would have us believe ? Is such a course
of conduct probable on the part even of an idiot ? who would, in the. ab-
sence of reason, have yet instinct enough to preserve him from the cominis-.
sion of acts so certain of detection and of punishment. ' Yet to all these
insults the young lady quietly submitted, and. that, too, after she had been
told of what had taken place in relation to her sister ! .

But to proceed with her story. Her sister-in-law enters the room ; she i*
herself in some confusion, but nobody observes .it. The Bishop is \alsp
confused, but nobody observes it. Her sisfer-in-law enters the room kloes
this young liady who has just been so grossly insulted, leave' it does she
at once retire ? She had a good excuse for withdrawing, without creating
suspicion, by reason of the ailment of which she complained, and her sister-
in-law's presence' effectually relieved her from the necessity of "entertain-
ing" the Bishop ; yet, does she -leave the room ? No! She remains, and
takes part in the conversation until dinner-time. She then takes her seat
at the dinner-table the Bishop is. of course, there. During all this time
nothing appears in the conduct or .manner of eiijier of these -yojung ladies,
that attracts the attention of any one. Immediately after dinner the com
pany separate ; they withdraw to the piazza for the purpose of viewing the
surrounding scenery the Bishop among the rest.. This ybung lady, whose
nervous headache had, it appears, miraculously disappeared, and \vho, if
desirous of escaping from the Bishop, had that very good excuse', instead of
retiring to her room and giving vent to "her feelings of mortification ami
shame, follows the rest of the company to the -piazza. The person nearest
to her appears to have been the Bishop. He asks her something about the
house of Mr. Schermerhorn, which was to be seen at a short. distance, and
Ihen, again, while these six or seven, persons are present, and while she
and the Bishop are walking on the piazza, with their backs turned to the
rest of the company, she avers that he again took improper liberties with,
her person* that 'the Bishop again thrust his hand into her bosom through
her high-necked d ress. !
. [Bishop LEE Is that testified to'?

Mr. GRAHAM It is, in substance, though I do 'not pretend to be strictly
accurate in regard to the precise words in which she gave her evidence.;
and that, becayse I do not desire to fatigue the Court by reading .the min-
utes of 'testimony which they will doubtless carefully review. If 1 be in.
error in any particular so far as the substance is concerned, however, the

"173

Court can readily correct me, and I shall esteem it as a favor if they do,
The point of my rema-rk is'not at all affected, whether she testified that the
Bishop put his arm around her wais.t, or thrust' his hatid into her bosom-
both actions were alike liable to .certain detection by the six or seven per-

. sons on .the piazza.] *. ' .

Mr. GRAHAM proceeded She then goes on to say, that she immediately

retreated into 1 the room, whither she was immediately followed by the Bishop,

' and that in a short time all the other members of the family were collected
there, and engaged in conversation, in which the Bishop took part that
being anxious to Rnow whether it wa,s raining, (Which she could easily
enough have ascertained while on' the piazza immediately previous,) she
arose and went to the window ' as quick as thought"' (that may not have
been the expression, but it' was the idea. ) fhat the Bishop- abruptly broke
off' from conversing with her mother, started up after the young lady, rushed
behind the window curtain- of three Feet three inches in width, and again
thrust his hand into her .bosom-r she still giving no alarm, but quietly re-
treating from the window. With the, recital of this last indignity, the
tragical story of Miss Jane Rudderow terminates.

Now, I ask the Court with perfect confidence, whether they can be-
lieve the stories of these young ladies as they are told in the direct ex-
amination'? I as'k, is it possible that these insults could have been perpe-
trated ' upon them 'over and over again, and under the circumstances de-
scribed, without "their being observed by some-one ? Or w-hether any wo-
man woultl have submitted to such an indignity without' immediately taking
some. means to prevent its repetition or to punish the offender? The feel-
ings of a v.i-rtuous, woman would in such circumstances have broken forth
irresistibly the feelings 'of the family would have been excited and
aroused and. the aggressor, be he Bishop or any thing else, would have
been expelled the house, whose inmates he had insulted, and whose hospi-
tality he had so grossly outraged. I say this, because it is not in human
nature that any man. could so grossly insult two virtuo.us females again
and again insult th'em and yet not only have escaped summary vengeance,

. but not even the slightest intimation have been conveyed to him from any
quarter that he hadjbeeh guilty of the least misconduct. But yet such is
tihe" story these young ladies would have 'us believe. They would have us
believe that they were both wantonly, vilely, and- repeatedly insulted by
the Bishop, and that yet no 'reproof 'escaped them no confusion betrayed
the wounded feelings of the woman no indignant manifestation of disgust
appeared ! . . ,

.1 should have no hesitation -whatever, in leaving this story of the Rudde-
rows on their own mere narration, and feel the most perfect confidence in
the judgment of the Court upon it'wilhout offering a word of contradiction
or comment. But the' lea,rned Counsel on the opposite side will 'strenuously
insist upon their truth, and will no doubt infuse a vast deal of "virtuous in-
dignation into his comments upon their evidence, which I must endeavor
to anticipate and neutralize, by pointing out a few of the contradictions
which they have' encountered from witnesses whose motives and veracity
are beyond suspicion or question-.

The opening Counsel himself admitted; in "one of the addresses that were
made to the Court' during the incidental discussions' in the case, that if. it
could be proved that on any subsequent occasion these young ladies met
the Bishop on the same terms of cordiality as before the alleged offences,

t :,,;. m :.

the Court might be .justified in., entertaining, the belief that the, indigni-
ties complained of could not nave been 'perpetrated, notwithstanding their
testimony on the trial. That conclusion is as just as- it is unavoidable. If
these ladies had received these indignities, certainly on eVery subsequent
occasion they. would have avoided the aggressor? and their conduct would
uniformly have shown, that they entertained a -proper, sense 'of their own
'dignity, and. of the gross' misconduct of the- Respondent. In this, and in-
another case to which I shall more especially refer hereTafter, we have in-
troduced all the evidence that was reasonably to be expected- in- proof of
the innocence of the accused. We could not, of.course', directly contradict,
these charges 'by direct testimony'. At all events, we.ceuld not prove, by
direct testimony that the Bishop ha^l not committed the acts complained of.
With a view, therefore, to furriesh the. only testimony accessible by us, and
to show that this story is grpssly exaggerated, at least, if not wholly untrue,
we have introduced a mass of testimony clearly irreconcilable wifh their

evidence. First, 1 we bave .adduced evidence relative tb the meeting of. the
parties a year after the date of the occurrences described bythes^ young
ladies. The Court cannot haye forgotten the manifest attempt on the part
of both to 'evade any inquiry '.relative to that meeting, obviously -because
they were aware of .-the' inference .which would inevitably result from any
admission of the truth. Accordingly, you'-will recollect that it was with
great difficulty thai, a direct answer could be obtained frpm them to -any in-
quiry on this s.ubject, and,a/te'r all it was apparent that something was kept
back. There was* .a want of frankness" and candor which the Court must
have observed. For instance, without'geing into it minutely, it will be re-
collected that one of the Misses. Rudderow. slated that the Bislwp was '' in-
troduced 'by Mr. Dowdoey,'" evidently with the view to leave the impres- .

sion that there was no cordial greeting on ^er part, and that she' took the
Bishop's hand, not 'from respect to 'him,, but on account of 'the gentleman
who effected the introduction.. .So in relation to the meeting. on the stairs,
or in the vestibule after the morning service. Miss. Helen Rudderow e\i--
dently wished to make it appear that she had remained in the oi'gan-loft
for the purpose of. avoiding, the Bishop : showing; an evident desire on the
part . of these witnesses not to inform, the Court frankly, but to avoid in-
their testimony any admission calculated to "help the inference which they
saw must.be drawn from the -truth of ^he transaction. ' In this connection, I
ask the Court- to recollect the manner in whrch Jane' attempted to gef rid',
of the effect of her meeting with, the Bishop at his study, in' December^
1842, and her "excuse for going (out of a society of ten or twelve. persons),
on a voluntary mission to him for the putpose-of. soliciting, a* favor.. Ac-
cording to her. account of it, she went, to the 'Bishop's house under a sort of

.moral constraint, as'she would have the Court to believe because $Jie was
the only pei-son who could have done so with the best .hope t>f success-^ and
she was wrlling -to submit to a lesser evil to accomplish a greater good.
Now take our witnesses, arid it is perfectly apparent it is incontrovertiblej
that on all tbese subsequent occasions,, at all these interviews, there- was a
cordiality of manner between the parties wholly inconsistent with the in-
ference or pretence that the facts of which they complain on a previous
occasion had any existence.

^In the first place, as tolhe meeting in the church, we -have presented the
testimony of the' Rev. Mr. Dowdney. He is. not, Tad'mit, a very- expert or
practised witness-; but I think I may safely appeal to -the Court whether

the obscurity of his manner does not urise- frqm an excessive conscientious-
,ness, and a dread (entertained often by the most honest witnesses) that the
English language is a sort of trap for their consciences, of which they must
at all times be exceedingly wary. Mr. Dowdney could certainly have no
motive in coming here to mislead the Court, and by perjury to falsify the
testimony of these young ladies. If he had come with such 'a design, he
surely would have had a story better prepared, and bearing on more impor^
tant points than those upon which he has given his testimony. In substance
his evidence is this that one morning, about a year after the time to which
the evidence of the young ladies referred, he met the Bishop at the church
that they "walked up the aisle together that the ladies were there, and at
once cordially recognised and saluted the Bishop; One of them pretends
that Mr. Dowdney introduced the Bishop, but- Mr.. D. swears that the re-
cognition was cordial and voluntary. Certainly there must be an attempt
on the part of one or other of the witnesses to mislqad the Court in some
way which of them, it is most probable, I leave the Court to judge. Is it
not most probable on the part of the individual on whose sense of delicacy
the point in question most strongly bears ? It was incumbent on the part
of the lady to prove the virtuous indignation felt by her on account of the
former conduct of the Bishop, "by showing that she treated him uniformly .
afterwards with coolness. .She therefore could not, consistently wjth a be-
coming feeling of -pride, admit the fact proved by Mr. Do.wdney, that she
and her sister met the Bishop in a frank, and cordial,, and friendly manner.
And if any contrary feeling had existed, it certainly was not possible that
it could have escaped the notice of even the most casual observer.'

I think it is not going too far to argue, if we suppose that the Bishop pos-
sessed commen sense, and^he had been conscious of having offered such. an
insult and affront to f hese ladies, that he. would 'have studiously avoided
'them. . That he would not have been willing -to expose himself to their re-
proach, OF what would haye been more probable, the repulsion which he
was naturally to expect 2 Yet we find him, with the frankness of inno-
cence, meeting them, giving them his hand in -cordial salutation, entering,
.into conversation unreservedly with, them, arid extending to them courtesies
which were as freely and frankly returned. . . .

But in addition to all this, we have the fact of the -subsequent- interview
of Jane Riidderow with the Bishop, at. his study, which, it seems to me,
puts down any 'pretence that these indignities could haye been offered not
only to herself but to hfer sister. 'I certainly carinot suppose that any
female of -proper feeling could be guihy of such an indignity to her qwn
sister,. as voluntarily, and unnecessarily, to extend to a man who had effer-
ed such an affront as that stated in her evidence, the unusual courtesy of
seeking him out, waiting upon him at his hoftse, -and consenting to become
a suppliant to him for a favor.. Yet it is in evidepce, that Jane Rudderow,
in December, 1842; went to the house of the Bishop, in cdmpany with Miss
Riker, for such a purpose. - It is true 'she 'states that Miss Riker induced
her to go with her on .that occasion. But in this, she is expressly contra-
dicted by the testimony of- Mr. .Dowdney arid of Miss Rutter, both of whom
agree that JMiss Jane,, when this subject was spoken of, volunteered to go to
the Bishop's, house ; And that on- the .question being. asked if /she knew the
Bisftop, she replied that. she. knew him. intimately, -thus conveying an im-
pression'to Miss Rutte.r, utterly irreconcilable -with that which she would
now have the Court to believe. .The only solution of her conduct consis--

tent with ordinary female delicacy is, 'that she went there because there was
no pretence, or ground of pretence on her part, of any indignity having-
been offered her by the Bishop, and because she was quite unconscious of the
existence of any cause that ought to. have disturbed their friendly relations.
To suppose any other state of facts, would be to impute to her, that in go-
ing there she' was guilty, of a wanton compromise of that dignity of charac-
ter which is never wanting where female virtue is outraged, or even where
it exists. And is there any doubt of these facts ? Have 'we not proved,
beyond a question, if the testimony of Mr. Dowdney and Miss Rutter be
true, and there are no reasons to suspect the contrary, that these young
ladies, upon these several occasions, acted in such a manner as to repel the
belief that the Bishop had previously insulted them 1 And how can the
prosecution escape from the effect of the contradiction of the witnesses by
whom these charges are attempted to be sustained? Our witness.es could
have no motive to mislead the Court. While those to whom they stand op-
posed have every motive, so'to color the transactions referred to, as to recon-
cile them with a becoming sense of wounded delicacy, and thus endeavor
to convince the Court, even against probability,, that they had uniformly
acted consistently with these feelings, and with the truth of the story they
.have told. It is a sound and salutary principle of law as well as of morals,
that a witness who is false in one thing, or. who either prevaricates, or mis-
represents, or distorts particular facts upon which he cannot well be mista-
ken, is to be discarded altogether, as false in all. Of the soundness of the
rule, no question will, I am sure, be made ; but, as tending to illustrate its
force in the present instance; I beg. leave to refer on this point to a case jde-
cided by the Supreme Court of the United States, the case of .The Santissima
Triniddd, 7 Wheaton, 338, which was 'a libel founded upon the allegation
of illegal equipment and illegal augmentation offeree wiihin the ports of
the United States. la corrrrnenting upon the testimony of the witnesses to
sustain the libel, Mr. Justice. Story makes these .general observations, the
applicability of which to the present case cannot but strike the Court : " If
the cause stood solely upon the testimony of the witnesses who 'nave been
examined on behalf of the libellants, we should have great hesitation in
admitting the xionclusions which Have been drawn from it. The witnesses,
indeed, speak directly and uniformly either to the point of illegal equipment,
or illegal augmentation of force wiihin our ports. But their testimony is
much shaken by the manifest contradictions which .it involves, and by de-
clarations of facts, the falsity of which was entirely within their knowledge,
and .has been completely established in proof:. It has been said, that if wit-
nesses concur in proof of a material" fact, they ought to he believed in re-
spect to that fact, whatever may be the other contradictions in their testi-
. mony. That position may be 'true' under circumstances ; but it is a doc-
trine which can be received only under many qualifications, and with great
caution. If the circumstances respecting which the testimony is Discordant
be immaterial, and" of such a nature that mistakes may easily exist, and be
accounted for in a manner consistent with the. utmost good faith- and proba-
.bility, there is much reason for indulging the- belief that the, discrepancies
arise from the infirmity of 'the human mind, rather .than from -deliberate
error. But where the party speaks to- a fact in respect to which lie car\not
be presumed Jiable to -mistake, as in relation to the country of his birth,
or his being in a vessel on a 1 particular voyago, or living in a particular'
place if the fact turn out otherwise, it ife extremely difficult to exempt him

177

from the charge of deliberate falsehood ; and courts of justice, under such
circumstances, are bound, upon principles of law, and morality, and justice,
to apply the maxim of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.' " The Counsel
on the opposite side will, however, probably upon their assumption that
the evidence of the witnesses is shaken in some of its minor particulars
insist that the Court is still to determine, upon a review of it, whether the
main fact is not established, and that the whole of the testimony is by no
means to be discarded, because certain portions of it may be untrue. I
admit this to be so, as to unimportant discrepancies or contradictions. But
how can it apply to facts tending to show the sense entertained by the
complaining parties of the very acts of which they complain, and going
conclusively to disprove, upon every sound principle of reasoning, the im-
probability and untruth of the facts themselves, or at least of the coloring
with which they are now invested ?

If then I have been successful in showing either such a glaring improb-
ability in the direct testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, or such
a direct contradiction of them with respect to collateral circumstances of
such a character as that they could not have forgotten or be mistaken in
regard to them, I ask the Court on what ground they can withhold from
the testimony of these witnesses the application of that sound and salutary
principle of the law to which I have referred ? You are surely not to set
about the dangerous and uncertain task of groping between truth and false-
hood. But if the story itself be tainted with falsehood, if it be irreconcila-
ble with that most certain standard of truth this motives which ordinarily
influence and control human action and if, in addition to all this, it be
plainly and palpably contradicted in material points by reliable and disin-
terested testimony, the protection of innocence, and the sound and salutary
administration of justice, alike require that it should be utterly disregarded.

I come now to the last case embraced in these specifications the case of
Mrs. Beare, stated in the 7th and 8th articles of the charges. The 7th
specification charges, "that on or about Sunday, the seventeenth day of
July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two,
the said Benjamin T. Onderdo'nk, then being Bishop, as aforesaid, held a
confirmation at Zion Church, Long Island, in the Diocese of New-York;
that after the services were ended, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk re-
turned to the house of the Rev. Henry M. Beare, in company with Mrs.
Charlotte Beare, the wife. of the said Henry; that the said Benjamin T.
Onderdonk and Charlotte Beare occupied the back seat of the said car-
riage, and the other persons in the same were so situated as to have their
backs towards the Bishop and the said Charlotte ; that thereupon the said
Benjamin T. Onderdonk impurely and unchastely put his arm around the
body of the said Charlotte Beare, drew her towards himself, and at the same
time felt her bosom in an improper and indecent manner, so as to scandalize
the feelings of said lady, and cause her to remove herself from him as far
as the side of the carriage would permit, to avoid his rudeness ; in violation
of his duty as a Bishop, and his consecration vow in that behalf, and to the
disgrace of his said office."

The eighth specification charges, '' that in thfe afternoon of the said sev-
enteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and forty-two, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk held a confirmation at the
Whitestone Chapel, on Long Island aforesaid ; and after the services went
to spend the evening at the residence of Joseph L. Franklin, Esq., on said

Long Island ; that about nine o'clock at night the said Bishop was return-
ing home to the house of the said Henry M. Beare, where he was a guest
as aforesaid, and was accompanied in the carriage of the said Henry M.
Beare by the said Charlotte Beare, the wife of the said Henry M. Beare,
she being constrained by circumstances to ride with said Bishop against her
own desire ; and she and the said Bishop sitting alone on the back seat ;
that while thus on their way, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk again in-
sulted the said Charlotte Beare in the grossest manner, by impurely and
unchastely putting one arm around her body, while he thrust his other hand
beneath her dress upon her naked bosom ; that upon the same being indig-
nantly repelled, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk repeated the indignity,
and finished his acts of rudeness by passing his hand in the most indecent
manner down the body of the said Charlotte Beare, outside of her dress, so
that nothing but the end of her corset-bone prevented his hand from being
pressed upon the private parts of her body. All which acts and doings
threw the said Charlotte into the deepest distress ; to the manifest scandal
and injury of the Church of which the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk was
a Bishop, and in violation of his vow before God, solemnly entered into at his
consecration."

The testimony in support of these charges is derived wholly from Mrs.
Beare ; and I cannot refrain from remarking on it in the outset, that a more
gross and infamous outrage than that which she has imputed to the Respon-
dent, cannot be conceived ; and that unless the Court are prepared to say,
upon the most satisfactory and clear evidence, even supposing themselves
not bound by the rules of divine and human law, to which I have referred,
that this charge has been sustained, that they are called upon to give the
Respondent the benefit of the rational doubt which is created by the mon-
strous character of the accusation, and allow it of itself to be a sufficient
and perfect exculpation.

What are the facts to which Mrs. Beare testifies ? She states that after
Church, in the morning of the day to which she refers, she was riding with the
Bishop and her husband's mother, in a carriage driven by her nephew, and
was seated with the Bishop on the back seat her nephew driving, and her
mother-in-law sitting with him on the front seat ; and that the Bishop, with-
out saying one word, of any kind, put his arm around her in an unbecom-
ing manner, which caused her to draw from him, and that his hand pressed
upon her bosom. This was the whole of the first aggression.

Now it is a very remarkable coincidence, that Mrs. Beare introduces this
first indignity, to the Court, under precisely the same circumstances as Miss
Helen Rudderow, without a single word being uttered by the Bishop in
advance of the insult. The Court are to recollect that this was a lady to
whom the Bishop had been introduced only on the 12th of the same month,
(the act complained of being on thg 17th,) and -that when thus introduced
to the Bishop he had merely met her at dinner and the extraordinary fact
therefore is presented, which you are called on to believe, that the Bishop,
on again meeting this lady, with whom he was 90 slightly acquainted, with-
out knowing any thing of her character or her temper, without having had
the slightest opportunity of forming any judgment as to how such an ad-
vance would be received, in an open carriage, in mid-day, in company
with her mother-in-law and nephew, and while they were conversing
together, as she admits, actually offered her an insult of the grossest char-
acter, and pressed his arm around her waist, and his hand upon her bosom,

179

without uttering one word; .and with almost 'a moral certainty of -immediate
detection and exposure by the lady herself, and the other parties in the car-,
riage !, . , .''.'

.' Upxm the face' of the story itself, I ask the Court, can they indeed seriously
.regard it as at all probable ? .Well, the lady goes on "to say "that she was
very much distressed by the circurn,stance r and that when she reached
home she communicated it to her husband, whp attempted to explain it by
saying that the .Bishop could not have meant anything. . She next proceeds
. to narrate, what,, strange to say, is wholly omitted, in the specifications that
once before dinner, and once after dinner, in her own house, the Bishop re-
peated indignities of the very character which had occurred in the carriage,
and that too in presence of her mother.
. [Bishop MC!LVAINE. Her husband's mother.' .

Mr.. GRAHAM. I thank you for the correction ; it was; I find,, her
mother-in-law.]

Mr. GRA^M proceeded. So that after she Tlad intimated the matter to
her husband, and before dinner, another attempt was. she avers, made;, and
a still more direct one made after dinner, hot mentioned to. any body, and
not embraced in these affidavits. And yet. notwithstanding -all these indig-
nities, the lady goes on to state that in proceeding to the house of Mr,
Franklin,, where they were invited to spend the evening, with all her pre-
tended disgust at what had passed, she got out of her brother-in,-law's car-
. riage, at 'the head of the lane, a distance of only.a quarter of a mile, (be-
cause, forsooth, her brother-in-law desired immediately to return ttv her hus-
band's house,) and took her seat in another carriage beside the Bishop, and
was thus driven to the house of Mr. Franklin. I mention these facts for the
purpose of showing that the spirit of exaggeration has evidently entered into
-the story told by Mrs. Beare ; and I was exceedingly glad that the witness
.was brought to state it, because it showed the true state of her mind on this
subject :, and from the manner of the" Counsel I was'led to believe that the
crowning act of all these enormities was about to be drawn out. During
the visit at the house of Mr. Franklin. Mrs. Beare stated, in reply to the
question of the Cotfnsel, " Did not something very remarkable occur at. Mr.
Franklin's ?" that the. Bishop had been engaged in conversing with Miss
Franklin, and that Mr. Smythe, to whom she was .then engaged, said in. the
very hearing of the Bishop, in reference to some u.ndue freedom on his part,
that if it were not for his gown, he (Mr. - S.) would have 'inflicted per.sonal
chastisement upon him. Now, after all the parade with which this fact
was brought out, 9n her own admission, it appears. to have been a mere
playful remark, solemnly dragged into the case for the purpose t>f prejudi-
cing the Bishop ; and when we have the testimony of Mrs. Franklin and
Mr. Smythe on the subject, it turns out to have been no remark at all no
remark whatever having been made on the occasion by Mr. Smythe, pointing
to any freedom on the part of the Bishop.

Well, after the incidents of that evening at Mr. Franklin's, including, of
course, the very, " remarkable incident." elicited with such solemnity by the
Counsel. Mr. and Mrs. Beare return home, and during .her 'ride home-,
wa.rd, her husband and nephew being on the front seat, she goes on to say,
and I shall .give the story in her own words : " The Bishop put his arm
around my waist, then raised it, and put it across the back of my neck ;
thrust his hand into the neck of my.dress, down into my bosom. I threw
his hand from there he immediately put it uppn the lower part of my per-

180

son. I pushed it aside from there, and he then, with the other hand, repeated
the same upon, the other side of my person, out removed it toward the centre

'of my person.. I threw it aside. That is all." She is then .asked,
" When Vie put his hand in the neck of your dress, on. your bosom, was it
or not on .your naked bosom ?" She answers, "It was my naked bosom.".
After 'stating that -in all these instances the palm of the Bishop's hand was
next her person, she testifies that -he placed one of his hands '' near her knee,
and moved it along her leg up to, her hip, and the centre of her person."
And all this was done, without a word of any kind addressed to her by the
Bisljop, without' a lisp of remonstrance on her part ; she sitting immediately
behind her husband, and near enough, as she says, to have touched him,
and without any interruption of the conversation which was going on !

Need I ask whether,. upon the face of this narrativ.e, describing, if it. be
true, one of the most gross outrages which the mind -can conceive, there is
not stamped the" most glaring and palpable improbability ? Could the one-
tenth of it have occurred to any woman without an-outcry or alArm with-
out 'remonstrance or complaint without an appeal for protection, . to the
husband, who, rio less than herself,, was outraged by .the act ? Is it not top
much to. believe^ that human nature could have" been .so restrained, as she
would have you suppose, by respect for the office of the Bishop, or by the
fear^of attracting the notice of the. little boy in front, as to have prevented
her from instantly resenting the indignity 1

I ask this Court to judge of this story by the impulses of human nature,
and not by a straiglit-laced stoicism, repulsive to every ordinary sensibility of
th,Q human heart. .Is it credible that any man, I care not who he is, riding
with a lady to whom he was almost a perfect stranger, could place his hand
on her bosom, and on other parts of her person, and perpetrate the. other
outrages attributed to the Respondent, so revolting in their character that I
will not offend the ear of this sacred tribunal by their repetition, and yet
not a murmur at the indignity escape the victim ?

But, to proceed with the narrative. Mrs. Beare reaches her home in com-
pany with the Bishop and her husband. She tells these facts to her husband
after her return, and before they part from the Bishop for the night. The
husband, on hearing her story, says, " Well, never mind, say nothing about
it, and we will go down and have family prayers." They go down to fkmily
prayers, continuing the hospitalities of the household, which he. had so
grossly outraged, 'towards the Bishop manifesting towards him the same
outward marks of deference as before, they meet him in the study, and after
joining with him in prayer, they retire. Is there any man is there any
thing possessing the form of a man, to say nothing of the soul and the attri-
butes of man, who would not, as Dr. Higbee expressed himself to Mr. Beare,
have " kicked the author of such outrages out of his house ?" Or is there
any cold feeling of respect.for the office of Bjshop, which would have proi-
tected him frofn consequences which would have been summarily visited
upon any other offender, under circumstances of similar atrocity ?

But is it not, at all events, a most remarkable thing, lhat Mr. Beare
should not have.manifested even so much feeling and emotion on the subject
as to have spoken to the Bishop? One would suppose lhat the bursting
emotions of his heart would have sought some vent, and that if he had not
the manliness to chastise the man who had outraged the feelings and person

' of his wife, and assailed his own hono;- in the tender.est point, he would at

181

least hare made some effort to relieve his mind of the pressure then
upon it. But what is bis conduct ?

Why. he teiis his wife to say nothing about it, and to come down and join
in pray :-rs : and he actually compels'the wife of his bosom, whose feelings
and person had been outraged beyond description, to come down -and meet
the man who had so insulted her. and not only to meet him, but to join with
him in prayer a prayer, which, under such circumstances, was -little leas
than an insult and" mockery of the God to whom it was addressed ! A more
particular narrative of the case was made by her to her husband, after they
had retired for the nigb't ; .but still, no resolution was formed of different
conduct towards the Bishop'; and in the morning, we find these three persons
seated at the breakfast-table, in all 1 the cordiality of the most unbroken social
intercourse ; and after a- friendly parting with Mrs. Bearej the Bishop leaves
the house, and is cosily driven a distance of 'seven miles, by her husband,
to his place of destination. IJow if the husband was told sue,h a story as
that n6w related, and believed tne one-hundredth part" of it, what should we
expect of his conduct during that ride? Mr. Beare pretends that he was
silent all the. way. But if the evidence of subsequent witnesses be true,
he could no^ have been silent all the way. But even admitting that he was,
it only shows that he could have had "no wroftgs of which to complain;
for rt woold have been utterly impossible for him to hlave been associated 90
nearly with the man who" had.- if not in fact, yet most assuredly in heart,
.committed adultery with his wife, as Dr. Higbee' well expressed it, without
giving some vent to his deep and 'irrepressible sense of the insult and" the
wrong.

This. then, is the story of Mrs. Beare the only witness by whom these.
charges are sought to be sustained I say the only witness, for- the story
of Mr. Beare is nothing. The corroboration which he gives adds, nothing
to the credibility of the story itself. He knew, personally, nothing' of the
facts ; and he merely sustains his wife, by staling that the story is the same
as when first fold to him. Their feelings and motives are the same. Wha:
their motives are it rs impossible for us to fathom, and it may be impossible
even to conjecture ; but that therje are motives, as yet unexplained, at work
in other portions of this case, we have most abundant evidence. It was
attempted to sustain this narrative of Mrs. Beare for the learned Counsel
felt the necessity of sustaining it by referring to the evidence -adduced in
relation to what oceurred in the Bishop's study. On the first occasion the
Bishop was waited on by three or four of thq clergy ^Drs. Milnor,
Muhlenberg, Wainwright, and Higbee. They had heard ofsome story,
and they waited on the Bishop for the purpose of informing him of certain
rumors they had beard, derogatory to his character. Whether this state-
ment was made with great clearness, or with great obscurity, is not very
apparent from the testimony. . Some of the witnesses think that it was made
with great indefinkeness, and thai Dr. Muhlenberg read from a paper tne
general substance of the story. The Doctors recollection is noJ very dis-
tinct as to the. character of this papes, and the other gentlemen cannot give
any clear statement with regard, to it. inasmuch as, considering the whole
matter satisfactorily settled at the time, they had dismissed it from their
minds, and do not pretend to any precision in their recollection of what
occurred, and much less so with regard to the language used by a*ny
party on the occasion. Now, I. am quite willing to take this testimony to-
gether and get a\ the probable facts ; because, in cases like this, we hav

182

no alternative in the examination of testimony, given after a long. interval,
than to examine and compare, and weigh and test its accuracy 'by its pro-,
bability. *I suppose, and respectfully suggest, that, this ought to be the
course of the Court on this subject! They may have pr.oce.eded to state
this accusation, but it is .clear, that they were met by the denial of the
Bishop, for it is human nature, we know, at. once to deny a false accusa :
tion, without waiting for of dwelling upon specifications. And I am the
more confirmed in the belief that the particulars could riot have been given
so fully, as to have been explicitly denied,-, because the Bishop wished to

.see Mr. Beare himself. This desire was expressed at ah early period in.
the interview, and affords strong ground for the belief that there had been
SL general statement 9f the accusation, arid. a general' denial. The subject-
of an explanation must naturally have been presented to the mind of the
Bishop, and probably suggested the interview with Mr. Beare.- The strong
probability of this state of facts, ought at^ajl events to lead the Court to
look very -narrowly at the' transaction^ and reconcile its apparent -discre-
panpies .by the safe test of probability. It. is brought in for the purpose of
making an impression upon the Court as- to the inconsistency, of the Bishop
in his declarations 'on the first interview and on the second. Qn the occa--
skm of the. second interview, all the gentlemen already named were present,
with the exception of 'Dr. Wainwright, who was prevented by the death of
one of the. members of .his family. The moment Jhat these gentlemen en-
ter, the Bishop, having anticipated the visit. of Mr. Beare,- approaches him
with great affection of manner* and with' strong emotion, expressing hkhself
to the effect that he regretted that any thing had taken place on his part

-that should have occasioned any pain, to the feelings, either of Mr. Beare
or of his wife. Some other remarks were made, but immediately upon this
something is said by Mr. Beare on the subject of the veracity of his wife,
but of the precise character of whic.h we have no definite information.
Some -of the witnesses" think, that the expression of Mr. Beare was, " do
you deny the statement made by Dr. Muhlenberg, or that of Mrs. .Beare ?"
to which the Bishop replied, " I do not desire to impute wilful falsehood to
Mrs. Beare." There is,-however, an indistinctness on this subject amongst
the witnesses, and I certainly do. not -intend to follow the Counsel into an
attempt to show that any of these witnesses intended to- misrepresent the
matter. Some of them think the expression' was, " <fo you deny the state-
ment of Mrs. Beare ?" whilst the testimony of both Dfs. Higbee^and Mil-
nor would -s^em to show that it was, "do you impeach the word of Mrs.
Beare?" nreaning'.to put the inquiry \vhidh was nearest to his heart, whether '
the veracity of his wife had been impeached, 'by the remarks of (he Bishop
on the preceding day. . I think I have a right to infer that this was the
. purport of the remarks, and that th reply of the Bishop, so far from indi-
cating any desire to escape from the resolute. ground taken on th'e previous
day, was rather to stand firm" in his. denial, and at the same time to exhibit
a motive which was as pure and benevolent as any that ever actuated hu-
man conduct that of soothing the feelings of Mr. Beare, instead of plant-
ing in his bosom the poisoned arrow of an. impeachment of the veracity of
his wife.- The Bishop might certainly have met the subject with greater
severity of manner. But there were kind relations subsisting' between him
and this young man, just entering Upon life under his friendly auspices ; and
instead of confronting him, as a more austere man would have done, he
kindly and generously sinks his own sense of the injustic.0 sought to be in-

183

flicted on his character by a false story, and endeavors to soothe the feel-
ings of Mr. Beare, whose great and overwhelming fear" was .that the vera-
city of his wife had been impugned.

Now I ask whether the Court will undertake, out of all this uncertainty
of evidence, to impute falsehood to the Bishop, or an admission of this atro-
cious charge ? I think, in this dilemma, the Court will have but little hesi-
tation in discerning the alternative to which justice and reason point.
They will put that construction on the testimony which is most consistent
with the purity of the Bishop, and his personal character, and with the
probabilities of the whole case itself. It just riow occurs to me, moreover,
that it is most conclusive that the Bishop did not intend to make the ad-
mission in the second interview, which the opposite counsel will endeavor
to show that he did, inasmuch as if he had, the fact would have been rec-
ollected by all the witnesses present, with still more distinctness than the
language used by him on the preceding day.

But there is a feature connected with this case, to which I beg to call the
attention of the Court, and which is as much a matter of legal conclusion,
as it is perhaps more appropriately within the spiritual capacity in which
the Court are to'determine this case. It will be recollected that the testi-
mony of all the witnesses who accompanied Mr. Beare, concurs in this
that he and the Bis*hop and the parties separated with feelings of strong
arid of kind emotion ; arid that the Bishop gave vent to his feelings in
tears ; and finally, the very instant they left the house, spontaneously, and
as all the witnesses agree, without one word being said in suggestion of
the subject speaking from their hearts and judgments they arrived at the
conclusion, and expressed the determination, that the matter ought to rest
\yhere it was, and that nothing further was to be said about.it. Now I ask
this venerable Court if they even believe that some indiscretion, on the part
of the Bishop 'had been, made apparent not to the extent alleged by Mrs.
Beare, for I would not insult ihe understanding of the Court by calling
that an indiscretion but that some indiscretion had appeared, and that on
the exhibition on his part of this kind and Christian feeling, these rever-
end gentlemen, some of them his seniors in point of years, were satisfied
that he was innocent, as they jnust "have been, or they- would not have ar-
rived at the conclusion -that the matter ought to be for ever set at re.st ; I
ask this Court whether, under thes'e circumstances, the admonition admin-
istered to 'the Bishop by Dr. Milnor, ought not to be deemed sufficient, and
whether he should not now receive an honorable acquittal ? I put it to
this Court, that in relation to-this last charge, which has been^hunted up
against the Respondent his. subsequent life above reproach and above
suspicion, ought to be admitted as a sufficient .exculpation for any mere in-
discretion which may have been alleged; and, I ask, whether the admoni-
tion extended by Dr. Milnor, with the concurrence of the other reverend
gentlemen, is not all the discipline which, such a case demanded'?

Is there in that Church which you represent, no principle of Christian
forgiveness ? Is it possible that you'sit here as inquisitors that years af-
ter the transactions have occurred, and attaching the very worst motives to
acts which were reviewed at the time, and after the best possible fruits
have resulted from the discipline then administered, you are still to exer-
cise the. stern office of the judge, and inflict punishment in the face of re-
pentance ?

I well recollect an eastern allegory,. which, as exemplifying the beauty

184

i / / > i " i f^\

of that great object of our faith^sincere and Christian repentance struck

me in my youth as most glowingly describing the divinest attribute of our
holy religion the forgiveness of a repentant sinner.

A fallen angel is represented as imploring re-admission into Paradise.
The prayer is granted, upon the condition of presenting at that gate " the
gift that is most dear to Heaven." Buoyant with hope, she goes forth in
pursuit of the precious offering. She finds, and ever and anon, presents
the purest emblems of all that is holy in the sensibilities of the human
heart but she is again and again rejected. Undismayed, yet desponding,
she continues her pursuit ; and in her wanderings, her eye falls upon a
child at prayer near him a man hardened with the guilt of years seared
with crime eagerly intent upon the artless child his eye moistened by
a tear and at length falling upon his knees in prayer. She catches the
precious tear, return's with it in -a transport of joy, arid receives the prom-
ised boon so long sought, and so long deferred. May I not then exclaim,
in the beautiful language of the poet,

" Oh ! is it not thus :

That the precious tears of repentance fall?
Though foul his very plagues within,

One heavenly tear hath'dispell'd them all.
And hymns of joy proclaim through heaven,
The triumph of a soul forgiven."

But I do not admit that the alleged charge .against the Respondent has
been in any degree sustained. The testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Bearc is
shaken in. every material point by the strong improbabilities which we have
introduced as attending the circumstances under which it is brought for-
ward ; and surely if there be any foundation in truth for the comments
which I have' made in relation to the evidence of the other witnesses,
they certainly have tenfold" force when applied' to this lady and her hus-
band. Suppose Mr. Beare willing, for the sake of the. Church, to allow
the Bishop to pass out of his house without any expression .of indignation,
is it to be believed, that on a subsequent occasion, he would have sought
the Bishop for the 'purpose of extending to him again the hospitalities of
his house, and have almost prostituted the person 'of his wife by again
placing her in his presence ? And yet what are the facts ? "We have,
on this subject, the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Schroeder, who swears to an
interview, in relation to which there can be no mistake. EJither Dr.
Schroeder il perjured, or the account of that interview is true. The Coun-
sel on the opposite side seemed to wonder that the Doctor's memory was
so precise and accurate with -regard to matters which, as they suppose,
could not have particularly arrested his attention at that time. Doubtless
some of the members of the Court are personally acquainted with that gen-
tleman ; and if so, to them I appeal for the fact, that his retentiveness and
clearness of memory constitutes one of the most remarkable peculiarities
of his character. But he states a reason why he could not have forgotten
the facts, which cannot but commend itself to the judgment of every sound
mind. " If there had been any want of cordiality," says he, " on the part
of Mrs. Beare towards the Bishop, I could not but' have noticed it, for the
Bishop always spoke kindly of her an'd her husband;" and therefore, and
for the additional reason, that a circumstance occurred, as he states, the'
next day, to fix the facts in his memory he swears positively, that on the

occasion when the Bishop was invited to dinner by Mr. Beare, the invita-
tion was pressed upon him, although he pleaded a prior engagement ; and
that Mrs. Beare "was present, and enforced the invitation, in manner at
least, if not in language. Now, if there were but that one fact in the case,
in answer to this charge that after the Bishop had actually pleaded a
former engagement as an excuse for not accepting that extended by Mr.
Beare, the latter still insisted on the Bishop accepting it, and finally
prevailed on him to do so it would of itself contradict as fully and as
strongly every thing testified to in relation to the outrage alleged in the
case of Mrs. Beare, as if a dozen witnesses had, in terms, contradicted her
whole statement. Can any man 'for a moment reconcile the facts sworn
to by Dr. Schroeder, at this interview, with the feelings which must have
existed between the parties, had the story of Mrs. Beare been true ?

I would here call the attention of the Court to what most forcibly im-
pressed itself on me, that in no single answer which she gave to. a great
variety of questions-, did Mrs. Beare admit, that, from the time of that insult,
upon the occasion of all or any of her meetings with the Bishop, she had
ever exchanged a word with him. Thus, for instance, at the dinner at her '
own house a year after, she gave it to be understood, that she had merely
handed the dishes to him at the table, but without addressing to him a single
word ; and yet how differently has the fact been represented by the other
witnesses, and how, in this as in other particulars, has her story been
contradicted by the evidence of the Rev. Messrs. Goodwin and Sweetzer,
showing the existence of such a state of feeling between the parties as was
not only improbable but absolutely impossible, on the supposition that the
alleged outrages had been perpetrated. Their meeting at church the next
morning, after the interview at Dr. Schroeder's, was- proved by those rev-
erend gentlemen to have been cordial and friendly. The manner of Mrs.
Beare at the table 'was of the same character. There is no attempt to con-
tradict this most material fact. If it had been possible to contradict it they
could easily Jiave done so. Their 'brother, their mother, and other friends were
present at that dinner. Can there then be any mistake or doubt about this
fact ? In the evening, at Mr. Franklin's, we have proved that the social
intercourse between the parties was equally friendly and cordial. Mrs.
Franklin and Mr. Smythe testify, that they did 'not observe any thing, in.
manner or act, to interrupt in the slightest degree the harmony that pre-
vailed, which, if it had occurred, they must have observed.

Now it is not human nature that this state of things could have existed,
and yet that the story told by Mr. and^Mrs. Beare is 'true. We have the
testimony of the Rev. Mr. Goodwin bearing on the same point. . That
gentleman met Mr. Beare, in a-stcamboat coming from Flushing, long after
the alleged occurrences, and seeing the latter reading the Protestant Church-
man, he made some remark to him, to which Mr. Beare replied., speaking
in terms of the greatest esteem for the Bishop, and expressing a hope that
his taking that paper would not be construed into any feeling of unkindness
or unfriendliness towards the Bishop a circumstance slight in itself it is
true, but of importance when viewed as throwing light on the great ques-
tion in this case the motives by which the parties were actuated, and the
state of feeling existing between them. Then we have produced Mr. Foyer,
a colored man of respectability and a communicant of this church, who
testified that on several occasions, after the alleged aggressions, when in
his shop, which is very much frequented by clergymen of the Episcopal

' 24

Church, Mr Beare expressed himself concerning the Bishop in such a
manner as indicated the existence of .the -most cordial and. friendly feelings
towards him.

Having thus reviewed the evidence as applicable to the cases of Mrs.
Beare and the Misses Rudderow, I put .to the Court, then, this emphatic
question have we not furnished the only explanation fhat, consistently
with the most perfect innocence, could have been looked for or expected ?
An explanation going far beyond what, in one of the cases cited to the
Court, is regarded as an abundant defence, to charges preferred years after
the alleged facts have occurred. Of the. case of Mrs. Butler it is hardly
necessary 'to speak ; for after eight years, what explanation could be fur-
nished, or even expected or required, beyond what the improbability of the
story carries with it? In that case, too, we' were kept-- altogether in the
dark with respect to the name of the person who was driving the carriage;
and at this length of time' it is absurd, nay, I may almost say wicked, to
hold the Respondent rigidly to the disproof or explanation of circumstances,
. which could not possibly have left any impression on his mind, and re-
specting which, from mere lapse of time, no explanation could be given.

But it may be said and it will undoubtedly be said-* by the .Counsel on
the other side, that these witnesses have not wilfully perjured themselves ;
and that the Court cannot come to such a conclusion by any. fair or legiti-
mate reasoning from the evidence in the case. There is no necessity for
such a conclusion, or for such an explanation of the glaring contradictions
which I have established. These matters, it seems, have -been the subject
of gossip, in the different neighborhoods where they had their origin. These
stories have been communicated, over and over,' by the parties to their con-
fidential friends. Within the last six or eight weeks, it "has become impor-
tant to certain parties, that the Respondent should be destroyed ; and emis-
saries have been sent to these neighborhoods ; they have sought out the
authors of these stories ; and, without imputing any extreme corruption to
them, it is sufficient to believe that they have been led to regard" themselves
as in a position in which they were required, either to sustain their stories,
or to. stand convicted as slanderers of the accused. One thing is certain
that until the cloud began to gather around the head of the Respondent,
during the sitting of the late General Convention, all these virtuous feel-
ings, which have been slumbering for seven or eight years in one case
and for two years and a half in the most recent one, would have continued
to sleep,- had they not been waked up for purposes, which I am, perhaps,
not at liberty to impute ; and which I certainly will . not travel out of the
testimony to expose. It is certain, however, that some busy-bodies have
been at work in the Church, for the purpose of crushing the Respondent ; -
and have been used by others for the purpose of carrying the design into
effect. I call, then, upon this venerable Court, as they would guard the
purity of this Church, and preserve its discipline from prostitution for the
basest purposes, to look at the motives which are apparent in this prosecu- .
tion ; and to resolve that the force of their high authority, as wielded by
this body, shall not^be perverted to the accomplishment of such unhallowed
purposes.

I will not longer detain the Court, by reviewing at greater length the facts
of this case, or the principles which it involves ; but will leave to my
learned associate to enforce with much greater power than L can employ,
such views of the case as he is so well able to p*resent. I have thus at-

187 .

tempted, with great feebleness, I am sensible, to discharge the duty which
I have felt to be imposed upon me on this occasion. The solemn' and mo-
mentous duty which- rests upon the Court, does not demand any enforce-
ment from me. It is, 'I am well aware, .reajized in all its. magnitude and
interest, by every member of this venerable tribunal. But, in conclusion,
I will say, that believing, as I do, in the entire innocence of the accused, I
confidently call upon you to render, him a prompt and speedy deliverance.
But ifj in the mists of exaggeration and contradiction, to say the least of it,
which surround the case, you discover which I cannot any thing indica- .
ting indiscretion on the. part of the accused, but, free from the taint of
moral impurity, remembering how deeply he has already suffered . and
atoned, I conjure you by the sacred vow under. which you act by that
religion, whose ministers and fathers on earth you are I conjure you L
trust without irreverence, by the holy name of the God whom you adore
" attach crime to the intention, aYid to nothing else absolve the innocent
in heart and when you return to this -bar with your judgment, say to my
cliqnt, in the blessed words of the redeeming Son of that God- : '< Go, and
sip' no more!' ' '

. The Court then adjourned to meet at" .7 o'clock, P. M.

. Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, ' Clerk.

Tuesday, December 31st, 1844,
Seven o'clock, P. M.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, Connecticut, Nopth Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky^ Ohio, New Jersey,
the N6rth Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New York,
South Carolina,' Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Vir-
ginia ; -and the "Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and -the South
Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers. . . . .

GERARDUS CLARKE, Esq., commenced the summing up of evidence
on the part of the Presentment

May it please (he Court : At this protracted stage of the investigation,
it may be some' gratification to. the Court to learn, that in the remarks
which I intend to submit 'to .therp, I hope to occupy W a small portion of
their time, compared with that which has been . consumed by the learned
Counsel who hag preceded me. The demand made upon, him and .upon
myself is essentially different. He had a defence to project and to sustain,
without facts .to aid him. 1 am called upon .to sustain a charge upon
facts, and hence my task is far more simple and direct.

Under whatever aspect this case may.be viewed, however, it cannot be

'denied that it has devolved both upon the Court and upon the Counsel a duty

of the most painful and extraordinary character. To my learned associate

and nfiyself has been assigned the -unwfel come task of presenting for your

188

consideration and judgment, certain charges 'affecting "most deeply the
moral character and ofiicial standing of one of your own order" kflie of the
fathers of that Church which I have 'ever been accustomed to venerate and'
love. Yours is the still more solemn and responsible duty of receiving
these charges,, of. ascertaining' their truth or falsity, and of pronouncing'
judgment upon them, uninfluenced by prejudice or partiality without
fear, favor, or affection.

On an occasion so entirely novel in a matter <5f such solemn import,
who of us can say that .he does not feel a degree of responsibility alto.-
gether unusual in the trial of causes ? Who is there that can say that he
has not felt, during the progress of this investigation, emotions of the most
painful and melancholy character ? As to myself,. although' net altogether
unaccustomed to address judicial tribunals. I can'sarfely say. that I never
rose to perform such a. duty under, greater embarrassment than that which
I now feel ; -an embarrassment not arising from any doubt in piy own
mind as to the propriety and necessity of the course pursued in, this case,
but solely from the importance of the investigation itself important to the
distinguished party accused, to the Church, and to religion at large. . And
selected though' I may have been, to take a part in this investigation, prob-
ably with stmie reference to niy profession, I yet can. assVire you that I
have felt nothing of that partisan zeal or ambition which usually in-
fluences a lawyer in- the performance of professional duty. I have felt
ne vehement desire for victory, in the. usual sense of that term. Victory !
.what is a victory in this case- to the cause which- 1 am* called on to sus- .
tain ? To sustain these charges js ' to overwhelm with 'disgrace) one
under whose episcopal supervision T have passed no inconsiderable portion
of my life rone whom I have been acpustomed to respect as the head of
the Church in the Diocese in which my lot has been fixed one who has
recently performed the solemn rite of Confirmation on my only daughter
one at whose hands I have. mysejf repeatedly joined in the most solemn
offices of our' religion ! Think you. then, Rt. Rev, .Fathers, that in the
performance of the duty assigned me on this occasion, I .can be actuated
by any paltry personal motive of ambition for victory ? or that I can be
influenced by any hostility towards the distinguished party accused? or
entertain arty other sentiments than those of deep sorrow and. mortification.?
I entirely disclaim and disavow arny other desire than that truth ' an3'
justice may-prevail. ,

On- the other hand, however, if the accused party be guilty of the
charges, and 'he should yet gain a victory on this occasion a victory by
a judgment of acquittal at your hands $ then I hesitate not to say that a
deeper wound will be inflicted on that Church, which is an object of vene-
ration and love to us all, than has yet been- suffered by her from any other
cause, at Uny period of her history in this .country.

I regret much that aay remarks have fallen from .any one, during the
progress of this investigation, in regard to the origin of these proceedings'; ;
and that any insinuations should have been made, in any 'quarter, relatrveJ
to a conspiracy ; or that the charges have been preferred out of any other
motive than that of a consciqntious feeling of duty, on. the part of those
who have preferred them. Such insinuations' I know to be. utterly un-
founded in fact; and I entirely disavow'and deny that any thing has been
connected with the investigation that is not apparent to all.. The learnejJ
Counsel who has preceded 1 me, has insinuated 1 and indeed; from interrog-

atories put during the progress oT this trial, it was very evident thjtt.an-
impression of that character has been, studiously attempted to be made
thai this trial had been got up by enemies of the- Bishop.. It -is not so.
.We stand here prepared (expecting, from what had been said in the public
prints, that an attempt, would be made to produce the impression that the
trial was the result of a conspiracy) to show, that no' ground whatever ex-
isted for such a charge. "We had a witness in. readiness to prove that the
surmise was entirely groundless. We could have shown' the origin and
progress of. this investigation up to the moment it was brought before this
Court. But .there was no opportunity afforded for our producing the wit-
ness, as not a particle of proof was offered to lead us into that inquiry,
and therefore we were forced to dispense with his examination!

But from -\vhaf has- already appeared from the letter produced by Dr.
Milnor, it must be. evident to all how this matter .originated ; that it had
Us origin .in another State, and with gentlemen belonging to a Southern
Diocese with" those who had nothing whatever Jo' do wjth the 'controver-
sies or the difficulties which have prevailed in this Diocese. 'That fact
must bo, I think, apparent to all the members of the Court. . It took a def-
inite shap?, undoubtedly, during- the session of the late General Conven-
tion, arid from circumstances w.hich transpired there ; although a' determi-
nation that an inquiry should be made had been previously formed. It is
well, Lknown tp every member of this- Court, that a memorial was presented
to the House of Bishops,' embracing the substance of the present charges :
'an inquiry was thought, necessary, and an in'quiry .was set. on foot which
resulted in the necessity of this presentment. That painful duty devolved
xm the/three "Rt. Rev. 'gentlemen who appear ag the Presenters in this .
case who having, amidst great anxiety of mind, but with perfect con- '
sciousness of the purity of their motives, discharged their duty, now call on .
you for the performance of yours.

In the consideration of the subject before the Court, I shall view it in
reference to two points : first, as to the nature of the offences with which
tne accused party is charged; and secondly, as to the proof brought to
sustain the 'accusation,

. It is true that no crime, in the usual acceptation of the term, is charged
upon the accused- party. But in a. moral point of view, and with -regard
to the sacred" office which he holds, and in the eye of 'Almighty God, very
serious crimes are' imputed to him ; and if he be guilty in any one of the
particulars charged in this 'presentment, then I hesitate not to say, thai he
has fallen from his high estate disgraced . the office- which he holds as an
ambassador of Jesus Christ and inflicted a deep and lasting wound 'upon
that Church whose dearest interests were in part committed to his care.

What, may it .please the Court, is a Bishop 1 What -are the duties he '
assumes what are the qualifications required of him.? In the language
of a great moral poet concerning what' a Minister of the.'Gospel ought to
be, I would say

'.' That were I to describe a BisJuip, such as Paul, . .
Were he on earth, would hear, approve, and own,
Paul should himself direct. me I would- trace
His master strokes,. and 'draw from his design ;
I would express bim, siinple, grave, sincere
In doctrine qncorrupt, in language plain,
.' And plain in manner decent,' Solemn, chaste."

'. -.- In the Epistle of that great 'Apostle \o Timothy, .which iornis a part of
the Corisecratien Service of qur Church, the qualifications and character
of a Bishop are distinctly marked out. ' 1 Timothy iii. 27'. *' A. Bishop 1
must be blameless, the husband of one wife r vigilant^ sober, of good. beha-
vior, given tp hospitality, apt to -teach; not given to irine, no striker^ not-
greedy of filthy lucre; but patient j not a -brawler^ not covetous.; one that
ruleth well his own house>. having his ch.ildren* ih subjection with all 'grav-
ity ; (for 1 if a man know not how to rule his own" house,- how shall he take

. care -of the Church of God ?) hot a novice, lest being lifted up 'with, pride
he fall injo the. -condemnation of the- devil.' Moreover, he must have a-
good report of them .. which are without; lest, he fall intQ reproach and (h&
sufife of the deviL" t -In the Epistle of the same-Apostle to Titus a similar
description of the qualifications qf a Bishop is presented, and in -the Con-
secration vow imposed by the Ritual of our' Church, ihe party consecrated
promises obedience and conformity tp -this 'doctrine ; aed he,, moreover,
.promises that he will " deny all ungodliness and u-orldly lusts. -and live so-,
berly, righteously, and godly .in. this' present evil world ; that' he .may shofc
himself in. all things an example of good-works unto others, that .the adversary
-rrtay be ashamed, having nothing to -say against him." . . *O

I read* these "passages, although they 'are of course, perfectly, familiar to
you, in* order that it may be distinctly -seen \yhat is the fiature pf the -issue
tp be tried in this case.. The object of, the present -.investigation' is to as-
certain whethe* Ihis" solemn vow, has been violated by- "the accused' party,
and to such a degree as. to cadi', for the 'judicial interference. of the highest
authority of the Church. .

.* What, ; then, is the nature! of "the charge . preferred against 'the acjcused *

It is : as the Counsel preceding me has well s^tid ;it js the charge of im-
morality .and impurity, immorality of the most debasing character, and

' totally inco.nsistentiwith tke existence of true religion i hi the heart. If 'the

charges are true, yrhai do they show ? -'Why, that although Bishop Onder :

dorik has, through a period of six or seven years,, perforrned all his -official

' . duties. with perfect regularity, yet that h^ has durkig tha whole of that

period,, and. in- the. midst of hjs.' official acts, been guilty of indulging the

most -licentious and debasing passions ; .that at the same moment -that he

was calling on his flock, to forsake the evil of their ways-r-to resist the evil

propensities of their nature to repent- and be forgiven-r he was continually
.yielding; to those propensities in himself, exhibiting the 'worst possible ex-
ample,, a&d endeavoring to corrupt individual mefnbers of his flock-. -They
show that.in every, instance specified in .the Presentment, he was guilty of
adultery in his heart. . And what were the occasions. selected, for .the per-
petration of those acts which presented the- lamentable 'evidence .of the-ex-

istence-of these unhallowed emotions and propensities.? Why, in -the case
of Mrs. Butler^ embracing the first and second specifications, : he was ori his.

. way to perform'the solemn; ofiice -of ordination on be? ' husban'd. In , the
case narrated by Mr. Bolles,- he was about proceeding to the' Convention of
his Diocese, to deliberate iip9n high' and 'solemn duties': ' In the c&se of the
Misses Rudderow, he'w.as proceedingi on . a Sabbath- from the house of God
to the dwelling in' \yuich he was to be an 'horjo/ed 'gQest.- In tiie case of

Mrs. Beare, he had just performed the solemn rite of Confirmation, and. was
.returning from the sanctuary t6 the house of his friend; whose wife was the
'object of his,assault,^-showing thereby- that "no^d'uties, however solemn no

places, however sacr,ed-*-no times,' however holy no persons, however -en-

191

titled to his respect were sufficient to restrain his libidinous propensities.
But it is unnecessary for me to dwell on the nature of these offences. The
Counsel on the other side has conceded that the charges are of a very ag-
gravated character, and that, if they be true, they constitute a case against
the accused which shows that he is entirely disqualified for the sacred office
he holds. It is, therefore, entirely unnecessary for me to detain you by any
further remarks on this point, and. I shall proceed at once to the con-
sideration of the second point, which has reference to the nature of the
proof brought in support of this accusation.

The first case contained in the Presentment, is that of Mrs. Butler ; and
before I proceed to the examination of it, I beg leave to call the attention of
the Court to s.ome points submitted by the Counsel on the other side.

First, in regard to the number of witnesses. The Counsel supposes that
these charges must in every instance be sustained by two witnesses, or else
they fall ; and he calls upon this Court to say, by their verdict, that unless
in every case the charges are sustained by two witnesses, the Presentment
entirely falls to the ground, as unsupported by proof. For the purpose of
maintaining this position, he appeals first to the Jewish law, and secondly
to the law as laid down by our Saviour, in different passages in the New
Testament referring to the Jewish law. Now in regard to the doctrine
which he derives from the Jewish law, it is unnecessary for me to dwell
long upon it. It is undoubtedly true, that according to the Jewish law,
certain crimes could not be established unless upon the evidence of at least
two witnesses ; but I wholly deny that there is any thing in the dispensa-
tion of the New Testament which recognises that rule of the old Mosaic
code. The Counsel has indeed referred us to Matthew xviii. 15, 16, and
17. But I ask, does that passage contain a recognition of the Jewish doc-
trine as stated in Deuteronomy ? Certainly not. The words are, " If thy
brother shall trespass against thee, go tell him his fault between him and
thee alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother ; but if he
will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth
of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Now who is the
witness of the fact in this case ? The' party who makes the complaint, and
he only ; and in case the trespasser refuses to listen to him, he is enjoined
to take with him two or more witnesses, before whom the charge may be
made. They are to be .the witnesses of the accusation, not of. the fact.
The party who suffered the wrong, is the accuser, and the others are the
witnesses of the accusation. The same explanation is applicable to
1 Tim. v. 19. But I defy the gentleman to show any passage in the
New Testament which recognises the doctrine, that a charge cannot be
sustained unless there are two or three . witnesses to the fact. There is
no such doctrine to be derived from the New Testament. But the Counsel
cited another passage John viii. 17 and 18. Now does the Counsel
really intend to deduce from that passage the doctrine that two witnesses
are necessary ? Our Saviour teaches no such thing. All that he intepds,
by this reference to the Jewish law, is to convince the Jews themselves by
appealing to their prejudices, and thus convicting them by their own law.
It is for that purpose only that he refers to the Jewish code, and not for the
purpose of re-enacting the rule under the ne^ dispensation which he came
to establish.. So also in Hebrews, x. 28 : the Court will perceive that in
thjs, as in all the other passages, there is reference to the Jewish law, be-
cause the text is addressed to the Jews ; and in order to overcome their

192

prejudices, an appeal is made to their own law, by which they are shown
to be condemned. But there is no recognition of the binding force of the
Mosaic rule as to two witnesses, under the new dispensation.

Then as to the civil law, to which the learned Counsel also referred in
support of his extraordinary position, all I have to say is this : I admit that
according to the civil law this plurality of witnesses is necessary to estab-
lish a charge but I deny that we have adopted the civil law either in our
political or'ecclesiastical institutions ;' and according to Phillips, the civil
law prevails only where it has been' expressly recognised and established.
Now neither in this country nor in England does the civil law prevail, ex-
cept, perhaps, in the ecclesiastical courts of England, and then it is in
every instance, I believe, adopted by Canon. In this Court, we have es-
tablished an independent system of our own. The Church in this country
has adopted laws and Canons of its own ; and unless by the Constitution and
Canons of the Church the civil law is recognised and established, it is not
of any binding force in this or any other ecclesiastical Court.

Upon .the subject of the civil law, and to show the absurdity of it on
this point of two witnesses, and that it has been abandoned, I refer to 3d
Blackstone's Commentaries, 370 :

" One witness (if credible) is sufficient evidence to a jury of any single
fact. Our law considers that there are many transactions to which only
one person is privy ; and therefore does not always demand the testimony
of two, as the civil law universally requires. ' Unius respomio testis om-
nino non audialur.' To extricate itself out of which absurdity, the modern
practice of the civil law Courts has plunged itself into another. For as
they do not allow a less number than two witnesses to be plena prolalio,
they call the testimony of one, though never so clear and positive, semi
plena prolalio only, on which no sentence can be founded. To make up,
therefore, the necessary complement of witnesses, when they have only one
to a single fact, they admit the party himself to be examined in his own
behalf, and administer to him what is called the suppktory oath ; and this
immediately converts the half proof inlo a whole proof. By this ingenious
device, satisfying at once the forms of the Roman law, and acknowledging
the superior reasonableness of the law of England, which permits one wit-
ness to be sufficient, and lays it down as an invariable rule that " nemo testis
esse debet in propria causa."

[Mr. OGDEN. You are reading from a note in that book, I believe.

Mr. -CLARKE. Yes, but the language is Blackstone's.]

Mr. CLARKE proceeded Now the Counsel on the other side endeavors to
draw an analogy between this and some other cases in which two witnesses
are required under the common law, and refers to the cases of treason and
perjury. His argument presented a very beautiful analogy on this point
. between the crime of treason and that with which the party before the Court
stands'fcharged ; but unfortunately the analogy fails, because he places the
reason of the rule in treason on an entirely different footing from that of the law
itself: He supposes that in the case of treason two witnesses are necessary be-
cause tjie party accused is supposed to be under the oath of allegiance to his
country, and therefore that one witness ought not to be suffered to controvert
that allegiance, as that would be only oath against oath. That is not the
foundation of the requirement? as I shall be able to show the Court ; and
therefore that part of his argument entirely fails. " The instances of
treason and perjury are exceptions to the rule." In the case of perjury,

103

undoubtedly two witnesses are necessary, because you are going to convict
a party of swearing falsely which you cannot do on the single oath of an-
other party. . The reason is here quite apparent. But what is the reason
in the case of treason ? " In the case of treason, it is a mere rule of policy
devised for the protection of the liberty of the subject. 1 ' 1st Starkie, sec.
364. And these are the only cases to which the learned Counsel referred,
or can refer, where two witnesses are requisite under the statute, or by the
common law in this country ; and the reasons for the exception in the case
of treason, are entirely different from those assigned by him. In the case
of treason, he would have the Court to suppose that it was required because
the party accused is to be presumed to be under the oath of allegiance to
the government. I have shown that this is a fallacy.

Then with regard to the lapse of time, the learned Counsel has endeav-
ored to draw another analogy. But before I proceed to this point, allow
me to add a word or two in illustration of the absurdity of the rule attempt-
ed to be laid down with respect to the requirement of the two witnesses.
In this country a man can be condemned for any crime, except the two
already mentioned, on the testimony of one witness. He may be sent to
the scaffold, he may be sentenced to the State Prison for life, on the evi-
dence of one witness. See then the dilemma to which the Court would
be' reduced by the adoption of such a rule as that insisted on by the learn-
ed Counsel I You could not degrade a Bishop whom the civil tribunals
had sentenced to the gallows or to the State Prison, because you had not
two witnesses to the fact of his guilt ! Is this Court at this enlightened
era in any danger of adopting a rule of evidence which would lead to
such absurdities as these ?

So in regard to lapse of time, although this Court has already disposed
of that point, yet as it has been alluded to by the learned Counsel, it may
be well to show that there is no reason whatever in it. The whole doc-
trine is, that in law, when a great lapse of time has intervened between
the commission of the crime and the trial, it ought to be taken into account
in all doubtful cases and all doubtful points, to the benefit of the accused.
But if carried any further than this, and a rigid rule of limitation is adopt-
ed, precisely the same difficulty arises as in that of two witnesses. If you
limit cases in this way. you shut out from the reach of your authority
offences punishable in the civil tribunals. A man guilty of murder, for-
gery, or any other felony, three or four years ago, is liable to trial and
punishment by the statutory laws. And shall a rule of evidence be
adopted by which it will be out of your power to try and to degrade a Bish-
op who may be sent to the State Prison by the civil tribunals ? I think not.

[Ma. OGDE.V. I don't exactly understand your argument.

MR. CLARKE. I am showing to what absurdity the adoption of a statute
of limitation in our ecclesiastical system would lead.

MR. OGDEN. No. but do you mean to say that a man who has been
guilty of forgery can be brought to trial after three years have elapsed
since the commission of the act ?

MR. CLARKE. Xo. not in case of forgery under our statute, but the stat-
utes of the different States vary in this respect ; and I will refer to the
tease of crim. con., in which you can bring an action within six years,
even under our statute.]

MR. CLARKE. I am satisfied that the Court are not going to be governed
by any rule of limitation which might 1- -ad to such absurdity as I have roen-

194

tioned. . If you do adopt any rule on the subject, I should .suppose it would
be that which prevails in our courts of equity ; and what is that ? Why, in
cases of fraudulent concealment,, you 'can bring the action in. the courts of
equity at any period within six years after the discovery is made. In cases
of breach; of trust, and in .all other cases not specially mentioned, you may
bring it within ten years after the" causes .of action accrued. Now I ask
the Court, if any analogy- is to.be drawn between the statute of limitation
and the practice of the Court, ought it not to be founded on this rule with
respect tof breaches of trust ?. Here is an important trust committed to the
party accused, 'which, if the charges are true, he has violated, and adopt-
ing the rule which prevails in our courts of equity, he might be proceeded
against 'at any time within ten years for the commission of the act.

These t are all the remarks with which I intend to trouble the Court in
regard to the two points raised by the opposite Counsel.

I now nave to consider the evidence produced before 1 you for the purpose
of sustaining -the charges in this Presentment-

The firet case is that of Mrs. Butler. And before I proceed to consider
that case,, permit me to remark that there appears throughout this investi-
gation, and throughout the argument of Counsel, an attempt to establish a
defence -oh the ground that *he circumstances proved by the witnesses are,
in some Instances, inconsistent with the charge made. It has also been
attempted; to be shown that the witnesses brought in support of the charge
have -contradicted each other, and-.in some instances themselves. On this
point I bfeg to refer the Court to some very sensible remarks made in
1 Starkiej 467.

" It is 10 be observed that partial variances in the testimony of different
witnessesion minute and collateral points, although they frequently afford
the adverse advocate a topic for copious observation, are of little .import-
ance, unless they are too prominent to be ascribed to mere inadvertence or
defect of jmemory, I know not (says Dr. Paley) a more rash or uriphUo-
sophical conduct of the understanding, than to reject the substance of a
story by reason of some diversity in the circumstances with which it is re-
lated. The usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under
circumstantial variety. This is what the daily experience of courts of
justice teaches. When accounts of a transaction come from the mouths
of different witnesses, it is seldom that it is not possible to- pick out appa-
rent or real inconsistencies between them. These inconsistencies are studi-
ously displayed .by an adverse pleader, but oftentimes with little impres-
sion on the minds of the. ; judges. On the contrary, a close and minute
agreement induces the suspicion of confederacy and fraud* Numerous,
and sometimes important, variations present themselves ; not seldom, also,
absolute contradictions ; yet neither the one nor the other are deemed suf-
ficient to shake the credibility of the main fact."

. Now in regard to the testimony of. Mr. and Mrs. Butler, and of Misses
Rudderpw, and that of Mr. and Mrs, Beare, it is quite possible some dis-
crepanciqs may be presented in the various statements ; but I ask the Court
whether, ;under the authority just cited, a variation by different witnesses
in the narration of circumstances is to be regarded as shaking their testi-
mony as 'to the main fact, when they agree iji that ?

There as an important' fact connected with this case, ip respect to the
character; of these witnesses. The Court will have observed that all the
testimony offered in support of these charges comes from communicants

from the sons .and daughters of the Church. The ; Presenters h>ve. not
gone out into th -world to seek for /witnesses against' the accused party;...
They have not gon'e beycmd . th'e :p^ie; of their own Chlirch. In' all -in-
stances,, and it- is a. refmarkable feet, ..the witnesses are communicants of
our Church; If then-the accused 1 tq be 'foiipd guilty,, if he is to be con-
demned, it will not be on the te^tinlony of .enemies, but on that of meiii-
bers of his own flock; and :as we ' wjll. show you. members of his'. omr.
flook' who can haVe no earthly ob'je'ot. but -fKe Establishment of: the truth.

. Well, then, we 'now: come to the- ctlse.pf Mrs. Butleri ft is not neces-
sary to go;' into any detail of tiie: 'facts' Delated by her. ' -Thev will be
fresh in the recollection of eve fy.meEfl'ber'of the 'Court, and la re too humil-
iating and disgusting to be repeated ofte"rier than is absolutely required".
The- Counsel ori the other side will- concede- that if tlint charge be proved
to the- satisfaction of the Cputt^then at that time, whatever'; may be' the'
case now, the accused party .was al'togetiK'r disqualified for the high and
h-ply 'office, which he holds, and that the only way in \vh.ieh, lie could have
goit. rid of -stich disqualification-, lirbst .have''*eieh by subsequent repenfailc'e/
and .amendment. Who then arc Mr. uu(l .'Mrs.' Butler? Are they un-" :
.known, to the members of this Coijrl ? 'Aire "they strangers, whose charae*.'
ters require:' to be examined into arid proyod ? Certainly not. Ma\ B'ritter '
is the son of a clergyman, welt -known to 'e'revy ' member"' of- the Court.
His Father was a distinguished 'clergyman of Troy, whose- fame was 'In' all
the Churches ; and I- Venture 't6 say that. there never has been a man
reared in tliis State., with more-care as 'to hi^-niOral charapter. and princi-
ples than Mr. Butler. He \yas indieed' brought up according to ; t lie strict-
est principles of OUT religion, and he comes, before you with tliat character.
Ana who is. his wife-? Is she i unkhcAVri t this Court ? -Her fatlier was
the most intimate friend of the', party accused. She was herself no st ran- '
ger to him. , She had been brought up umle'r-hLa eye. She had from her^
youth -experienced, from him that kind of aiiecUqriate, regard which, 'as she
herself 'say?, sh6 once. " supposed parental,"- and which the, Counsel at-
tempted to show had ih truth been exhibited towards her. } ask.
coulid these !
' these facts
: tile feelings

cofne here for the discharge of the v .painfaVfmf the holy and swrred duty,
of establishing. the truth in this important investigation ?

Well, th^n, how stands the cfase presented in the testimony of these
highly respectable' and unimpeachable witnesses ? Mr. Butler being in
deacon's orders, and settled a.t Syracnse, knowing that .the Bishop was
coming on; that .route' of .visitation, from the most affectionate con-
sideration for him, goes fifty' miles for .the; purpose of meeting ;hioi, and
carrying hirtn to his place of residence; and' this lady, showing the affection
which she then entertained for 'the Bishop, accompanies -her hrisb'and on that
Journey of fifty miles. She does- meet 'iiini. and he proceeds with her and
her husband to the place where he was to fulfil his appointment. She trayefe
the w-hole night in order to enable the Bishop to reach his 1 place of destina-
. tioh in due? season for the ordination ; and it was during that awfuj highi
that these transactions took place y,'hich are the foundation of one of the
charges now presented against the accused..

The- Counsel who has already addressed you did, rot I regret exceed-
ingly, that he did not hear the testimony of that lady; for in the whote

196

course of my experience, I have never seen a witness who went through
such an ordeal with more distinguished credit. I ask the Court to remark
her sitting in that chair, and say whether there was the slightest indication
on her part of any hostility towards the party accused ? Could you, from
any. thing you saw or heard, imagine that she was governed by any other
feeling than a sincere desire to state the truth ? Such, then, is the case of
Mrs. Butler, sustained in part by the evidence of her husband*; indeed, I
may say wholly sustained, for in .addition to his testimony on the stand, a
reading of the affidavit of Mr. Butler was asked for, and it is now in evi-
dence before you ; and that affidavit narrates all the particular circum-
stances of that case. It is true that we could not have offered that affidavit
as to all its main features it was undoubtedly hearsay. He had the nar-
ration from his wife, and we could not have made his version of it testimony ;
but our opponents had a right to do so, and they have availed themselves
of it, and you have now before you the testimony of both as to all the facts.

Well, what are the comments of the Counsel on the story of Mrs. But-
ler ? Why, that it appears to him so direct, so straightforward, so clear,
that it must have been a made-up story ! That it was made for the occa-
sion, not dictated by her consciousness of truth, by a determination to tell the
truth ! That is the inference which the Counsel wishes the Court to draw,
and for what reason ? Not from any confusion in her manner not on ac-
count of any deviations from what every person who heard her testimony
must have regarded as a continual flow of truth; but the Counsel thinks
" because she told so straight a story, it must necessarily have been made
up!" Now, I have heard Counsel argue ably and successfully, that be-
cause a witness was confused in the manner of testifying because mani-
fest inconsistencies in his statements appeared in regard to the several. facts
testified to, the inference was to be drawn that the truth was not told that
the witness was guilty of a fatal inconsistency, which destroyed the force of
his testimony. But quite a different course is adopted by the Counsel on
this occasion ; this lady's testimony is impugned because it is so direct, so
straight-forward. Oh ! but, says the Counsel, if that testimony is true
if the Bishop was ever guilty of that misconduct towards Mrs. Butler, was
it probable that she could have behaved in the way she states ?

The gentleman entirely overlooks in his argument the relative position of
these witnesses and the party accused.. How was Mrs. Butler situated ? She
was then but 1 9 or 20 years of age she had been brought up under the eye of
the Bishop her father had been his particular friend ; she found the Bishop
laboring, as she thought, under the effects of intoxication, and she was wil-
ling to hope that the indignities which she experienced from him arose from
that cause not having heard any thing at that time which would have led
her to suppose that they evinced a prevailing licentious propensity. She was
therefore in these circumstances, and acting under these impressions, dis-
posed to submit to the indignity rather than make an outcry. But yet she
did make an appeal to the Bishop himself, which I should have supposed
would have melted the most obdurate heart. What was it ? Why, she kindly
fook the hand which had been the instrument of that indignity, and placing
it modestly and gently on his knee, said, " Bishop Onderdohk, I have been
accustomed to respect that hand. it has been laid on the heads of many of
those whom 1 love to-morrow it is to b*e laid in ordination on the head of
tny husband" disgrace it not, pollute it not by such conduct as this ! That
is the appeal that she made, and for the express -purpose of bringing him to-

197

a proper sense of his misconduct, and also of attract ng the attention of her
husband, without exposing the matter to the driver. 'And I ask, cannot the
Court appreciate the motives of this lady ? Were they not laudable ? and do
they not commend themselves to every honorable mind to every feeling heart?

It seems that Mr. and Mrs. Butler had taken with them in the carriage
a man who was but slightly attached to the Church, and who had some sus-
picion of the purity of the clergy who ministered in it. Thai had .been
the subject of conversation from Syracuse to Ithaca, therefore we can
easily account for the extreme unwillingness of the lady to make any ex-
posure of the highly improper conduct of the Bishop in the presence of this '
man. She thought that the indignity would not be repe'ated ; but it was re-
peated, and with ado*ed grossness, and she was finally compelled to fly from
her seat beside the accused to the lap of her husband, on the front seat, and
there she remained during the whole of the night, inclement as it was, be- m
cause it was no longer safe for her to remain where she had been seated.
And it is a remarkable feature in this case, that the Bishop never made any
allusion to this movement on her part, and never asked for any explanation
whatever. Such is her testimony. She relates all this to her husband on the
first opportunity. What is his conduct ? Was it not that which would have
been the conduct of any other virtuous man ? He says at the moment, " I will
not be ordained by the Bishop ! I will not ride with him ! I will not have
any thing to do with him !" And it was with the greatest difficulty that his
wife succeeded in soothing his feelings so as to induce him to go on, or be
ordained by the Bishop the next day. But the Counsel asks, " If such an
indignity was offered, why was there not more noise made about it ?" It
will readily occur to the mind of every one that there were various rea-
sons why a great noise was not made about the matter. Mr. Butler was a
young man just entering the ministry ; he had never heard of any thing
against the Bishop ; he thought that this, perhaps, was only a single in-
stance of indiscretion ; if he came out and exposed him, what was the con-
sequence ? Why, he would be called on to meet a very powerful opponent ;
and how ? On the testimony of his wife, who would thus be exposed to all the
harassing and painful consequences of accusing a Bishop of such gross enor-
mities. Was not all that more than sufficient to appal a man of stronger
nerves than Mr. Butler f There were many reasons to operate in keeping him
silent, and but one that he should expose the Bishop the conviction that he
was corrupt, and ought to be exposed. Under the influence of these feelings,
then, Mr. Butler refrained from denouncing the conduct of the Bishop on that
occasion. Perhaps he erred in this; if so, it was the error of a kind heart.

But I ask, was not the subsequent conduct of Mr. Butler consistent
throughout ? I admit he did not pursue the course which I myself would
have adopted, and which doubtless many of those whom I now address would
have pursued. But was not his conduct consistent after he had resolved on
that course which he should adopt? The Counsel has founded his argu-
ment almost wholly on what he calls the improbabilities of this case im-
probabilities arising from the character of the charge itself, and the conduct
of those parties towards the Bishop subsequently. And how is this? Mrs.
Butler, it will be recollected, never saw the Bishop from that time till she
saw him here, with the exception of one single occasion, at the holding of
the Convention at Utica. She never exchanged a word with him on any
subject since that time, and only saw him once. We therefore search in
vain for any inconsistency in her conduct. Now, with regard to Mr. Butler,

he says that on one occasion the Bishop did pass through Syracuse ; but did
Mr. Butler go to see hkp ? Did'the Bishop call upon Mr. Butler, then the only
clergyman of our Church in .that village ? Not at al{. That is certainly a
remarkable fact in the .ca^se, showing as it does a consciousness on the part
of the accused that he- had been guilty of some impropriety of conduct. Mr.
Butler was informed,, however, by one of his vestry} that the Bishop was
there, and he was asked if he knew it before, and he said he did ; he knew
it half an hour before, '^but he did not think it proper to wait on the Bishop,
nor would he have done so. had he not been sent for for that purpose by one
of his vestry. \Vas it not then perfectly proper and perfectly consistent that
he should go 1 He wa&then obliged either to call on the Bishop, or to tell the
vestryman the reason why. Then the whole transaction would have come
out. But that would have been directly contrary to. the course which Mr.
Butler had marked out. for himself. Mrs. Butler and her husband had de*
termined after that time to have no intercourse with the Bishop that they
could possibly avoid. fThey meant to treat him with the civility due to his
office, if forced into his .-.company ; but Mr. Butler did not think it proper to.
.call upon him voluntarily, and would not have called at all but for the rea-
sons before slated. But he did go, under the circumstances, and met the
.Bishop, in company with some other gentlemen, and -remained with him till
his departure. This is'all the intercourse he has had with the Bishop, except
meeting him once, at the time of the Convention at Ulica, when they ex-
changed the ordinary salutations in passing. And I believe, with these two
exceptions, Mr. Butler has never met with the Bishop since the transactions
complained of in the Presentment.

Are the Counsel on the other side then really prepared to say that they
have made out the conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Butler, to be so inconsistent
and improbable, that they must be convicted of perjury ? Is there any
thing to suspect in their testimony ? On the contrary, I ask triumphantly,
is not the conduct of both the lady and her husband perfectly consistent
throughout ? Unless I am entirely mistaken,' there never was a charge
more completely made out. and more thoroughly corroborated by the sub-
sequent conduct of the parties. The only argument of the Counsel was
based on the assertion, that it was improbable tnat the Bishop could com-
mit such an offence ; or that if it had been committed, the parties would
have treated the Bishop differently. '

The Counsel put several questions to Mr. Butler, fer the purpose of show-
ing that he was engaged in a. conspiracy in getting up. this presentment: in
this, however, he signally failed. Mr. Butler states,; that having settled in
Boston, and hearing there was trouble of this description brewing iri Phila-
.delphia, he at once determined not to go to that city , 'although he had pre-
viously made arrangements. ,to:go there with his friend, Dr. Vinton. He
was apprehensive he might be called on to testify, and therefore deter-
mined not to go. But his friend promised to write him in case any inves-
tigation should be going on, and not hearing any thing from him, he con-
cluded that the matter had passed off, or been laid aside, and accordingly went
to Philadelphia. This shows how carefully he acted how reluctant he was
to be made a witness in this case.. Mr. and Mrs. Butler must be regarded as
unwilling witnesses, and appear here only from an imperious sense of duty.

But the Counsel has attempted to show that there is some discrepancy
in their testimony ; but that is as completely and satisfactorily explained, as
it is possible for any difference in human testimony to be. It will be recol-

: s^B'-'- if ' \' > A *: 'V.. .

that Mr. Butler, in his affidavit, stated that tfe Bishop attempted

to-.puU up his wife's clothes. " Mrs. Butler corrected : th'at as soon as-^she
heard of it. Hqw js this to -be explained ? r Mrs,- But^r, when she left

the seat beside the "Bishop [anil went forward to her husband, stated the
difficulty in a. whisper. Mr. Butler sweats tp that/ajid $p does she. -And
it will be recollected that ope part of -the charge is* that the Bishop caught
her by the" thigh, and probably somewhat raised hfec clothes, as she says ;
that in- communicating: the matter to her hfusbarid, ije thoiight that she told
him that the Bishop had attempted to raise her clothe.s,:which was incor-
rectshe only expressed & fear -he would do so ; and, it is to be borne in
mind, that both mutually agreed to dismiss the su,bjecf from all remark
and thus he remained under that erroneous impre^sion-'to the time h'e made
the affidavit in Philadelphia. , -^
: [Bishop I v^s It 'is explained on the ground ;that she feared that the
Bishop, would do sOr-Hnere apprehension on her part.]

Mr. CLARKE That may be so. Bat. now I ask the Court whether that
'discrepancy, arising, from mere misapprehension, is not tpo small a matter"
( >:i which to ground a. -serious argument ? She-, in her fright and agitation, in
getting. over that seat, makes this hurried comm'unicati6ii, and this, misap-
. prehension on his part becomes imprinted or* his mindj and forms part of
IMS' recollection of the transaction ; and as the. subject wasVnot again brought
up between them, the misapprehension remained- unco-rrected. But wUeu-
he made the affidavit, it is evident that he made the statement in the firm
belief that it was true ; but when, on his return.- from. Boston, he showed
tlio affidavit to his , wife, she confirmed -every part of jj but that,; which
she contradicted immediately, and Mr. Butler immediately wrote to Bishop
^Mpade, informing him' of the mistake. Now,, according to the rule : qiioted
.from Starkie; this fact goes to confirm the veracity. of both witnesses; be-
cause, if they had intended to make up a story" to. impose upon this Court,
they would have undoubtedly agreed in all (he dejajls of their statement :
that is the case with all those who attempt 'to impose. oh others by a prq-
concerted, and false, story. ' ; . '

But the .Counsel' asks Mr. Butler if he did.net meet the Bishop at Utica T
'on another occasion. \ He admits that he did, unexpectedly. at dinner, at
the house of Mr. Trying; and. he is then interrogated

[Bishop .BE" LANCET It was at Geneva.]

^Ir. CLARKE Ye, it M'as. He is interrogated' closely as to how he
conducted himself^ and his account is entirely consistent. He said he
treated the Bishop with civility, and entered into^conversation with him.
just so far as to avoid- exciting any suspicion that anyidegree of doolness
existed on his part, or any hostile feeling towards the Bishop. This is

perfectly consistent .with Mr. Butler's fixed determination relative to the
course which he resolved to pursue. If he, a presbyter} had been particu-
larly cold to.wards the Bishop, it would at once have attracted attention,

and led to that explanation which Mr. Butler liad qetennjned to avoid. If
lie :had pursued a different course on this occasion,^ w<juld have been at
once asked Jjy Mr. Irving, " Why. have you insulted ; the Bishop? you
Jiave not only insulted him, but you ha\ie also ipsuked i?ie. whose guest
he -is -what' is the -reason for such -conduct ?" Therefore Mr. Butler
states, that he d>d treat the Bishop with civility on tfei* occasion, and the
explanation is obvious.
I have no.thing : further to say on this case: unless lam entirely .mis-

taken, it stands unimpaired by any thing that has been, or can be offered
in opposition.

The next case is that related by Mr. Bolles ; and the Counsel seems to
think that this charge has wholly failed. ladmit that the testimony of this
witness js different from what we expected, and from what we had reason to
expect, and different from what the witness had stated on former occasions.
I admit the principle that we cannot impeach our own witness. I do not
intend to attempt it; but I do intend to show that Mr. Bolles has exhibited
Tan extraordinary want of memory in regard to that transaction.

What is the charge ? That in riding in the public stage, the Bishop sat
in the back seat with a young lady, and that he put his arm around her,
and took indecent liberties with her person. Mr. Bolles says that he and
the Bishop sat on the middle seat, and that the lady and -a child sat on the
back seat ; and that, in the course of the ride, the Bishop, being quite a
stranger to the lady, probably never having seen her before, placed his
hand upon hers, which she had happened to place on the strap dividing the
seats. Now, according to my view of moral and decent behavior, that
was a gross impropriety. Perhaps, if it stood alone, unconnected with
a.ny other case, it would not appear so strange ; but when it is immediate-
ly preceded by such a case as that to which I have just alluded, it cer-
tainly must be considered in the light of a very gross impropriety. I ask,
what gentleman is there in this community, having a proper regard for hig
own character, who ever takes such liberties with females in the public
stage ? But he did not stop there. She withdrew her hand and as Mr.
Bolles states, " blushingly " withdrew it. Did he stop ? He had an op-
portunity of witnessing the effect produced by the first liberty but did it
satisfy him ? Not at all. He again seizes her hand, and holds it in his,
for what length of time I know not. And how did the action strike Mr.
Bolles at the time ? As it would every other man of proper feeling as
a gross impropriety on the part of the Bishop. I think I can show that
such was his impression then. He now states that it. was a foolish act,
and liable to misconstruction. That is the view he takes of the action
now ; but it was not the view he took of it at the time. It is in evidence
before you, that" when they reached a certain village where there was a,
Methodist school, Mr. Bolles supposed that the lady was going to get out
there, which he greatly regretted. Why ? Because he says he feared that
she might relate this matter in such a manner as to operate to the injury
of the Church ! That was the conclusion in his mind then ; and 1 ask,
what clearer evidence could you desire as to the light in which he re-
garded the conduct of the Bishop on that occasion ? And it is,. moreover,
evident from his statement, that the young lady left the stage before she
reached her destination, in. order to avoid the annoyance she had suffered.

Then, again, when Mr. 'Bolles got to Utica, very soon after his arrival
he relates this matter to Dr. Hawks, and about the same period to Dr.
Taylor also before Mr. Bolles and Dr. Hawks went to the Bishop, on
the subject.

[Bishop LEE That is not in evidence.

Mr. CLARKE I believe it is, sir. Did he consult Dr. Taylor before he
told him the story ? Dr. Taylor had heard Mr. Bolles' story before he
(Mr. Bolles) and Dr. Hawks .went to the Bishop.

Clerk of Court Read from minutes of evidence, sustaining the accuracy
of the statement of the learned Counsel.]

201

Mr. CLARKE proceeded I ask, then, what is the impression made on Div
Taylor ? It is evident that that story was the only inducement which led
him to call on the Bishop. How did Dr. Taylor view it ? Why, so im-
portant 'did he regard the matter, that although ha found the Bishop en-
gaged with several gentlemen . in the church, yet he begged five minutes'
interview with him, and the Bishop was constrained to excuse himself to
those who were with him, and to accompany Dr. T. into the vestry-room,
for the purpose of receiving his communication. Dr. Taylor turned the
key of the door, and then related the story told by Mr. Bolles. How did
the Bishop receive this statement ? He denied the charge told Dr. Tay-
lor not to be at all annoy ed -about it and said that it was only a little girl
that he had taken up, for the purpose of showing her something on the
road. But I wish the Court to mark one fact. Did the Bishop tell Dr.
Taylor that there was a young lady in the stage ? Did he not entirely
omit that fact ? And I ask, for what reason ? Has the Counsel given
any explanation of that omission ? It appears to me to be a very fatal
one. It is very evident, from the statement both of Dr. Taylor and of
Mr. Bolles, that the story was deemed of such importance as to lead to the
calling of the Bishop out into the vestry-room, for an explanation ; and
that then he referred to his taking up the little child, which was true ; but
he entirely omitted to. state that there was- also a young lady in the stage,
in regard to whom the charge was made. That omission, as I have just
said, appears to me very remarkable. It certainly does require some
explanation.

These are all the remarks that I intend to offer on the case of Mr.
Bolles. But it occurs to me that I made an omission of some importance
in the case ofMIrs. Butler. During the course of that terrible examina-
tion of five hours, the question was put and it must have been suggested by
some one for the evident purpose of involving her in some inconsistency
' whether, after all that had occurred between her and the Bishop, he had
not visited her house, and whether she and her husband had not taken him
all over it, for the purpose of showing him how well they were accommo-
dated ?" What was the answer ? Why, that she and her husband had
never done so : that.no such proceeding had ever taken place; and so
satisfied was the Counsel that he had been misled, that when Mr. Butler
came to be examined, the question. was not put to him.

I come ROW to the case of the Misses Rudderow ; and I shall consider
these two specifications. together, as they are closely connected.

Now what is the testimony of Miss Helen Rudderow? Why, that in
1--SI. when the Bishop visited St. James's Church, for the purpose of per-
forming the rite of confirmation but which, in consequence of some mis-
take, was not administered on that occasion her sister having been obliged
to go home before services were over, by reason of a nervous headache,
she invited the Bishop to dinner. I am not sure whether he had not been
previously invited, at all events, the invitation was extended by her. He
accepted it. and was. with her, driven in the carriage of the Rev. Mr.
Richmond, to the residence of her brother. Mr. John Rudderow. During
that short ride of one mile, those gross acts were committed.

The Counsel has animadverted on the improbability of the story
told by this lady, because she states that the drive of one mile occu-
pied half an hour. I have no doubt it seemed a very long period to

; ' '202

her; but it must also' be recollected, that 'the roads were very bad, and
that the carriage' was drawn -by a parson's horse, which the Counsel has
told you is not usually an animal greatly addicted to r.unnirig away. No
doubt the extraordinary and 'painful situation in which the young' lady was
unhappily placed/ on this occasion, made the' time occupied in returning
home appear longer to Her than it really was. But the indignity was com-
mitted during that ride*; and so agitated was she when she got home, that
she- immediately; ran '.up.staiys and left the; Bishop belowmade a short
communication to her Bister, relative to the wanner in which she had been
treated, and burst into tears, .requesting her Bister to go down and. entertain
the Bishop. Well'!,' the Counsel has labored hard to prove the improbability
of this conduct ;,'and indeed his whole argument is directed to that effort.
But here is a fact,, sworn to by a communicant of the- .Church, is 'it to be
disregarded and disbelieved, because the transaction .testified to appeal's
improbable ? I edmit that on their face, all these charges appear impro-
bable. They must always appear so. 'A charge of impropriety 6f con-
duct against a Bishop of the Church, must always appear improbable.
God forbid that i\\e time should ever come, when such charges would not
appear improbable ! Whether the accused party in this case has availed
himself of that factj and. has intended to avail himself of that circumstance,
w the commissiop of al'J these acts, it is not for me tp'say. But I ask the
Court whether they are prepared to say, that because the charge is, on the
face of it, improbable, ' Miss Rudderow is therefore . to be regarded as
swearing falsely in regard to it? Here she stands, a communicant of th&
Church, with noj earthly -motive for appearing herej but to establish the
truth, and I ask. ^re the Court prepared to reject h,er testimony, because
she swears to that which must of necessity ever be. regarded as improba-
ble the commission of an act of gross and immoral character, by a
Bishop of the CHurch 1 ' I apprehend riot. l| believe that -the Court are
not prepared to regard this. 'witness as perjurjed, on such grounds. as have
been presented 4>y the learned Counsel on the opposite side. All argu-
ment founded oii t,he mere improbability of 'the act, is! destroyed when the
fact is proved by competent, and credible witnesses.

But the sister 'of the 1 lady went down stairs -in accordance with her -re-
quest, and found the Bishop _m , the parlor standing at- the centre-table, with
a. book in -his ha'hd.' He immediately on seeing her, -with that politeness.
which is characteristic^ of him,- took her hand and seated her on the sofa.
After sitting there' for a short time, he. committed upon her also the indig-
nity which she describes. She removed herself to the' other endof-the so-
fa, and he followed her and .repeated the indignity. Footsteps were heard
on the stairs ; and then-, accioraing to her statement, the Bishop sprang to
the other end oftthb sofa. Afterwards, at the dinnetvtable, it appears that
both the ladies behaved with such coolness '. and reserve to the Bishop, that
it was the subject of- remai-k. However, -they undoubtedly treated him
with the coiirtesjy that #. guest at their table required. After dinner the'
company retired! to the 'drawing-room, and there, on- Miss Jane's going to
the window for the purpose '-of seeing whether it had_ ceased raining-, find
haying lifted up? the blind, the Bishop followed her and committed another
indignity. Well,. this also the; Counsel represents as improbable. I ad-
mit it. But I ask, is. if not sworn to by a witness fqlly entitled to* belief'?
Is it to be admitted that a Bishop of the Church can commit all sorts of

indecencies and crimes with impunity, and only feel obliged to offer the
defence that it is improbable .that a Bishop codd be guilty" of such offences
in order to be at once acquitted ?

But it is said that the testimony of these two witnesses, i? shaken by that
of the RCT. Mr. Dowdney. He has atteniptedtto 'show tfiat the conduct of
these two ladies towards the Bishop a year afterwards W entirely incon-
sistent with- the facts alleged by them. Now how stands' this ? Mr^ Dowd-
ney is brought here Tor the purpose of sustaining* : .the Bjjshop, and I ask
whether, under the circumstances, he comes ^ith a* clasrq to full credit,
-when he diff.-rs from a witness as respectable as himself? ; Is he an indif-
ferent witness ? Has. he not lent. himself for the* purpose of sustaining this
defence ? He admits that he has been running to Dr> Seabury and other?,
and consulting with Counsel., -for the purpose of" preparing this defence; that
he consulted Mir. Graham sLs weeks ago. J '

[Bishop WHiTTrNGH^iM. No, that is not the^vfdanee.' ]

Mr. CLARKE. I think: it is; he said he had consulted Mr. Graham six
weeks ago, and that gentleman said he knew nothing about it till within
about the last- three or four weeks, Mr. Dowdney says i-

Bishop Li .. I should like that point looked. into before the Counsel pro-
ceeds further.

Bishop WHITTIXGH A.M. The testimony is tfiat he 'had ?" consulted -Mr,
Graham and others, within a-monthor six weeks."'] .

Mr. CLABKE proceeded, I do not mean to say that Mn. Bowdney's in--
tenlion was to swear falsely j I only sa^ that he swears carelessly, and that
he comes before the Court under such circumstances as to nbake it apparent
that he is willing to forget things that operate te the prejudice of the cause
he undertook to sustain, while he recollects minutely every thing that favors
the defence.

[Bishop WHiirrxGHjiM. As the character of a witness- is concerned, I
wish to know if the Counse] means to say that the -jiritness* testified that he
consulted Mr. Graham six weeks ago ?

Mi-.- CLARKE. -Yes,' sir.

; Bishop WHITTIXGHAM. Then it is not so in the minutes. He says that
he ' saw Mr. Graham and others within a month crisis weeks."

Mr. CLABKE. Well, I am willing to take it that way the difference la
'.' slight. ...

fiishop IVES. That, however, does pot exactly mean that he Saw Mr.
Graham six weeks ago.

Mr. CLARKE. Why, it probably may be taken to mean fhat he saw him
five weeks ago ; that is the usual inference drawn from an expression of
that kind aad evert four weeks ago '-Mr. Graham, knewj nothing of this
case.]

Mr. CLARKE proceeded. But then Mr. Don dney attempts to show the in-
consistency of those ladies by their 'subsequent conduct towards the Bishop.
WelL how was that ? - The young ladies agreed, perfectly "wfch Mr. Dowdney
in the main particulars of that interview'. They met the Bishop in a friendly
manner. They never intended tor make this case fle subject of a publicr
charge against the Bishop. They were females ;.lhey knew nothing of
the Bishop's conduct anterior- to this : they did not. know but this was the
only case of the kind : they were not swilling to place themselves- in the
awful position of sole accusers of their Bishop, and had marked out a line
of conduct precisely like that of Mr. and Mrs, Butler. What is their own

204

account of that interview alluded to by Mr. Dowdney? They state that
when the Bishop entered the church they were engaged in teaching their
classes in pews, and that the Bishop came up and was introduced to them,
as Jane says, by Mr. Dowdney Mr. Dowdney says there was no intro-
duction. Now I think the probability of the case is in favor of the Misses
Rudderow. It is reasonable to suppose that Mr. Dowdney would naturally
introduce the Bishop^ and then that they spoke to him and entered into
conversation with him, and that he made inquiries about the scholars, and
stayed there so long as to teach the children the collect for the day. Now
Mr. Dowdney says nothing about the Bishop's teaching the children the
collect for the day, but states that the whole time spent in the church was
occupied in conversation with the ladies. Very probably the Bishop entered
into conversation with .the children and taught them the collect of the day,
but this Mr. Dowdney did not notice, or does not remember. He said also
that the ladies were sitting in the middle of the passage, and thaMhe Bishop
had to go very near them in order to get to the chancel. But on the next
day Mr. Dowdney comes forward and states that his memory had failed
him on this point, and that the ladies were in their pews, precisely as they
themselves had stated ; sho\ying that in this instance, at least, the memory
of the ladies was more faithful than his. And I ask you whether that fact
alone does not show conclusively, that you can place greater reliance on the
testimony of these ladies than on that of Mr. Dowdney ?

But is not this discrepancy between the ladies and Mr. Dowdney a very
trivial matter on which to base an argument ? The ladies had never re-
lated this story to Mr. Dowdney, consequently they did not on this occasion
exhibit any coolness or reserve towards the Bishop, which could have ex-
cited the attention of their pastor, and which would inevitably have led to
that explanation which they were determined to avoid. The same expla-
nation is perfectly satisfactory as to the conduct of one of the young
ladies in meeting the -Bishop as she came dow,n from the organ-loft. We
are perfectly ready to admit that the Bishop was treated with civility
there also; but, as Ihave shown, there is nothing -.whatever inconsistent
in that, any more than in the case of the other witnesses. Mr. Dowdney
states that Miss Riker was present on this . occasion. We have made
every exertion to induce her to appear here, but we have failed. Why
does she not appear? I can. find another reason th'an the unwillingness
of her brother. Mr. Dowdney is still the pastor of Miss Riker. She is a
communicant of his church at this very hour, and if she were here, it
would be either to convict Mr. Dowdney or the Misses Rudderow of, I
will not say perjury, but of some mistake about this. matter.

Mr. Dowdney comes here evidently with the most friendly feelings
towards the accused. I think I shall be able to demonstrate that he also
comes with the sentiment -of hostility to the young ladies. It appears
that they and he had some difference with regard to the use of the church
by a benevolent society. He had very high notions about the sanctity of
a church, and believed that it ought not to be used for any other purposes
than those of divine worship ; and although the ladies solicited the use of it
for the holiest of purposes, he would not grant it to them. He would have
you to infer that Miss Jane Rudderow said she would go to the Bishop and
see if he would not grant her the use of the -church. Now, is that true ?
They have produced Miss Rutter, of whom Mr. Dowdney had spoken,
and sjie says that she herself made the proposition, and told Mr. Dowdney

205

and Miss Jane Rudderbw, that she didn't care she would appeal to tne
Bishop, and that then Miss Jane Rudderbw said she would accompany her.
This led to the inquiry if she was acquainted with the Bishop, to which sire
replied, that she was on terms of intimacy with him. Well, that was true ;
she had been a member of St. Paul's Church, and had been under the
supervision of the Bishop for many years; she had been in the habit of
conversing with him, and might with just propriety say that she was on
terms of intimacy with him. There was nothing whatever inconsis-
tent in her offering to accompany the other lady to the Bishop for
the purpose of soliciting the use of the church. The opposite Coon-
sel say that it is very improbable that she would offer to go fo the
Bishop after the indignity she described ; but this has already been ex-
plained, and shown to be perfectly consistent with the line of conduct she
had marked out for herself; and if such an argument as that is to prevail,
which is so repeatedly urged, and which is based upon mere improbability,
then there is an end of all truth and justice. This Court must be governed
by those principles of confidence in the honesty and integrity of uni no-
peached witnesses, which prevail in every court of justice.

But how did the Bishop regard the application for the use of the
church ? Why. in a more sensible light than Mr. Dowdney, and he
at once acceded to the request of the ladies. And we find that this
Mr. Dowdney, who had such a nice sense of propriety, and who
was so particularly desirous of preserving the church from any sac-
rilesious use. was yet quite willing that these young ladies, his pa-
rishioners, and communicants of his church, should go to a common
tavern, well known to all who are familiar with the localities of the
island. But he said he offered them another place, which was an unoc-
cupied building. This was on the ninth of December, the coldest season
of the year a very liberal offer indeed. These were all the accommo-
dations which the scrupulous Mr. Dowdney offered to these young ladies;
and because they would not accept it, he has probably entertained senti-
ments of hostility towards them from that time till the present. They after-
wards quit his church. Whether that operated as an additional cause
of hostility it is not for me to say. But those are the circumstances in
which he comes here to testify. He told us that he had been to see Mr.
Alvord, one of his parishioners, who was present at the time of the inter-
view between the Bishop and Miss R.. and that he would come to con-
firm his evidence. Has Mr. Alvord come forward? Has he not avoided
us entirely ? Have I not a right to draw the inference that Mr. Alvord,
on recollection, found that he could not sustain Mr. Dowdney ?

I shall not dwell longer on the testimony of these young ladies. It ap-
pears to me to stand unimpeached and unimpeachable. They have sworn
to facts, improbable I admit, because facts affecting so seriously the moral
character of a man holding such a station, must always appear improba-
ble but they are facts well established, and entitled to full belief upon
even' principle of evidence that properly governs the minds of men.

I corno now to the last case mentioned in the presentment, which
is that of Mrs. Beare. I shall not go over the details of that case,
showing the outrageous indignity offered to her; the Counsel himself
concedes that, if true, it was one of the most atrocious acts that
could be committed by any man. We have not then to go into any
discussion as to the criminality and enormitv of that act. The Counsel

.206

.has hknself conceded that If .guilty eif such, an act, the Bishop- must be re-
garded as disqualified for the office he holds. . TJie.only.questioh, therefore,
,is, is the testimony of ihe witness true -?

' J.beg the members of the Court, then, to refer, to the testiraoriy.of Mrs.
, Be'ane, and to;her manner of givhxa.it.. There sat that lady under the ex-
amination of the Counsel and the Court for near six hoars. Is there any
part, qf her testimony that iS'not perfectly consistent with itself-^-that is of
itself inconsistent with the statement ..which she had- previously made 1 Mrs.
..Beare states the indignity. ! wiiLnotgo into the details-r-they must be fresh
In.tbe' recollection, of all they can not soon be forgotten by any who heard
.them-? HOW. do the Counsel attem.pt; to get rid of it ? It is sworn to by
the:wifeof a -clergyman of the church, (she herself a communicant,) stating
, all the particulars, minutely ; an.d. in detail. I ask you how is it to be got
ritl.pf? The : Counsel resorts to the same course of argument as in the
'other cases. The; story -is, .he says', "improbable;" and. he also alleges
that it is inconsistent with her subsequent conduct.

, As. to the improbability of. Mrs. Be'are's statement, I will not recur to the
Argument I have repeatedly urged in reply. If I have not already shown,
I. need. not attempt again to show, that this argument, founded on improba-
bility, is a complete non sequtiur, and cannot for a moment be entertained
in opposition to direct and unimpeaehed testimony. Then as to the argu-
ment that her subsequent conduct was contradictory of her statement, let
jne ask, what was that conduct? It seems that on one occasion she met
the Bishop at Dr.. Schroeder's house, a year after the transaction, and her
statement is, that she was leddntp the parlor by Dr. Schroeder, and there
saw the Bishop engaged in conversation with Dr..Wainwright, and that she
bowed' to him, giving the usual, salutation, and passed on without a single
word'beiijg exchanged between them, or jf any thing was said, it was the
ordinary salutation. . She passed on into another part of the building,- with
& friend who was desirous.of inspecting the establishment ; and that sub-
sequently she met the Bishop in the chapel, and there Mr. Beare, who was
to be. ordained by him next day, told the Bishop that he expected him to
dine with him the next day. Mrs. Beare is then put under a rigid cross-
examination, which lasted for hours. She was asked, if the invitation to
dine was not pressed upon the Bishop, and if he did not plead a previous
engagement ? She did not recollect that ; but if it did take place, if the
Bishop did mention to her husband that he had a previous engagement with'
Mr. Franklin, is the mere circumstance of its not being recollected by Mrs/.
Beare, (or perhaps not heard by her,) to be the foundation qf an argument
for impugning her testimony on oath ? For the purpose of contradicting
her, Dr. Schroeder is introduced. Now the story that he relates is this
that he found Mr. and Mrs. Beare in the garden that he took them to the
green-house, and presently inquired if they would not be presented to the
Bishop ? Well, that appears to me an extraordinary proposition. It is not
for me to say that it is not perfectly true > I only say that it strikes me as a
most extraordinary proposition, when we consider that he was .aware of
their being well acquainted with the Bishop, and that they expected to meet
him. Had he informed them of the Bishop being in the house, and asked
them if they did not wish to go in and meet him, the statement would ap-
pear probable and natural ; but that he should ask these two individuals if
they would not be presented to the Bishop^ appears very strange to me, al-
though it may be in accordance with the etiquette which prevails among

the clergy. He then states that he went into the house, and found the Bishop
in the front parlor, and that he presented Mrs. Beare and afterwards Miss
Strong. This is the statement he gives, and that on that occasion their
greeting was friendly and cordial. When Mr. Schroeder comes to be cross-
examined, he cannot state what Mrs. Beare said, or that she exchanged a
single word with the Bishop. The greeting was cordial and yet cordial
as it was. he could not recollect whether a word was uttered by -M rs. Beare !
He cannot say that she even shook hands with the Bishop. Now, is the
Court prepared, on testimony like that, to say that the statements of Mr.
and Mrs. Beare are untrue ? Are they prepared to say, because Mr.
Schroeder chose to construe the conduct of Mrs. Beare as being cordial
towards the Bishop, that therefore her testimony is" not to be credited ? I
am satisfied the Court will never come to such a conclusion. Dr. Schroe-
der says that he went down to Mr. Beare's house for the purpose of re-
freshing their memory and his own; and yet he afterwards, in a subse-
quent part of his testimony, states that he recollected all these circum-
stances perfectly well. Why, then, did he go down there for the pjurpose
of refreshing his memory ? Was it not for the purpose of having some
conversation with them which he might make use of here as a witness for
the defence? On the day succeeding that on which this visit was made,
he came to the city, and communicated, as he tells us, all he heard to the
Bishop. A witness pursuing that line of conduct, in our courts of law, is
not very favorably regarded. How such testimony may be viewed here,
it is not for me to say. Then it was attempted to show that the conduct of
Mr. and Mrs. Beare was inconsistent with the main fact when they met the
Bishop in the vestry-room. And they have produced testimony pn that
point. Now Dr. McVickar and the Bishop's sorts were also present on that
occasion, but the only witnesses produced are Dr.' Schroeder, Mr. Goodwin,
and Mr. Sweetzer ; both of the latter gentlemen think that the greeting
was cordial, and yet both, when put under cross-examination, cannot recol-
lect that Mrs. Beare said one word they don't even know whether she
shook hands with the Bishop. Is not this extraordinary that they should
say the greeting was cordial, and yet cannot describe any thing of its char-
acter ? How do you reconcile that with the known character of these gen-
tlemen ? They were prepared to expect that every one should meet the
Bishop with cordiality. Mrs. Beare did not intend to be marked in her
coldness towards the Bishop, and hence the witnesses (not noticing any
coldness) chose to call her conduct cordial.

Then in regard to Mr. Goodwin's meeting Mr. Beare on board the steam-
boat ; it appears that Mr. Beare was reading the Protestant Churchman,
which elicited some remonstrance from Mr. Goodwin, and In reply to which
Mr. Beare. spoke of the Bishop in terms of kindness, and hoped that he
would not be offended at his taking that paper and that is all that is said
about it. Well, then, it appears that Mr. Sweetzer and Mr. Goodwin dined
with the Bishop at Mr. Beare's house on the day of the ordination. How
could Mr. Beare do otherwise than invite the Bishop to dine at his house
on that occasion, being the day of his ordination to the priesthood ? If he
had not extended that invitation to the Bishop, his conduct would have ne-
cessarily excited remark, and that he was determined to avoid. He was
determined to act with civility towards the Diocesan and why ? He had
committed his grievances to four respectable clergymen of this city, and
within a week after the transaction. . They did not think proper to proceed

208

with the matter. He had done what a prudent man should have done.
He had intrusted the matter to the hands of these older clergymen, and as
they did not see fit to proceed in it, he resolved to pursue that line of con-
duct towards the Bishop which the testimony describes.

Again, in regard to the conduct of Mrs. Beare towards the Bishop when
at her house, she states that she did not enter into conversation with him,
merely offering him the dishes on the table, and treating him with the or-
dinary courtesy that is extended to a guest at table. Now, Mr. Goodwin
thought that she did converse with the Bishop at table, but Mr. Sweetzer
sustains Mrs. Beare ; he could not recollect any conversation between
them, except that of the ordinary courteous intercourse of the dinner-table.
It certainly does appear to me that the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Beare, as
to their conduct towards the Bishop on the occasion spoken of, is not only
not shaken, but rather confirmed by the very witnesses brought to im-
pugn it.

We now come to the interview at the Bishop's house, on which I intend
to be yery brief. It appears that Mr. Beare, feeling himself very much
aggrieved by the conduct of the Bishop towards his wife, communicated
the matter to Mr. Kerfoot, a professor at Dr. Muhlenberg's establishment ;
and so important did Mr. K. view the matter, that he proposed that they
should go to prayer on the occasion, and ask for guidance from above.
They did so, and after that was over, Mr. K. said he would communicate
the matter to Dr. Muhlenberg, and ask his advice. He did communicate
it accordingly. Dr. Muhlenberg sent for Mr. Beare, heard his story, took
minutes of it, and immediately came to town and consulted Drs. Milnor,
Wainwright, and Higbee, and the result was a united determination to call
upon the Bishop. Dr. Milnor has testified to what took place on that oc-
casion in the Bishop's study ; Dr. Muhlenberg, partly from his minutes,
and partly from memory, related the whole story. What was the con-
duct of the Bishop ? He gave the whole story an unqualified denial. I
ask the Court to recollect the evidence of Dr. Milnor and Dr. Muhlenberg
en this point. Well, they thought it an extraordinary thing that the wife
of a clergyman of the church should prefer such a charge against the Dio-
cesan, and that there should not be the slightest foundation for it. They
asked the Bishop, or it was suggested that Mr. Beare should be called in
and confronted with the Bishop. Mr. Beare was sent for, and all the
clergymen who were present on the occasion just now alluded to, with the
exception of Dr. Wainwright, accompanied him to the Bishop's. Imme-
diately on their entering, the Bishop asked them to walk into a back room,
the door of which he immediately closed, and then taking Mr. Beare's hand,
expressed himself in the strongest terms of kindness and affection, and re-
gretted that any thing should have occurred to wound the feelings of Mrs.
Beare or of himself. Mr. Beare was not satisfied with that kind of ex-
planation ; he put the question to the Bishop more than once " Bishop
Onderdonk, do you intend to deny the statement made by my wife ?" He
said, in reply, " I do not deny it, but she misconstrued my motives." Mis-
construed his motives ! Why, what motive could he have had for putting
his hand into the bosom of another man's wife ? Misconstrued his motives !
The idea is an absurdity. Mr. Beare puts it to him again " do you deny
the facts ?" " No," says he, " but she misconstrued my intentions." The
Bishop appeared to be very much affected and burst into tears stated that
he had great affection and regard for Mr. and Mrs. Beare and was willing

209

to make any apology to Mr. B. that might be satisfactory to him and his
wife. What ! willing to make an apology to the man who had falsely and
calumniously accused him of such gross misconduct ? Recollect, that^at
this time the full particulars of the charge had been communicated to him.
If untrue, would he not have demanded an apology from Mr. Beare and
his wife, for the gross slander which they had uttered against him ? But
he does not ask any such thing. Ho bursts into tears, wrings the hand of
Mr. Beare, and expresses his willingness to make an apology. Is that the
conduct of an innocent man ? Judge ye ! Then it was that after they left
the presence of the Bishop, Dr. Higbee said to Dr. Milnor " what a lie
he told !" I ask the Court to remember that extraordinary observation. Is
it not evident that the impression had been made on Dr. Higbee's mind, (as
it had been on Dr. Milnor's,) that the Bishop had retracted his denial of the
preceding interview, and that he now admitted what he had denied the day
before ? Can that observation be explained in any other way ? The Coun-
sel very ingeniously labored to get rid of this remark. His anxiety to-
gloss it over evinced how well he was aware of its effect. But in his la-
borious effort to get rid of it he signally failed.

Well, these clergymen, after leaving the Bishop's house, walked up to
the corner of Franklin street and Broadway, talking, no doubt* of this sub-
ject, and when they got there Dr. Higbee addressed Mr. Beare, and said
" Mr. Beare, you have shown very great forbearance ; had it been my case
had such an indignity been offered to my wife, I would have kicked him
out of the house." Dr. Higbee does not now recollect these extraordinary
observations, and we are bound to believe him. But still they were made,
as has been proved by Dr. Milnor, and I cannot but say that this failure of
memory on the part of Dr. Higbee appears most extraordinary! Dr. Higbee
does not pretend to deny that he made such a remark : he only says that he
does not recollect it. He was, he says, in a state of great excitement ; he
thought that the Bishop did not behave with sufficient energy. But what
did the remark itself mean.? Why, it could only mean that he was dis-
satisfied with the gross inconsistency of the Bishop.

But I find I have occupied more of the attention and time of the Court
than I intended. I have very little to add.

It does appear to me that if ever there was a case presented to any tri-
bunal, which was proved beyond the possibility of contradiction or doubt, it
is the one now before you. The facts charged are sworn to by persons
known to you. As I have stated in another part of my argument, we have
not gone into the by-ways, and out of the pale of the Church, for witnesses.
Every witness on the part of the prosecution is a member of the Church
a communicant one of the flock of the party accused. If he be con-
demned, therefore, it will be on the evidence of members of his own flock,
of those who have been brought up under his own supervision. These
witnesses came here without any earthly motive inconsistent with perfect
purity of intention, and a desire to tell the truth. They are strangers to
each other, never having met before. They have given their statements
with a degree of minuteness and straightforwardness, I never saw equalled
on any otiier occasion. Their evidence has been consistent throughout, and
has withstood all the attacks and subtlety which ingenious Counsel could
employ to overthrow it. The Counsel is, therefore, driven to the desperate
resort of calling upon you to regard them all as perjured, because they
have related what he terms " improbable stories." Are you prepared thus-

.;. .;.: 2-10 . .

' .to ^ondemn-the sons' and daughters of pur Churok? But if you. do not so
regard them, if you believe, they have stated the truth', then, I ask, has not
a case been made .out' which calls for the interposition, of this Court, and the
exercise of .the. highest authority .of our'. Church ? .

in regard to the .consequences of finding- a verdict of guilty, it is not for
me! to speal^. We are taught in holy writ, that "-it must heeds be that of-
fences, will cornej but wo unto that man : by whom the offence cometh."

';."Il thine !ey<5'oflend thee," the injunction of our Saviour is,'. "pluck it
putj..' r If thine hand or foot offend thee, it is to be 'cut 'off and cast from
theb. So, if a member of .your .sacred, body becomes corrupt and disquali-
fied! for performing .the office assigned him, he is to be removed. The
operation may be painful,. but it is unavoidable. Scripture points out the
renjiedy : th.e Church demands it : Religion requires it :' Christ himself en-
jbiiis it. lf,-tbe.n, these charges 'are true, we call' upon you, as the great
conservators of religion a;nd morality, to vindicate the purity of the Priest-
hocjd, and to make an example that shall siand as a beacon in the annals of
our Church in. all time tp come.

4lr. CJ-ARKB here concluded his argument, having spoken nearly three

"hours. Just as he sat down '

. jJishop W HITTIBIGHAM: said I have orie-word to ask the Counsel. He has,
'; in .jhe course of his remarks, attributed to witnesses statements which they

'ijever made. Does he desire that inaccuracies be retained in the report ?
* ?-': Jii\ CLARKE-;-! am not conscious of having stated any thing that is not in

the record. If I have, any discrepancy can be 'corrected.

At the close of his argument the Court' adj
Attest,

W. R/

djoumed.
WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Wednesday, January 1st, 1845",

half-past 9 o'clock, A. M.
The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
. nois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey,
the North -Western Missionary Diocese., Louisiana, Western New York,
Sotith Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ;
.and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western
.Missionary Diocese.

'. , . The President .opened the . proceedings' with' the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

pAvrp B. iO&'bex, EJsq.,. then. concluded the summing up of evi-
dence in behalf of the Respondent.

IN rising .to ask "the attention of the Court to some observations on this
' case, I feel myself much, embarrassed, and indeed almost overwhelmed with
the? great solemnity of this tribunal.. For the first lime, I stand before-th'e
highest ecclesiastical tribunal of the Church to which I belong ; composed
of the fathers of .that Church in which I was baptized in my earliest infancy.
and in which I have been a communicant for many years.'. It is the .Church
that of all -things on this earth I most -love, and in whose peace, prosperity,
and unity, I feel an interest which I am utterly unable to describe. I stand,

/ :" ;:.*: ;. .

then, before this awful tribunal to defend one of, your brethren^-fl. rrmn w^o"
has hitherto sustained ki this community a reputatiop unimpeached a'nd up--
suspected w-ho-has in this, the largest Diocese in these United. States, en-
joyed, and still- continues to enjoy,: the affection of the clergy and the people
almost to an unlimited extent: I may then, surely, well say that I feel
almost overwhelmed, when I consider the .importance of the case> and tfce
solemnity of the tribunal in whose presence I appear.. I do^ with, fell sin-
cerity and reference^ declare, that I now regard myself speaking, as lit
were, in the particular-presence ot my God ; ;and bound,- therefore, by every
consideration, -to say not one. word : that I do" not .think justified by the eVi-
.dence before me, and called for by my duty to myself. . .

May it please the Court, .if- I know any thing of my own heart, if I am
any judge of my own feelings, I wish not to protect the 'guilty, nor to' inter-
pose any shield between justice and its victim. If I had believed that the
evidence in this case was such as.to have justified -a conviction of. the Re-
spondent, I shbuld have proposed to the Counsel on the other side to submit
the case to the Court without argument, and without a single observation on
the part of Counsel. But -after having given -this evidence the most calm
and deliberate! Consideration which God has "enabled me to bestow upon ; it,
bringing to bear upon it the professional experience of now nearly, fifty
years, I have arrived at the decided conclusion that there is' no evidence in
this case that caft justify '.this Coufrt, or any Coort, or -any jury on. earth, ia
finding a verdict against my client. And feeling this conviction most
strongly, I shbuld regard myself as abandoning my duty to myself-* to .the*
honored gentleman whom I defend to the Church and . to the sacred
cause, of justice, if I did not make an effort, 'however feeble and unavailing
it may be, to bring the minds of this Court to the same conclusion toVhicb I
have myself arrived. . '.-'.. -

In- the observations which I intend to make to the 'Court, I shall be jas
brief as I think the nature of the case and my duty require. I am not in
.the habit of making, very long speeches, and I certainly shall avoid a long
speech on the; present occasion ; and I shall not, therefore, if I possibly csan
avoid it, repeat any of ,the observations made by my associate Counsel, not
only because I would thus unnecessarily occupy your time, but' also, Be-
cause, in goi^gover that grpund, I am satisfied I shall rather weaken- than
strengthen the argument. ' -.'

The first question to which I beg to calt the attention of the Gourt,|is,
what are you-.to try in- this Presentment? This depends upon the Canon
and upon the -Presentment. The" Canon authorizes the. presentment of a
Bishop for anjy crime, or immorality, or .heresy ; or for the -violation of the
Constitution and Canons of the Church, or of that branch of it in the Dio-
cese to which he belongs. . .Now, the Presentment in this case is for -no
crime. It is for no heresy. It is for no violation of the Canons 'and- Cpn- -
stitution of the Church. It is for -immorality and impurity ; and lifeless the
defendant can be convicted for immorality and impurity., he must; be ac-
quitted under this Presentment'. r;.

Now, if the Court please; what is meant by this charge of immorality
and impurity ? Impurity and immorality existing twenty years ago? Cer-
tainly not. It means present immorality and impurity. It means ^.present
unfitness to fill the dignified office which he'holds. 1 The Canon can mean
nothing- else. Now, I ask this Court, is it possible that they can undertake
to convict the Respondent here of immorality and -impurity, when the very

sisr-

last transaction on which it is pretended to ground the charge, occurred at
least two and a half years ago ? And it is here particularly worthy of re-
mark, that although every effort has been made to hunt out cases on which
to find charges against the Bishop, the very latest that can be brought for-
ward dates two and a half years ago. Such is the evidence on which you
are asked to find this Respondent guilty guilty of present immorality
and impurity.

The Court will recollect, that when this communication was made to him
about this Mrs. Beare, which is the last transaction presented, he expressed
great sorrow and regret that any thing should have occurred. He was ad-
monished by Dr. Milnor, and from the time that that admonition was re-
ceived, he has been as pure, for aught that appears before this Court, as any
one of the judges now trying him. And I do put it to the Court, with the
utmost confidence, that even admitting every charge in this Presentment to
be proved, still not one tittle of evidence exists to show that Bishop Onder-
donk is not now as pure and moral as any man that lives. We are all sinful
men. We are liable to fall. We are all subject to the infirmities of hu-
man nature. I ask, is there a man in this Court who can say that in the
whole course of his life he has never committed an immoral act 1 Is there
a single gentleman who hears me, who can undertake to say that in the
course of his life he has never been guilty of conduct of which he is now
ashamed, and which he deeply regrets ? If such a man there be among
you, let him cast the first stone.!

I might here, in my o\vn judgment, rest the case, in the entire confidence
that an immorality committed two and a half years ago is not sufficient to
convict a man of immorality now. And, unless this honorable Court are
prepared to say that it is so, there is an end of it all ; because there is not
the smallest proof of present immorality or present impurity. In an ordi-
nary case, involving ordinary considerations, I should then be quite willing
to leave the case here ; because I think I would leave it on ground on which
I am immovable. It is a rock on which this defence can rest with perfect
safety. But inasmuch as this case is to be decided by the opinions of the
Court, and not by mine, and as different minds may, and no doubt do, take
different views of the case, it is my duly to proceed to the further investiga-
tion of it. I shall endeavor to do so in as plain and intelligible manner as I
can adopt.

Before proceeding to consider the evidence in detail, I am compelled to
express my surprise, and sorrow, and regret, at the manner in which this
case has been managed on the part of the Presentment. In the opening argu-
ment of my learned friend, there were great professions of charity of liber-
ality of a desire that the whole truth should come out ; and yet, in every
stage of the case, we have been met by every possible objection that the
ingenuity of counsel could suggest, in order to shut out the truth. I mean
not I certainly never intended to cast any reflection on the Presenting
Bishops. I have believed, and must still believe, that they have acted from a
solemn sense of duty a painful duty, as 1 have no doubt they felt it; and I
had supposed that if these gentlemen found that the Bishop ought not to-be
convicted, they would rather rejoice than be disappointed at the result. But
something fell from one of the Presenting Bishops, the other day, at which
I was perfectly astonished. He charged the Counsel of the Respondent with
suppressing evidence with preventing them from getting witnesses. I ask
where is the ground and foundation for such an enormous charge ? I

213

should consider myself as guilty, in the highest degree, and as quite un-
worthy of standing in this Court, or any other, if I could commit such art
offence as the suppression of evidence in any case whatever. I should have
passed over this remark, as altogether unworthy of notice, were it not that
it shows the rancor with which this prosecution is carried on. It is, indeed,
quite significant on that point.

There was another suggestion, made by the Counsel who addressed the
Court last evening, which commands a passing notice. He said that the
good of the Church required this investigation, and the conviction of the Re-
spondent. I was thus led to ask myself, is this so ? Every man who hears
me entertains for this Church the supremest regard, and if the Court be once
persuaded that the " good of the Church" demands the conviction of the Re-
spondent, I ask what chance has the Respondent ? That observation could
have been made only for the purpose of invoking" your love for the Church
against my unfortunate client a proceeding, of which, in my opinion, the
gentleman ought to be ashamed an argument which he never ought to have
attempted. May it please the Court, this cry of " the good of the Church !' ?
" the good of the Church !" has led to the perpetration of more iniquity
on this earth, than has any other appeal to the passions of mankind.

It was the. regard of the Jews for their church that induced fhem to call
out " Crucify him ! crucify him 1" It was the cry of " the good of the
Church" that led our blessed Redeemer to the cross. It was the cry of
" the good of the Church" that produced the martyrdom of holy St. Stephen.
it was the cry of " the good of the Church" that led to the establishment
of the Inquisition, and all the horrors and enormities of that accursed insti-
tution. The cry of " the good of the Church" has put thousands of martyrs
to death, and has, I repeat it, produced more bloodshed, and desolation, and
cruelty on this earth, than any argument ever yet used by man. Let it
not be said that, in this enlightened day, there is no danger from this appeal.
I tell you, Bishops, that the human heart is the same in all ag.es. It is the
same now that it was in the bloodiest days of the Inquisition the same as
it was when the blessed Saviour was crucified on Calvary. Man is still
the same being that he was when he was driven from the gates of paradise.
He has the same passions the same prejudices the same feelings, and
if you once convince a Bishop that " the good of the Church" requires the
conviction of the Respondent, there is imminent danger that he will train-
pie under foot justice, mercy, and truth.

My observations on this subject are not now made for the first time.
They are the result of dqep-rooted and long-cherished feelings in my
bosom. They are founded on history on the history of mankind, during
all ages. Once actuated by this blind zeal for the Church, men go on
headlong 1 , conscientiously believing that they are right, but trampling under
their feet all that is right. So it was with the Jews. They were zealous
for their ancient and beloved Church. They thought they were right, even
when they were 'nailing the Redeemer to the accursed tree ; and he, you
all recollect, prayed. " Father, forgive them, they know not what they do !"
He thus charged no evil intention upon them. He knew that thoy acted
from motives which they supposed to be good, and, therefore, he prayed for
their forgiveness, because " they know not what they did." But will it
excuse the blind and maddened zealot, when he pleads that he knew not
what he did ? I beg the Court to bo cautious. Our Church is the Church
of God that God whose distinguishing attributes are truth, justice, and

214. . -.":

mercy. The God of the Church .can never require that justice should be
trampled under foot, truth disregarded,, and mercy forgotten,

I do not know that I am called on to say a word more on. this .point.
The peace of the Church is what you all desire : it is that which we all
love and pray for. Has- it been promoted by this .presentment 7 It is an
historical fact, of -which all the Bishops, who hear me must be -fully aware,
that .for the last two years, or for nearly- that period, there has been every
possible effort made in this Diocese to destroy, the Bishop.. .Since this spirit,
went abroad, we have had two Conventions, and in both he has been sus-
tained by majorities that were overwhelming ;. showing -the great confi-
dence which .the Church reposes in Jikn ; and yet, permit, me to say be-
cause I was a member of both these Conventions, and .can; therefore,- speak
with 'some authority on the -subject thajt during the; whole'' period of the
sessions of -these Convention's, there -was not .a single -whisper of. these
charges^ not one. Now I ask evecy member of. this. Court, did the peace
of the Church require that these old, -stale charges: charges -which had
been communicated long since to clergymen, acte.d on, and. burted in o*b-
Hvion-r^should be resuscitated for- the purpose- of rending the. Church to
pieces? I repeat it. Never, in the whole course:of this controversy, until
the meeting ;of the General Convention in Philadelphia, was a single whis-
per uttered ; by any human being, of the existence of these cbarge&v They .
wer.e entirely forgotten. ' They had been, by -common, consent, buried
never, to- make their appearance... And how it .is possible that the peace of
the Church qari be prompted by bringing these old charge^ to Jife again-, I
am-' totally at a loss to conceive. .It is certainly .one way,, and .a most
extraordinary way % of .preserving the. peace of the Church..

It- is said that there is a great excitement in -the Church .on this subject..
Permit me to make a few observations OH thai'- point. I ne'ver^ heard rand
I presume on a question of. such a public character my .word will be taken
rrl never heard of the eiistence of one of -these, chargjes until' 1 was leav-
ing this city for the purpose of attending the 1 late General' Convention, in
Philadelphia. When we! got there we heard a rumof of charges against the
Bishop. I inquired what they were, and then, for the first time 1 heard. of
these matters, or some of them at least. Agents were then employed to"
disseminate the rumors, and to collect charges. 'I speak tha,t from the
evidence in this case, because it is-proved here f hat ''Mr. Richmond went
and obtained the depositions of the Misses. Ruddermv,. and -that he came on
here and got those of Mr. and. Mrs. Beare. 'Here then was a person sent
pn from Philadelphia for the purpose of collecting these old stories, and giv-ing
them shape and form. Letters were written., frcrhn Philadelphia, 'and. other
Quarters, setting forth that Bishop Ondetdonk must.be..destroyed-, and in that
vyr^yit was endeavored to get up an- ".excitement" 'in-thd public, mind to'
bear upon the Bishop; and no\v that very " excitement,'* thus created, is
here produced as an argument to show that he ought to be sacrificed I There
was no excitement before, the General Convention met; a.nd-in support of
this assertion, I appeal tr> every member of this Court; .It was at' that Con-
.vention that the excitement was got up; and thus created, and thus spread
and fostered, it is now actually u-rged here as a reason for .the conviction qf
the Respondent. I can hardly trust rnyself before .this hbnorab.b Court to
characterize, as it deserves, such, a course of proceeding, and soch a line
of argument. . . . . - '

May it please the Court the'Church requires nothing.aj your hands but

.justice. The' interests and peace of. the Church require thai 'yo.u should
never suffer one. of your brethren ib fee sacrificed because- there is public
excitement. The only question is;, Is he\ guilty ? If you- believe that h&
.has not been proved guilty, and so declare in your, verdict, then the Church,
.is set at rest,, and there is an ei)d of'this '/ public excitement. '"

I now proceed, with the perrnjssion of the.'Cqurt; to consider, tie evidence
before you ; nd, first, I beg- to ray down three or four principles, which, are
not only the 'results of the la, w on the subject, but a re also dictated by. com-
mon. sense. . ~
.In the first place, when, the facts- testified to by the witnesses are -improb-
able in themselye's, it requires much -stronger evidence, to support the*n than
if they were probable, because the improbability is against the laws of our
nature regulating" our belief.

In the next place, when the witnesses are testifying to these improbable
facts, the law and common sense .requite, that they should be consistent in
their stories <-ofisistent with each other that they should not tell/one story
at one time,. and another at another time. For, although in ordinary cases
as was stated by .the learned. Counsel, the law undoubtedly is, that 'small
contradictions ought not to destroy the testimony of witnesses ; yet when the
facts are improbable, and require -more than ordinary testimony to support
them, the rule is a good one, founded on common sense and common law,
that the .evidence, of the witnesses must be perfectly consistent throughout.

I will now -consider the evidence; having laid down these principles, to
which I am confident the good sense of all who hear me must accede.

The first case is that of Mr?. Butler. Now as it regards that case, ho*v.
ever it may have, been insisted upon by different clergymen in the Diocese,
I am authorized to say, that the first word the Bishop ever heard of it was
during the sittings of the General Convention. He never heard of such a
case until he attended that Convention. Now let us look at this. Here is
a man charged, for the first time, with improper conduct towards this lady,
upwards of seven years ago. Task this Court, if 'clergy men of this -Dio-
cese knew the fact-: if they knew he -had been guilty of such imprudence
why did they suffer it to sleep? Have they just now. at- this late day,
awoke to a proper consciousness of iheif duty to the Church ? Have their
eyes been only opened now to a perception of their duty ? I believe not.
I am bound to believe, for the honor of these gentlemen, that they jregarded
the fact as totally unimportant that it fixed no just .charge npoa the Bish-
op, and that therefore, and therefore only, Ihej" said not one word- about it.'

There is another important fact about this.- These Presenting Bishops
knew that there was a third party in the carriage on that.occasion^-rMr.
Peck, the driver. His name has been all along withheld from us~-I do not
<?ay designedly 'withheld^ but the effect is the same on the case of the Bishop,
V .er> until she .was Called as a witness, did we know that any other hu-
man Deing was said to be present, except Mr. Butler : aud it is my dutv-to
say to the Court, that the moment we heard of that, we- sent for this Air*
Peck, and not until this'day could we get an answer.. We now find that
this Mr. Peck bas gone to South America, and it is therefore impossible to
obtain his testimony. But it is to my mind a most extraordinary fact, that
while this charge is made up in the story of Mr. and Mrs. Butler, the najne
of the .only witness, who. could have possibly assisted the Bishop, is uot

S'ven. We never *aw the affidavit, and knew nothing whatever of this
r. Peck, until Mrs. Butler ami rier husband came here to testify.

216

In the next place, in regard to this matter of Mrs. Butler, the reason of
the Bishop's conduct is, throughout their testimony, placed on the ground
that he was intoxicated. That it was so, cannot be denied by the Present-
ers, because in the very charge it is stated that he was intoxicated or drunk.
Now, I beg leave to remind the Court, that the charge here is immorality
and impurity. It is a charge directly affecting the heart and intentions of
the Bishop at that time. It is not like a case of crime at law, where drunk-
enness is an exaggeration of the offence ; but it proceeds entirely on the
idea that there were impure and immoral intentions in the mind of the Bish-
op at that time. Now, if he were so intoxicated that he could have no use
of his mind so intoxicated that he did not know what he was about then
the Court must say that drunkenness was the crime, and not the conduct on
which the complaint is founded. I admit that drunkenness is an immoral-
ity. There is no question about that. But all that I desire to impress
upon the Court is, that if these witnesses are to be believed, and the second
article in the Presentment is to be believed, all these acts were done when
he was intoxicated. But, says the gentleman, why this is no justification.
Still, I answer, there is no crime charged here. There is no technical crime
charged here. .But to show what these Presenters think of that immorality,
they have attached to it the word " impurity," a term not used in the Canon,
showing their idea of it; that when the Canon speaks of immorality, they
meant impurity. Now, a case has been cited, by my associate, from Rus-
sel, that in murder, the highest crime, except treason, known to the law,
there must be clearly made out premeditated malice j and drunkenness is
always to be taken into consideration by the jury in passing upon a man
accused of that crime. But here, when the entire offence charged consists
of impurity of heart, drunkenness is, in my opinion, an entire defence.

If I am right here, then I ask the Court, are you prepared to convict
this man of drunkenness, because, to use the language of Mrs. Butler, he
was '' overtaken '"' seven years ago ? Is subsequent repentance not to be
allowed ? Is the fact of a man's continuing from that time till this, sober,
and abstaining entirely from all excess, to be no excuse for that solitary
act committed seven years ago ? In other words, are you to degrade and
destroy this man on account of circumstances that took place seven years
ago ; and of the repetition of which there is no evidence under heaven be-
fore you ?

But let us examine Mrs. Butler's evidence a little more. Now suppose
she was mistaken, and that the Bishop was perfectly sober, is there any
thing in her testimony proving any impurity on the part of the Bishop ?
I say there is not. I do not mean to read the evidence, as it will be all
read over to you before you proceed to judgment. But Mrs. Butler says
that the Bishop put his arm round her waist, and pressed her to his bosom,
and that in the sight of her husband, who sat upon the front seat, and swears
that he saw it. Now can any man in his senses believe that a man with
impure motives would undertake to take liberties with a man's wife in his
presence, and when he knew the husband was looking at him ? If all the
witnesses on earth were to swear to it, I would not believe it ; and if the
Counsel mean to say, that because Mrs. Butler has sworn to it, it is evi-
dence of the impurity of the Bishop, I reply that human nature contradicts
it. However she may swear to it, it is not and it cannot be true. But
again : she says that the Bishop repeated this action, and pressed her bo-
som. Now remember she states that the roads were rough. The Bishop

317

.. 4 ,

might have .had his arm around her waist, and his hand been raised, and
jet he be as innocent as any one here. But she took away his hand gent-
ly, and addressed him in the manner she stated to the Court. Now I ask,
is it possible that a virtuous woman, with whom such a liberty had been
taken as she pretended to describe, could have coolly said ".why, sir,
that hand is sacred to me,'"' and so on. as she states ? This shows one of
two things either that this woman was not irritated at what the Bishop
had done that there was nothing in his conduct that she considered an
insult : or, that she was lost to all human feeling. But she proceeds. She
says that after that the Bishop sat still for some minutes. She thought he
would not repeat the offence. He did repeat it. She says he placed his
hand on her bosom, which he pressed. All may have occurred from the
jolting of the carriage. She goes on, and states that she started, and that
he grasped her thigh, and that she knocked his hand away, and went off
to her husband. Now it was not on account of what the Bishop had done,
but on account of what she feared he might do ; it was her apprehension
of what she imagined, and not indignation at what had happened, which'
induced her to go to her husband. Well. now. this is all that occurred,
according to this woman's own testimony ; and I ask even- Bishop here,
whether upon that evidence, of a transaction which took place seven years
ago, he is prepared to convict the Respondent.

But I have something to add on this evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Butler ;
and if I do not show that they are perfectly inconsistent, and prove their
own s'.ory entitled to no consideration, I am no judge of the weight of evi-
dence. We have the affidavit of Mr. Butler, on which this Presentment
was formed. Mr. Butler says in his affidavit that they left the town of
Ithaca about an hour before sunset. The first place they stopped at was
Dryden, a distance of ten miles. The Court wUl recollect that this trans-
action occurred in the month of June the period of the year when the
days are the longest: and when twilight continues upwards of an hour af-
ter sunset. Mr. Butler says that these improper approaches of the Bishop
bewail immediately on rising the hill after they left Ithaca. He is asked,
how long before you arrived at Dryden did your wife come to you ? He
replied. " I cannot say ; but it appeared to me to be a long time." ' Now
they left Ithaca an hour before sunset. They must have arrived at Dry-
den in about two hours. Suppose, then, that she went to her husband
half an hour before the arrival at Dryden, all the occurrences described
must have taken place within one and a half hour after they left Ithaca,
and consequently before it was dark. Again, in his affidavit he says, af-
ter his wife came upon the front seat with him, he and she and Mr. Peck
occupied it all the way into the village of Syracuse. Now his wife swears
that when they left the breakfast-table, he, by her permission, sat with the
Bishop on the back seat until they got to Syracuse. How is this to be re-
conciled ? He swears positively one way, and his wife just as positively
another ! Which of them is to be believed ? In ray opinion this shows
that the testimony of -this man is not worthy of reliance ; for permit me
here to remind you that an occurrence of this kind was calculated to make
an indelible impression upon the mind. There is not a man here, who, if
such a thing had happened, would not have recollected with distinctness
every particle of it. It would have made an impression that nothing could
have wiped off; and yet we find this Mr. Butler swearing positively to a
fact, contradicted by his own wife, and in which he is, beyond all ques-

21.8 >

lion, incorrect-^ for he himself swears that he thinks he rode with the Bish-
0jp into Syracuse thtls flatly contradicting his own affidavit. Again, in
his affidavit, Mr, Butler-states that his wife touched his shoulder and whis-
pered.to him that' she could not sit there, and must cortie and sit with him ;
and He goes on and say'sV- " she quickly changed her seat and : sat on my
lap "in great -agitation, and distress.''" .'.'Now what did- she. say 'when, she
daine on 'his. lap'? ."Only that she could'-not sit with- the Bishop any longer,
but must sit with him , and that was told in a whisper. ."She was- in great
agitation." If she had told him any thing else, do you beljeye that he
cpuld Have forgotten' .;it ? ' Remember that this was the 'critical moment ;
eVery circumstance and every word must then have -been indelibly im-
pressed upon his memory." He goes ; pn and state's, that wheri'they stopped
at Drycjen she . fold him that the Bishop's conduct had been grossly im-
proper, and that, as ghe supposed, scarce knowing what he did, 'he had be-
guri'tp lift ;up hej clothes-. According to .that deposition, this' was all that
that woman said tp hier husband.

Now ,1 &sk the Court, what is the evidence- given, before -them now ?
What is the' affidavit sworn to positively-, ajid that one too 'on which this
'Presentment was formed ? ' Let "us, then, see how it accords with the state-
ment made here. "My wife," says, he, "touched me on the shoulder and
said she must come over to; me ;.'. she "came, and sat on" my lap. I asked
her what had happened ; jshe' whispered to me, anid I understood her to Say
that the Bishop had beei i -very rude, and had attempted 1p pull up her

clothes." In "bis .-ia.ffi.dav

to that, and whispered to
clothes'. That is directly

f he swears thai all .she told him was that she

could not : sit. Vrth'the Bishop iany. longer..- Now he swedrs that she added

iim that the Bishop had attempted to : pull up her
contradictory to his .affidavit/ Now these two

sfateiments ate quite, irredonc'flab.le. Accoi'dihg to the testimony of Mrs.
Butler, she told him nothijig at 'Dryden about tHe Bulling up of her clothes.
But she goes further, and she says that sTxeiiever told lier husband that the
Bishop had attempted to null up her clothes. Is not 'this 6x.traoi - dihary ?
tie swears, Without any reseryation, tliat she^id. She denies It positively.
Bat there is a sfill more pjalpable contradiction than this.; She swears that
she .never told her hufsbanid the Bishop had attempted to pull' up her clothes,
but that she 'was afraid he would 'pull np Tier clothes. Mrs. ' Butler
Says that ker husband '-gof the idea of the Bishop's attempting to pull up
. her clothes from her having shown him how the Bishop placed his hand on
her thigh, by which, her Clothes were partially pulled up, : He swears di-
rectly contrary; .'He Swears' that it was from her telling "him in a whis-
per when she first came und sat on' his lap : : whilst she" swears expressly
that she ne'veV did tell hirji so.. I ask the Court, is not this a palpable in-
consistency ? Is not the pne arrayed against the other ?

And ageing Mrs. Butler! s\vears, that when- her husband :returne'd from
Philadelphia, he showed her the affidavit he had made ; and that it was
'do.rrect .in every thing exdeptthe - clause relating to pulling up her clothes.
M'r. Butler has sworn that the affidavit was- incorrect in another part, be;,
cause he states in it that 'he rod6 with her and Mr. Peek. all the way to
Syracusd-; while' she swears that that is not true. HoW is this to be recon-
6ated ?' Again, she says in her examination here," that heif husband did not
show her the affidavit immediately, after -his return from Philadelphia. 'be-
cause he was so sure it was correct. ' Now it is astonishing that this man
should be so perfectly assured that this is quite correct, vftien it is contra.

219

, ' ft . v .'.' -,

dieted in two instances by the testimony of his wife ; and now admitted by
'him in- both of these instances -to be not correct ; does not this show that
Mr. Butler undertakes to give a false coloring to his story ? It is 1 utterly
impossible that he could be merely forgetful, with regard to facts calculated
to make a clear and lasting impression oil his mind.

But, 'if the Court please, there is another portion of this testimony on .
which I think it proper to comment. In the course of the cross-examina-
tion, I asked Mrs. Butler:. "Madam, are you sure that you yourself rode
all the way from Dryden.to Syracuse on the front seat ?" ; Her answer
was extremely -cautious -"I think I did." I repeated the. question :
" Madam, are you certain ?" " Why," says she, " I am as certain as I
can be of such an .unimportant matter;" and in all the examination I
could not get her -to commit, herself 'to a direct statement, whether she did
o,r not. 'Why this caution ? Because she supposed it -possible .that Mr*
Peck' might be brought forward ; and that if he werte, he could have proved
that .she rode the greater part .of the way with ihe Bishop. We sent for
Mr. Peck ; and, as I told the Court, he has gone- to South America. But
she did not know that. But why this' excessive caution ? . Why could she
not have said " yes", or '" no ?"

[Bishop HOUKINS: Do I understand that Mr. Peck was cited to appear
before the Court ? . . , . . . : .

Mr. OGDEtf Of course we did not cite him until we ascertained whether
he .could he found. or not. We \vrote to Syracuse immediately after we
obtained his name ; and we did not receive an answer till yesterday. He
is not to be found ; he has gone to South America.] t .'

Mr. OGDEN proceeded Could this woman's excessive caution have pro-
ceeded from any other cause than that I. have just. stated ? She must have
known whether' she rode all the way on the'front seat or not; Oh ! says
she, that is very immaterial, Ithink otherwise; and I wanted to bring
out the facU 'I repeated the question over and over again ; but all to no
purpose. Now. I ask the Court, if .this woman intended to testify with all
candor on a subject which she could not possibly have forgotten, would she
not at once have 'said : " No, sir ; I did not ride on the seat with the Bishop ;
I could not." But Mr. Peck is not here; and the Bishop's evidence can-
not be heard, and the Court must, therefore, take hers.' And this one cir-
cumstance ought, I think, to- have great weight, in showing you the danger
of convicting a man on the unsupported evidence of any woman. . Why,
there is not one of you, that in the 'discharge of your pastoral duties, may
not encounter, a bad woman, who may accuse you of the crime of adultery ;
and I as.k, if her single testimony were to be allowed against you, what
safety, could there be for you ? It is the most dangerous of all evidence ;
and I repeat, that when the evidence is upon its face improbable, it requires
the utmost consistency on .the part of the witness, to support the charge.- I
trust that I have shown that the testimony of these witnesses is totally in-
consistent with itself, and with each other.

'.But the gentlemen will say, all the material facts are sworn to, and may .,
be true.. ' But still they may not be true ; and that is enough for my pur- ""
pose. -If there is a shadow of doubt resting upon the evidence) it is -enough
to acquit my client. .He is not to be! convicted, he cannot be convicted on
doubtful evidence. I have shown that the affidavit and the deposition of
the two witnesses, are absolutely false in sundry, particulars ; and there is
no escape from the application of the principle -fahus in uno,falsus in- one*

220

nibus. I cannot rely upon the testimony of a witness proved to be false in
any one particular; because it shows that the witness has either wilfully
sworn falsely, or is careless of what he swears ; and in both cases, he is
alike unworthy of credit.

One word more on this testimony, and I have done with it ; I have al-
ready dwelt longer on it than I intended. Mr. Butler is a clergyman of our
Church. It was the duty of Mr. Butler, if he believed the Bishop to have
been guilty of the acts now charged, to have made a representation of the
mat.ter to the proper ecclesiastical authority at the time. Why did he not
do so ? Why, he was a young man, and did not wish to ruin the' Bishop f
But young as he was, he knew that there was an ecclesiastical authority in
the State that the matter would be taken out of his hands by them, and that
they would convict and punish the Bishop. But Mr. Butler is perfectly
silent and better for him had he remained silent. He went about retailing
his story to the enemies of the Bishop, advising them : " Say not a word
about it. I tell it to you in confidence ;" and in this silent, insidious way
endeavoring to destroy the reputation of the Bishop, and undermine it in
such a- way as was, in my opinion, altogether unworthy of a clergyman
and a gentleman. He ought to have related his grievance, if he had any,
to the proper authority, and not to have gone about- retailing it insidiously,
for the purpose of destroying the reputation of his Diocesan'. It is said
that this case was mentioned at Utica to Dr. Hawks, and others. Now, if
that be true, why did not Dr. Hawks communicate it to the ecclesiastical
authority ? Was it consistent with their duty, as Christians and as ministers
of the Church, to keep the matter festering in their bosoms, until a proper
time should arrive, when they could bring it out like a clap of thunder ? I
ask every sensible man who hears me, what was their duty towards the
Bishop towards the Church towards their God ? Was it not to have had
him tried and convicted at the time, or else to have buried the charge in
oblivion for ever ?

I come now to the case of Mr. Bolles. Now what is his charge ? [Mr.
O. read the specification, which need not be repeated here.] Now how is
this attempted to be proved ? By Mr. Bolles. He is the only witness.
They cannot contradict him.- But so far from sustaining the charge, he
directly contradicts' it. Where these Presenters got the foundation of this
charge I know not ; but I do know that it was a gross misapprehension, and
a gross misstatement of the fact ; and I must be permitted to say, that it was a
wilful misstatement of the fact. In the first place, it is not true that Bishop
Onderdonk and this young lady sat on the back seat at all. It is not true,
that they were the only persons in the stage ; for Mr. Bolles distinctly
swears, that there was not only a little girl, but grown persons, on the front
seat, looking directly at the Bishop, and who might have seen every move-
ment. The charge is, that he put his arm around the young lady's waist.
It is not true. Mr. Bolles says it is not true. All that he swears was done
by the Bishop, was his taking the young lady by the hand. Their own wit-
ness contradicts their charge. They have, indeed, got Dr. Taylor here for
the purpose of confirming it, but his testimony has quite the contrary
effect. There is also this important point, Mr. Bolles says expressly, that
he never told any body at Utica about it, except Dr. Hawks. It is not true,
therefore, that Dr. Taylor heard it from Mr. Bolles. Mr. Bolles does not
say so. He swears that he never told any body but Dr. Hawks ; Dr.
Hawks and Mr. Bolles went to the Bishop at the recommendation of Dr-

221

Taylor. Dr. Hawks stated the facts contrary to truth. Mr. Bolles says
he never said that the Bishop took the young lady by the waist. Now the
presumption is, that it must have been in the affidavit of Dr. Hawks, that
this charge was made ; for Mr. Bolles swears, that he was the only person
to whom he communicated the matter. Either Mr. Bolles. therefore, has
perjured himself, or the facts set forth in the charge do not, in any way,
support the Dr. 's allegations. But Mr. Bolles is their own witness, and they
cannot dispute his contradiction of their charge. This charge is, therefore,
entirely unsupported.

'As I pass from this case to the next, will the Court permit me to refer, for
a moment, to a point of which the'Counsel who addressed you last evening
attempted to make a great handle. He asked why I did not put the ques-
tion to Mr. Butler which I had put to his wife, relative to their showing
the Bishop about their house. I did not repeat the question, because the
Bishop said that that was on occasion of another visit. The argument had
not the slightest foundation.

The next case is that of the Misses Rudderow. Miss Helen Rudderow
says that she went, in '41, with the Bishop from St. James's Church to her
brother's house, a distance of a mile that they rode in a one-horse wagon
belonging to the Rev. Mr. Richmond who was the only other person in
the wagon, and who drove the horse and, according to her account, the
moment they started the Bishop began to take liberties with her. Now, in
the first place, the Bishop was almost a stranger to her, and it is certainly
not a little extraordinary that the Bishop should have been weak and foolish
enough to do so in the presence of Mr. Richmond, who was looking round
and conversing with the Bishop and who, as I believe you all know,
talks enough. Is it at all probable that the Bishop could have taken
the liberties she describes without attracting the attention of Mr. Richmond ?
On the very face of this story there is such an air of improbability that I
should be quite satisfied to. leave it with you without a syllable of comment.
But let us go on a little further, and see whether she is consistent in her
statement. She says that when she got home, she went up stairs to her
sister's room, and asked her to walk down and entertain the Bishop until
the rest of the family should be present. In other words, she requested her
sister to go down and extend the civilities of the house to a man, who, ac-
cording to her account, had insulted her in the grossest manner, and who,
surely, was entitled to no sort of courtesy. The word, if I remember right,
was " entertain." The Court will correct me if it is not so. Now it does
seem to me that a proud woman that a virtuous woman a woman of
right feeling, would, so far from treating him with civility, not have
thought of doing so would never have asked her sister to go down and
"entertain" him. Again, her cousin was there why not examine her ?
She' could have proved what Helen said at that time. But she is not here,
and the story rests entirely on the unsupported testimony of Miss Helen and
her sister Jane. It does seem to me that this fact alone is sufficient to dis-
credit the whole; that she could not have been so insulted, or she would
not have been so anxious to have the Bishop treated with civility. The
Court will recollect the testimony of Mr. Dowdney on this point. He
saw her treat the Bishop with great cordiality, and meet him afterwards, con-
versing with him as if nothing had happened. Now, is it possible that a
woman, feeling herself insulted as she pretends she was, could have gone,
afterwards, and received him with any thing like cordiality ? It is contrary

to human nature. This' is one. of those, facts contrary to the very princi-
ples of human natufe, which ought not, arid can-not, be believed-, "no" matter
how sworn to. "Again, jf the Bishop had taken .these liberties with this
Woman,: it could not possibly have escaped the observation of Mr. Richmond.
But that gentleman observed nothing. And it is remarkable that the Bishop
himself- never heard of 'it till)he General Conventibri at Philadelphia-,, Js
not this; remarkable.?

Miss Jane 'Rudderow -goes afterwards to the Bishop's house volunteers'
to go declares that she is very intimate with the Bishop,' arrd proposes to
go and solicit from him. 'a -favor. Is this consistent/with her story? If.
rio insult had ever been offered- to; herself, would she not -have resented that
offered to her. sister ? Why, k is impossible; She would die sooner than
act in such a manner 'a'manaer. so entirely contrary to. the feelings and,
principles of a. spirited and high-minded woman. Indeed, the.story of Miss-
Jane Rudderow is a most remarkable one; .It is more like the testihiony. of i
a crazy woman than any thing else. . Her sister told her of the conduct of-'
the- Bishop to herself. Jane, .then, in accordance with her -request, went
downstairs to '' entertain" the Bishop. She found him standing at the* |
centre4able, looking at a book. She had been put on her guard by her 1
sister, that the Bishop was not a man to be trusted with a female, and yet
she gives the Bishop her hand,- and alloxvs him to lead her to the sofa al-
most inviting, as it were, the IJishop to, put an insult upon her. She s<i
the door was wide open* and. that her brothers were in the entry, and could'
have entered the .room at any moment. . The Bishop then, accqrding to- her'
account, committed the act with every chance of detection staring him in
the face. But she says that the Bishop put his.- hand into her bosom that
she retreated to the other -end of the. sofa that the Bishop followed bet
there, and repeated the insult, and that he desisted only on hearing footsteps-
oh the stairsj when he again moved to the other end of the sofa. But she
does not stop here. ' This is a wonderful story. .After "dinner they went
out on the piazza seven or eight persops were there; the Bishop "asked;
where Mr Schermerhprn's house was-^and she walked to. the .other end of:
the piazza for the purpose of pointing it out to him^ the moment he got
.her there, she. swears that he ! ; repeated the insult ! This is done when all
these persons are on" the piazza! : Is that probable; ? 'Is.it possible? Bui
this is not all. Tliey all return to the house. After dinner, Miss Jane, who
wishes' to go. to the Sunday-school, approaches the window for the purpose
of ascertaining if it rains. The Bishop starts up, follows her, and, the mo-
ment she gets to the window, and in the face of all .the family, puts his hand
into he* bosom. 'Those who -can believe -this, may. 1 do not believe ones
word of it. '-..' ' / . .

But, again, .in. all her conversations with Mr. Dowdney, Jane never pre-
tended that the Bishop had insulted her. Mr. Dowdney. swears to that,
Is not, this extraordinary? Her only complaint Mas with respect ^to. the
insulf offered to Helen. Then again, when she proposes in presence of Miss :
Rutter) to go to the house of the Bishop, she is asked, "Do you know the
Bishop?" she replies, "Oh-! yes, I know him intimately." ^ Is 'that con*
sistent with the story of the repeated insults she- had received ? Not on)y
that, but Mr. Dowdney states that he saw her meet the Bishop at the ves-
tibule -of the Church, and that her greeting was quite cordial. What.'
treat the man who has repeatedly insulted her sister and herself with any .

thing h"ke cordiality ! Why, a,.virtuous'.woman \"ould' utterly spurn jsuert
njohdoct, .'

With these observations I. leave 'the. pase of the Misses Rudderow. :

The gentleman will say', -What ! do .you destroy the. credit 1 of these, two
girls? Is the reputation .of .respectable females to be thus trifled w"ith ?
I reply. Is the' reputation of a minister of the -great God : not -equal tofthat
of any woman ? I am. the last 'man, dh earth who .wouM volvultarily at-
tempt ^a destroy the reputation of a' female for>eracity, 'but when LcJomb
to compare it .with the reputation of the Church, and -one of' her Bishops'
and Fathers, in -my opinion '.il.arndunt^'to ho.thing. ''= ;

I come now. (o the testimony of Mrs. .Beare. I have' endeavoreJd to-
weigh it carefully,- and I regard it as -the most inccnsiiderable^fFerell-'in
behalf of the Presentment. ' I may be mistaken, lam aware- that wd are
apt to lean towards our client. But I' have -regarded; this. case as quite too
solemn for the indulgence of any such merely professional' feelings, ajnd I
have, therefore; studidusly endeavored to be governed, in forming my judg-
ment strictly by reason.

Now what is Mrs. Beard's testimony'?' She says'- that on a' certain; oc-.
casion, no matter what^ the Bishop -'came to pay a visit' to '-the church in
w.hich her husband -officiated that she rode home with him' from: the
ehurch in the morning, in. a carriage, In company with her .mother .and.
brother, I think,- but it '"is -not. material jyith whom an.d th&t, during that
short ride, in mid-day, she -being aliridst- an 'entire stranger to the Bishop, h0
took improper liberties with her ^pressed her to him-^-that. when she- got
'home she complained, to her husband ; -. he-, cautioned- 'her to say nothing'
about .it, and hinted thaVshe. might have' been miMaken-^that in the. after-
noon sh.e declined riding to "church "svith 'the BisHpp, aftd that tRerefoVe, lie
and her husband went ia one carriage, white sh'e accompanied some rela- .
tives- in another that' they were -engaged to drink 'tea, in the evening, at
the house of a Mr. Franklin that she rode with her brother-in-law; on her
'way. thither to. the top' of. the lane that she then- got into the. same car-
riage 'with the Bishop' and her husband that they remained at Mr. Frank-
lin's till about 9 o'clock in the eyening that they then all got into 'the
carriage and returned honie thaf. id the. course of that ride, the Bishop
not only repeated the insult of tHe. Corning, but alfeo- committed, much,
more gross indignities, putting hfs .hand into her bosom ^ag-fdr as he could
'g'efit, and then passed it ddwn her person till he. placetl it oh her thigh.
This is 'her story, stated, I believe, as she told it.' .Now on it I have one
or -two remarks to inakf.' which ,catry perfect conviction 'ta. my muid.
She had been insulted in the morning i She 'had refused to -ride to church
with the Bishop in the. afternoon, and also V>n the way to Mr! Franklin';? in
'the evening, 'for fe'ar of- a. repetition of this offence ^ and. yet. 'we li:id Ik-iy
after dark, putting h&rsel'f preci'sely in .the -same situation v.-hich she fiad '
.so resolutely refused to- occupy in the day-time'! How is this to beva'q- '
counted for? She was afraid to ride, with the Bishop in the day-time^ ;
even; in conipany, and under the eye of h<5r- husband ; but after dark.
when nobody could 'possibly see, she actually courts a rewrition' of the'in-
suk which, .she alleges, the Bishop -committed upon' her in die morning.
All this was done quite voluntarily on her part. 'Is ft at .all creclible^is
it at -all possible that any woman could act in such, a manner ? Could she
put herself absolutely in such a situation, as invited 'a 'repetition of an of-
fenee against which every virtuous feeling revolted* It does seem to me

224

that this argument alone is conclusive against the reception of her evi-
<lence. She never could have felt herself so insulted, as she now states
she was, on the morning of that day, or she could not by any possibility
have behaved in such a manner in the evening.

Again, she says that after they got home they had family prayers, and
that afterward, when she got into the room with her husband, she told him
of this tremendous insult. She was. she says, agitated all night. She could
not sleep. She was kept awake by the same feelings, and this unhappy pair
passed the entire night brooding over this terrible insult ; and yet the next
morning at brcakfast ; this lady, instead of absenting herself on some plea,
comes down to the table, treats the Bishop with cordiality, and extends to
him all the friendly hospitalities of the house. Is this probable ? Why not
make an excuse, any excuse on earth, rather than meet the man who had so
grossly insulted her. But she conies down as usual; not a word of com-
plaint is uttered, not a hint of disapprobation is given, and the Bishop leaves
the house in the full belief that he left behind him the same kind feelings
which had greeted him on his arrival.

But if the Court please, this testimony does not stop here. Some weeks
afterward, I do not know how long, nor is it important, the Bishop goes there
on another occasion. He goes to ordain Mr. Beare. Now, if he had be-
lieved the Bishop to be an adulterer in heart, would he have ever suffered
him to ordain him could he ever have consented to receive the order of the
priesthood from such .polluted hands ? If he had the feelings of a man he
never could. Mr. and Mrs. Beare go to the liouse of Dr. Sohroeder for the
purpose of meeting the Bishop. There was no avoidance of the Bishop by
them; quite the contrary. At all events we find them there. Dr. Schroe-
der, after showing them the green-house, asked if they wo'uld be presented
to the Bishop. They acceded, and the meeting was a cordial one. Ac-
cording to Dr. Schroeder, they met in the most friendly manner, and shook
hands.

Mr. KETCHCM. They did not shake hands.

Mr. OGDEN. I don't know the Court will correct me if I am mistaken.

Mr. OGDEN proceeded. Dr. Schroeder was asked if there were any
apparent coolness on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Beare. " None on earth,"
was the reply ; and if there were, he must have observed it. Mr. Beare
asked the Bishop to dine with him the next day ; the Bishop replied that
he had engaged to dine with Mr. Franklin. " But you must dine with us,"
was the answer of Mr. Beare ; and finally, the Bishop, after speaking
about the getting rid of the previous engagement, yields to the solicitation
of Mr. Beare. Now Mr. Beare is asked if he had any recollection
, about this prior engagement having been alluded to by the Bishop, but all
he says is, that he asked the Bishop to dine ; concealing the fact of the
prior engagement, and that he insisted on its violation. How is this ? Is
not this a very significant fact ? But the gentleman will say " this was
only 'common civility towards the Bishop, on the part of Mr. Beare."
" What ! common civility to the man who had insulted his wife in this gross
manner to him who had committed adultery with her in his heart ! Why,
if they had met the Bishop with cold civility, it might have been consistent
with the story ; but to ask him to dine, and to press the invitation even to
the violation of a prior engagement, is that cold civility ? This fact alone
is conclusive evidence that they could not have entertained towards the

225

Bishop those feelings which were unavoidable had these gross insults been
offered to Mrs. Beare.

But what happened at dinner ? Mr. Goodwin was there, as was also
.Mr. Swoetzer. Did they observe any thing like coolness? Not at all.
They are very positive about that. There was not the slightest indication
of the kind. Now is h possible that a woman feeling herself grossly
insulted, and her husband being aware of the fact, would have entertained
the author of the insult as a guest, and treated him with the utmost cor-
diality and kindness.

Then they went in the vestry-room in the morning, and again the con-
duct towards the Bishop i? marked with perfect cordiality. Mrs. Beare
and her husband are both entirely wanting in the exhibition, in the slightest
degree, of those feelings under which the}' must of necessity have labored,
had they been smarting under the sense of the wrongs which they now
describe. If this case rested solely upon (he testimony of these witnesses,
I am confident that not a Bishop who hears .me could for a moment think
of finding the Bishop guilty. But it is attempted to bolster up this evi-
dence : and how ? This brings me to the interview with the Bishop. It
seems that Mr. BeaTe, on the day succeeding this transaction, went down
to College Point, and related the facts to a clergyman whose name I have
forgotten.

[Mr. KETCHCM Mr. Kcrfoot.]

Mr. OGDEX Yes. to Mr. Kerfoot, and no doubt the statement was
highly colored. This clergyman was very much surprised, and said he
would communicate the matter to Dr. Muhlenberg. He did so, and Dr.
Muhlenberg who, I am happy to say, behaved in a manner alike cred-
itable to him as a gentleman and as a Christian minister, came to the
city immediately, and consulted Drs. Milnor, Wainwright, and Higbee.
After consultation, those gentlemen determined that the matter ought at
once to be brought before the notice of the Bishop, and they accordingly
proceeded m a body to the Bishop's house. When they got there, Dr.
Milnor, as the eldest Presbyter, I presume, was called on to break the
matter to the Bishop. Dr. Miinor, then, according to his statement, ob-
served that there were serious charges against the Bishop, to the effect,
that he had committed some indignities upon Mrs. Beare, and then referred
to Dr. Muhlenberg for all the particulars. Dr. Muhlenberg then stated
the matter more fully, referring to a paper containing the heads of the
accusation. After the charges were seated, the Bishop declared positively
that they were unfounded, and, according to the testimony of Dr. Higbee,
this denial was made with some indignation. A proposition was then
made by somebody by whom it does not appear some think it was made
by the Bishop, others that it was made by Dr. Milnor but at all events ft
was proposed and acceded to by the Bishop, that Mr. Beare should be
requested to come to the city and meet the Bishop. Next day. accord-
ingly, all came again, except Dr. Wainwright. who was unavoidably ab-
sent. When they met, the Bishop shook Me. Beare's hand expressed
regret that he should suppose any thing could have occurred to hurt his
feelings expressed great regard for Mr. Beare, as well he might, for he
had been his prottgt and been brought up under his eye, as if he had been
his own son : the Bishop is asked if he meant to deny what had been
said ? He replies that he did not mean to call in question the veracity of
Beare, but that she was mistaken ; another witness says that the

. expression of the Bishop was, that she had misconstrued his motives. That
. being the main pbini oh -which Mr. Beare appeared to be so much agitated,
.was ^tisfied with this declaration ctf the Bishop,, and there the matter
, then, is' the testimony offered -to sustain the evidence' of

. J$f. and MK. .

' ..,. . btpw.jiii-llie.finst, place, what 'evidence, have you as to what passed at the
.Bishop's house . during thjat .interview? Charges' had been .made- 1 Dr.
repeated.* hem..- .'Dr. . MHnof s.ays' that Dr. Muhlenberg read
harges frqni 'a paper ; in that he is certainly mistaken. The charges
. nq^Avritten, x>ut..> -THe paper in question, according to Dn. Mnhlen-
. feerg's. own 1 account, contained' only " heads'? 9f the statement, intelligibl-e
..4inly to himself.; : and Dr. Higb.e'esfays that this statement, was made in such
, .. $. confused manner Uiat he could not. have Understood it had he not heard
. \}Ue story before. . Dr. Wainwright says that his memory of the occurrences
; M. not;vary plear,-as, on account of the distress in. hisrfamily at the time,
'.his mind .was'.so-'Qccijpied that he could riot undertake to recollect all that
.' ,'.^assed, ; with .perfect ! accuracy. . Dr. Mtihlenberg was very much excited,
and in thut condition- his' faculties are not the most collectedj but he thinks
v h'e re&d.the. charges icorrectlyi Dr. .Milnor thinks tha,t the statement. waa
]naade from a paper ; but I believe it.was made orally. It is altogether very
doubtful that the charges- were presented specially, in all their enormity,
.-, to fhe Bishpp j at all -events, hfc denied theni. Well, then Mr. Beare

comes the next dayjand the argument of the gentleman is-, that although
'. t^je Bishpp. denied the charges on the first day, yet that he admitted them

'dn. the, next. .> is:that true? ..Mr. Bjeare was.' very much agitated why ?
Because, ie ^thought . that the vera,city of his wife was suspected. . The

.Jjfreat thing iu his .mind was. to -get rid of that charge, and he asked the

Bishojv in- \yqrds or- in effect, "Do you mean to call in question what my
-' -<vife has. said ?'' . The Bishop replies, " I do not mean to- call in question
'^he veracity of your- Wife at all, sir* I have a great regard for you and
your \vjfe 3. I d<> hot pall ini question her veracity-^-but slie is mistaken."
Some say 'that the .term was, "misconstrued ;" others: that, it was, ' mis-
' .Understood,;" but the purport evidently was> that she had been "-mistaken."
The IJishop never meant to 'adrpit the truth of the charge, but he denied
that hb meant to call- in question the veracity of Mrs. Beare, hoping thus
'.. to. *illay..; the. excitement and agitatioo of her husband on that point. Dr.
<Higbee says he-so undersjobd k. But the gentleman says that the conduct
.. brl)r'. Higbee after that interview was very extraordinary; that he said to
DA Milnpr, '' How. belies!" ahd.Hiat he said to Mr. Beare, " Why, if lue
touched my 'wife,.!, should kick him Gut of the house!" What is Dr.
H ig bee's explanation ?. Surely his own explanation is as satisfactory, and
iSr'entitled to asirriuch weight, as the mere inference of another party. He
,'.; jsa.ys tl\atj.in the first 'place, the Bislrop. denied the principal charge alto-
gether; and so. .also he understood him. on the second, occasion : bul on the
first, he-, understood .him as caljing in question the veracity of Mrs, Beare,
. . ' f^hile he denied. -any such intention on occasion of the second interview;
and hence Dr.. -Higbee considered him inconsistent, and admits that he
Uttght have , utternid. the exclamation stated, though he has no -recollection
/.of having done^ so. Well, then, as regards the declaration of Dr. Higbee,
.'! ihat if. the Bishop, had touched his Wife, he would have kicked him out of
the house, the .explanation of the Doctor is and it is satisfactory that
if he had beUcqed the. Bishop guilty, he would have ^ done so 'and so-; but

' '' " ' "' '''' ' ' ' '

22*

that he did not regard him as guilty is evident, he says, from hid agreeing
with Dr. Milnor not to say another word about the matter. If Drs. Milnor
and Muhlenberg had supposed that the Bishop admitted on -this occasion the
truth of the charges, and contradicted his own denial of the previous day,
does any Bishop here suppose that they would have concealed, his guiltj
-and agreed to say nothing more about the matter? -No. The very fact
that these venerable and pure-minded men came to such a conclusion speaks
volumes, and is irresistible conclusion that they had not the slightest doubt
of the Bishop's innocence.

I have now offered all the remarks on the evidence- with which I intend
to trouble the Court.

I have, however, to say a word relative to the pomt in this case. Every
one of these charges has been supported only "by one witness. The rule is
well settled, in my opinion, that, both by the divine and civil, law. one wit-
ness is not sufficient to convict a man of. such charges as these. I hare al-
ways understood thar, by the Jewish law, ajid also by the Christian taw, a*
laid down by our Saviour, -and by his apostles, and sustained by the prac-
tice of the. primitive Church, 'the testimony of. two Avitnesses- was absolutely
necessary to -convict- a man' of -an "offence; .On this point j beg to cite BttrrifS
Ecclesiast. Law, vol. ii. 2US, Now this is a spiritual" Court ; and accord-
ing to this authority, no Churchman can-be convicfed upon.one single wit.
ness, there must be at least two. And in Gibson's Cod&x, 1011, the same
principle is laid down 3 and commented on at some length. The same prin-
ciple applies iu cases at common law. Thus in the case of perjury, as? wa
stated by my associate, two witnesses are necessary, and why ? Because
the oath of a single witness cannot be taken as sufficient proof of the vio-
lation of his oath by the accused party. And let me ask, is not the de-
fendant here under oath ? I know-of no oath more solemn than the conse-
cration vow. Is this defendant, then, to be denied the privilege which- the * .
law and reason extend to the party accused of perjury ?

But, if the Court please, I have heard it intimated, that although none of
the charges has been supported by * he requisite amount of legal testimrmy,
yet inasmuch as they all goto prove the one general charge of immorality
and impurity, they are to be added together and th/own into the scale.--
Against that doctrine I most solemnly protest What is the law upon this
s'ubject? It expressly prescribes that you cannot fix a charge upon a man
except by -two witnesses. You must -proceed -here precisely as they do in
courts of law ; every specification not proTed is to- be cast aside, and each
is to be passed upon separately. If not, what is the consequence ? Here
are four charges : taken separately they are nothing; taken together. they
amount to something ^(hat four eiphers make a unit-: according to a spe--;
cies of arithmetic that I cannot understand. Now not one of these charges-
has been legally proved. They are. just so many ciphers.

. if the Court please. I shall conclude after a few additional remarks. I
have, already detained you too long.

There does appear to me, with all due deference to the Presenting BisH-.
ops, and ariy other gentlemen who have taken an active part in these .pro-
ceedings,- not only a disregard of the peace of the Church, but a desire
almost to break irupieces the most peaceful Diocese on the continent.
One hav[ng more general confidence in the purity of the Bishqp cannot
exist. These Presenting Bishops with 'all due deference i'-'say it are
rending the Church- They were bound, in my feeble judgment, to have

228

acted very differently. Independently of all other considerations, the se-
lection of the time in which these charges were made, was to my. mind an act
of as gross cruelty as could be perpetrated by any men upon their fellow,
being. At the very moment when my client was weighed down to the very
dust by the unfortunate case of his brother when he and his family could
hardly hold up their heads in the community- that moment was seized upon
to rake up against him all these old transactions, passed and forgotten years
ago. But this is a Court of mercy. It is a Court organized in the name
of the great God of justice and of mercy. From your decision there is no
appeal. I now commit this case to your hands, with the earnest prayer,
that you may be enabled to decide it under a due sense of your solemn ob-
ligations to the Church, to justice, and to your God.

HIRAM KETCHUM, Esquire, then concluded the summing up of
evidence, on the part of the Presentment.

May it please the Court :

I now rise to execute the last act of the most painful professional duty in
which I have ever been engaged. If, in the- course of this trial and long
investigation, I have at any time manifested impatience, or discovered any
want of self-control, I freely confess that I have acted unworthily of the
high trust committed to me, and I now make the only atonement in my
power, by asking the pardon of the Court.

I shall, after a few preliminary observations, proceed to state the reasons
for the opinions which I have formed of the testimony in this case. These
reasons will, I doubt not, receive from the Court all the consideration that
they merit ; but my opinions, any further than they are sustained by sound
arguments, however sincerely entertained, are to have no weight with the
Court, for I am here as Counsel in the cause. As Counsel, from the first I
have endeavored to conduct the case with liberality and candor; but still, I
have been advocating one side, in opposition to the Counsel on the other side,
and my opinions, and my solemn asseverations as to my opinions, are to have
just as much weight as the asseverations of the Counsel on the other side,
and no more, and that is nothing.

It has not been my duty to institute that thorough, that searching scrutiny
of the mind, and of the heart, which would detect and expel every thought,
every feeling, every opinion, and every prejudice, inconsistent with the im-
partial decision of this case that has not been my duty, but that is the
high and solemn, and, I may add, awful duty of every member of this
Court. You are to judge this case, and after you have judged it, you your-
selves are to be judged. You are to be fudged, not by the Church of this
Diocese only, but by that great company which composes the Church of the
United Stales, and by the public at large. And if your decision shall com-
mend itself to the approval of your own consciences, in the sight of God, it
will, I doubt not, receive the approbation of the Church of Christ, and the
public. I say here, what as an Episcopalian I am most proud to say, that
I have an abiding confidence not only in the learning, but in the wisdom
and purity of this tribunal. I have seen your action on former occasions,
and I believe that the religious community, and the public at large through-
out the United States, have as much confidence in this tribunal as in any
other in the land. I believe that it may be said, without boasting, that the
Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country have, at all

229

times, been a pure body of men. They have shown, on many occasions,
and on a recent occasion, to the admiration of the Protestant world, their
purity of doctrine ; and, whenever an opportunity presents, they are pre-
pared to vindicate their purity of morals.

I shall proceed to make some remarks upon the evidence, but before I do
so, permit me to notice some things about the defence. We were told be-
fore we came here, whether on the authority of the Respondent or not, I
will not say, that there was to be a conspiracy proved against the Respon-
dent that this prosecution was the result of a conspiracy. When I opened
this case I alluded to this notorious fact; I stated then, that although the
defence might not have the legal right to enter upon such a course of evi-
dence, yet I was willing that they should ; I promised to waive all legal
objections to the evidence, if offered. Where is the evidence of the con-
spiracy ? Echo answers, where ? Throughout this long investigation, not
one witness has been presented to prove the alleged conspiracy. We of-
fered to sit longer, but no such proof has been attempted. And it is here
proper to remark, that not one of the witnesses who have appeared to sus-
tain these charges, has exhibited the slightest desire to do so from motives:
of animosity against the Respondent, or from any wish that this matter
should be prosecuted against him. Where is the evidence, from beginning
to end, that Mr. and Mrs. Butler, the Misses Rudderow, or Mr. and Mrs.
Beare, had any desire for the prosecution of this case ? But, it is said, there
are other parties who have urged this matter forward. Who are they I
Why, the letter introduced here, and written by Mr. Gallagher to Mr.
Butler, discloses something in reply to that. Here is the letter : it is dated
at New York, September 25th, 1844.

" REV. AND DEAR BROTHER,-

" After so long an interval of silence, I am pained to renew an intercourse
formerly so agreeable to myself, by reverting to a subject which, to a mind
like yours, must be attended with sensations of a revolting nature. I trust,
however, that a sense of duty, which could alone induce me to address you
upon such a subject, will overcome your instinctive repugnance, so far at
least as to leave you free to consider what course it becomes you to adopt hi
view of the demands of truth and righteousness. I am led to address you
in consequence of a conversation which I have had to-day with our brethren
Messrs. T rapier and Barnwell, who have been appointed, as you are aware,
on a committee to investigate the truth of rumors affecting the Seminary.
Among other subjects, the reports of various immoralities alleged against
Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, which have long been afloat, have been deemed
within the scope of their inquiries, from his connection with the institution.
I was surprised to learn from them that your name had been mentioned as
one who had been exceedingly aggrieved, and could testify to the most se-
rious delinquencies. You will remember a conversation which I had with
you in the year 1839, at Palmyra, in which you recounted the aggravated
injury which you had suffered. I had regarded this in so confidential a light
as never to have mentioned your name in connection with that of the Bish-
op, save on one occasion to our common friend, the Rev. Stuart Hanckel,
and that accompanied by the ' strictest injunction of secrecy. I find, how-
ever, that Mr. Hanckel has inadvertently communicated the affair to Mr.
Barnwell, who not being aware of the confidential nature of the communi-
cation, felt it to be his duty to make it a subject of inquiry. I stated to him

230

that it ought not to be divulged without your consent, upon which 'he ex-

fressed an intention to write you on the subject. While I deeply regret that
have been unintentionally the means of thus far extending the knowledge
of a transaction of so painful a nature, (which I have learned, however,
since my arrival in this city, is extensively known here,) I trust that you
will be willing to make that sacrifice of feeling which the present crisis and
the leadings of retributive Providence seem to demand," &c. -You have
heard the whole letter read.

Here you see the origin of this proceeding.

[Bishop GADSDEN. Is that letter in evidence ?

Mr. KETCHUM. It was referred to by the defence, and is now before the
Court.]

Mr. KETCHUM proceeded It is true that the Clergy of this Diocese did
not move in this matter, but certain gentlemen in the Diocese of South Car-
olipa did think proper to move in it. Had they a right to do so? You
know the laws and institutions of the Church. These gentlemen thought
there was a Professor in the Theological Seminary, which belonged to the
Church at large, who ought not to be intrusted with the instruction of the
students. Did it belong to the New York Diocese alone to exercise super-
vision over, the Professors in that Seminary? "Had these gentlemen of
South Carolina, indeed, no right to move in the matter? They had a right,
most unquestionably, and they have availed themselves of that right. They,
and the committees appointed by them, did move in the matter ; and it was
their suggestion which called persons together, with a view to collect and
examine these flying rumors, in order to see if grounds for charges existed.
They found that there were grounds for charges. They made the investi-
gation through agents, it is true. The charges were presented to the House
of Bishops. That body could take nd action on the application from South
Carolina, but three Bishops could present the matter to the House, and have
the. Respondent tried. These three Bishops were found, and now that the
Presentment has been made, and the charges investigated, I submit to the
candor and good sense of every gentleman composing this Court, if it was
not necessary for the good of the Church, for the good of religion, and for
the Respondent himself, that this investigation should be made ? . But that's
the whole history of the origin of this Presentment, and where is there any
thing of conspiracy. These gentlemen have presented to you their charges.
Whether they had good reason, or not, for doing so, will be best determined by
the fact whether they have proved them or notl Even if the charges be not
proved, there are sufficient reasons for justifying the conduct of these Pre-
senters ; and if the charges be sustained, you will of course say that they
ha.ve done their duty. There is nothing of malice in that. Thus much for
all that we have heard about conspiracy. Thus much for what 1 believe
has been stated by the Respondent himself as the cause of this prosecution.
Thus much for w-hat one of the religious presses of this city has said on this
subject. Where is the evidence of conspiracy ? It is not here it is not
anywhere.

Again, the learned gentlemen, Counsel for the Respondent, have both gone
through iheir defence with great power; and I submit to every member of
this honorable Court, if it is not perfectly apparent that if you find the Bishop
innocent of these charges, you have to find that every one of the?e witnesses
Who swore against him is perjured, There is no alternative left you by the

argument of the Counsel : "you have to find that. Mr. Butler, a very respect*
.able presliyterof this Church, and his wife, a communicant of the Church-?-
that the two' Misses Rudderow, of -spotless character, actively engaged in
promoting the objects of the 'Church : t!iat Mr. and Mrs. Beare, '-also. of ttfe
highest character, are all perjured witnesses].. If you find the Bishop i-
nocent, they go from this- Court bearingj in all time to come, the. brand of
perjury. There, is no escape from that conclusion. Tire Counsel have left
us no escape, for they todk no other ground in their defence- Such, then,,
is the inevitable consequence, so far as affects the witnesses, of a verdict of
acquittal: ' '.

.. On the" other hand, -if you find the Respondent guilty, there 'are conse-
quences of the most deplorable character {hat would result. You are try.
ing a brother you are to determine whether- he shall be cut off,- for there
is no middle ground on this subject. -You are to determine whether or not
He is to be deprived of "his high office-r-whether, in all time .to e.ome, he is.
to be shut out from the sympathies of mankind whether that -is to happen
to him, which would cause his wife, and his Children, to regret that he had
not died when he could 'have "left them the inheritance of an honorable
name, though that had been the only inheritance he could bequeath. You
are to cut off the man with whom : you have often taken sweet counsel
who has long been your brother and he is to stand divided -from you for
ever J I 'believe that you have not so much, of- the Roman in you, as to--
be insensible to these, consequences, I know, and I rejoice to say that F
know, your hearts yearn for his 'acquittal. B"ut while your hearts yearn
for his acquittal, those same hearts, like the heart of .Bli, the- priest of old>
tremble for the ark of God committed to- your keeping.- .'.'.'

You are to decide this case without respect to consequences on 'the.'pne
side or the other. -You are to determine whether the Respondent is guilty
or not of these charges that is the question, and that is. to be decided from
the evidence. ;

Now I shall proceed, in the first place, to investigate the. case of Mrs..
Beare. I do this, because, as I shall show- rhe Court, that case is entirely
free from all .the difficulties which have been attempted to be raised here .
with respect to the evidence, and the number of witnesses. L therefore wish
to take up that case in the first instance, which is clear of all- these! objec-
tions.: I mean- to go th/ough with the examination of. Mrs. Beare's case,
candidly, deliberately ; and if I should state any portion of the -evidence 1
differently' from the notes of the Clerk, or of any member of the Court, I
pray to be corrected at 'the time, although I am of 6pinion that the entire
evidence should be read over to the Court, be fore they proceed to deliberate
on 'their judgment; and, therefore, any slight' inaccuracy of mine may -not
be of much, -importance. Still, I desire to be corrected if I should appear
to be m error on any point.

[Bishop Ivfcs.- May I ask the Counsel, whether, in case of any do'ubt.
resting oa the mind, of any mem'berof the Court, he may 'not be at liberty -
to suggest it to the Counsel in order to have it cleared -up ?

Mr. KETCHUM. Certainly, sir.]

Mr. KEfctfuM proceeded What js the -case of Mrs. Beare ? It appears
Mrs.- Beare was married on the 8th June, 1842; on. the 12th of July of .
the same year, she was first introduced to Bishop Onderdonk ; on the 17th-
day of the same month, the Bishop visited the church of which Mr. Beare
is pastor, and that in the 1 drive home the Bishop put his arm around

232

Mrs. Beare, and, in an unbecoming manner, pressed his hand upon her
bosom.

[Bishop GADSDEN. I really think that the Counsel should read the Present-
ment and the evidence, in order that the discrepancies may be seeo.

Bishop POLK. I hope the Counsel may not be interrupted.

Bishop GADSDE.N-. I made the suggestion in accordance with the request
of Counsel himself.

Mr. KETCHTOI. I will consider the question of a variance between the
allegations in the Presentment and the proof, when I come to examine the
testimony of Mr. Bolles.]

Mr. KjsffcHUM proceeded with the statement of Mrs. Beare's testimony :
" Immediately after their return home, Mrs. B. told her husband that she
did not wish to ride with the Bishpg in the afternoon, as she thought him too
familiar in his manners. She told ner husband the occurrence of the morn-
ing he expressed great surprise, but remarked to her ' if you can avoid
it, do not let it alter your manner towards him while he is in our house.' "

In the interim, between services, Mrs. Beare testifies, that "the Bishop
put his arm around me, and raised my head by my chin, and kissed me."

"After the afternoon service, went to the house of Joseph L. Franklin
there was some levity on the part of the Bishop came away about nine
o'clock in the evening rode home in a one-horse family barouche Mrs.
Beare sat on the back seat on the right of the Bishop, her husband sitting
in frcnt of her, and the nephew of Mr. Beare sitting before the Bishop.
On the drive the Bishop put his arm around Mrs. B.'s waist then raised it
and put it across the .back of her neck -thrust h-is hand into the neck of her
dress, down into her bosom she threw his hand from there he immediate-
ly put it upon the lower part of her person she pushed it aside from there
he then, with the other, repeated the same on the other side of her person,
but removed it towards the centre of her person she threw it aside. When
the hand was put in the neck of her dress, it was upon her naked bosom ;
the hand upon her person pressed her person palm inward the other hand
he placed near her krtee removed it along her leg up to her hip, and the
centre of her person palm of the hand inward."

I believe every word of that statement is true. I am going to show that
it is true I am going to demonstrate that it is true. I believe that it is
true, first, because Mrs. Beare has sworn to it. Who is Mrs. Beare ?
Many years ago, and before I was a student of law, I remember having
been in Court in this city during the progress of some interesting trial, and
I heard Bishop Hobart called on the stand to testify as to the character of
a lady ; and the Bishop's answer struck me so forcibly that I have never
forgotten it. "I have known her well," said he, "and jier character is
more than irreproachable." I apply that phrase to P.Irs. Beare ; her char-
acteris more than irreproachable. She is a lady of purity of honor of
piety or, to.sum it all up in the description given of her by the Respondent
himself " she is a pastor's good wife." . I believe her statement, then, be-
cause she has sworn to it. I saw her manner as she delivered her testi-
mony, and I have had some experience in observing the manner of witnesses
from her manner, I believed her.

Well, then, how does she proceed with her statement ? She communicated
the matter to her husband, immediately on arriving home and what did
he do ? Why, I will tell what he did not do he did not do what the learn-
ed Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, a Doctor of Divinity, would have

233

done he did not kick the Bishop out of the house no, he did not do that,
but I will tell you what he did he prayed tcilh him, sir. I admit that that
was not natural. I believe that Mr. and Mrs. Beare had got a little beyond
human nature in this respect. I admit, that as a minister of Jesus Christ,
he .had something of the spirit of that Master, who directed his disciples to
pray for those <; who despitefully used them." He said to his wife, " after
prayers we will think of this matter let us first pray." He performed
family worship, in company with the Bishop, and then they retired to their
chamber. They passed a sleepless night. What followed in that chamber
we are not permitted to ask : we only know that they did not sleep and
when the secrets of all hearts are laid bare, I have no doubt it will be seen,
that they did that unnatural thing in that chamber which would not have
disgraced a Doctor of Divinity of. Trinity Church they prayed .for the
Bishop !

What next did they do ? Mr. Beare accompanied the Bishop next day ; .
he did not reprove him. I admit that he ought to have reproved him to his
face. And when the Bishop of New Jersey put the question, (it was a
proper one,) " Did you go and tell him his fault alone ?" I admit it, it was
a proper question ; I admit that Mr. Bcare ought to have been able to an-
swer in the affirmative. But, if he did not do that, he did the next best
thing : he went to the nearest clergyman, his brother of about the same
age. and to him he communicated the matter. And what did they do ?
They knelt down and prayed to Almighty God for guidance. Now this
may be called very Methodistical this may be called fanatical ; but I do
not believe that a Court of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church of
the United States of America, will so decide. I believe they will even *go
so far as to declare that they consider this was better than to have kicked
the Bishop out of the house, though we have the authority of a Doctor of
Divinity in favor of that, as the proper course in such a case. But they
prayed to God for guidance. When he told that story to the Rev. Mr.
Kerfoot, now a Presbyter of the Diocese of Maryland, and who, I have
been informed, has been here since this trial commenced, I believe he told
the story as he tells it now. I could not call the witness to say whether he
did not tell it then as now, but the defence could have called him ; but they
did not. If any discrepancy had existed between the story of Mr. Beare,
as told by him then, and as he tells it now, it would havo been shown ; but
Mr. Beare told the story to Mr. Kerfoot as he tells it now.

[Bishop WnrrriNGHAM. I beg to interrupt the Counsel for a moment, as
he has appealed to me. He is bringing before the Court what is not in evi-
dence.

Mr. KETCHCM. Mr. Kerfoot is a Presbyter of Maryland. I have un-
derstood that he is now in this city, and has bern here since the Court com-
menced its sessions. I only leave the matter before the Bishops as a matter
of inference. If Mr. Beare had told that story differently to Mr. Kerfoot,
could we not have had him ?

Bishop WHITTINGHAM. Did the Counsel try to get his evidence ?

Mr. KETCHUM. I say. as a matter of law we could not produce him we
could not sustain our own witness in that way ; but the other side could
have impeached him by Mr. Kerfoot, if his testimony would have impeached
Mr. Beare. I do not mean to say that he would not have come if request-
ed. The Bishop of Maryland will not so understand me.]

Mr. KJETCUUM proceeded The next day. or about the same time, the Rev.

234

Dr. Muhlenberg waS informed of the matter by whom it was taken down,
not verbatim, but the particulars commuted to writing. And Dr. Muhlen-
berw, like a Christian, (and I rejoice'to give him all due praise for his con-
duct,) came to this eity for the purpose of advising >vith his- brethren how
the matter should be communicated to his Diocesan. He conferred with
Drs*. Milnor, Wainwright, and Higbee ;' and they resolved to communs
cate-if, and they did communicate it to the Bishop. What occurred at that
interview ? We are to decide this matter according to the best evidence in
our possession. tye are not to conjecture, but to go according to the rules
of evidence. Now' what took place ? Let us hear what Dr. Milnor says:
" I stated .19 him the purpose of-our visit. This was an allegation made by
the Rev. Mr. Beai'e, of improper familiarities on the part of the Bishop
towards, his wife. 'I told him that these were said to have occurred in a
carrjage, in which he rode with Mrs. Beare in the. first place, in going to
or from the church'. in the forenoon, (the church was, as 1 understood, the
church at Little Neck, where the Bishop confirmed that day ;) that famili-
arities of a still more objectionable kind had been offered by the Bishop in
the .evening, in riding from a house where they had taken tea."

This is the general statement to which Dr. Milnor swears. He prepared
the way for the 'statement of Dr. Muhlenberg. Let us now hear what he
says, as he is the person most likely to remember with clearness and distinct-
ness the statement made by him, as it had been most probably a matter of
premeditation : " After Dr. Milnor had stated the object of the interview, I
atated to the Bishop what I had received from Mr. Beare a few days pre-
vious, concerning certain liberties which Mr. Beare said the Bishop had taken
with his wife. I entered into the particulars from notes which I took when
Mr. Beare related tlie circumstances to me. The Bishop denied each of the
particulars as I stated them I mean the particulars of the offence alleged.

". What were the alleged offences as you stated them to the Bishop ?

"A. I don't know that the Bishop had kissed Mrs. Beare ; that he had
put his hand on her naked bosom, and on her body below the corset bone,
outside of her dress.

' .Q. Did you state the- particulars to the Bishop, fully, as they had been
stated to you by Mi*. Beare ?

"A. I did.

^Q.TJid the Bishop deny these allegations in general or in detail ?

" A He denied-them one by one as I proceeded, except that of kissing
Mrs. Beare.
" Q. What was the manner of the Bishop when he made these denials ?

" A. It seemed to be that of great astonishment."

This, then, is the evidence as to what occurred at that interview. * What
did the Bishop say? Why, he indignantly, and with astonishment, denied
(he charges, all and singular ; and I will tell you what more he did, accord-
ing to the testimony of Dr. Higbee ; and that appears not to have been pre-
meditated and studied he carried the war into the enemy's camp : he said
if any improper feeling existed, it must have been on the part of Mrs.
Beare ! He charged it upon her : if this matter were persisted in, he was
sorry to say he would be bound to lake that ground. Thus stands the case,
by the concurrent testimony of two witnesses opposed only, and not op.
posed .fully, by one and he not remembering particularly what occurred ;
but thus stands the matter as it was left by the parlies on that day. The
Bishop stood where his Presbyters rejoiced to see him stand erect a

235

Bishop. " I deny it there has been no impropriety on my part." Well,
the next day these gentlemen, with the exception of Dr. VVainwright, saw
the Bishop again, by appointment; and with them came also Mr. Beare.
The Bishop on this occasion thought proper, I do not know that the cir-
cumstance is of any consequence, but it is as well to mention it, he
thought proper to shut the door; he took them into the back room, -and
closed the door. I will now ask your attention to Mr. Beare's evidence :
Mr. Beare being requested to state what occurred at his interview with the
Bishop, in company with Dr. Milnor and others, said, ."that Bishop On-
derdonk commenced by speaking of me very affectionately stating what a
high regard and respect he had for me that he would not intentionally (I
think that was the word) wound the feelings of Mrs. Beare or myself. I
then asked whether he denied what Mrs. Beare said he had been guilty of.
He said he did not deny it ; but that Mrs. Beare had misunderstood or mi*,
conceived his motives. He then told me to offer an apology to Mrs. Beare,
and if she demanded any further apology, he was willing to make her
one."

This timid man. that seems not to have had courage enough to kick any.
body out of the house, but who knew how to pray this timid man, who i
afraid to speak to a Bishop, except when that jewel, his wife and she is, I
am sure the Court all agree with me in saying, indeed, a "jewel"' is at-
tacked ; this timid man is now afraid of no man ; he boldly demands of
the Bishop, " Do you deny what Mrs. Beare has said ?" And the Bishop
says, " Oh ! I don't deny it I don't deny it but she mistook my motive!**
He don't deny the acts, but he denies the guilt. Such is the evidence aa
to this interview, sworn to by Mr. Beare, and by Drs. Milnor and Muhleo-
berg.

We have, in the case of Mrs. Beare, the evidence of four witnesses;
First, we have that of Mrs. Beare, to the commission of the acts, from
which she draws an inference of impurity ; Secondly, we have that of
Mr. Beara, Dr. Milnor, and Dr. Muhlenberg, to the admission of the factar
by the Bishop, though he denies the inference. Now, am I mistaken, is
there any learned Bishop here who is pressed by this argument as to the
necessity of more than one witness ? Well, then, here we have four wit-
nesses to the fact ; for the confession of a party, is the highest evidence in
the law. ; - A voluntary confession made by a person who has committed
an offence, is evidence against him, upon which he may be convicted, al-
though the confession is totally uncorroborated by other evidence." " The
voluntary confession of the party in interest," says Chief Baron Gilbert,
" is reckoned the best evidence ; for, if a man swearing for his interest
can give no credit, he must certainly give most credit when he swears
against it." Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, 35. - Here, then, is the proof
that the facts were committed proof only of one witness as to the guilt ;
but that is-an inference which the Court may make from the facts. Mrs.
Beare can only infer guilt from the acts. If a man knocks me down, I
can swear that he intentionally knocked me down, and contrary to law ;
and yet the criminality consists in the intent, which is to be inferred from
the act ; and, in cases where but one intent can be inferred from a partic-
ular act, by the common consent of mankind, the law infers that intent.
Now, what but a guilty intent, can be inferred from a man putting his
hand in the naked bosom of a young and beautiful woman ? The Bishop
denied the justice of such an inference in his case, but I think the judg-

236

irient of this Court will hardly sustain him. These acts are proved and
admitted the inference of guilt is irresistible from the acts -and there.
fore, the guilt of the Respondent, in the case'of Mrs. Beare, is established
by demonstration little short of mathematical. But one witness seems to
attach a different md&ning to what the Bishop said

[Bishop Iv^s May I make one remark ? There is a part of Dr. Mil-
nor's evidence to which I wish to draw the attention of the Counsel. It is
the concluding portion of it : " The Bishop replied, ' In relation to rumors
of this kind,' " &c. It seems to me that he regarded this rumor of Mrs.
Beare, as connected with others of a similar nature, which he appears to
deny. Dr. Milnor immediately replied, not as if the Bishop had admitted
these things, but says, " I don't know how that might be."]

Mr. KETCHTTM If there is any thing to be inferred from that fact favor-
able to the Respondent, he is certainly entitled to it ; but let it be remem-
bered that the same witness that swears to that fact, testifies to the other
facts, as to the admission and, in these particulars, he is corroborated by
another witness. Now, admitting the force of the argument as to the
number of witnesses required, how do we stand ? Here is Mrs. Beare'g
statement as ; originally made, proved not only by herself, but by the testi-
mony of others. It is proved it is demonstrated. If there be any defec-
tive link in this chain of demonstration, I should like to see it pointed out.
Well, then; if we have fairly arrived at this conclusion, what have we
proved ? We have proved " ADULTERY IN HEART ;" and, if the view of
the Counsel on the other side be correct, that when a Bishop commits
adultery in his heart, he is a Traitor to his Church, because he has vio-
lated his consecration vow then we have proved him to be a Traitor.

If it be true, as is contended by the Counsel on the other side, that his
oath of allegiance to his Church is violated, when he is guilty of such acts,
then, we have proved him not only an adulterer in heart, but a traitor
and a perjurer ! Here we are : these are no inferences of my own ma-
king these are inferences from the facts which cannot be questioned
which cannot be denied : they result not from the ingenuity of Counsel,
but from putting together the evidence, which any man can do. Blrt what
is the evidence in opposition ? Why, I need not go over the testimony of
Dr. Higbee, whom I have often heard bear eloquent testimony, and always
with more pleasure than on this occasion. I do not mean to say that Dr.
Higbee has any design to waver from the truth, either in one way or the
other : I do not believe he has. But Dr. Higbee has reflected upon this
subject perhaps I am at liberty to suppose that he is a friend of the Bishop
that he earnestly desires his acquittal. He has reflected on this subject,
and his recollections have .taken the mould of his desires. I have not,
therefore, the same confidence in what Dr. Higbee says, for this human
heart is a very deceitful thing ; I have not as much confidence in what
he says now, as in what he said at the time of his interview with the
Bishop and what did he say then ? " What a liar he is !" That's Dr.
Higbee speaking out the impulses of his heart on the occasion. " What a
liar he is !" Why ? Because that Bishop whom he had seen on the pre-
vious day, standing proudly erect, saying, " I am not thus to be assailed
if I do not owe it to myself, I owe it to my family to the Church to the
community, to repel this attack I deny the charge !" he saw on the next
day, descending to be the meek and humble apologist to the man who had
injured him ! He saw him put himself almost on his knees before the mau

v - *

had dare! r> calumniate him ! HTST conld he sympathize with that
conduct ? I do ir-t mean exactly to say. tint a Bishop ought- to hare
knocked down a man that would dars to tell him so. *But I believe be
should stand erect, and say, " I deny ft P' When smitten, his Divine
.- had said - If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil bat, if
well, why smitest thou me ?" So the Bishop, if innocent, ought to have
said ' if I have done well, why slanderest thou. me ?" Instead of this be
pots himself almost on his knees before this man, and admits that, which
en the preceding day, he had so indignantly denied so that Dr. Muhlen-
berg testifies that be was not satisfied with the Bishop's conduct in the
affair and Dr. Higbee leaves, exclaiming, " What a lie he told P*

But we are told that although these gentlemen have sworn to what took
place on that occasion, that because they agreed to say nothing about h,
we must draw the inference that they were perfectly satisfied of the Bish-
op's innocence. Is that logical I Dr. Muhlenberg was not satisfied.
Dr. Higbee did not seem to be satisfied, from bis strong remark already
referred to. The agreement was to pass the matter over, it is true ; and
that, it is alleged, proves just the contrary of what is asserted, that they
were satisfied of his innocence. It seems to me that this is not the just
inference. They may have been satisfied with his tears of penitence.
They may have bad a thousand reasons, which they were not bound to
unfold to the Court, for refraining from making these things publicly
known they may have seen, as I am told was the fact, that there was
then no canonical way of getting this" offence properly investigated ; and
that, perhaps, the offender bad wiped out the offence by his penitential
tears : and, therefore, that it was not worth while to proceed. But, by
their own testimony, that action on their part does not prove, what has beea
sought to be inferred from it. that they thought the Bishop innocent.

. have I redeemed my pledge? Have I proved that every word
that Mrs. Beare states is true ? If I have, what follows ? Why, we have
surmounted all the difficulties in the case from beginning to end. There
is not a single objection which came from the Counsel on the other side,
which is not obviated by this very act and these verv conclusions.

What is the great argument of our opponents ? Whv. that the Bishop
did not commit these acts, because it was impossible ! I admit the force of
that argument. I say to this bouse of venerable Bishops, that no accusa-
tion of a private person is to be taken against a Bishop, of a high offence,
without strong evidence of its truth. I say. if one of you who has led a
godly life for a number of years, were accused by any one person, I care
not how high his standing in society, or how unimpeachable bis veracity
a consistent, unim peached character and the nigh obligation to purity rett>
ing upon you, are to be a shield which should ward off all ordinary attack*
that is of itself enough. The general good character of any man is not
worth having unless it furnish such a shield. It is not to be presumed of a
Bishop that he would do an act of the description charged, contrary to bis
TOWS, and to his best interests. Such a charge is not to be believed or en-
tertained for a moment, unless made out on competent proof. But when it
is made out when it is proved tha't he is capable of committing such an
act once, the bar is at occe removed to the improbability of the repetition
of the act in any circumstances ; prove to me that he is capable of doing it
in the secret chamber, and I draw the inference that he is capable of coo-
it anywhere. Prove to me that he has once so far overcome hi*

238
.convictions of My, and violated his solemn vow; though no eye but God's

a rock, ;tbe way of a bird" in the. air, the Way of a man' with a maid." First
prqve tb trie the heart, .the animus in a Bishop to do such things, and then, I
believe, he can make deliberate calculations how far his official character
may shiehJ him he will learn to estimate exactly how much the word of a
Bishop will; wi&igh against the allegation of a woman.

If all this:be true -if. I, have made out this case,. there is at once a flood
of light admitted which illumines our path back as far as 1837. There is
nothing more about improbabilities. to be urged there is the" ascertained ,
point, and from this the mind can easily go backhand find nothing at which
to start in surprise and doubt.

.And^now, having established this, let me proceed to the other end" of the
chain, and that is the case of Mrs. Butter. But before I enter upon the
examination 'of this case, it is necessary for me to examine the question of
evidence. , I need not read the charge made in the case of Mrs. Butler ;
the Court are sufficiently familiar. with its details. Have we proved it.?
If we have, facts are certainly made put which deserve the censure of the
Court. 'Do you believe it ? How will the mind arrive at the conclusion
that any allegation .is true which rests on -human testimony ?. How are-
jxm required to prove a fact ? What amount of testimony is demandecj ?
In -law, and in "morals, the solution of this question is not wit-hout difficulty.
Various .opinions 'h-ave .been entertained on this. subject, in different ages
and countries, and these opinions have been incorporated into the rules of
evidence, as laid down in different legal codes. The question for you to
decide is updef what code of .law, in respect ;to the rules of evidence, you
fiow sit. here? What rules of evidence are binding on you as a Court ?
The object, and end of all -these codes is one, the ascertainment of truth*
As an abstract question, your inquiry would be, which of these rules would
be the. surest guide to the temple^of truth ? By which of them can the
mind 'arrive at a; point where it may securely rest its belief; that is the
inquiry. 'A-lL these rules tire'anerely to aid the inquirer after truth ; and
if unfettered, by legal enactnjents, you would -be 'free to adopt that rule
which you most approved. 'But the true question is, what rules are bind-
ing upon, this Court t - Now there are three codes spoken of ; the Levitical,
the; Carioii or the .civil law, (which is the sarne thing, so far, as this point,
isr.coricerned,) and ,the common law. Which of the codes was in contem-
plation of the Legislature of the Church,. When they made the Canon,
constituting a Court -for^he trial of a Bishop ? The statutes, which are
the Canons of the Church, provide no rule. I believe that is admitted.
There is np.e^pfess Canon on the subject. In reference to wnat rules,
then, '-'was the -Canon made 1. The Canons prescribe that the Bishop shall
bearrafgned b'eibre thre- Court.' .They determine that he shall be tried on
the evidence- of witnesses. Your Canon has provided for all the formu-
laries of the trial : U>e witnesses are sworn. Now arises the question,
What "rules of evidence are you, as a Court, to regard ? I maintain that
it is as clear as yonder, sun, that you' are to have regard to none other than
the common law rulos. Now for the proof. You cannot very well enter
into the mind of the -Legislature. I cannot ask the Bishop of Vermont, or
-of Rhode Island, dr of North Carolina, all of whom we're parties in making

239

the law, what is meant by that law ; but car* I gather from the- Canon
t" any indications as t> the rule which was i ft the mind of those by
whom the Canon was made ? Let us look at tkis. I am. sorry, that my
learned friends on the opposite side have hot found it convenient to remain,
because I should have wished to present this argument in their hearing.
What is the Canon ?

" < 1. The trial of a Bishop shall be oh a presentment in writing, speci-
fying the offence of which he is alleged to be guilty, with reasonable-cr r-
tainty as to time, place, and circumstances. Such presentment may be
made for any crime or immorality, for heresy, for violation, of fhg Constitu-
tion or Canons of this Church, or of the Church in ttte Diocese To .which he
belongs. 'Said presentment may be made by the Convention of the Diocese
to which th'e accused Bishop belongs, two-thirds of each order present COB*
qurring, provided that two-thirds ofthe Clergy entitled to seats in said Con-
vention be present, and provided also, that two^thirds of the Parishes canon,
in union with said Con-vention be represented, therein ; and the vote
thereon shall not in any case take place on the same. day on which the re-
solution to present is offered ; it may. also be made by any three Bishops of.
this Church. Whea made by the Convention, it shall be signed by. a Com-
mittee of-Prosedution, consisting* of three Clergymen and three Laymen, (d
be appointed for that purpose; and when by three -Bishops,, it shall.be
signed by them respectively, in f their offici'al characters..

li 2. Such presentment shall be addressed' to ' The- Bishops of .the Pro*
testant Episcopal Church in- the United States,' an.d .shall be. delivered to-
the presiding Bishop, who shall send copies thereof without <May.t9 the
several Bishops of this Church then being whhin the territory of th.e.Unrted
States. Provided, That if the presentment be made.by three- Bishop*, nja
copies shall be sent to them. And provided further, That if the presiding
Bishop be the subject of the. presentment, or if he beoneof the three .Bishops
presenting, such presentment shall be delivered to the. Bishop .-next inj :
seniority; the same not being one of the three presenting,- whose .daty it
shall be in such case to perform all-the duties enjoined by this Gaoon on the
presiding Bishop. Upon .a presentment made in either ofthe modes pointed
out in section 1 of this Carion, the 'course of proceeding shall be as follows:
" 3. The presiding Bishop shall, without delay, taurse a copy of the pre-
sentment to be served on the accused, and shall give notice, with all con-
venient speed, to the several Bishops then being 'within the territory- of (he
United .Slates, appointing a time and place for their assembling together ;
and any number thereof, being not less than seven,, other than t fie Bishops
presenting, then and there assembled, shall constitute: the court for ther trial
ofthe accused ; he shall also-, at the ame time, cause at- least thirty days
notice of the time and place of trial to be given, both to the accused, and %&
the parties presenting him, by a summoner to be appointed by him ; and
shall also call on the accused by a written summons to appear and answer.
The place of trial shall always be within the Diocese in. which the. accused
B.fhop cesidts. If the accused Bishop appear, before pj-oceeding to trial,
he shall be called on by the Court to say whether he is. guilty or not guilty
of the offence or offences charged against .him ; and on, his neglect .or re-
fusal, the plea of not guilty shall be entered for him, and the trial shall pro-
ceed : provided, that,, for sufficient cause, the Court may adjourn from time
totioie: and provided also, that the accused shall- at all times during the
trial have liberty to be present, to produce his 1 testimony, and to make his
defence.

240

" 4. When the Court proceeds to trial, some officer authorized by law
to administer oaths, may, at the desire of either party, be requested to ad-
minister an oath or affirmation to the witnesses, that they will testify the
truth, the whole .truth, and nothing but the truth concerning the matters
charged in the presentment, and the testimony of each witness shall be re-
duced to writing. And, in case the testimony of any witness whose attend-
ance on the trial cannot be obtained is desired, it shall be lawful for either
party, at any time after notice of the presentment is served on the accused-,
to apply to the Court, if in session, or if not, to any Bishop, who shall there-
upon appoint a commissary to take the deposition of such witness. And such
party, so desiring to take the deposition; shall give to the other party, or some
one of them, reasonable notice of the time and place of taking the deposition,
accompanying such notice with the interrogatories to be propounded to the
witness ; whereupon it shall be lawful for the other party, within six day3
after such notice, to propound cross-interrogatories ; and such interrogatories
and cross-interrogatories, if any be propounded, shall be sent to the commis-
sary, who shall thereupon proceed to take the testimony of such witness, and
transmit it, under seal, to the Court. But no deposition shall be read at the trial
unless the Court have reasonable assurance that the attendance of the witness
. cannot be procured, or unless -both parties shall consent that it may be read.

'" 5. The Court having fully heard the allegations and testimony of the
parties, and deliberately considered the sanle, after the parties have with-
drawn, shall declare respectively, whether, in their opinion, the accused be
guilty or not .guilty of the charges and specifications contained in the pre-
sentment, in the order in which they are set .forth ; and the declaration of a
majority of the Court, being reduced to writing and signed by those who
assent thereto, shall be considered as the judgment of the said Court, and
shall be pronounced in the presence of the parties, if they choose to attend.
And if it be that the accused is guilty, the Court shall, at the same time,
pass sentence, and award the penalty of admonition,, suspension, or deposi-
tion, as to them, the offence or offences proved,' may seem to deserve : pro-
vided, that if the accused shall, before sentence is passed, show.satisfactory
cause to induce a- belief that -justice has not been done, the Court, or a
majority of its members, may, according to a sound discretion, grant a re-
hearing : and in either case, before passing sentence, the accused shall
have the opportunity of being heard, if he have aught to say in excuse or
palliation ; provided, that the accused shall not be held guilty unless a
majority of the Court shall concur, in regard to one or more of the offences
charged, and only as relates to those charges in which a majority SQ concur."

Now, I submit to the Court, whether that Presentment in writing is not
analogous to an indictment at common law ? Flas it any analogy to 'a bill
filed in an ecclesiastical court, or in a court of civil law ? I do not pre-
tend to be very familiar with ecclesiastical law, but I have run this matter
over cursorily, and I believe that this proceeding in the ecclesiastical
court is analogous to a proceeding in the court of chancery of this coun-
try, which is a court derived from the civil law, and in which you. proceed
by bill, and the defendant comes in by his answer; each charge being
specifically set forth, and the defendant being obliged to answer fully the
charges, seriatim, or his answer is good for nothing. Now, if I had been
proceeding against the defendant in an ecclesiastical court, governed by
the rules of the civil law, I suppose it would have beon my duty to-
have filed my bill, and to have demanded from him, under oath, if I chose,,
though I might waive that, a specific answer to each charge. That

241

answer, if under oath, and untrue, would have subjected him to an indict-
ment for perjury ; but he pleads "not guilty," and I do not choose to
place the Respondent in the predicament in which his Counsel place him ;
I do not. intend to make that an equivalent to a denial under oath. I say
it is a plea known to the common law courts, and is equivalent merely to
his saying, " I wish to be put on trial ; I require, you to prove your alle-
gations." I therefore relieve the learned Bishop from the predicament in
which, as I have already said, he has been placed by his Counsel. I say
he has not committed perjury, though his denial may not be true. He is
not a traitor to the Church, if that plea be not true. ' There/ore, with great
respect, I submit that the legislators, when they made this Canon, had in
their eye the mode of proceeding at common law. I understand that the
late Bishop Hobart wrote an able article on this subject, to' show that our
ecclesiastical institutions of the Episcopal Church were formed and framed
upon an analogy with the civil institutions of the country ; that the two
Houses were meant to be analogous to th.e Houses of Congress; of that
I cannot speak, however. I merely refer to this authority, doubtless in
the possession of the Bishops, as entitled to high respect. The Canon
goes on : "When the Court proceeds to trial," &c. Well, now, that is
not a canon or civil law proceeding; for in the courts of chancery the
witnesses are examined out of court, before the chancellor is permitted to
read the depositions on which ha proceeds to hear and decide the cause.
The complainant puts in his bill the defendant files his answer ; then the
base .is put at issue. The parties go before an examiner in chancery, by
whom the testimony is taken ; and when the cause again comes before the
chancellor, these depositions are all'read, and he tyears the testimony with-
out the benefit of seeing one of the witnesses. Now, the great excellence
and glory of the common law is that which was so earnestly contended
for 'by the Bishop of -South Carolina, in framing this very Canon the
privilege enjoyed by the court and jury of seeing the witnesses, and judg-
ing from their deportment, whether they speak the truth. That is, I say,
one of the excellencies of the rule of common law ; the witness is seen,
and the tribunal before which he appears, can draw the inference from his
'manner, as well as from the circumstances, whether he testifies truly
or not.

Then comes the finding, and after that the sentence, and in all the enact-
ments relative to them, the order and course of an indictment at common law
are pursued. Now, I maintain that the fact is proved, as far as the subject is
capable of proof, that the legislature of the Church, when they established
this Canon for the trial of a Bishop, had in their minds' eye the order of
procedure at common law. Why ? We .have no notions of evidence, any
of us, only as we have learned it from books, and as matter of mere specu-
lation, except those derived from the common law. Take the great body of
any legislative assemblage, and they have no idea of any manner of pro-
cedure for the establishment of truth by human testimony, other than that
pursued in the Courts. The Convention of the Church knew no other pro-
cess than that observed in courts of law, and that is familiarly known to us
ell from our youth. Take any of the learned Bishops ; suppose a charge
is brought before him he asks, Can you prove it ? By whom ? By John
Doe. Is he a respectable man ? Is he worthy of credit ? The modes of
proof inculcated by the common law are instinctively recognised and pur-
sued, none other is thought of. The testimony of one respectable witness,
worthy of credit, who swears to a fact which he has had an opportunity of

242

knowing, commands belief, unless that testimony be shaken by other testi-
mony. The common law mode of proof incorporates itself with all tmr
proceedings in the trial of parties ; and- it is not to be supposed that a com-
pany of Americans, composing a part of the great political society wh-ich
has made the law of the land, establishing the common law, have met in a
Convention, and made a provision for the .processes of a trial, without refer-
ence to the course and' order pursued in a court of common law.

But the .display of learning by the Counsel on the opposite side, renders
it.necessary for me to go a little farther oh this point, and consider the. pro-
visions of different code's. I wish to make one remark in this-stage of the
argument, that it is not to be inferred that' you have adopted the canon
law. because you are an ecclesiastical body. I do not know that the canou
law is binding on this Court, unless.it be specially enacted. How do we
. come to be governed by the common law? We have nothing to do with
common law, as Americans, except as we adopt it; but in all the civil in-
stitutions of the country it has been adopted, and hence we are governed
by it.

Now, so far as government and discipline are. concerned, you are a
separate Church ; you are not, in acts of -legislation or government, connected
with the Church of England. It was- only very -recently that they acknow-
ledged you to be a Church at all. You have no legislative connection with
that body. You are a distinct and independent body. If you, therefore,
the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, adopt the
rules and regulations of any other body, you must do it by positive enact-'
rnent, just as the civil institutions have adopted the common law of England..
You are an independent Church in legislation, and if you have not adopted
the canon law of England by'positive enactment, it is no more binding on
you than the Levitical law.

Now, first, as to the Levitical law, referred- to by the Counsel, as laid
down in the nineteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, verse fifteenth : " One
witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in
any sin that he sinneth ; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of.
three witnesses, shall the matter be established.'" This does not, as you
will perceive, refer to any one crime. It refers to every crime; and it-
was a provision of the same law, that the witnesses should oast the first,
stone. Nobody here will pretend that the Levitical law is binding upon us.
But if the law in respect to the number of witnesses be binding, all the
other provisions are also binding upon us'; we are then bound to oblige the
witnesses to cast the first stone. I do not, therefore, think it at all necessary
to go into an elaborate effort to show that the Levitical law is not of binding
authority. The Court will see .how that law works, in 1 Kings, ch. 21.
The learned Bishops all very well recollect that Naboth had. a vineyard,
and Ahab wanted to get it. He could not obtain it fbf love or money.
But this covetous and wicked man determined to avail himself of the rule
of the. Levitical law, in order to obtain possession of his neighbor's property,
and following the counsel of his wife, Jezebel, he adopted a course of pro-
ceeding related as follows :

" But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit
so sad, that thou eatest no bread ? And he said unto her, Because I spake
unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me th.y vineyard for
money : or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it:
and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard. . And Jezebel his wifa
said unto him, Dost, thou now govern the kingdom of Israel?' Arise, and

243

eat bread, and let thy heart be merry : I will give thee the vineyard of
Naboth the Jezreelite. So she wrote 'letters in Ahab's name, and sealed
th.em with his seal, and sent the letters unta the elders and to the nobles that
were in his city, dwelling with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters, say-
ing, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people : and set
two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying,
Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and
stone him, that he may die. And the men of his city, even the elders and
the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto
them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them.
They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. And
there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men
pf Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth. in the presence of the
people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried
him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. Then
they went to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead." (1 Kings,
ch. xxi., verses 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.)'

' This robber and murderer- succeeded by his two witnesses there was
no alternative. The testimony of these "sons of Belial" would have slain
the High Priest. Now I think that this law was an unwise one, for the
object of all law, relative to evidence, is to get at the truth ; I think we
know how to get at that better than the Jews did.

[Bishop WHITTINGHAM Perhaps it might not be unwise for the Counsel
to spare the discussion of the wisdom and purity of this divine regulation,
as it would save the time of the Court.]

Mr. KETCHUM I do not know that it was a "divine regulation;" and
if it were, it was not intended for all time. Prove to me that it was the
law of God, and now of binding authority, and the argument is ended.

[Bishop HOPKINS It was a " divine regulation," in the same sense as
the law relative to divorce.]

Mr. KETCHUM proceeded- My argument is, that our common law rules
are best adapted for getting at the truth. I find, on this point, the follow,
ing remark in Scott's Commertkiry, on the passage in the 26th chapter of
Matthew, relative to the false witnesses brought against our Saviour.
" The professed entertaining of false witnesses against Christ will not seem
strange, if it be remembered that among the Jews in action against se-
ducers of the people, or false prophets, it was lawful to say any thing true
or false, no man being prevented to say any thing in defence of them."

The authority given for this by Scott is Hammond.

[Bishop- CHASE Will the Counsel be so kind as to read that authority
again.]

Mr. KETCHUM complied with the request of the learne'd Bishop, and pro-
ceeded I suppose, with great respect for the wisdom of that law, that it
was not so well devised as ours. But if you are to take the Levitical law
as the rule on the question of evidence, you must, as I have already re-
marked, take it altogether. Then comes the question has the Levitical
law been adopted bv, and made part of the fundamental law of, the Church
of Christ?

I will not stop to comment on the passages from the New Testament,
noticed by my learned associate: But in 1 Timothy, 5th chap. 19th verse, I
find the following passage : 'f Against an elder receive not an accusation
but before two .or three witnesses." Now I do not pretend to be very

241

learned in this matter, and so I will not take upon me to say whether it
means "before" or "by" two or three witnesses.

The learned members of the Court know how and where to look for tho
authorities on this passage, and, above all, to compare one passage of Scrip,
ture with others. But, adopting the construction of my learned opponents,
I suppose this was a direction to proceed against an elder exactly as the
Jewish law proceeded against any man for any offence ; all that St. Paul
meant was, to adopt the law of the country, with regard to witnesses just
exactly the position at which I desire to arrive. It was a received opin-
ion, that to establish the proof of any offence, two witnesses were necessa-
ry ; and St.' Paul meant to adopt it, and introduce it into the practice of
the Christian Church of that day and country and, accordingly, he di-
rects Timothy not to receive an accusation against an elder, except by
two or three witnesses. Learned commentators may put a different con-
struction upon the passage ; but I contend, with great respect, that it ia
obvious that St. Paul meant simply to introduce the known and established
law of the Jews, in regard to two witnesses.

Thus much for the Levitical law, a3 far as it was introduced into the
Church of Christ.

Now we come to the Canon law. Here I beg to refer to u Burn's EC-
clesiastical Law," vol. 1, p. xxi., of the Introduction. This authority says :
" The Canon law sprung up out of the ruins of the Roman empire, and
from the power of the Roman pontiffs. When the seat of the empire was
removed to Constantinople, many of the European Princes and States fell
off from the dominions of the emperors, and Italy among the rest. And
the Bishops of Rome, having been generally had in esteem as presiding in
the capital city of the empire, began to set up for themselves, and by de-
grees acquired a temporal dominion in Italy, and a spiritual dominion
throughout Italy, and almost all the rest of Europe. And thereupon the
several Princes and States, did willingly receive into the body of their own
laws the Canons of councils, the writings of the holy fathers, and the de-
crees and constitution of the Popes."

According to the Canon law, two witnesses were required to prove an
offence. I need hardly inform the Court, that all the duties now per-
formed by our surrogates in this country such as proving wills, and dis-
tributing estates, after the decease of a testator or intestate are performed
in the ecclesiastical courts of Great Britain. Therefore, that department
grants letters of administration, and does all things which are, I dare say,
familiar to the members of this Court, as occurring in the Bishops' courts
in England.

. I suppose this to be the rule, that if any question arises in the ecclesi-
astical court, of which the courts of common law have jurisdiction, the ec-
clesiastical court will be compelled, by a writ of prohibition, to proceed
according to the course of the common law.

[Bishop HOPKINS Yes. in cases of that kind.]

Mr. KETCIICTM. For instance, a Bishop commits an assault and
battery ; he may be tried and condemned in the civil court on the evidence
of one witness ; I suppose that in proceedings against him for the like of-
fence in the ecclesiastical court, the same amount of evidence would con-
vict him. If not, you can see in what a dilemma the ecclesiastical au-
thority would be placed, as was well explained by my learned associate. A
Bishop could be indicted and put in prison for an assault ; and yet, the

245

ecclesiastical court could not try him, because they had not .two witnesses
to testify to the commission of the offence. He might even be sent to the
gallows, and yet the ecclesiastical court be entirely debarred from acting
in his case. Then, I suppose, that a writ could issue to the ecclesiastical
court, directing that as to this offence they should be g'overned by the rules
, of common law. If not, what confusion would arise ! The idea of a
Bishop in prison for a crime, whom his Church could not touch, would be
an absurdity not to be tolerated for a moment.

But if you come to an offence purely spiritual, heresy, for instance, in
which the common law has no jurisdiction, then, I suppose, would operate
in full force the Canon law prescribing two or more witnesses.

I have gone through with this argument somewhat in detail I do not
know that it was necessary to do so ; but doubt might possibly exist, in the
mind of some member of the Court, and it was therefore my duty to meet
that supposed difficulty, and endeavor to remove it.

But the gentleman on the opposite side has advanced an argument which
I will show is perfect felo dt se as to his own proposition. He thinks proper
to say, that in this case there is but one charge, with numerous specifica-
tions. That he assumes. But I have supposed, and do still suppose, that
each one of these specifications presents a distinct charge ; and that, with-
out any recital or preamble at all, this would have been a good present,
ment of each offence. But I will show you that he has killed his own
argument.

In this country, there are two witnesses required to prove a case of trea-
son. But the courts have established, that every overt act of treason needs
not to be proved by two witnesses that if you bring one witness to one act,
and another to another act, so that two witnesses testify, you have then
made out the charge satisfactorily. (1 Burr's Trials, 196. Greenleaf,
292.) Greenleaf says, " We have already seen that a voluntary confession
out of court, if proved by two witnesses, is sufficient to warrant a convic-
tion ; and the crime is well proved if there be one witness to one overt act,
and another witness to another act, of the same species of treason." The
rule would, undoubtedly, be the same in the ecclesiastical court. For in-
stance, I charge the Bishop with intemperance, and prove by a witness that
to-day he was intoxicated yesterday, by another witness and so go on,
proving several overt acts of intemperance, each by a single witness : have
I not, in that case, succeeded in proving the charge by the testimony of
" two or three -witnesses ?" (1 Haggard, 182, 463.) Sir William Scott
says, " By the ancient ecclesiastical law, I conceive one witness to the fact,
and one to the circumstances, was sufficient, and would be so still in a pro-
ceeding in that form, according to ths ordinary rule of ecclesiastical law,
which satisfies its own demand of two witnesses, by receiving one to the
fact, and one to the circumstances." I contend that we have answered the
requirements of the gentleman. He says that we have but one charge
with several specifications. Well, now if we prove one specification by
one witness, and another by another witness, it will be seen, that according
to the argument of the gentleman himself, if these are to be regarded as
overt acts, that we have made out the general proposition.

I now come to examine our own law. " This open examination of wit-
nesses viva voce, in the presence of all mankind, is much more conducive
to the clearing up of truth, than the private and secret examination taken
down in writing before an officer, or his clerk, in the ecclesiastical courts,

246

and all others that have borrowed their practice from the civil law where
a witness may frequently depose that in private, which he will be ashamed
to testify in a public and solemn tribunal. There an artful or careless
scribe may make a witness speak what he never meant, by dressing up his
depositions in his own forms and language ; but be is here at liberty to
correct and explain his meaning if misunderstood, which he can never do
after a written deposition is once taken. Besides, the occasional questions
of the judge, the jury, and the counsel, propounded to the witnesses on a
sudden, will sift out the truth much better than a formal set of interroga-
tories, previously penned and settled ; and the confronting of adverse wit-
nesses is also another opportunity of obtaining a clear discovery, which can
never be had upon any other method of trial. Nor is the presence of the
judge .during the examination a matter of small importance; for, besides
the respect and awe with which his presence will naturally inspire the
witness, he is able, by use and experience, to keep the evidence from
wandering from the point in issue. In short, by this method of examina-
tion, and this only, the persons who are to decide upon the evidence have
an opportunity of observing the quality, age, education, understanding, be-
havior, and inclinations of the witness in which points all persons must
appear alike when their depositions are reduced to writing, and read to
the judge in the absence of those who made them ; and yet as much may
be frequently collected from the manner in which the evidence is deliv-
ered, as from the matter of it. These are a few of the advantages at-
tending this, the English way of giving testimony, ore tenus, which was
also, indeed, familiar among the ancient Romans, as may be collected from
Quintilian, who lays down very good instructions for examining and
cross-examining witnesses viva voce. And this, or somewhat like it, was
continued as low as the time of Hadrian ; but the civil law, as it is now
modelled, rejects all public examination of witnesses." Blackstone's Com.
vol. 3, p. 372-3.

Ihave thus the authority of that great man ; and it becomes my Saxon
blood, notwithstanding the authority of the Levitical law, to declare that the
common law mode of investigation is the best mode of eliciting the truth,
and that is, after all, the great object of all judicial-inquiry. (1 Starkie,
470.) This author lays it down, " The maxim of law is, ponderantur lestes,
non numerantur. No definite degrees of probability can in practice be as-
signed to the testimony of witnesses ; their credibility usually depends upon
the special circumstances attending each particular case ; upon the connec-
tion with the parties, and the subject matter of litigation ; their principles,
characters, the. manner of delivering their evidence, and many other cir-
cumstances, by a careful consideration of which, the value of their testi-
mony is so well ascertained, as to leave no room for mere numerical com-
parison."

[Bishop GADSDEN. Will the Counsel oblige me by informing us whether
it is lestes or lestis ?

Mr. KETCHTJM. Testes.]

Mr. KETCHUM proceeded. Now I go on with the examination of the evi-
dence. What is it ? Mrs. Butler testifies, that when riding with the Bishop
he took certain liberties with her ; putting his arm around her, and drawing
her towards him ; that her husband observed this, and was displeased ; but
that she had noticed that the Bishop was somewhat excited by wine, and
was not willing to believe that he meant any thing wrong. The liberty

247

was repeated, and the lady took his hand and laid it upon his knee, .saying,
as you have heard, " This is a sacred hand." Up to this time, two wit-
nesses were cognizant of the conduct of the Bishop. That afterwards, a
space of fifteen or twenty minutes, Mrs. Butler testifies, he proceeded
to the other indignities which she describes. These indignities the second
witness did not see ; but she immediately sprang over to her husband was
in great alarm, and so continued throughout the night. Therefore, we have
not the evidence of two witnesses to the whole of this 'transaction ; but as
near as we possibly can, we have to the whole. Here two witnesses
have sworn to these facts. Are they to be believed ? Is Mrs. Butler to be
believed ? Why not ? Was there* any thing in her manner which you all
had the opportunity of observing to induce you to think that she was not
telling the truth ? She has been,- so far as we can ascertain, religiously
brought up. She is a daughter of a presbyter of the Church. ' It is to be
presumed that she was fu/nished with all the instruction which the Church
wisely supplies her children. She has been confirmed ; she has taken upon
herself the obligations of a Christian. On arriving at a "proper age she
was married. She has become a communicant of the Church. Is there
the slightest reason to doubt the truth of her testimony, or to induce the be-
lief that she swears falsely ? Certainly not. No man here present, ever
saw a witness sustain an examination better than she did with more clear-
ness with more perfect intelligence. I never saw, and I venture to say
the Counsel here who were my seniors in years, never saw a witness whose
manner was more in favor of the truth of her testimony. She testified
clearly.- She stood here with a perfectly irreproachable character. If it
were not, it could, and would have been'shown.

Well, now, the next test is, does she speak of that which she knows ? If
these facts are true, they must have made upon^her mind an indelible im-
pression she must remember them as freshly and as clearly as the day
alter they happened. She positively swears to them : her husband swears
to what he saw. Both swear exactly as to what each saw. From
that time they may have forgotten some things. MY. Butler may
not recollect a conversation, so long ago, with perfect accuracy, but
he would be able to recollect what he himself saw, and what at-
tracted his attention at the time. He remembers the motions of the Bishop ;
he recollects perfectly all that he saw. She recollects the other facts which
did not come under his notice. Both thus testify to the facts of this case.
I am not going to examine the deposition of Mr. Butler ; I leave that to the
Court hereafter, and I venture to say that the Court, when the evidence is
read over to them, will say that there is a manifest desire on the part of
Mr. Butler to testify to the exact truth. Who is Mr. Butler ? If he be
thrown aside, it must be because he is regarded as a perjured witness. The
Counsel do not relieve us from that alternative. If you believe these wit-
nesses, then you must believe the Bishop to be guilty ; if not, they are to
be regarded as perjured witnesses. Who., then, is Mr. Butler ? His father
was, I believe, the first Episcopal presbyter I ever heard ; old Dr. Butler
wa's a man of the highest respectability. No man of any denomination of
Christians, or of any business in life, surpassed him in purity and elevation
of character. This is his son, brought up in infancy in the way in which
he should go, and he chose his father's path. Now, I want to know if that
same Mr. Butler is not under as high obligations as this Bishop to tell the
truth ? When he was confirmed he entered into as solemn an obligation

248

as that of the Bishop. When the holy orders of .the priesthood were con-
ferred upon him, ho .assumed an equally solemn obligation. I desire to
know on what considerations the Bishop should be placed on a higher eleva-
tion than Mr. Butler, as to the possession of all that constitutes grounds for
belief? As a witness, on the stand here, is he not to be believed as well as
the Bishop ? He may not be equally learned and wise, but in testifying to
a fact, I want to know why he is not entitled to as much credence as any
Bjshop who hears me ? Welf, now, both witnesses testify to these facts.
Shortly after not very long after the act was committed, Mr, Butler
states the same thing to the Rev. Mr. Lucas. We could nofbring Mr. Lu-
cas here, but they could have done so. ,

[Bishop GADSDEN He is dead.]

Mr. KETCHUM proceeded. He also told the Rev. Mr. Irving. Both
these witnesses have pursued a course of conduct entirely consistent
with the fact that this indignity was committed on Mrs. Butler, and I again
ask why they should not be believed ? The argument that the Bishop is
incapable of doing such an act, has lost all its force, if we believe the tes-
timony in the case of Mrs. Beare ; because, if you prove that in 1842 he
did it, you have a right to presume that it was quite possible for him to do
it in 1837. Upon this subject, therefore, I do not know that it is necessary
to detain the Court long. I shall refer them only to one remark offered on
the other side, and I am very sorry, on -the Respondent's account, to hear
such an argument that because the Bishop was intoxicated, he is not to be
charged with guilty intent ; and they have cited 8th Russel, wherein it is laid
down that a man might be acquitted of a charge of murder on the ground
of intoxication. That is a case in which premeditation is necessary to con-
stitute the crime. But if an assault and battery, or any other crime not
requiring premeditation, be committed by a party in a state of intoxication,
the guilty intent is inferred from the act. If a man steals the property of
another, it is as well a felony if he be intoxicated as if he were sober. Our
charge is not that the Bishop was guilty of a premeditated act towards th
lady ; but it is that he was so impure that he was overcome by the mere
contact of his position beside the lady. It is not at all essential to our case
to show that the act was premeditated.. .It is enough for us to prove that he
did it. But then, even in the case before us, we have not charged that de-
gree of drunkenness, which would exempt him from punishment in case of
murder. It is not a total loss of his faculties, but an exhilaration. He was
under the influence of wine or spirituous liquors ; he was not drunk, but he
was excited net sufficiently excited to have been bereft of reason, but suf-
ficiently excited to do, perhaps, those things which otherwise he could have
avoided. Therefore, the argument in favor of drunkenness cannot be ap-
plied to his benefit. But Mrs. Butler thinks it was improper desire and
drunkenness ; in her cross-examination she is willing to suppose that the
excitement, produced by vinous or spirituous liquors, helped this on. I am
willing to suppose, and I do suppose, that the origin of all this course of
conduct was excitement produced by intoxicating liquors. It began in
such excitement, and it has been continued without such excitement. Ho
broke over the bounds of duty, in the first instance, in allowing himself to
be overcome of such excitement, and having taken the first step, he has
gone again and again when he had not the apology of excitement, if that
were, indeed, an apology. I suppose that to have been the cause of the
difficulty originally I have not any doubt of it in my own mind ; and on

249

this point I was most forcibly struck by one of the afternoon lessons of our
Church, read since this trial was commenced : " But they also have erred
through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way ; the priest
and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of
wine, they are out of the way, through strong drink ; they err in vision,
they stumble in judgment." I believe he first erred " through wine and
strong drink," and so he has gone on from that time to this.

But I hasten to the testimony of Mr. Bolles, on the next charge in the
Presentment. Now J will consider a suggestion- made by the learned
Bishop of South Carolina. In that case we have not proved the charge as
alleged, and I noticed the question put by that Bishop at the time. I un-
derstand the Canon to be this, that you shall state the pffence, with time,
place, and circumstance. The offence, in this case, is the impurity
charged. If I say, in allegation of this, that at such a time he put his
right arm around a lady, and that in that act he was guilty of impurity,
and it turns out that it was his left arm, still I believe it will be admitted
that the charge is sufficiently made out. The requirement is to make out
at what lime and place the alleged impurity was manifested ; and to
make them out with such measure of distinctness and accuracy, as may
enable the defendant to show what he was doing then and there. But if
he did an improper act, he cannot escape by saying that the improper act
is not precisely alleged as it has been proved.

Here is a charge of impurity. I give the time, place, and circumstance
as far as I can. The time and place I give accurately, but the precise
circumstances of the offence I cannot give ^exactly. But that does not
furnish sufficient ground of escape for the Bishop.

Now I place the Bishop in the stage. We have said that he sat on the
back seat ; but he did not. That's the ground of escape set up by the
Counsel, because we did not allege that the act was committed on the
second seat. My position, however, is. that you must charge the offence
generally : if intoxication, intoxication ; if impurity, impurity ; and you
must state the circumstances and the manner as well as you can, bu you
are not held to the strictest proof as to the precise manner. If the Bishop
could deny the place and circumstances, as well as taking hold of the
lady's hand, that were something. But I take it that we are not bound to
prove the charge precisely as alleged. If the substance of the offence
be charged, if time and place be given, and the circumstances also, asj, ac-
curately as practicable, though not precisely as in the proof, I think the
Respondent is put on his defence ; and if the substance be proved, he is to
be found guilty. Well, then, is tlie substance of this charge proved? I
do not dwell on it, but I make one suggestion. Mr. Bol/es sat in this
stage, and saw the Bishop do a thing to a lady which he thought very
foolish. He felt alarmed for the Church. He thought it was an act
capable of misconstruction. He thought it might be proclaimed to the dis-
advantage of the Church. What are the mitigating circumstances in the
mind of Mr. Bolles ? Why that there could not be any immoral intent,
because the Bishop did it ? Now I think if I make it clear that the Bishop
was capable of committing that act, and was likely to commit it, then do I
not produce a state of facts which ought to outweigh Mr. Bolles' deduc-
tion ? If I recollect right, Mr. Bolles said, that had the act been commit-
ted by an impure man, he would have regarded it as done with impure

250

intent. But if I can lead this Court to believe, that from other acts
committed by the Bishop, he was quite capable and quite likely to
take hold of that lady's hand from impure motives, then I destroy
the presumption in favor of the Bishop, which. Mr. Bolles deduces ; and
it is for the Court to judge whether or not he acted from impure mo-
tives. We do not try acts here, so much as -.intentions. 'I thank the
learned Doctor of Divinity of Trinity Church for giving me that expres-
sion. It is "adultery of the heart" that we are to try. What says the
/Scripture ? " He that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath commit-
ted adultery with her in his heart." And if we cannot condemn for look-
ing merely- when the look' proceeds to acts, however slight, which demon-
strate intention, then I suppose there can be no doubt of the commission
of adultery in the heart; and if that be shown in this case, I suppose the
Court will hardly be prevented from finding the Bishop guilty, because we
have not made out the offence precisely according to the allegation
charged. However, I now leave this case with the Court.

I next proceed to the case of the Misses Rudderow. Did you see any
thing in the manner of Miss Helen Rudderow calculated to shake your con-
fidence in her veracity ? She testifies clearly as to the facts. She com-
municated them to her sister and to others, at and near the time they oc-
curred, for Mr. Dowdney recollected, that when he came to the parish, he
understood that she alleged some improper conduct against the Bishop.
She stated things then as she states them now. What is the answer of the
Counsel ? Why, that it was improbable the Bishop could do it that he
could not do it without being observed by Mr. Richmond. One of the learned
Counsel said it was not expedient for any one of the Bishops to try the ex-
periment of placing parties in the position these were placed. But I advise
.them to try it. Let them see how far the hand can be employed in the
way alleged without attracting the attention of a person .situated as Mr.
Richmond was, 'in front. If I were a judge in this case, I would try that
experiment. I say that it was perfectly practicable to have it appear as if
the hand were carelessly reposing on the back of the carriage, and then to.
thrust it into the bosom of the lady without attracting the notice of the person
in front. I believe that all that could be done very readily ; and 1 believe
that persons experienced in the matters could tell how far it-could be done.
But these learned Bishops are not to judge from their own experience how
this could be done. Why, I suppose if I were to ask one of the learned
Bishops whether he thought it possible that, his 'pocket-book codld be taken
from his pocket without his knowing it, he would answer that he thought it
impossible. A gentleman corning from the interior, and not aware of the
arts practised in the city, would be willing to say, perhaps, that testimony
to that effect was not to be believed that the thing was impossible. But
those who live in large cities, and are aware of the dexterity of thieves and
pickpockets, would.say that all that, was quite possible. If you had told a
man twenty years ago that conveyances could be made which would carry
you sixty miles in two hours, he would of course have exclaimed Oh, that
.is impossible! But now everybody knows the possibility of this. The
Bishops understand this argument perfectly, for that is the argument against
the miracles of the Christian religion itself, carried out in all its details by
the great infidel philosopher, Hume. Any one of the Bishops can estimate
the force of that argument. It is the impossibility of the thing that is urged

261

- .

by the opponents of the truths of the Christian religion, and the living
witness is not believed because the testimony contravenes the experience of
the laws of nature. The infidel will not believe that the dead were made
to live again, because the greater probability is that the laws of nature
could not be violated. That argument can be met, and it has been met.
But it is precisely the argument of the learned Counsel in this case. Here,
to be sure, is no case of miracle ; but the Counsel, rep resent the act as unnatu-
ral as impossible as revolting to human nature. Why, I think what you
may regard impossible and revolting, would be testified to as quite possible
by yonder man who stands at the corner watching to betray female inno-
cence, day after day ; and by thousands in this city who are in the very em-
braces of death. Give me the man with strong lustful desires, unrestrained by
moral principle, and I tell you that nothing is impossible to him. He will
accomplish his object, and that in ways utterly unsuspected and unknown
by the pure and virtuous man.

The difficulty in the case, and there is none other, is, that the Bishop
would do the thing at all. Now I may speak of a case which was notori-
ous. A few years ago, in a neighboring city, there dwelt a minister of the
gospel, not an Episcopalian, learned, accomplished moving in the best so-
ciety ; and yet that man would start with his family for the house of God,
and return on some pretence or another to his dwelling, and there hold in
foul embrace a negro wench, his cook. Why, every man said that was
impossible, and it would not have been believed if sworn to by the negro
wench ; but in the honesty of his heart, when he was found guilty of other
offences, he confessed the whole. He laid the whole open he confessed
his deeds, black as they were submitted to the discipline of his church ;
and, after some twenty years of suspense, accompanied by penitence, he
has, I believe, been restored.

Now, we must not talk of things being impossible. The impossibility
exists only in your own want of experience. It is because you do not know.
Take the illiterate man, and tell him of the result of chemical combinations,
and he says it is impossible. And because you do not happen to be versed
in the ways of gross vice, things may seem impossible to you that are very
possible to those who have passed therein who are themselves familiar
with the devices and practices of iniquity.

[Bishop EASTBTRX The individual just referred to by you was deranged,
and has not been restored.]

Mr. KETCHUM proceeded Well, perhaps all vice is derangement; we
will not stop to discuss that now. This argument of impossibility, when
presented in opposition, to the positive evidence of an unimpeached witness,
ought not certainly to have much weight.

Now I pass on to the next case that of Miss Jane Rudderow. You
heard the testimony of that witness, and marked its perfect clearness ; and
you will see, by examining the elementary treatises on this subject,'that it is
one of the characteristics of truth. She entered the drawing-room the
Bishop took her by the hand, and led her to the sofa, the door being wide
open. Now, if she wanted to tell a falsehood she might have shut the door.
But it was open, and so she at once stated it was. And the Rev. Mr. Dowd-
ney has testified that that door opened upon the sofa. I believe that it did
not that it opened the other way.

[Bishop WHITTLNGHAM. Mr. Dowdney was not certain on that point.]

252

Mr. KETCHUM. No I believe he was not certain. But the lady told
that fact without the slightest hesitation ; a fact which she would, in all
probability, have concealed or falsified, had she been desirous of giving
an untrue story. What occurred there in the room ? It is all very easily
explained if you will admit one thing that is, that the Bishop impurely
desired her that he was hot in the pursuit ; and that he was under such
an impulse must have been the case, because he rushed behind the blind
after her ; and we have liad Mr. Dowdney here with a string, and Mr.
Rudderow with the blind, and have seen that these persons could stand
under the blind. Well, all I can say is, that this is clearly testified to by
an unimpeached witness ; and nothing on earth can be urged against it but
the argument of improbability. Weigh that argument against the positive
oath of this witness, and you will .determine how the scale preponderates.

But we have had attempts made to contradict this witness. By whom ?
By this Rev. Mr. Dowdney, for whom I desire to entertain the highest re-
spect. I wish I could. But he comes up and testifies under a strong
bias in favor of the Bishop. That's in evidence. He has offered himself
as a willing aid to the Bishop. Well, now, I have no objection to that. I
honor the man who stands by his friend in trouble. If I had a friend simi-
larly situated, and I thought him an honest man, I don't know any length
to which I would not go, in my efforts to serve him. I do not object to that.
But when a man, thus influenced, offers himself as a witness, he is very
likely to have all his recollection of facts follow the bias of his inclinations.
He first desires to have it so he next thinks it possible that it might have
been so and he finally thinks it was so. That's precisely the way. I
remember to have heard a friend of mine from New Jersey, who was very
much experienced in the law, relate the manner in which a procurer of
witnesses, whom he had seen, could get a witness at any time to testify,
very honestly, to what 'he did not know at all. He would say to his wit-
ness : " Well, John, you remember you were talking on such a day to
such a man," (describing something that rnight have taken place, from the
relation of the parties.) He would reply : " Well, really, I don't remember
that. 3 ' Next day he would be accosted in the same way by somebody else ;
and, after the experiment had been repeated for a sufficient length of time,
John would become perfectly satisfied that 'he did remember it, and would
swear to it through thick and thin.

[Bishop IVES. The Counsel will pardon me for interrupting him, but I
suppose that anecdote may be applied to all the witnesses, as well as to
one. (A laugh.)

Mr.. KETCHUM. Oh ! certainly.]

Mr. KETCHUM proceeded. Well, here is Mr. Dowdney who wants it to
be so. How can we be convinced that he is not deceiving himself? I will
not stop to read his evidence, but I ask you to remember, when you hear
it read, the remark I now make. When asked who had spoken to him,
requesting him to see Miss Riker, he could not recollect. I then asked,
" Did not Dr. Seabury speak to you ?" and his reply was, " Oh ! now you
mention it, I remember that Dr. Seabury did." And I suppose Dr. Seabury
is as great a bugbear behind the scenes as Dr. Hawks, and yet Mr. Dowd-
nsy positively affirmed that he knew nothing of a transaction that had
occurred so lately ; and I do not think, if Dr. Seabury be such a person as

he has been described to me, that any one who had had an interview with

253

him was likely soon to forget it. But he does not remember any thing of Dr.
Seabury until we draw it out of him. Now let me refer to 1 Starkie, 458,
(note.) " Where proof is actually given of a fact which a witness could not
but know and recollect, his expressing himself with doubt and uncertainty
is to be regarded as an act of wilful misrepresentation." Please-apply that
rule when Mr. Dowdney's testimony comes to be read. I need not attempt
to bring any evidence to show that he has a strong bias. He was a com-
missioned string-measurer, ordained by the Bishop ; the only one I ever saw
in Court.

Now Mr. Dowdney contradicts Miss Rudderoiv in one particular, with
respect to the interview in the Church. She says that her sister was not
present, whilst he avers that she was present. Well, now, what motives
had the Misses Rudderow for misrepresenting this matter ? It seems to me
entirely inexplicable that they should purposely unite in misrepresenting
such an immaterial fact. They had, in the morning, met and greeted the
Bishop ; and you will recollect that Mr. Dowdney swears that he requested
the ladies to treat the Bishop well, for he had heard of the indignity for-
merly offered them, and rather suspected that there would be a cool recep-
tion. He said there was something like a request that they would treat the
Bishop well.

[Bishop IVES. That's not the evidence. He expressed a wish that every
thing might pass off agreeably.]

Mr. 'KETCHUM. Yes, I believe that was it. Well, that showed a fear of
something disagreeable. He was doubtless happy to see that the meeting
was cordial. The ladies might just as well have stayed together when the
Bishop went out, and it would have made the case quite as strong against
him. But they do state the case differently from Mr. Dowdney, and he
stands as one to two. We could not produce Miss Riker, notwithstanding
we tried. But Mr. Dowdney testifies that Mr. Alvord was there, whom
they could have produced, but did not bring forward, and the inference,
therefore, is, that Mr. Alvord could not sustain him.

Then comes the other matter, as to going to see the Bishop. There, I
think, Mr. Dowdney is contradicted. I do not mean to refer to the evidence
particularly, but it seems to me that, according to his testimony, Miss Rut-
ter was one of those who took the side of Mr. Dowdney, as objecting to
the use of the Church by the benevolent society.

[Bishop IVES. I do Hot think that Miss Rutter was named as objecting.

Bishop WHITTINGHAM. She was named as one of the efficient members
of tho society.

ASSISTANT CLERK. I find by referring to the minutes that Miss Rutter
did object.

Mr. KETCHUM. This shows, then, some carelessness in the testimony of
tr. Dowdney.].

Mr. KETCHUM proceeded Here, then, we have all these ladies testifying

these facts. Well, what was there inconsistent with her former con-
duct, in Miss Rudderow's going to the house of the Bishop to solicit from
lim the use of the church for a favorite object ? This learned Mr.
Dowdney had undertaken to prove that the use of the church, for such pur-
poses, was entirely against the laws of the Church ; and she not being her-
self vefy well versed in the ancient fathers, and the critical interpretation
of the Scripture authorities and as she could not at all understand how
the church could be desecrated in the service of benevolence towards the

254

poor and destitute, having perhaps read something about David's eating the
show-bread of the altar, .when he was in danger of famishing from want
of food, and so, with .a strong womanly desire to carry out her object,
she resolves ta go to the Bishop, and she does go to him, and he decides
in her favor. I think you will find in the evidence that he said, " Let
the Bishop decide as he may, you shall not have the church, for the law
is above the Bishop." But she gets the church. Well, now supposing
that she was desirous of doing this good act, and of procuring the use of
the church for this purpose, and no other method being presented, was
there any thing at all inconsistent with her former relations to the Bishop,
in visiting him for the purpose of soliciting his interference ? The Bishop
had insulted her sister and herself. She had communicated the fact to
her married sister, Mrs. Brown, and to her mother. But it was resolved
not to make war upon the Bishop. Well, we must have war or peace.
There is no neutrality. There is no middle ground in these cases. She
was a communicant of the Church, and he was her authorized Bishop.
She could not be fomenting her wrath all the time. It became^ neces-
sary to appeal to the Bishop in a mere 'business matter, and she accom-
panied Miss Riker for that purpose, knowing that whatever had been his
conduct, he was invested with authority to decide, and . that his opinion
might be in her favor. Now I can see nothing in, that at all out of the
way. You, I, and every gentleman here are compelled every day to have
business relations with men whom we dislikes-men that have, perhaps,
insulted us. We know something of that in a crowded city, where we
are daily obliged, to come in contact, nay, to have business relations, with
men whom we heartily despise. Hers was precisely a case of this sort.
This lady had a certain object to accomplish she was pressing for it with
great zeal. She went to the Bishop for the purpose of gaining this object ;
and from this, forsooth, the gentleman frames an argument about improba-
bility and inconsistency.

The same course is pursued with respect to the case of Mrs. Beare. Mr.
Beare had official relations with the Bishop, arid his wife was constrained
to forbear. He was coming to ordain Mr. Beare, and if an invitation to
dine had not been extended to him, it would have been at once remarked as
out of the way. Well, he goes to the house of Mr. Beare. and of course
is treated with civility. The conduct of Mr. Beare and his wife is perfect-
ly consistent. It is precisely that which we had reason to expect. ' The
same argument applies to the case of Miss Rudderow. There was nothing
inconsistent in the conduct of either of these ladies. They had resolved to
bury the matter, and so it would have remained buried had not the Diocese
of South Carolina .

[Bishop GADSDEX. Not the Diocese.]

Mr. KETCHUM. Well, individuals in the Diocese, taken measures to
bring the matter forward, and had not the Bishops made the Presentment ;
and then, in a manner contrary to their original wish, unwillingly, the wit-
nesses come forward and testify. Are they to be sent back with the im-
putation that you regard them as perjured, because it has been shown that
their conduct has been consistent with their original design-, to bury this
matter in oblivion ? I think not.

But now, having detained the Court longer than I intended, and .yet hav-
ing, doubtless, omitted much that I ought to have said, I roust rapidly pro-
ceed to a conclusion.

855

You are to. pronounce your sentence. You are to take the Respondent
to your arms. You are to endorse him, and send him forth as an accredit-
ed Bishop of. the Church of Christ as a medium through which the Holy
Ohost may be communicated > or you are to say that he is an unworthy
member of your order, and is no longer to be regarded as one of the .ac-
credited Fathers and Bishops of this Church. ' What is the charge? It has e
been suggested, I learn, that it was of a trivial character. Why, I do not
Icnow any offence which is .so great an enemy to the religion of'Jesus Christ,
as-impurity. When 1 consider its secret ravages upon the soul when I
.consider the amount of impure thoughts, which aje themselves adultery* I
see that there is no greater enemy of the Christian religion, and of its prac-
tjcal. progress in (he world, *than impurity. Ami here is an officer in the
army of Jesus Christ, -placed upon the watch-tower to give notice of the
enemy's approach, and lo ! he e'mbraces the enemy ! He allows him to en-
ter and pollute the camp!. What would be done were a military officer
so to violate his trust ? Would he not at once be deprived of his commis-
sion, and branded, and punished as a traitor ? The'governing power would
say, " Be no more' officer of mine !" Perhaps he might be retained 'in the
army, but he would be stripped of his office, for who would 'enlist, or go to
battle, under an officer who had betrayed his trust? . .

Here, then,. is a commander in one of the grand divisions of the Church
of Christ. It is said that' if you have any doubt of his guilt you must
acquit., him. }. know that that is a wholesome jule of law in our civil
courts-; but it will not do for the army of. Christ to say, that here is a general
in command that we cannot .positively say is guilty, but whom we very
much suspect of guilf. Will it do for the House of Bishops to send forth a
suspected officer' to command, because they cannot say he is absolutely
unfit to be intrusted ? And yet I think you must have clear' evidence': on
\vhich to convict.; but remember; gentlemen, remember that he is an officer
of the army that this army can only prosper by obtaining a constant suc-
cespion of recruits. Your great business is to enlist these recruits. You
are the generals of this army. The Commander-in-chief, whose eye
is upon you all, has told you to take care of his Church ; and I maintain that
one great object of this trial is. the fulfilment of that command 4 . You
cannet sit as a House of Bishop's without considering, in all tlrat you do, the
good of the Church. Now, if you think that the good of the Church will
permit the Respondent to remain as one of its' highest officers, I say'
" Amen.." It is not for -me to interpose my judgment against yours; but,
while you show mercy to him, forget not your obligations to the 'Church of
Christ.

The Court then adjourned to seven o'clock, P. M.

Attest,

W. R-. WHITTINGHAM, Ckrk.

Wednesday, January 1, 1845, >
. . seven o'clock, P. M. J .-

1 ho Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary -Diocese,

Louisiana, Western New York, South .Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ;
the Assistant Bishop of Virginia; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

It was ordered by the Court, that all the testimony taken in the case be
now read over from the Record.

The Clerk read the testimony of Mrs. Frances L. Butler, of the Rev.
Clement M. Butler, of the Rev. James A. Bolles, of Miss Helen M. Rud-
derow, of the Rev. Thomas H. Taylor, D. D-., of Miss Jane O. Rudde-
row, and of Mrs. Charlotte E. Beare.

The Court then adjourned.

Attest,
W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Thursday, January 2, 1845, >
half -past 9 o'clock, A. M. $

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont,
Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Dioceee,
Louisiana, Western New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ;
the Assistant Bishop of .Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The Clerk read the testimony of the Rev. Henry M. Beare, the Rev.
James Milnor, D. D., William A. Muhlenberg. D. D., the Rev. John F.
Schroeder, D. D., the Rev. Frederick J. Goodwin, the Rev. Henry W.
Sweetzer, Henry A. Smythe, Mrs. Mary Franklin, the Rev. John Dowd-
ney, the Rev. Edward Y. Higbee, D. D., Miss Michal R. Rutter, the Rev.
Jonathan M. Wainwright, D. D., Aaron L. Poyer, and John Rudderow.

The affidavits on which the Presentment was founded, and which had
been read in Court viz. of the Rev. Clement M. Butler, the Rev. Henry
M. Beare, and Misses Jane O. Rudderow and Helen M. Rudderow were
then read by .the Clerk.

The third Canon of 1844 was read by the Clerk, by order of the
President.

The Court then adjourned to meet at 3 o'clock, P. M.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Thursday, January 2d, 1845, >
3 o'clock, P. M. $

The Court met pursuant to adjournment.

Present, the Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Kentucky. Ohio,
New Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western
New York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware; the Assistant Bishop
of Virginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South
Western Missionary Diocese.

The President directed the Clerk to read the specifications in the Pre-
sentment in order.

v/'iV >i< ; '/rciV) f^f>K V ?jnii-"fl ^iJT

The Court proceeded to declare, respectively, their opinions upon the
several specifications.

The first specification having been read :

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, Louisi-
ana, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese,
respectively declared the opinion that the Respondent was Guilty of the
specification just read.

The Bishops of North Carolina, New Jersey, the North Western Mis-
sionary Diocese, Western New York, South Carolina, and Maryland, re-
spectively declared the opinion that the Respondent is Not Guilty.

The second specification having been read :

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, Louisi-
ana, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese,
respectively declared the opinion that the Respondent was Guilty of the
specification just read.

The Bishops of North Carolina, New Jersey, the North Western Mis-
sionary Diocese, Western New York, and Maryland, respectively declared
the opinion that the Respondent is Not Guilty.

The Bishop of South Carolina gave an opinion, which was ruled out, but
ordered to be entered on the Record of the Court, as follows, viz :

Guilty of one instance of improper excitement by vinous or spirituous
liquors, but not of drunkenness.

The third specification having been read :

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Kentucky, New
Jersey, the North Western Missionary Diocese, Louisiana, Western New
York, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of
Virginia; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South
Western Missionary Diocese, respectively declared the opinion that the
Respondent is Not Guilty of the specification just read.

The Bishops of Vermont and Ohio gave opinions, which were ruled out,
but ordered to be entered on the Record of the Court, as follows, viz :

The opinion of the Bishop of Vermont :

Guilty of conduct unbecoming, indiscreet, and open to injurious con-
structions hurtful to the ministerial character.

The opinion of the Bishop of Ohio :

Guilty of conduct indiscreet, unbecoming, and such as necessarily to ex-
pose him to constructions hurtful to his character and office.

The fourth specification having been read :

It was ordered that it be entered on the Record that the fourth specifica-
tion has not been tried.

The fifth specification having been read :

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, Louisi-
ana, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Dioese,
respectively declared the opinion that the Respondent was Guilty of the
specification just read.

258 _;

The sixth specification having been read :

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, Louisi-
ana, and Delaware; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia; and the Bishops of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Diocese,
respectively declared the opinion that the Respondent was Guilty of the said
specification.

The Bishops of North Carolina, New Jersey, the North Western Mission-
ary Diocese, Western New York, South Carolina, and Maryland, respec-
tively declared the opinion that the Respondent is Not Guilty.

The seventh specification having been read :

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, Vrmont, Kentucky, Ohio, Louis-
iana, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Dio-
cese, respectively declared the opinion that the Respondent was Guilty of
the said specification.

The Bishops of North Carolina,. New Jersey, the North Western Mis-
sionary Diocese, Western New York, South Carolina, and Maryland, re-
spectively declared the opinion that the Respondent is Not Guilty.

The eighth specification having been read :

The Bishops of Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, Louis-
iana, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Virginia ; and the Bishops
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South Western Missionary Dio-
cese, respectively declared 'the opinion that the Respondent was Guilty of
the said specification.

The Bishops of 'North Carolina, New Jersey, the North Western Mis-
sionary Diocese, Western New York, South Carolina, and Maryland, re-
spectively declared the opinion that the Respondent is Not Guilty.

The Declaration of the majority of the Court was then reduced to writing,
and signed by those of the members of the Court who assented thereto.
The Court then adjourned.

Attest,

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, Clerk.

Friday, January 3d, 1845, )
Jialf-past 9 o'clock, A. M.\

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, the Bishops of Illi-
nois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey,
the North Western Missionary Dipcese, Louisiana, Western New York,
South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware ; the Assistant Bishop of Vir-
ginia ; and the Bishops of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the South
Western Missionary Diocese.

The President opened the proceedings, with the Psalter for the day, and
prayers.

The Presenting Bishops and the Respondent appeared in Court.

The President ordered the Declaration of the majority of the Court, re-
duced to writing, and signed by those who assented thereto, to be read in

Court- and pronounced as the judgment of the same ; as follows, viz :

-. " ;.>

. 269

THE undersigned, being the majority of the Court of Bishops, convened
under the authority of the 3d Canon of A. D. 1844,- passed in the Gfeneral
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of. the United States, to try
the Presentment addressed to the Bishops of the said Church hy the Right
Reverend William Meade, Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, the Right
Reverend James Hervey Otey, Bishop of the Diocese of Tennessee, and the
Right Reverend Stephen Elliot, Jr., Bishop 'of the Diocese of Georgia,
against the Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, Bishop of the
Diocese of New York do hereby declare that the said Court, having fully
heard the allegations and testimony of the parties, and deliberately consid-
ered the same, after the parties had withdrawn, did declare respectively,
whether, in their opinion, the accused was guilty or not guilty of the
charges and specifications contained in the Presentment, in the order in
which they are set forth ; and the undersigned, being a majority of the said
Court, were thereupon found to have concurred in pronouncing that the said.
Right Reverend Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk is guilty of the first, the
second, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth articles', containing the charges
and specifications therein expressed of the said Presentment, as by
reference to the same will more fully appear; and do, thereupon, declare
him guilty of immorality and impurity, as the same is charged in the Pre-
sentment, and set forth in the" said specifications.

In testimony whereof, the said majority have hereunto set their'hands, at
the session of the said Court, holden in the oity of New York, on the 2d day
of January, A. D. 1845.

PHIL. CHASE,

Bishop of Illinois, and Sen. Bishop and President of the Court.

THOS. C. BROWNELL,
Bishop of' the Diocese of Connecticut.

JOHN H. HOPKINS,
. Bishop of the Diobese of Vermont.

B. B. SMITH,
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Kentucky.

CHAS. P. M'lLVAINE,
: Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal- Church in the. Diocese of Ohio.

LEONID AS: POLK,
Bishop of the Diocese of Louisiana.

ALFRED LEE,
Bishop of the Diooese of Delaware.

. JOHN JOHNS,
Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in. Virginia.

. MANTON EASTBURN,
Bishop -of the Diocese of Massachusetts.
1 J. P. K. HENSHAW,

' Bishop of Rhode Island.
GEO. W. FREEMAN,

Missionary Bishop for Arkansas, &c.

'. _ . .

: The fifth section of the third Canon of 1844 was then read.
The President announced to the Respondent the judgment of the Court.

The Respondent rose and read a paper, to the Court, offering his reasons
in excuse or palliation of the sentence to be passed, as follows :

RIGHT REV. FATHERS AND BRETHREN :

By the decision of a majority of your Right Rev. body, I am pronounced
" guilty" of several charges which have been preferred against me ; and in
conformity with the canonical provision, I am now before you to declare
whether I have aught to say in excuse or palliation.

Human courts, Rt. Rev. Brethren, can take cognizance only of outward
actions. ' It is by these I am to be righteously judged by you, or by any
human tribunal : -for God alone seeth the heart. The acts laid to my
charge are declared by a majority of your Court to be proved : nor does it
now become me to question the truth of your decision ; but in excuse, or
palliation, I hereby protest, before this Court, and before Almighty God, my
entire innocence of all impure or unchaste intention.

It is the intention, Rt. Rev. Fathers and- Brethren, which constitutes
guilt ; but it is. not every outward act that interprets the inward inten-
tion. There are, indeed, acts, such I mean as adultery, incest, forni-
cation, which are undoubted proofs of indwelling impurity ; and these acts
are wisely and mercifully defined, and forbidden, under adequate penalties,
by human laws. Such acts are justly punished by human tribunals, be-
cause they have been previously defined and prohibited ; and they are safely
punished by human tribunals, because they are unquestioned proofs of guilt,
and may be adjudged so to be without danger of encroaching on the rights
of man, or the prerogative of God. But the acts for which I am arraigned
before you are not of this description. They are of a new and unprece-
dented class for judicial cognizance ; and I further plead that they are not,
necessarily, proofs of impurity, and that, therefore, they are not safely
punishable ; that they are not defined and forbidden by prescript laws, and
that, therefore, they, are not justly punishable by any human tribunal.

As the acts laid to rny charge are not of that decisive character as to be
safe matters of judicial cognizance, so neither are they of that number in
their kind as to be proofs of habitual impurity. Habitual impurity of
thought, such as to condemn a man before God, may exist without showing
itself in gross crimes ; yet' surely it can never be proved to exist by six or
. seven acts, not amounting to forbidden crimes, separated, some of them, by
an interval of one, two, or more years, and extending altogether through a
space of more than five years. On this ground I further plead in excuse or
palliation, that the acts charged are too few in number to constitute habitual
impurity.

As the acts laid to my charge are few in number, so are they remote in time,
retrograding from two and a half to seven-and a half years ago. And
though my conscience does not upbraid me with impurity in the acts alleged,
(the most of which I heard for the first time, in October last, as alleged to
my discredit,) yet have I long lived in a state of repentance for all my sins
known and unknown, and. habitually .sought forgiveness for them from the
mercy of God, for the sake of his Son Jesus Christ. And as no act, for
nearly twp years and a half, is, or can be appealed to, to show the insincerity
of my repentance, or profession of repentance, I further plead in excuse or
palliation, that the acts charged on me are too remote in time to convict me
of present guilt.

If suffering were an atonement for faults, I might plead the anguish cf

mind to which myself, my family, and I will add, my Diocese, which is dearer

to me than both, have been subjected by interruption of my pastoral labors,

and the injuries and indignities to which, from the first step towards a pre-
sentment, I have > been constantly exposed.

If the consciousness of human fallibility, the fear lest, by possibility, the
innocent may be punished, should restrain the confidence or mitigate the rigor
of judgment, I would beseech my Rt. Rev. Brethren to remember, that there
is not, as in most other judicatories, an appeal from their decision. The
sentence which you will pronounce, Rt. Rev. Brethren, will be re-considered
by no other Court in the Church, but is at once the first and the last whieh
xhe existing laws of the Church provide.

As punishments, in all human justice, are graduated to crimes, I respect-
fully request that the Court will bear in mind these grounds of excuse or
palliation, (if they be accepted as such,) in order that they may righteously
proportion my sentence to the offences of which, by a majority of their num-
ber, I am convicted.

Thus much, Rt. Rev. Fathers and Brethren, I have thought that I might
say, consistently with Christian humility, and due respect for the decision of
a majority of your Court. To enter into a consideration of the evidence 011
which this decision is founded, and of the influences which in my humble,
though perhaps too partial judgment, have combined to produce it, would be
neither respectful to you, nor consistent with the canonical privilege which
is now awarded to me. On these points, therefore, I am at present silent, as
in duty bound, and am content to wait with meekness the sentence which
you are about to pronounce. That I look forward to this sentence with deep
anxiety, I do not affect to disguise. But believe me, Rt. Rev. Fathers and
Brethren, my anxiety is noj; solely for myself; but also for the Church, and
lor this Court. As respects me, your decision is final for this world, and your
power supreme. But, brethren, solemnly protesting as I have protested, and
do now protest, before Almighty God and this Court, my entire innocence of all
impurity, unchasteness, or immorality, in the acts laid to my charge, a,nd con-
fiding, as I firmly do, in the justice of Almighty God, and the holiest judg-
ment of His Church, I of course believe that an unjust sep-'ence'of this
Court will neither be ratified in Heaven, nor sustained oa earth, after the
light of reason and truth shall have dispelled, as it surety will dispel, the
mists of prejudice and passion. That the sentence vhich my right rev-
e.rend brethren are now to pronounce on the most iviworthy of their nu/n-
ber may not alienate from our body the confidence of the Church, and
plunge her into irretrievable distraction, mav God, of his infinite mercy,
srant through Jesus Christ.

The Respondent and the Presenting .Bishops then withdrew from the
Court.

The fifth section of the third cano of 1844 was then again read.

The Court then proceeded to g.Ve opinions, respectively, on the sentence
to be pronounced.

OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF ILLINOIS.

THE Respondent having been found GUILTY, it is next to be adjudged as
to -the grade of punishment to be inflicted.

The opinion of Bishop Chase is as follows :

The President of this Court for the trial of the Rt.' Rev. Benjamin Tred-
well Onderdonk, Bishop of New York, January 3, 1845, being called on in his
place to perform the painful duty of pronouncing sentence, and feeling deep-
ly the importance of the subject, and his own responsibility to God the
Judge of all men, observes and adjudicates as follows :

While hearing the testimony given in this Court, on this trial, by the Rev.
Dr. .Higbee, the Presiding Bishop was deeply impressed with the following
sentiment, viz., that if the Respondent, Bishop Benjamin T. Onderdonk,
were guilty of the acts offered to Mrs. Beare, he would deserve a punishment
of a most degrading nature, even that of " being kicked mtt of doors."

When cross-examined on this point, he further observed, that this was,
in his opinion, the mildest form of disgrace which he could think of inflicting
for such a deed, or words to that effect. ' This decided and reiterated opinion
from a clergyman of high standing, and a witness summoned on behalf of
the Respondent, was of a leading character, and evidently served to turn
the course of defence into a decisive channel. Accordingly, in the sequel
of the trial, the accents grew fainter and fainter in palliation of the deeds
of immorality and impurity alleged.

It was admitted by the Counsel of the Respondent, that if he, Bishop On-
derdonk, were guilty of the facts specified, punishment the most exemplary
would be his due, and the same should be inflicted on him.

The onty remaining plea, therefore, was that the facts alleged were
" improbable," and therefore cannot be supposed to have taken place. This
was the opinion and plea of the defence.

The Court havitr decided to the contrary of this plea and this opinion,
pronounced, yesterday, the Respondent GUILTY.

It now behooves this Court to consider and determine the grade of punish-
ment to be inflicted.

There are three grades mentioned in the Canon : first, degradation ; se-
cond, suspension ; third, admonition.

The President of this Court decides and pronounces the first and highest
of these three grades, viz., " degradation from the Christian ministry."

His reasons are, first, that he woul* have expected the like punishment,
had the same allegations been made, at<J i n like manner proved against
himself, as they have been made and proved against his brother of New
York.

The second reason is that which has been t-lluded to and urged by the
Respondent's Counsel, viz., that the misdemeantrs alleged in the Present-
ment involve a propensity to licentiousness, and indicate habits of intentional
vice utterly inconsistent with the purity of a Christian, and peculiarly dis-
graceful to the sacerdotal character. Every minister of the holy Jesus,
especially the Bishops of his Church, ought to remember what the Lord
saith of "adultery in the heart," when manifest only by a "fooiV of
" lust." (See Matt. v. 28.)

263

And they ought also to remember, and they should never forget, the case
of Eli and his sons ; how, by a false tenderness towards his own family, he
brought shame on the Israel of God, and by winking at the sins of impurity
in his sons, incurred the heavy displeasure of the Almighty, in the destruc-
tion of himself and air his race. (1 Samuel, iii. 11.)

" Behold, saith the Lord, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears
of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I will perform against
Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house. When I begin J
will also make an end : for I have told him that I will judge his house for-
ever, for the iniquity which he knoweth : because his sons made themselves
vile, and he restrained them not."

In pursuance of this divine denunciation, the ark of the Lord was
taken captive by the heathen ; the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phineas, were
slain ; and the aged and too indulgent Elf. the High Priest, was precipitated
to death.

That we may escape these punishments, let us avoid the sins which led
to them.

Signed this the 3d day of Jan., A . D. 1845.

PHILAN. CHASE,

President of the Court. '

OIPNION OF THE. BISHOP OF CONNECTICUT.

BEING called upon for my opinion in regard to the sentence which ought
to be awarded to the Respondent in this case, I avail myself of the oppor-
tunity to offer a brief statement of the considerations which have guided my
mind in my decision of the several specifications contained in the Presentment.

I fully concurred in the decision which struck from the Presentment the
general charge contained in the ninth article. I considered H as deficient
in the " specification of time, place, and circumstances" squired 1 by the
Canon.

The fourth article of the Presentment vras not tried ; the principal wit-
ness, to whom a citation was issued, having refused to attend.

The second article charges the Respondent with having been on a certain
occasion "improperly excited by vinous or spirituous liquors." The facts
sworn to on this specification are of an equivocal character, and the opinions
of Mr. and Mrs. Butler are not conclusive evidence to my mind. But as
the facts charged have been fully admitted by both the Counsel of the Re-
spondent, I have been obliged to consider him as gui&y.

The facts charged in the third article of the Presentment rest alto-
gether upon the testimony of the Rev. Mr. BoMes. Whatever impropriety
that testimony may be thought to indicate, it fails entirely to sustain the
charge contained in the Presentment, and I must consider the Respondent
not guilty.

The chief gravamen of the Presentment -rests on the facts charged in the

first, fifth, sixih, seventh, and eighth articles. I begin with a consideration

of the seventh and eighth articles of the Presentment. The facts charged in

these articles are the most recent in point of time, and they are sd nearly

. :

264

related that they may well be considered together. The facts here charged
are sustained by the positive and clear testimony of Mrs. Beare, and sup-
ported circumstantially by that of her husband. I consider their truth to have
been. virtually admitted by the Respondent, at the interview with the Rev. Mr.
Beare, and the Rev. Drs. Milnor, Muhlenberg, and Higbee ; and I regard
the testimony of the three first named- gentlemen as evidence of this virtual
admission. J am therefore compelled to say, that the facts charged in these
articles are proved, and that the Respondent is guilty.

The facts stated in the first article of the Presentment, though most remote
in date, are nearly allied to those just considered in the 7th and 8th articles,
being indicative of the same state or habit of mind in the Respondent. They
are proved by the positive testimony of Mrs. Butler, which is corroborated
by the testimony (direct and indirect) of her husband. They are circum-
stantially supported by the facts proved under the 7th and 8th specifications,
and they have been virtually admitted as true by both the Counsel of the
Respondent, who plead his excitement by vinous or spirituous liquors in ex-
tenuation of the offences alleged against him. lam therefore bound to con-
sider him guilty of the facts charged in this article.

The allegations contained in the fifth and sixth articles of the Presentment,
are nearly connected in time, and nearly related in character. Those con-
tained in the fifth article rest mainly on the single testimony of Miss Helen
M. Rudderow ; while those embraced in the sixth article, rest, in like man-
ner, on the testimony of Miss Jane O. Rudderow. In both cases the testi-
mony is -positive and clear ; and I consider the testimony of both these la-
dies strongly supported by the habit of mind developed in the proof of the
first, seventh, and eighth specifications. I therefore find the Respondent
guilty, on the fifth and sixth articles of the Presentment.

The defence of the Respondent rests mainly bn the insufficiency of the
evidence ; on alleged inconsistency in the conduct of the principal wit-
nesses ; and on the utter improbability of th'e offences charged in the Pre-
sentment.

It will hardly be contended, that all the regulations of the Levitical law.
in respect to evidence, shall be regarded as obligatory at the present day ;
and I consider the injunction of St. Paul, (1 Tim. v. 19,) rather as a recog-
nition of the laws of the land in which he lived, than as laying down a rule
of evHn? to be forever binding upon all Christian men. The Canon un-
der which we are acting, seems rather to have been framed with reference
to the common law of England, and the laws of our own country, than with
any regard to the civil law, or to the ecclesiastical laws of other nations.

The charges preferred are to be in the nature of an Indictment, and rae de-
fendant is required to plead " guilty or not guilty." By the civil or canon
law, the proceedings must be by bill, and the Respondent must give his an-
swer in writing, and (generally) on his oath. These proceedings are not
familiar to the members of the General Convention who frame our Canons.
But the public mind of our country is deeply imbued with the principles of
the common law, and I must apply these principles to the construction and
carrying out of the Canon before us ; at the same tune, I am of opinion, that
the evidence in support of the foregoing charges would be fully sufficient
under the provisions of the ecclesiastical laws of England.

With regard to the conduct of the witnesses, subsequent to the offences
charged, I can see no such inconsistency as is alleged. Each separate case
of affront, (except that of Miss Jane O. Kudderow,) must have been sup-

265

posed, at the time, to stand alone ; and in each case it seems to have been
decided, on mature reflection, to bury the injury in silence. I think I can
perceive sufficient reasons for this course, without imputing to the witnesses
a light sense of the insults offered to them, or a tame acquiescence in those
insults. The peace of the Church, and the honor of the Episcopal office,
may have been deemed worthy of grave consideration, when brought
in conflict with personal wrongs. But apart from such considerations,
the public mind would have been slow to believe so flagrant a charge
when preferred by a single witness against a Bishop of the Church.
I may rather say, the witness would have been deemed a calumniator,
and those who abetted such a witness would have been denounced as con-
.spirators. That such a result must have followed, is very evident, I think,
from the incredulity which is manifested in regard to the charges now on
trial, though supported by the concurrent testimony of so many witnesses.
Cut if in each separate case, the injured parties did not deem it .expedient
to expose and denounce the Respondent, then their subsequent course is per-
fectly consistent. If they had treated him in the way they must have felt
that his conduct deserved, or even with coldness, their deportment would/
have become matter of observation, and they would have been called upon
for explanations which they could not render. A dignified, Christian cour-
tesy, therefore, seems to have been the course most consistent with the line
of conduct they had marked out for themselves, under circumstances of so
trying and delicate a nature. That the charges preferred in this Present-
ment, against a Bishop of the Church, are, prima facie, almost incredible, will
readily be admitted. They indicate a habit of mind, and a fatuity of con-
duct, altogether unique and extraordinary. But a mere probability cannot
stand against the positive testimony of so many unimpeached and (as we
may presume) unimpeachable witnesses. I "am, therefore, compelled to find
the Respondent guilty on the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth
specifications contained in the Presentment, and on the general charge of
immorality and impurity.

It is my opinion, that the appropriate penalty provided by the Canon un-
der which we are acting, is SUSPENSION.

THOS. C. BROWNELL,
Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut.

New York, Jan. 3, 1845.

OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF NORTH CAROLINA..

The following opinion, the reading of which was> in my view, most un-
justly arrested and forbidden in the proper place, is introduced here.

THE solemn question is now submitted to my judgment, whether the
Rt. Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, Bishop of New York, is guilty or not
guilty, according to the testimony adduced in this Court, of the allegations
contained in the Presentment made against him by the Rt. Rev. William
Meado, the Rt. Rev! James H. Otey, and the Rt. Rev. Stephen Elliott.
In formhi^ my opinion on this question, my only solicitude has been to be
governed by the spirit and precepts of that Gospel by which at last we
must all be jua&ed.

The first point, which presents itself to my mind, relates to the amount
of testimony required to sustain an allegation against an accused brother.
And here the Gospel, in my view, is explicit and imperative. Its direction,
1 Tim. v. 19, is as follows: "Against an elder receive not an accusa-
tion, but before or under two or three witnesses ;" or, according to the sense
of the best authorities, " unless it be testified to by at least two or three
witnesses." This direction, given by the HOLY GHOST given to a Bishop
given to guide his judgment on charges preferred against an elder is
precisely applicable to the present case ; in which Bishops, subject to the
authority of the Holy Ghost, are called upon to give judgment in respect
to accusations brought against an elder of the Church in the highest sense.
I 'feel that I should do violence, therefore, to my clear convictions of duty,
were I to attempt, by any means, to evade this Evangelical rule ; a rule,
which the Church adopted in her best and purest age,* and from which
she has not since felt herself at liberty to depart.

It is said, I am aware, that this rule of the Gospel is liable to conflict
with the rule of the common law. Be it so. This .is not an objection to
be addressed to. the mind of a Christian Bishop, bound in his conscience to
act' on the irreversible principles of the law of God: It is true, that, in
some respectSj the laws of our country, being the laws of imperfect men,
are felt by the Church to be at -variance with the spirit and requirements
of the divine law; an'd that the decisions of temporal Courts are not
always in accordance with the judgment of her tribunals. It is urged, I
know, that to require two vrftnesses in the ecclesiastical courts, while one
witness is admitted in the secular courts, niight lead to an acquittal by the
Church, -of the man who was pronounced guilty by the State. Were this
inevitably. the case, which law is to yield, the human or the divine ? But,
suppose the amount of testimony, required to establish an allegation, be
the same in both descriptions of courts ; would this necessarily secure the
same decision in both? Do not the differences in men's perceptions, and
judgments, and motives, even in the same case and on the same testimony,
often lead to opposite results ? And hence, have we not before us constant
examples, in which one court reverses the decision of another, or one jury-
renders a different. verdict from another? But if, in' the present case, we

* See Apostolic Canons 75 Caaon,

267

are to admit, for the above reason, the necessity of acting upon the com-
mon law rule of evidence ; we should, for the same reason, insist upon an
unanimous verdict; as this is required of juries- under such law.. Besides,
if in this Court we allow, as in our temporal courts, only one .witness to a
fact, then the lowest menial, arraigned at the bar of those courts, has an
important advantage over a Bishop here : inasmuch as the evidence before a
jury to obtain an unanimous verdict,' must necessarily be stronger and mor6
decisive, than is needed here where a bare majority may condemn. In
addition to this, the accused, under the common law, has the privilege of
challenging the members of a jury, on the ground of interest or prejudice ;
while each juryman is made to declare, under oath, that he has- not pre-
judged the case, nor formed his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the
prisoner. So that in the present trial, where there is neither challenge
nor oath, and where a simple - majority are to decide, the justice of -the
common law, even had the Gospel imposed no rule of evidence, would
seem to demand a more than ordinary strength of testimony. -I am obliged,
however, by the rule of the Gospel before laid down, to insist, in the pre-
sent case, upon tiao witnesses to each accusation made against the Re-
spondent.

It may be said, perhaps, that if one witness testifies directly to a fact,
circumstances corroborating this fact may be adduced in the place of the
second witness. Admitting this view to be entirely consistent with the Gos-
pel rule, yet how does it affect the testimony in this trial ? To my. mind,
most unfavorably ; as every circumstance attendant upon the alleged im-
moralities, goes to weaken the testimony adduced ; to show, not that the
witnesses actually perjured themselves, but that, under the influence of
imagination and prejudice, and party bias, they have made an overstatement
of the facts. Now, what are the circumstances, under which the alleged
misdemeanors are said to have been committed ? Some of these will be
better exhibited under the specifications, to which .they 'more properly be,
long. Still, there are certain circumstances, which characterize every
case. (1) A Bishop is charged with immorality and impurity, on the tes-
timony of a single communicant. And a Bishop, too, ,who had exhibited
from his boyhood and youth, peculiar marks of piety, and freedom from
"the. lusts of the flesh;" and had passed a ministry of thirty years or
more, in the same city and congregation, without reproach or suspicion. It
might be demanded, surely, that such a Bishop should not be .pronounced
guilty, except upon the most stubborn and unquestionable proof; that his
character and solemn assertion of innocence, should be allowed equal
weight with the testimony of one respectable witness. But (2) a Bishop is
charged with immorality at a time, when he is known to be especially
odious to his accusers on the ground of doctrine ; and to have gained, a
signal triumph on this ground in two successive Conventions of his Diocese.
This circumstance, to say no more, ought, not to be without its influence On
the mind of the Court in its judgment of the testimony. Again (3) a Bishop
is charged with having committed immoral acts under circumstances the
most extraordinary -circumstances, in every case, admitting of immediate
detection as having made rude assaults upon wives in the presence of
husbands, upon sisters within .reach of brothers, upon parishioners at
the side of pastors-! The improbability here is enough, eurely, to demand
scrutiny and caution in respect to testimony. Again (4) a Bishop is
charged on the word of witnesses, who themselves were the- alleged victims

268

of his lustful violence, but without any expression on their part, at the time,
of that virtuous indignation which, upon the commonest principles of human
nature, might have been looked for ; without exclamation, or such act of
resistance as would attract the notice of persons in the same carriage or
apartment. Even could we account, on the score of peculiar temperament
or embarrassment, for the quiet submission under the alleged assaults, of a
single virtuous female, is it possible to believe that four such females the
number testifying should all, under the circumstances, have consented to
the outrage with no more audible and emphatic expressions of resentment,
than such as appear in their testimony ? Again (5) a Bishop is charged by
witnesses with having grossly and violently assailed their virtue, some three
or four or seven years ago ; who, at the time of the insult, did not think it
of a character sufficiently grave to demand exposure ; and whose hus-
bands, tdo, in some cases presbyters of the Church, notwithstanding the
solemn vows of their office conspired with the impulse of a fresh indig-
nity, to prompt them, in the Church's name, if not their own, to demand
satisfaction, consented to pass over the alleged immorality in silence.
Again (6) a Bishop is charged with assaults upon the virtue of the wit-
nesses years ago ; while it is in proof, that many of these witnesses have
since shown towards this Bishop a kindness and cordiality, wholly incom-
patible with the sense of wrong complained of in their testimony. Again
(7) a Bishop is charged with acts of " immorality and impurity," upon
proof known for years to the most aged and respectable presbyters of his
Diocese, but without any action or attempt on their part to secure his Pre-
sentment by the Diocesan Cohvention the body, first of all, intrusted by
the general Canons with this duty. These circumstances, all of which,
more or less, bear upon the testimony of each witness, tend, in my view,
greatly to weaken such testimony ; while they demand of this Court the
most charitable judgment of the Respondent's acts.

The first article of the Presentment charges the Respondent with '.' im-
morality and impurity" in his conduct towards Mrs. Frances Livingston
Butler, in the summer of 1837-. The allegation is founded on the affidavit
of her husband, the Rev. Clement M. Butler. The only witness to that
part of the allegation, which could possibly imply " immorality or impu-
rity," is the abovenamed lady. Her testimony must be viewed under all
the discrediting circumstances detailed in the above seven particulars ; and,
besides, as directly at variance with the testimony of her husband in the
gravest specification of hrs affidavit the specification known to have pro-
duced more prejudice against the accused than any other contained in the
Presentment ; viz. that the" accused attempted to raise the clothes of his wife ;
a thing which she, in her testimony, calls " a little matter," and which her
husband, in a letter explaining the discrepancy, represents as of trifling
moment. This, with various minor contradictions, which will be readily
seen by a comparison of their testimony, leaves too little proof upon which
to convict the Respondent. In my opinion, therefore, on this first article,
he is not guilty.

The second article charges him with " immorality and impurity," in be-
ing, on the above occasion, " under the influence of, and improperly excited
by, vinous or spirituous liquors." The indejiniteness of 'this allegation
must necessarily render the proof indefinite, and hence the impression on
the mind of the Court altogether doubtful. It must be dismissed, therefore,
as too vague in itself and consequently as not of necessity implying guilt

259 .

in the Respondent, even were it sufficiently proved. It is. my opinion, there-
fore, that on this article he is not. guilty.

The third article, founded on the affidavit of the Rev. On Hawks, is
contradicted in every material point by the only witness (the Rev. Mr.
Bolles) adduced for the prosecution. On this, therefore, in my opinion, the
Respondent is not guilty.

The fourth article was dismissed by the Court for want of proof. That
this failure was not owing to want of exertion on the part of the Presenters,
will be seen by reference to their various petitions to the Court, and to the
correspondence between the Commission and Miss Ann Wilson.

The fifth and sixth articles are submitted with the single remark, that,
to my mind, the absurdities of the testimony are -too palpable and enormous
for any human belief! I shall not hesitate here, therefore, to pronounce the
Respondent not guilty.

The seventh and eighth articles charge the Respondent with " immorality
and impurity" in h'is conduct towards Mrs. Charlotte Beare, the. wife of the
Rev. Henry M. Beare, during the summer of 1842. This allegation rests
upon the testimony alone of this lady. She may be pious, and incapable of
intentional misrepresentation ; still she is shown to be fastidious and sensi-
tive in the extreme. That which made a strong impression on -her mind,
in her ride with the Bishop in the morning, seems, upon its being told to
her husband, to have had little effect upon him, but to have been regarded
and treated as the exaggeration of an over-wrought fancy. He urges the
Bishop to pass the night with him, against a previous invitation to remain
at Mr. Franklin's ; although, in going to his house, the Bishop must ride
on the seat with Mrs. Beare. And on the way, too, his suspicions were so
little excited by her complaint of the morning, that, according to his testi-
mony, he did not even once look round to note the Bishop's conduct. And
then, when he had arrived at home, and been informed by his wife of the
second assault, his composure is utterly inconsistent with a full belief of
the indignity alleged. He returns with her to the parlor, requests the of-
fending Bishop to conduct the family devotions, and leaves him, with the
usual tokens of good will, for the night. Morning comes, and they are all
again seated quietly together at breakfast. Soon after this, Mr. Beare takes
the Bishop in his carriage to College Point. On the way they stop at Mr.
Franklin's. No coldness is here observed in Mr. Beare's manner towards
the Bishop ; and, indeed, no word of complaint or remonstrance is spoken,
although they were alone during that morning's ride/ Neither is there a
word spoken respecting this matter, to any of the brethren at the Point.
The Bishop is suffered to go on his way ; and days elapse, before the mat-
ter becomes sufficiently important to require notice. In all this, there is,
to rny mind, a manifest want of confidence at first, on the part of the hus-
band, in the correctness of the apprehensions of the wife. Something he
believed ; but it required time and frequent repetitions of the story, to fix
in his mind a full belief of all that she has here .testified. The excited state
of Mrs. Beare, and the manifest incredulity of her husband, at least for a
time, are enough to cast suspicion upon the testimony; to produce in the
mind of the judge a fear, if not a conviction, that imagination has been
mistaken for fact. Besides this, the subsequent conduct of Mr. and Mrs.
Beare towards the Bishop greatly increases the difficulty, especially when
we consider that the cordiality and friendliness of that conduct, although
testified to by four or five most credible witnesses, is wholly forgotten by

270

themselves. They profess to' have no recollection of having urged the
Bishop, on his next visitation, to dine with them, notwithstanding his en-
gagement at Mrs. Franklin's ; while the Rev. Dr. Schroeder and Mrs.
Franklin testify directly to the fact. Viewing Mrs. Beare's testimony,
standing as it does alone, under the light which it thus reflects upon itself,
I cannot regard it as conclusive or satisfactory.

It is pleaded, I know, that what is called the confess'' n of the Bishop to
the Rev. Drs. Milnor, Muhlenberg, and Higbee, supplies a second witness-
It cannot be denied, that if the Bishop confessed the truth of the facts al-
leged in this case, it is sufficiently established. But here the testimony
is confused, and somewhat conflicting. It seems that these gentlemen all
agree in the fact, that at their first interview with the Bishop he denied
tkese facts, or such of them as involved impurity ; and denied them with
apparent indignation.. They also agree, that at the second interview the
Bishop- appeared to be .much affected, and endeavored to soothe Mr. Beare ;
assuring him of his high regard, and that he did not question the veracity
of his wife. Now to my mind, this last declaration, coupled with the deport-
ment of the Bishop at. the second interview, is not only perfectly reconcila-
ble with his deportment and denial at the first interview, but also is
obliged to be reconciled with them, if we admit, as we do^ the truth of the
testimony of Dr. Milnor. In the first place, the indignant denial of the
first interview may be reconciled with the ready admission of the second.
The denial was made in respect to actions alleged by a lady to be impure.
' and made under a sense of injustice. The admission was made, not to the
lady bringing the allegation, but to her husband ; between whom and the
Bishop there subsisted the most affectionate confidence. When, therefore,
at the second interview the Bishop addressed Mr. Beare. he addressed an
intimate friend, for whom he felt the warmest interest, and whom he re-
garded as being under a misapprehension in respect to himself. What con-
duct then more natural, than that of the Bishop towards his young friend ?
The change of circumstances demanded in the Bishop a chang'e of deport-
ment. And when he replied to the inquiry of Mr. Beare, " Do you question
the word or veracity of my wife ?" * No, I do not question her veracity ; but
you know how easily in some minds innocent things may be magnified into
faults," I see in this no necessary contradiction of what he had affirmed the
previous day. But, in the second place, the testimony of Dr. Milnor, as to
his admonition of the Bishop, is absolutely irreconcilable with the idea of the
Bishop's having admitted on the second day, what he had denied on the first.
Let us examine. On the supposition that the Bishop admitted on the second
interview the allegations of Mrs. Beare, which he denied on the first. Dr.
Milnor, at the conclusion of these interviews, must have approached the
Bishop, and, with the conviction burdening his mind that the Bishop had
been guilty, by his own confession, not only of gross impurity, but also of
direct and palpable falsehood, addressed him in the following language : (I
give his own words,) "I hope, Bishop, that what has occurred -in this in-
stance will put you on your guard in future particularly as I have heard
other rumors of a similar kind." Now, is this the language of admonition,
which a grave and holy presbyter, laboring unde the above supposed con-
viction of his Bishop's impurity and falsehood, would have employed ?
Even making all due allowance for his respect for the Episcopal office,
still, I ask, could the Rev. Dr. Milnor, in thus solemnly using his rightful
prerogative, employ words, which, on the above supposition, must have e-

tirely defeated his own purpose, and confirmed the Bishop in self-delusion ?
But the Bishop replies to the Doctor. Is the reply such as we should have
looked for from one who had just confessed his guilt ? " In regard to ru-
mors of this kind, Doctor, about clergymen, there 'are few who have not at
sometime had occasion to. encounter them." Now, if Dr. Milnor. had un-
derstood the Bishop as having confessed his guilt, would he not have re-
plied to this in somewhat such language as the following : "This may,
perhaps, be a sufficient answer in. regard to unsubstantiated rumors ; but as
you have confessed the truth of Mrs. Blare's statements, I do not see how it
can apply here." Instead, however, of such a course of remark, the Doc-
tor simply rejoins to this effect : " Why, -Bishop, I have been a clergyman
in this city for some thirty years, and I am not aware that any such rumors
have been in circulation about myself." Immediately upon this the rever-
end presbyters leave the Bishop's presence. But what course do they adopt
concerning what had passed ? Do they act like presbyters convinced of
their Bishop's guilt ? It is true, one of them expresses his disappointment
at the result of the interview, in very strong terms. What, however, is
their united action ? For this must be regarded as the true exponent of their
settled conviction about the matter. They agree to drop it, and never again
to mention it. Here their testimony concurs. We are bound, therefore, in
charity to themsel'ves to infer, that they considered the Bishop as having
made no confession of guilt, and as having done nothing which realty called
for the discipline of the Church.

On this last specification, therefore, my opinion is, that the Respondent
is not guilty. . .

It is said, I am a.ware, that the allegations, all having respect to the same
kind of acts, strengthen each other. This may be true, when we come to
consider the motive or habit of mind of the actor ; but not in determining
the fact of his. having acted as alleged. The rules of evidence under the
common law require, that each fact alleged must be proved, as if it were
the only one. But, in assigning motive or character to an action, we may
safely inquire into the frequency and the circumstances of its commission.
For example : A prisoner, arraigned for murder on a number of indict,
ments, must be tried on each, as if it stood alone. And, in case the evi-

dence on each should be found insufficient, no jury would for one moment
think of allowing their number to operate in supplying this' deficiency of
proof. But if a prisoner, already convicted of manslaughter, should be
arraigned for murder ; and the question was, whether the act proved had
been committed with malicious intent to kill, then it might be lawful in
settling this question to have respect to his disposition and character, as
developed on former trials. The casq before us, however, involves simply
a question of fact : Is the Respondent guilty or not guilty of the immoral
acts, as severally specified in the Presentment ? Each act, therefore, must
upon every rule of evidence be proved, as if it were the only one charged.
And, as each act, in my opinion, has not been proved, I. consider the
Respondent NOT GUILTY under the Presentment.

L. SILLIMAN IVES,

. . Bishop of North Carolina.

272

Adjudication of Sentence in the Case of the Presentment against the
Rt. Rev. Benjamin Tredioell Onderdonk, D. D., Bishop of New York,
ly the Bishop of North Carolina.

[THE Bishop of North Carolina, in submitting the following considerations for
the mildest sentence upon the Respondent, does it with the distinct avowal that,
in his judgment, these considerations should have secured the Respondent's ac-
quittal ; and that nothing but the provisions of the Canon, and duty to the accused,
could have moved him to concur in any sentence.]

In consideration,

1. Of the long, faithful, and irreproachable ministerial life of the Rt.'
Rev. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, convicted by a majority of this Court of
certain allegations of immorality ;

2. Of the character of these allegations, viewed in connection with the
naturally free and'paternal manner of the said Bishop;

3. Of the staleness of the acts alleged in the Presentment against him,
and of which he stands convicted ;

4. Of the peculiar and remarkable circumstances under which these
acts are alleged to have been committed ;

5. Of the fact that these acts were not considered at the time by the
offended parties as of sufficient consequence in themselves to call for inves-
tigation ;

6. Of the still more extraordinary fact, that after the things charged had
come to the knowledge, and, in one case, actually been made the ground of
the solemn and deliberate action, of three or four of the most distinguished
presbyters of this Diocese ; they were dismissed, or by common under-
standing and agreement dropped as not calling for further notice ;

7. Of the 'not less singular circumstance, that although the improprieties
alleged had, for some years, been known ; and the first and highest author-
ity for presentment had, by Canon of the General Convention, been lodged
in the Diocesan Convention ; yet that no member, either clerical or lay, of
the Diocese of the said Bishop has, according to the plea set up, made the
smallest effort for his presentment ;

8. Of the aggravating circumstance, that the said Bishop has for years
been suffering under the imputation of the gravest charge sworn to by a
presbyter of the Church ; but actually withdrawn from the Presentment,
as unfounded, and sworn to be false by one of the witnesses j and,

9. Of the gratifying fact gratifying I doubt not to every member of the
Court that the said Bishop of New York, whatever may have been his
previous habit of mind, has for nearly three years last past, and since the
caution he received from the Rev. Dr. Milnor, given the best proof in an
irreproachable life that that habit has been overcome ; and that he is now
successfully and valiantly leading the hosts of GOD against the world, the
flesh, and the devil :

In consideration of these things, and still adhering to the conviction 'de-
clared in my opinion, that the Respondent is not guilty ;

I, LEVI SILLIMAN IVES, Bishop of North Carolina, adjudge to the said
Rt. Rev. BENJAMIN TREDWELL ONDERDONK, Bishop of New York, the
smallest degree of admonition which the Canon, under which we pass sen-
tence, will admit.

273

OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT,

ON THE PRESENTMENT OF THE RT. REV. BENJAMIN T. ONDERDONK, D. D.

I.v pronouncing sentence as one of the members of this Court, and on an
occasion of such grave and peculiar interest, I think it due to the judicial
character of my office, and to the high importance of the cause, to state my
opinion at large, together with the reasons of my decision.

The accused stands before us on a solemn, Presentment by three Bishops
for IMMORALITY, according to the provisions of the third Canon passed by
the General Convention at its session A. D. 1844. The specifications
relied upon in proof of the general charge, exhibit sundry acts of an inde-
cent and grossly insulting character towards respectable ladies, which the
Respondent is said to have committed in despite of their indignant resistance,
by thrusting his hand into their bosoms, and otherwise using such immod-
est familiarities with their persons as are utterly irreconcilable with the
profession of a private .Christian, much more intolerable in the case of a
minister of the Gospel, and most of all, inconsistent with the pure example
a Bishop, who is pre-eminently bound to set a pattern which the clergy and
the people of .his charge may safely follow.

In addition to these, the Presentment specifies one instance of undue and
improper excitement with vinous or spirituous liquor ; and to the whole,
embracing six distinct offences from the month of June, A. D. 1337, to the'
month of July, A. D. 1842, the accused has entered the plea of NOT
GUILTY. I place out of view, in this enumeration, the third specification,
which was not fully proved ; although I, together with another of the
Bishops, presented a verdict which we conceive to have been warranted by
the evidence. I also put out of view the fourth specification, which was
not tried at all, by reason of the very reprehensible conduct of the witness,
who refused to give her testimony. And the ninth article of the Present-
ment, which was deficient in the canonical requisites of time, place, and
circumstance, was stricken out by order of the Court so that the six re-
maining offences constituted the whole, which, by a majority of eleven to six,
have been decided against the accused, after a long and laborious trial of
twenty-one days, and a careful examination of the law and the testimony,
with the assistance, on both sides, of able and experienced Counsel.

As one of the eleven Bishops who united in the verdict of guilty, 1 shall
now proceed to state my view of the case ; and this I shall probably be
best able to do with clearness and precision, by considering the principal
points of the argument presented by the Counsel for the accused.

It was eloquently urged on behalf of the Respondent, that the whole
proceeding was to be discountenanced because it disturbed the peace of
the Church because it was the offspring of party feeling, engendered by
theological controversy, and because it was brought forward by a conspir-
acy to destroy the Respondent's character and usefulness from motives of
personal enmity.

Now to this preliminary statement I could attach no weight whatever,
because the first part of it involved what I deem a serious error in prmci-

/ **'

pie, apd the remainder 'was based upon -an error in fact, totally unwar-
ranted by the testimony, and on the face of it bearing the aspect of a very
odious charge against* a considerable number tf the clergy and laity of the
Church, including the three Presenting Bishops, and the witnesses, whose
characters are certainly unimpeached, and therefore, Hs this Court may
fairly presume, are unimpeachable. For we cannot forget that the Coun-
sel on the other side not only denied the accusation in positive terms,
but openly invited the proof of this alleged conspiracy, and formally waiv-
ed their right to object to it, although -in strictness it was irrelevant to th<?
issue. On the ground of their consent, several members of the Court, of
whom I was one, expressed their willingness to listen to the evidence ; and
yet the Counsel for the Respondent declined the opportunity thus fairly af-
forded to them. Under these -circumstances I should have thought it due
to candor to withdraw this gratuitous and offensive charge. And I con-
fess myselT unable to discover how the repetition of it in any form could
be justified, even under the largest allowance for the art of rhetorical am-
plification.'

The error in principle, according to my view of the matter, lies in the
supposition that the peace of the Church can ever be invaded by a just
administration of discipline, since there is nothing more important to her
peace than the right performance of this very duty. We might as well be
told that the peace of the community will suffer by the prosecution of of,
fenders against the laws of the land, as th?t the peace of the Church can
suffer by the prosecution of offenders against the sacred rules of her di-
vine institution.

The inspired injunctions of St. Paul are numerous and weighty on this
very point. And certain, it is, that the peace which might be for a time
preserved in appearance' by the toleration of corruption especially in the
clergy, would only lead in the end to the utter subversion of the Church,
either by forcing the' better portion of her people to cast off all respect for
her authority, or, if the infection should become universal, by converting
her into a synagogue of Satan, while all her spiritual privileges should be
taken from her faithless hand, and given to others. We have to thank God,
however, that our system, on this whole important subject, sheds the clear-
est light upon the path of duty. Fof not only do our ordination services
set forth in the most solemn .and affecting terms the purity of conduct re-
quired by our office, and the duty of our being examples to the flock of
Christ not only do the Cartons of the Church expressly -direct that the
clergy shall be subject to inquiry and trial for every departure from their
sacred vows but even in our 26th article, whose especial object it is
to show that the unworthiness of the minister doth not hinder the effect
of the sacraments, we read, at the close, the following words :' "Neverthe-
less it appertaineth te the DISCIPLINE of the Church that INQUIRY be made of
evil ministers, and that they be .ACCUSED by those that have knowledge 'of their
offences, and finally, being- found guilty, by just judgment, be DEPOSED."

But what becomes of all this admirable provision for discipline if the fear
of disturbing the peace of the Church is to deter our Bishops from bringing to
justice an offend ing colleague? And rf'thosewho in the language of our article
" have knowledge" of the offences of an evil minister refuse to bear witness
to the facts, and if others exert themselves to stifle investigation by working
upon the interests or the fears of their weaker brethren, can there be a doubt
in any honest and thoughtful mind that such persons commit a grave trans-

275

gression against the God of Truth, oppose the wholesome laws of the Church,
and, 'SO faras in them lies, nullify one of the plainest maxims of religious
duty ? Offences of a similar character,, obstructing the administration of
justice in our temporal courts, are rightly punished by fine and imprison-
ment. (Bl. Com. 4, 120; 6 East. 464.) And, therefore, while I lamenj.
that there are any among our ranks who pay. more respeet to the summons
of an earthly magistrate than to the rules of bur system or to the authority
of this Court,.yet I rejoice that the majority are resolved to do their duty be-
fore God without fear, favor, or affection ; confident that the only peace worth
desiring is the peace which His blessing secures, and leaving the conse-
quences to Him who has promised that all things shall work together for
good to those that love Him.

But this brings. me to the next branch of the defence to which the Counsel
for the Respondent has invited our attention. We have been told that the
Canon under which we are called to act authorizes us only to try present
immorality, whereas the most recent acts charged in the Presentment oc-
curred more than two years ago, and immorality then, is not sufficient to
prove immorality now.

Assuredly, if this argument were admitted, it would 'not only be a com-
plete defence against this Presentment, but against all Presentments, and in
all cases whatever. Happily, however, there is nothing in the Canon on
which so strange an incongruity can be fairly chargeable. Most manifest
it is, that immorality can only be proved by acts, and that those acts cannot
be present, but must needs be past and finished before it is possible to make
them the basis of the accusation. Hence it results that if present immo-
rality be the only ground of .trial, while, nevertheless, the acts by which
alone it can be proved must needs be past before a trial can be ordered, we
should have our whole discipline reduced to a palpable mockery, demanding
conditions which are perfect contradictions in terms. I cannot think so
meanly of the intellect of the. Counsel as to suppose them converts to their
own reasoning, although they seem to have thought it plausible enough for
the tribunal to which it was addressed.

True indeed it is that the acts charged against the Respondent are not re-
cent. But where are we to draw the line ? The gist of the Presentment lies
in the violation of the consecration vows, and any breach of the Respondent's
solemn promises to God and the Church may be made a ground of accusa-
tion. We can find no other limitation- than this, and have neither the right
nor the power to create one. Hence, although we may regret that the facts
in evidence before us have not long ago been made the subject of investiga-
tion, yet it is not our province to convert delay into impunity. Probably
they would have been noticed, as they ought, if the defect in our Canon law
had been supplied at .an earlier day. But even if it be granted that justice
has slept too long, would it follow that she ought never to be awakened ? Or
will it be seriously supposed, that because the accused ought to have been
pronounced guilty two, four, or seven years ago, therefore he should be
proclaimed innocent now ?

It has, however, been said that this lapse of time is sufficient to authorize
the inference of repentance. To this I reply, first, that repentance is afact
requiring positive testimony. ' And, secondly, that the inference which we
are ask^d to draw, even if allowable in the absence of proof, would be ut-
terly absurd in the present case, because it would contradict the plea of Not
Guilty, which the Respondent has placed upon the record. How preposter-

276

ous would it be to infer that he has repented of his offences, when he thus
denies that he ever committed -them !

I was quite unable to perceive the consistency of this notion of repentance
with the next argument of the Respondent's senior Counsel, in which it was
insisted that there was no immorality in the acts, specified. Not without
extreme surprise, I confess, did I listen to this assertion. Nor can I believe,
that if similar liberties had been taken with his own female connections, he
would have hesitated about their immoral character and tendency. I do not
think it necessary,, by any means, to impute adulterous designs to the Re-
spondent, nor to assume any secret motive beyond that which must, in ordi-
nary construction, be connected with the acts themselves. But what father
could tolerate such conduct towards his daughter ? What brother towards his
sister ? What husband towards his wife ? The common sense and instinc-
tive judgment of every civilized community would condemn such acts as
utterly unworthy any moral man. How unworthy then of the professing
Christian ! Could any private person be admitted to the communion any
candidate to the ministry any priest to the episcopate, in the face of such
testimony ? And how passing strange, that when the hands of the chief
pastor in our largest Diocese have be<en busied in wounding every sentiment
of female delicacy, and outraging all the modesty and decorum of the sex,
the zeal of the most devoted advocate can go so far as to say that in all
this there was no immorality !

Two other lines of defence, however, have been taken, of which one turns
upon the number of the witnesses and the other upon their credit. The first of
these assumes that there must be two witnesses for every distinct specification
of the Presentment; and this has been ingeniously argued from the language
of the Mosaic law, from the precept of 'St. Paul to Timothy, and from the
ecclesiastical law of our mother Church of England. And as it is a point
of great importance and some apparent difficulty, and one that has had con-
siderable influence upon the verdict of the minority of the Court, I shall
enter fully into the argument, in the hope of illustrating the principles of
our past as well as of our future action.

In order to treat the subject with all the fairness in my power, I shall
commence with the evidence of the Holy Scriptures, and then take up the
authority of the civil and canon law. And I think it will be manifest, on
the whole, that we are under no obligation to regard the rule for which the
Respondent's counsel have contended, but that we are bound to apply the
ma.xims of evidence as derived from the common law, and universally
practised in our age and country.

I willingly grant that the general rule of evidence in the Mosaic, system
required two witnesses to the substantial charge, or the corpus delicti. But
to this general rule there were many exceptions, as plainly appears from
the cases mentioned in the Book of Deuteronomy, xxii. 13-29. There was
a great principle, however, in this divine system, of far higher importance
than any mere question about the number of witnesses, namely, the princi-
ple of equal rights in the administration of justice which it secured to all
men. For it cannot be pretended that the Mosaic law furnished any pecu-
liar protection to the priesthood. The same evidence which was admissible
against the lowest and the least of the people, was admissible against the
High Priest himself: and the law of the Church and the law of the land
were one and the same. Now if it were possible in our age and coun-
try to give the protection of such a rule to the whole community, there

277

might be some plausible ground on which we could sustain it. But as this
is plainly out of our power, why should we make an invidious and unjust
distinction in favor of the clergy ? And if we adopted such a rule, under
these circumstances, should we not purchase this matter of detail at the cost
of violating the fundamental principle of the Jewish law, which enjoined the
same free and equal administration of right to the priest and the layman ?

As the matter now stands, we do indeed differ from the Mosaic law in
this and many other details, but we agree with it in its most important
principle. Who would be so unwise as to sacrifice such a principle for the
sake of an unimportant detail ?

My second answer, however, may to most minds be much more conclu-
sive. It is simply this, that the Gentile Church of Christ is subject in no
respect to the civil or ecclesiastical polity of the Mosaic system. That
point \vasdistinctlysettled by the Apostolic counsel at Jerusalem, (Acts, xv.)
and therefore no one can consistently aver that the rule of evidence enjoined
on the ancient Jews was ever designed to bear on us with the slightest weight
of obligation.

The whole array of scriptural authority, therefore, must be reduced to the
single text in St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy, [v. 19.] " Against an elder
receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses," on which we
may be quite satisfied with the commentary of the learned Hammond, as
follows : " What is the meaning of receiving an accusation here," saith he,
" must be explained by the judicial proceedings among the Jews, where,
before the giving of the sentence, there were three parts, first, the admission
of the cause, or suit, when the judge doth not reject the complaint or accuser,
and that is here xar^yopiotv irapaos^stfsat, to admit an accusation. After
the complaint is admitted, then, second, there is the confirmation of the suit
or complaint when the accuser confirms his suggestion by oath. The third
part is the searching out of the cause by arguments afterwards produced
and considered of by the judge. The first of these only, it is that belongs
to this place, the admission of the complaint or accusation, which against a
rfl<r/3jTSpo or governor of the Church is not allowed under two or three
witnesses in respect of the gravity of his person and weight of his office
or calling, who must not be defamed (as the being brought into court is a.
kind of defamation) if there be not great cause for it." The same inter-
pretation is given in Poole's Synopsis : " Aliud est Accusatio aliud Judicium
de accitsato sine scntentia Judicis absokenlis veLcondemnantis. Lege Mosis
nemo damnari poterat criminis nisi causa probata per tpstes duos. At poterat
ad unius testis (qui non erat infamis) dictum vir plcbeius capi, aut contra cum
inquisiiio incipi ; non ita autem contra scnatorem cui aequiparafur Presbyter.
Tn judiciis Hcbracorum tres eranl paries sine gradus. 1. ADMISSIO CAUSAE
she lltis quum Jvdcx acciisationem non rejlcil. ID HIC EST xarr^opiav tfapa-
es^es'cai. 2. Confirmatio Htis accusalorisjuramcnto. 3. Tnquisitio litis argu-
mcntis utrinque productis. Nota non did, NE DAMNA. sed NE RECIPE ACCUSA-
TIONEM repelledclatores. El cur non ? Resp. 1, Ob gravilatem personae et
momentum atque dignitatem muneris Wins," fyc.

Now it is perfectly plain from this, that the Apostle, in his precept to
Timothy, was not contemplating the point of evidence upon the trial at all,
hut the quite distinct question of the caution which the ecclesiastical judge
should use in receiving charges against his presbyters. For surely it is
manifest, that the receiving of the accusation must be a prior and distinct
act on the part of the judge, and the receiving of the evidence must be a

278

subsequent and very different matter. The : accusation is the charge ; or,
as we should say in the case before us, the Presentment against the accused
party. This accusation St. Paul desires Timothy to receive, not privately
but openly, before two or three icitnesses, who might consult with him as to
the importance of the charge, and the propriety of calling on the party to
answer, so as to secure the careful deliberation necessary before the actual
commencement of any judicial proceedings against the clergy, in whose
trials there was more danger of strife and dissension arising, than in those
of other men. In precise accordance with this most natural interpretation
of the text, our own Canon provides, that no accusation shall be received
against a Bishop$ unless it be approved and presented by three of his
brethren ; thus fulfilling to the letter, in the very first step towards judicial
action, all the conditions which the Apostle requires. Before these wit-
nesses, our presiding Bishop has received the accusation ; and this was
done before the Respondent was cited to appear ; before we were called
upon to occupy the seat of justice, before the party was bound to answer ;
and therefore, before it could certainly be known whether any witnesses
would be needed on the trial. Hence the witnesses to the reception of the
Presentment; must be carefully distinguished from the witnesses to the truth
of the facts on which the Presentment is founded. The language of St.
Paul may be properly applied to the one, but has no relation whatever to
the other.

Thus much may suffice for this supposed authority. But I must go
farther and say, that if the words of the Apostle had been as express as
the Respondent's Counsel were willing to assume, they would only prove
the rule laid down for Timothy, without at all affecting the question of its
obligation on the Church in our day. For the distinction is universal-
ly admitted among theologians, between the doctrines of faith, which
are unchangeable, and matters of temporary discipline, which the Church
has changed, and may 'change at any time for sufficient reason ; such
as the kiss of charity, the love-feast, or agape, the order of deaconess,
the washing of feet, the. anointing with oil, the direction which obliged wo-
men to wear veils in their public assemblies, the rule forbidding men to
.wear long hair, the mode of worship prescribed to the Corinthians, and
other matters of a like nature. Nothing, therefore, can be more evident
to my mind than the conclusion, that the objection to the testimony, founded
on the supposition that St. Paul laid down a permanent law for the Church,
requiring two witnesses to prove on the trial, each distinct specification of
the charge, is altogether untenable.

I now come to the other and more plausible assertion, that the rule of
evidence which demands two witnesses for each fact, is a part of the canon
law retained and fully established in the ecclesiastical courts of the Church
of England, and therefore binding on this Court.

Both parts of this complex proposition I deny, and shall endeavor to show,
first,- that the rule for which the Respondent's Counsel contend is not always
exacted in the ecclesiastical courts of the civil and canon law ; and, secondly,
that even if it were, it would by no means follow that we ought to be bound by it.

The general rule undoubtedly is, that a single witness is not sufficient in
the civil law, nor in the canon law, which is mainly based upon it. But
this rule is subject to a variety of exceptions. Thus, for example, the
learned commentator, Blackstone, (Hi. 370,) speaks of one of the contrivan-
ces for evading, the strictness of its application. " To extricate itself out

279

of the absurdity of this rule," saith he, " the modem practice of the civil
law courts has plunged into another. For as they do not allow a less num.
her than two witnesses to the plena probatio, they call the testimony of one,
though never so clear and positive, semi plena probalio only, on which no
sentence can be founded. To make up, therefore, the necessary comple-
ment of witnesses when they have one only to a single fact, they admit the
party himself (plaintiff or defendant) to be examined in his own behalf, arid
administer to him what is called the suppletory oath, and if his evidence
happen to be in his own favor, this immediately converts the half proof into
a whole one. By this ingenious device, satisfying at once the forms of the
Roman law, and acknowledging the superior reasonableness of. the law of
England, which permits one witness to be sufficient where no more are to
be had ; and, to avoid all temptations to perjury, lays it down as an invariable,
rule that ' nemo testis esse debet inpropria causa.' '

Again, there have been many decisions in the English superior courts re-
quiring that temporal incidents, coming collaterally into question in the'
spiritual courts, must be taken as proved, if the evidence be such as would
suffice at common law ; and prohibitions have been granted accordingly,
because the ecclesiastical judges would not allow one witness to be suffi-
cient : (see cases of Richardson and D&sborpugh, Shotter and Friend, Bree-
don and Gill, in Burn's Ecc. Law, ii. 240.)

Again, it is laid down as a clear principle of the civil law, from which
the canonists have confessedly taken most of their rules of evidence, that "a
complete proof might be adduced without any witness, by deeds or instru-
ments, and the evidence of ONE WITNESS CORROBORATED BY CIRCUM'STANCES,
or circumstances without a witness, furnish conclusive' proof in crimes as
well as civil actions," (ib. p. 239, in note to Tyrwhit's edition.)

And again, the " ordinary rule of ecclesiastical law is satisfied by re-
ceiving one witness to the fact, and another to the circumstances," (Hutchins
v. Denzi/oe, 1 Hagg. Repp. 182.) Thus, in a suit for defamation it is suffi-
cient if there are TWO WITNESSES WHO SPEAK SEPARATELY TO FACTS OF DEFA-
MATION, COMMITTED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, (Crompton v. Butler, 1 Hagg. Repp.
463.) So in treason, viz. the case of the Regicides, Kelyng, 9, long before
7 and 8 Will, 3 c. 3, 2, " it was resolved by the judges, .that one witness to
prove one act, tending to compass the king's death, and another witness
to prove another act, tending to the same end, was sufficient ; and that
there need not be two witnesses to prove every overt act tending to the same
treason,"" (ib.)

Here, then, we see that even the ecclesiastical courts themselves allow
one witness to each fact belonging to the same charge, and that the same
license is admitted in the secular courts on a trial for treason ; that circum-
stances will supply the place of one witness ; that temporal incidents aris-
ing collaterally must be allowed to be proved by one witness, or the supe-
rior courts in England will prohibit the ecclesiastical judges from proceed-
ing ; nay, that these judges, by the ingenious device of a suppletory oath
taken by the party, allow their half-proof by a single witness "to be convert-
ed into a whole one, so that nothing seems wanting to prove how liberal the
Canon law is in its admission of exceptions, rior how little the Respondent's
Counsel would gain if indeed this Court could resolve to bind itself to such
a system. For certain it is that the first and second specifications have been
proved, and the seventh and eighth specifications still more largely, by tes-
timony abundantly sufficient according to the practical administration of the

280

ecclesiastical law of Europe, while the case of Crompton vs. Butler, above
cited, would fully sustain the amount of evidence to the fifth and sixth spe-
cifications. Hence the case before us stands perfectly clear of the difficul-
ty even on the principles of the Canon law.

But although the question seems thus easily disposed of, so far as the
present trial is concerned, yet I should think myself blameworthy, if I suf-
fered it to be supposed that I for one could consent to be governed by the
maxims of the civil and canon law in preference to the far more simple and
eligible system of our day and nation. I shall therefore go on to show that
we are not, and ought not to be subject to it, but that we are, and ought to be,
rather subject to the rules established and recognised in our own age and
country, since thus only can we sustain the great fundamental principle
already proved from the Mosaic dispensation, viz., that the maxims of truth
and righteousness, and the administration of justice, should always, as far
as possible, be one and the same, whether they be applied to priest or people.

That they were so in ancient Israel, I have shown sufficiently, and it can-
not be disputed that the same conformity existed in the Church : for every-
where in her history we find the utmost respect paid to the common law, or
the law of custom, without the slightest desire to erect a different system
for the administration of justice within the Church herself, until the despot-
ism of the papacy, after the eleventh century, forced its canon law among
the nations of Europe. Before that period it was only in those parts where
the civil law of ancient Rome prevailed that the judicial system of tiie
Church was accommodated to its rules and forms of proceeding. For, as the
Gospel became extended amongst the various nations which had overrun the
Roman Empire, the Church yielded to the customs of each age and people ;
and while she endeavored to preserve the unity of faith and worship, she
justified the rule of expediency in all those inferior things which belonged
to discipline, and were therefore admitted to be alterable in their nature.

That such was the fact, especially in the ancient Church of England, is
incontrovertible. " In the time of our Saxon ancestors," says Black<tone,
(Com. iii. 62,) "there was no sort of distinction between the lay and the ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction. The county court was as much a spiritual as a tem-
poral tribunal ; the rights of the Church were ascertained and asserted at
the same time and "by the same judges as the rights of the laity. For this pur-
pose the Bishop of the Diocese, and the alderman, or, in his absence, the
sheriff of the county, used to sit together in the county court, and had there
the cognizance of all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil ; a superior def-
erence being paid to the Bishop's opinion in spiritual matters, and to that
of the lay judges in temporal."

" It was not till after the Norman conquest," continues this distinguished
author, " that the papal doctrine of all ecclesiastical persons and causes
being solely subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, was received in England,
when William I. (whose title was warmly espoused by the monasteries,
and by the foreign clergy whom he brought over in shoals from France
and Italy) was at length prevailed upon to establish this fatal encroach-
ment, and separate the ecclesiastical court from the civil." The ecclesi-
astics, governed by the influence of the pope, took their rules of proceed-
ing from the Decretals of Gratian, which were modelled after the newly
revived civil law in the following century ; and hence the temporal
courts followed the laws of England, while the spiritual courts followed
the laws of Rome. The opinion of this great jurist,, therefore, is positive

| ,^ *^ . . * > ^ ^

281

and clear, that the canon law, in England itself, has no inherent force, but
rests merely on the allowance of custom. " The civil and canon laws,"
saith he, " considered with respect to any intrinsic obligation, have no
force or authority in this kingdom ; they are no more binding in England,
than, our laws are binding at Rome. But as far as these foreign laws, on ac-
count of some peculiar propriety, have in some particular cases, and in some
particular courts, been introduced and allowed by our laws, so far they
oblige, and no farther, their authority being wholly founded on that per-
mission and adoption. In which we are not singular in our notions ; for
even in Holland, where the imperial law is much cultivated, arid its de-
cisions pretty generally followed, we are informed by Van Leeuwen, that
it receives its force from custom and the consent of the people, either
tacitly or expressly given ; for otherwise, he adds, we should no more
be bound by this law, than by that of the Almains, the Franks, the Sax-
ons, the Goths, the Vandals, and other of the ancient nations. Where-
fore," continues Blackstone, " in all points in which the different systems
depart from each other, the law of the land takes place of the law of
Rome ; whether ancient or modern, imperial or pontifical."

On the same ground does the learned Boehmer place the civil and canou
laws in Germany, viz., on the ground of usage, consent, and custom.
These are his words : (Boehm. Jus. Eccl. Protest. T. I., p. 96, Lib. 1,
Tit. II., xxi.) " Quamvis itaque nulla pMica auctoritate decrelum (Sc.
Gratiani) corroboratum sit inde tamen minime inferri potest illud auihenticam
decidendi vim non habuisse. Habuit revera eadem fata in for o qua juri Ro-
mano obtigerunt. Hoc nulla publica lege receptum aut approbation, respectu
Germanic jus plane extraneum imo ita comparatum est ut in plurimis a mori-
bus Germanize abhorreat, et institutes antiquis e diametro adversetur. Et ta-
men legistarum usu, applicatione doctrina, et commendatione adeo receptum est
quamvis in subsidium, ut de authentica ejusdem auctoritate et vi decisiva nemo
amplius dubitet. Non ergo mirandum quod decretum Gratiani eadem facili-
tate, ipso usu et PRAXI per decretistarum artes laborem et studia tandem recep-
tum fuit."

Here, then, we behold the true ground of all the authority which the civil
and Canon laws can justly claim, even in those countries where they have
been for ages in full vigor, viz., the ground of custom and usage. But
these laws have never been adopted by us. We have no custom, usage,
nor allowance, which can be pleaded in their favor. Our system of Canon
law is indeed young and imperfect, but it has, thus far, plainly been model-
led, not upon the plan of those Roman formularies, but in close analogy
with the clear and simple jurisprudence of our own day and country. Nay,
the very Canon under which we are called together in our judicial charac-
ter, can only be understood consistently with the established principles of
the common law. For the description of the presentment, the phraseology
of the plea, the taking of the testimony, the allowance of counsel, the call
upon the accused to address the Court, if he thinks proper, after the verdict,
upon the issue, and before the sentence is declared, all this shows that the
framers of the Canon were governed by the common law, and had no idea
whatever of engrafting upon our branch of the Church the scions of the old
imperial and papal system.

Indeed, I might well ask how our ecclesiastical legislature the General
Convention could be supposed to intend that we should be governed by a code
with which there is not a man among us familiar? Who was there in either

of the Houses that had ever seen a trial at Doctor's Commons, or knew the
mode of proceeding in these ecclesiastical courts? How could we have
performed our painful duty at all, if we had hot been guided by those laws
to which we are accustomed, and those principles which we understand ?
And can there be a notion more extravagant and preposterous than this :
that the legislature of the Church shall be supposed to have intended an
absurdity.; that the judges of this Court should be expected to administer
justice according to a code of which they must needs be profoundly igno-
rant ; and that the parties should have the -benefit of Counsel who could
know but very little, if any thing, of the laws which are to govern the case ?

How plain, then, does it seem, that we must be guided by the simple
analogy of the common law, since thus only the whole becomes practicable,
direct, and clear ; the Legislature, the Court, the Counsel, the Church at
large,- and the surrounding community, all enabled to comprehend the duty
to be performed without difficulty or-hesilation.

Seeing, therefore, that on every principle of sound construction, our sys-
tem of American Church-legislation must be interpreted by the analogy of
our own established and familiar system in the courts of common law, and
not by the canon law, which has been derived from the Church of Rome,
and is nowhere in existence in this country, except in the hands of the Ro-
man priesthood, I have only. to remark, briefly, on the testimony .given in
support of the Presentment, and so conclude an opinion which has carried
me far beyond the limits which I -anticipated.

The witnesses who have come forward to .prove these specifications, are
manifestly influenced by no resentment, and so far are they from having
volunteered their testimony, that they appear to have been urged to a ful-
filment of their trying duty by a conscientious sense of their Christian obli-
gations, involving no small share of endurance and self-denial. Several of
them sustained the most minute examination and cross-examination for more
than five hours together. The ladies who passed through this painful or-
deal deserve much praise for the gentle firmness and strict propriety which
marked their whole deportment, and I trust they will reap an ample reward
in the approbation of that Divine Redeemer, who is the TRUTH itself, and in
the favor of all his faithful and consistent people.

As to their characters, no attempt has been made by testimony to impeach
them. And the industrious effort to contradict them- in a few trifling and
unimportant particulars, did not seem, in my mind, to affect their credit in
the slightest degree.

Never, in the course of many years experience, have I seen such a body
of witnesses. Clergymen of unspotted reputation, their wives exemplary
and blameless, communicants active and zealous of good works such are
the persons, on whose solemn oaths we have decided this afflicting issue.
And I do not hesitate to say, that if I could admit a single doubt of the
substantial correctness of their evidence, I should be -compelled to abandon
all faith in human testimony.

Nothing now remains of this most painful duty but the pronouncing of
the sentence, which, after the most mature reflection, seems due to the dis-
cipline of the Church and the character of her clergy. It is my judgment,
then, that the Respondent be deposed from the office of a Bishop, and from
all the functions of the Christian ministry. Willingly would I have chosen
the lighter sentence of indefinite suspension, if that would have relieved the
afflicted Diocese of New York from a bond which can no longer be con-

283

tinued with auy good result to its interests or welfare. But I do not see how
the Court, in passing such a sentence, could avoid the risk of making many
suffer for the sake of one, thus indirectly punishing the innocent along with
the guilty.

I shall add no comments upon the melancholy character of the task,
which, in the order of Divine Providence, has devolved upon us. Alas !
who can contemplate the result to the Respondent, without a yearning of
spirit and a deep searching of heart, to which no ordinary power of lan-
guage can give utterance ! Who can think, without humiliation and sor-
row, of the occasion given to the enemies of God to blaspheme, "when for
the first time, 1 believe, since the Reformation, a Bishop has been tried and-
condemned for immorality !

Yet, if the Church has cause on the one hand to mourn over the grievous
errors which have called for this correction, she has cause on the other for
fervent gratitude to God, that vigor and energy enough are found within her
to administer it without respect of persons. " IT MUST SEEDS BE THAT OF-
FEXCES COME." There never was an age exempt from them there never
will be until the end of this dispensation. The " WO,." however, is pro-
nounced on " HIM BY WHOM THE OFFENCE COMETH," and not upon the Church
which vindicates the honor of her Divine Head and the character of his
ministry. The gloom, the distress, arid the agitation of this solemn chas-
tisement, will soon pass away. But the purifying effects of it, : I humbly
trust, will be deep and lasting. For henceforth it will be understood that
no individual among us stands so high in influence or station, as to bid de-
fiance to the Church's discipline ; and the office of a Bishop will be more
reverenced than ever, when it is known that it is only an instrument of good,
without the possibility of it becoming a refuge for evil.

May the affecting lesson be profitable to every soul among us ! May he
that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall ! May the spirit of godly
fear and self-distrust, and. watchfulness, and prayer, abide on all the mia-
isters of the sanctuary ! And may our Heavenly Father, the Almighty
dispenser of all mercy, and truth, and grace, and consolation, sanctify this
our painful work of duty ; and direct its ultimate results to the glory of
His holy name, to the edification of His Church, and to the final salvation
and felicity of our offending brother, through Jesus Christ, our Lord !

J. H. HOPKINS.

OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF KENTUCKY.

THE opinion of the Bishop of Kentucky is in favor of suspension

1. Because the punishment of degradation is reserved for crime ; and
immorality, not crime, is here alleged and proved.

2. Because the analogy of the case of the late Bishop of Pennsylvania
is. so nearly similar, that no sufficient reason appears to his mind for vary-
ing the amount of penalty then fixed upon.

OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF NEW JERSEY.

DECLARATION OF OPINION

IN THE

. COURT OF BISHOPS,

ASSEMBLED FOR THE TRIAL OF THE RT. REV. BENJAMIN T. ONDERDONK, D. D., BISHOP

OF NEW YORK;

Prepared, and intended but not permitted to be read, before the decision of the
question, " guilty," or " not guilty V

I AM called on to declare whether, in my opinion, the Respondent in this
case is " guilty" or not " guilty" of immorality and impurity, in the following
article of the Presentment, which has just been read, viz., '"'That the said
Benjamin T. Onderdonk, on or about the first day of June, in the year of
our Lord 1837, being then Bishop of the said Church in the Diocese of
New York, was engaged in a tour of official duty, and was proceeding to
the town of Syracuse, in Onondaga county, in said Diocese of New York,
for the purpose, among other matters, of ordaining the Rev. Clement M.
Butler to the Priesthood; that on his way to, and near, the said town of Syra-
cuse, the said Clement M. Butler, together with his wife, met him in a
carriage, for the purpose of conducting him, the said Benjamin T. Onder-
donk, to the said town ; that the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk entered the
said carriage, and took his seat on the back seat thereof by the side of the
said lady ; that they two alone occupied that seat, the said Clement M.
Butler and a person driving occupying the front seat ; that thereupon, after-
wards, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk impurely and unchastely put his
arm around the body of the said lady, and in an improper and unbecoming
manner pressed the said lady towards him ; that the said lady endeavored
to repress the said familiarities, and to bring said Benjamin T. Onderdonk to
a just sense of his duty in that behalf; that the night came on before the saiu
parties reached the end of their journey, and that after it became dark, the
said Benjamin T. Onderdonk renewed his said improper conduct, and im-
purely and unchastely did pass his hand down and along the person and
legs of the said lady, and did otherwise behave towards her in so rude and
indecent a manner, that she, the said wife of the said Clement M. Butler,
was obliged to claim the protection of her husband, and thereupon she left
her seat in the said carriage, and rode upon the front seat thereof for the
rest of the journey, in doing which she was obliged to sit upon her husband's
lap ; and that owing to, and in consequence of, the said conduct of the said
Benjamin T. Onderdonk, the said lady became seriously sick, and her
health was so much affected as permanently to injure her constitution.
All which said actings on the part of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, the
said Bishops presenting do charge as being in violation ofhis duty as Bishop,
and contrary to his consecration vow in that behalf, and to the great scan-
dal of the Church of Christ."

I feel that the " opinion" I am thus called to give, is the most important I
have ever given ; and I must be allowed to enter at some length into the
grounds on which I give it. It is a most extraordinary case. It is as im-
portant as it is extraordinary.

The Respondent stands before us in his native place. . For more than
fifty years he has resided in this city ; the scene of his education, an,d the
chief seat of his labors, as it is the home of his birth. His childhood and
his youth were singular in purity and piety. For almost three and thirty
years he has exercised the ministry of Christ. For twenty years he was
connected with the largest parish in our whole communion; assiduous in
all the duties, exemplary in all the relations of his office. A most devoted
pastor ; faithful and capable, quite to a proverb, in what is called " the bu-
siness of the Church," diocesan and general; the kind, and careful, and
laborious teacher of young men in preparation for the ministry ; directing
in their theological training a multitude of our most useful ministers, and
several of the Bishops. From his earliest connection with the ministry, he
enjoyed the fullest confidence of that most singular discerner of the charac-
ters of men, the honored HOBART ; and from the nearest place to him, as
counsellor and fellow-helper in the cares and labors of his office, was
called to be his successor in the apostleship. Before his elevation to that
office, and for some years afterwards, it may be said, without the fear of
contradiction, that never any word was heard to call in question his minis-
terial, his religious, or his moral character; while no man can be found to
say, that he has ever seen a more entire and unreserved devotion of soul
and body to the Church. Of his administration of the Diocese of New
York, before and after its division, the record is before us all, in the contin-
ual, unexampled increase and prosperity which God has granted to the
prayers and labors of His servant. A blessing much enhanced, and rendered
more significant by this, that in two successive Conventions of the Diocese,
the last which have been held, when his Church principles, and his policy
as Bishop, were made the subject of the freest discussion, and most direct
'and vigorous opposition, he was sustained by overwhelming majorities in
both of the two orders : and not a man among two hundred clergymen, or
among the lay representatives of one hundred and sixty-four congregations,
to hint at the preferment of a single charge against him.' That three short
months should have produced a change so great and so disastrous in the po-
sition of the Respondent, is among the aspects of the case which make ft
extraordinary, to the very borders of romance. Is it not extraordinary, and
well nigh without example, that such a childhood, such a youth, and such
a manhood, should justly lead to such a posture in old age? Is it not extraor-
dinary that, if there be just grounds, and were, and they notorious (as it is
said) as long ago as 1838, that in neither of these two Conventions, I do not
say the canonical minority in the two orders; I do not say an aggregate
majority of the whole body ; I do not even say a responsible though small
minority; but -I do .say, one single man of clergymen or laymen, could be
found to move for an investigation, in redemption of the honor of the Church ?
This surely is a case most extraordinary. And as important as it is
extraordinary. I do not mean, immense as that must be, in its bearings on
the Respondent and his Diocese alone. I mean as it affects, and must
affect, for ever, our whole Church ; its mutual intercourse, its present in-
terests, its future influence, its history, its name, and fame. It is the first
carrying out of the canonical provision for the trial of a Bishop. The

weight and value of the Church's discipline hereafter, in all its branches,
and in all its bearings, will much depend on the decision of this case : that,
as we promised at our consecration that we would be, so we now approve
ourselves to be, " so merciful that we be not too "remiss ; so minister dis-
cipline that we forget not mercy."

Is the Respondent " guilty or not guilty of immorality and impurity," as
stated in the " article" now before' us ? To say that he is guilty of present
"immorality and impurity" by reason of an act committed, if committed
more than seven years ago, is obviously absurd. '"Immorality," in John-
son's definition of it, is " want of virtue contrariety to virtue." " Impu-
rity" is a quality or habit of the mind or heart. To hold that -he -who ever
has been tainted by the passage of an impure thought, is guilty of it now,
would be to shut us all out from the sight of God. Needful for all of us that
prayer of David, in his penitence, " Oh, remember not the sins and offences
of my youth!" It -never can be held that if this charge were proved to
the full, it would establish " immorality and impurity," at present. I make
this remark once for all, as applying, in proportion to its date, to every
charge in the Presentment : and I .put it to the heart of every Bishop to
say now, whether, if all of them should be established, he could sustain,
against the admitted silence of two years and a half, the expression of the
Presentment, " being guilty of immorality and impurity;" that is to say,
now addicted to immoral or impure habits. ;

But is the charge, as it now stands, established ? In setting forth a
charge so. old in date, the Presentment lays itself under severe responsibili-
ties, as to the nature of the evidence required for its establishment. The
rule is granted on all handi, as founded, not on any law, but on the just
allowance for infirmity of men, in failure of memory, in the death or ab-
sence of material witnesses, in bar of frivolous, vexatious, or vindictive
prosecutions, that, in such cases, the clearest proof shall be required for
every- allegation,- while general explanations are to be allowed in the de-
fence. This is the voice of human nature, older than all statutes, and more
authoritative than any. It is- incorporated in every statute book. It isl
adopted, without statute, in the courts of equity. It is of obvious and uni-
versal obligation. .It especially applies, in. the latter, portion of it, that
general explanations are to be allowed in the defence, to cases such as this,
where the immoral acts alleged are of a nature seldom susceptible of a
direct rebuttal. The- Presentment, in taking in matters of allegation so re-
mote in time, is to be held, therefore, to the adduction of the clearest and
the most abundant proof.

Is the specification of " immorality and impurity," as it stands in arti-
cle I. of the Presentment, so sustained ? It is " an accusation against an
elder." It is an accusation made in a Church Court. It is held, therefore,
in strictest terms, to the Church rule. Now, what is. that? Where shall
we look for it ? To holy Scripture, first. If God has spoken, man must not
object or qualify. I turn then to the three Epistles, which have been always
held as the inspired directory of order arid of discipline for the whole Church,
in every age. I find the apostle Paul, writing by inspiration .of the Holy-
Ghost, giving express directions to the first Ephesian. Bishop, (1 Tim. v. 19,)
"Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witness-
es ;." clearly intending, as the original, and all received expositors will show/*

* I invite particular attention to the .authorities which follow. I begin with
POOLE, who, in his exposition .of this text, condenses and combines the critical

287.

on the authority of" two or three witnesses." I go not back for any confirm*-
ation of this rule to the Old Testament. It needs no confirmation. The
apostle had the mind of Christ. What .he esjoins is to us an injunction
from the Lord our God. We are not to object to it from any consideration
of consequences. We are not to- qualify it hy any consideration of conve-
nience. It is, " Thus saith the Lord." He saith it who 'knows all possible

authority of Erasmus, Beza, Senltetus, Tremellius, Molinaeus, Illyricus, 1 Pag-
ninus, Castalio, Vorstius, Piscator, Danaeus, Pricaeus, Hammond, and Grotius,
relying chiefly on the last. " Against an elder," (either, 1, in age ; or more prop-
erly, 2, in honor or dignity, as the context shows,) " receive not an accusation"
(or ecclesiastical charge,) "except under two," &c. [In the original, he says (lit-
erally, unless, if not) there is a pleonasm, or double negation ; which, in Greek, as
scholars know, makes the denial mote intense.] A ruler seems to be instructed
here, called by eminence, an overseer, or Bishop. For it belonged to such to
regulate the conduct of elders. Timothy, at that time, presided over the elders
at Ephesus. It may be asked, What need of this new rule concerning elders,
when of .every accusation it is written, as in Deuteronomy xvii. 6, " At the mouth
of two witnesses, or three witnesses," &c. ? Prom this consideration some have
thought the text should be erased, 'as being superfluous. But the bringing of an
accusation is one thing, and the trial of the accused, whether the sentence of the
judge acquit him, or condemn him, is another. By the law of Moses, no one
could be condemned for any crime, but on the testimony of at least two witnesses.-
[" One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in
any sin that he sinneth : at the mouth of two witnesses,, or at the mouth of three
witnesses, shall the matter be established/' Deut. xix. 15.] One of the com-
mon people, however, might be arrested, 'and an investigation of his case com-
menced, on the testimony of one .witness, not being an infamous person. It was
not .so, however, with a member of the Sanhedrim, to whom an elder is here made
equal. In Jewish proceedings at law, there were these three stages. The ad-
mission of the charge, when .the judge does not dismiss the complaint ; its con-
firmation, by the oath of the .complainant ; and its trial, when the proofs and
arguments on either side are brought. Observe, the apostle does not say con-
demn not ; but receive not an accusation, (except on the authority of two or three
witnesses.) Repel informers. And why so] 1. By reason of his weight of
character, and of the importance and dignity of his office. He is not to be dis-
credited, therefore, without great cause ; for his discredit is joined with the scan-
dal of the whole Church. It concerns the whole Church, therefore, that his repu-
tation be not easily impaired. 2. Because the judgment of the whole people in his
behalf, at his election, readily outweigh* a single witness. 3. Because the people
are severe towards those that are set over them, and feed them, and habitually
exaggerate their failings. For such is the malignant temper of the human mind,
that those whose duty it is to reprove the faults of others, are much exposed to
their ill-will. . In the case of old men, there is this farther consideration, .that evil
should not lightly- be believed of one- advanced in years, whose past life is his
protection, and his very name a mark of dignity. In loco.

HAMMOND, discussing, in his full and learned way, the three gradations in a
Jewish suit at law, concludes as follows : " The first of these only it is that be-
longs to this place, the admission of the complaint, or accusation, which, against
a presbyter, or governor, of the Church, is not allowed under two or three wit-
nesses, in respect of the gravity of his person, and weight of his office or calling,
who must not be defamed, (as the being brought into the Court is a kind of defa-
mation,) if there be not great cause for it." In loco.

WHITBV, first rendering the text, " Against an elder receive not an accusation
but upon the * testimony of two or three witnesses," proceeds to say : "Whereas
the law had taken care that no man should be condemne'd,bul by the mouth of two
or three witnesses, the Apostle, knowing how much the Church would suffer by the
rash accusation of her governors, bishops, and presbyters, seems to rise higher,

results, and never is unmindful, in one commandment or one ordinance, of
the infirmities of his poor human creatures. I take the apostolical injunc-
tion, therefore, as it stands, and I apply it literally. It is not true
that he intended merely to enjoin the application to an elder, of a
rule which held among the Jews for every man's protection; nor that
he meant to enforce through Timothy, the Jewish usage on this subject.

not suffering an accusation to be admitted against them, without the like number
of witnesses." In loco.

BLOOMFIELD, in loco, refers to Whitby, and translates " before," under the testi-
mony of"t\vo or three witnesses."

MACKNIGHT, paraphrasing the text thus " Against an elder, whether he be a
bishop, a president, or a deacon, receive not an accusation, unless it is offered to
be proved by two or three credible -witnesses" says, in his note, " this," (" by two
or three witnesses,") " I think, is the proper translation of the clause. For I see
no reason why an accusation against an elder should not be received, unless in the
presence of witnesses. But I see a good reason for not receiving such an accu-
sation, unless it is offered to be provedhy a sufficient number of credible witnesses.
This method of proceeding puts a stop to groundless accusations of the ministers
of religion." In loco.

THOMAS SCOTT. " The character of an elder or pastor was of very great im-
portance : it would therefore be improper not only to condemn him, but even l to
receive an accusation against'' him, except it was attested by two or three credi-
ble witnesses. Many might be disposed to revile those faithful ministers, whose
doctrine and reproofs had offended them ; and indeed, the grand enmity of ' the
accuser of the brethren,' and of all his servants, would be excited against them.
It was therefore highly reasonable that no accusation, tending to bring the con-
duct of an elder to a public investigation, and thus to impeach or endanger his
character, should be regarded, if supported only by one solitary testimony, which
his denial of the crime must at least counterbalance." In loco.

BURKITT sustains the same views, " because it is the interest of the Church of
Christ, that the reputation of its ministers should be supported ; and because pre-
judiced persons will be ready to accuse without reason." In loco.

DODDRIDGE, speaking, in loco, of the elders of the Church, says " Great care
should also be taken that their reputation, on which their usefulness will so much
depend, may not be lightly impeached. Accordingly, do not receive an accusation
against an elder, unless on the testimony of two or three credible witnesses, for the
single report of any one person is not material enough to set against the word of
an elder maintaining his own innocence."

ADA:.: CL..:U:S. " Be very cautious of receiving evil reports against those whose
business it is to preach to others, and correct their vices. Do not consider an el-
der as guilty of any alleged crime, unless it be proved by two or three witnesses.
This the law of Moses required in respect to all. Among the Romans, a plebeian
might be condemned on the deposition of one credible witness ; but it required two
to convict a senator. The reason of this difference is evident ; those whose bn-
siness it is to -correct others, will usually have many enemies : great caution
should therefore be used in admitting accusations against such persons." In
loco.

MATTHEW HENRY. " Here is the Scripture method of proceeding against an
elder, when accused of any crime. Observe, 1. There must be an accusation ; it
must not be a flying, uncertain report ; but an accusation, containing a certain
charge, must be drawn up. Further, he is not to be proceeded against by way of
inquiry : this is according to the modern practice of the Inquisition, which draws
up articles for men to purge themselves of such crimes, or else to accuse them-
selves ; but, according to the advice of St. Paul, there must be* an accusation
brought against an elder. 2. This accusation is not to be received unless sup-
ported by two or three credible witnesses ; and the accusation must be received
before them, that is, the accused must have the accusers face to face, because the

289

It was to the Bishop of the Church at Ephesus that he was giving direc-
tion, for the use and government of Greeks, and not of Jews; and so of the
whole Church, in every age, through all the world ; and it cornea in, you
will observe, in the midst of other precepts, touching elders, which are most
clearly of a catholic and abiding application. " Let the elders that rule
well, be counted worthy of double honor," 1 Timothy v. 17. " Against
an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses," 19.
" Lay hands suddenly on no man," 22. I put myself, then, and I must put
myself in this, and every similar case, upon the literal sense of the Apostle's
rule. " I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God to do less or. more."
I bound myself to this when I was consecrated, sayirtg, in answer to the ques-
tion, " Witt you diligently exercise such discipline as by the authority of
God's word, and by the order of this Church, is committed to-yoit ?" "I will
so do by the help of God." 1 find nothing in this apostolic rule of one wit
ness, and circumstances amounting to another ; an interpretation of it
strangely unavailing in the present case, where circumstances uniformly
make against the testimony of the single witness by which any accusation
in the whole Presentment is attempted to be sustained. All that I read is,
" Against an elder receive not an accusation," receive not any accusation,
" but before, or under, or by, or on the authority, or upon the testimony
of two or three witnesses." That it was so understood in the early ages of
the Church, I prove by the seventy-fifth of the Apostolic Canons : " An here-
tic is not to be received as witness against a Bishop, neither only one believer ;
for in the mouth of two or throe witnesses, every word shall be established."
I appeal to the established rule of canon law, as bringing down with it this

reputation of a minister is, in a particular manner, a tender thing; and therefore,
before any thing be done in the least to blemish that reputation, great care must
be taken that the thing alleged against him be well proved, that he be not re-
proached upon an uncertain surmise." In loco.

GIRDLESTONE. " It is no uncommon thing for the clergy, instead of being held
in honor of their brethren, to be the marked objects of censure, slander, and in-
dignity. So apt are men to fancy that any fault which they can find or feign in their
teachers, may serve for excuse of like failings in themselves. So unreasonably
do they expect that perfection in their fellow-creatures, which is to be met with
only in our one great High Priest, eternal in the heavens. Well might each pri-
vate Christian herein adopt the rule, which is prescribed to Timothy concerning'
an elder, to receive no accusation against such, ' but before two or three witnesses.'
Hush, let us say to those who are finding fault with our pastor, I dare not
so much as listen to your accusation, much less can I listen with satisfaction. If
what you say be true, it could do me no good to hear it. Take the charge to them
which are in authority. Take with you at least two or three witnesses, and lay
the matter before the rulers of the Church. It is their duty to inquire. It is their
duty, and I trust they will discharge it faithfully ; it is their duty to rebuke before
all the ministers, who sin, 'that others also may fear.' I trust that they will not
forget the Apostle's solemn charge, to observe these things, ' without .preferring
one before another, doing nothing by partiality.' However much inconvenience
it may cost us, let us not refrain in such a case from offering them our testimony
as to the things we know. This may help to justice. And whether it substan-
tiate innocence, or tend to the removal of the guilty, it will promote the glory of
Christ. But let us, at the same time, be continually on the watch that we neither
revile, nor suffer others in our presence to revile, our ministers in private. Such
censure is more easy, and to our selfish nature more agreeable, than a public ac-
cusation. But it is at once cruel and unjust to them, hurtful to ourselves, and
detrimental to the honor of our Lord.'' In loco.

ancient precept ; citing from Bishop Gibson's master work, " In the spiritual
courts they admit no proof but by tioo witnesses at least." Codex Juris
Ecclesiasiici Angttcani, 1011. I claim' the practice of the civil law, in
this behalf, not as a rule, but as a witness; and I reject the claim that the
common law must be allowed to limit the Apostle, on the same ground that
the binding force of the civil law, as taw, would be rejected; that this
Church has not enacted its adoption. On the simple, but to me, sufficient
word of 'the. Apostle, I require two witnesses for the support of this, and (to
save time, I add 3 ) of every other "accusation" included in the Present-
ment rtow before us. And, as there is to that which constitutes the " accu-
.sation," the implication of criminality, no" other than the single testimony of
Mrs. Butler- her husband saying expressly of all that he saw, " I did not
think it of such a character as to calf for -notice at the time," I am bound
by my consecration vow to say, it is not.proved.

I am aware that it is said, the "accusation" is the whole Presentment,
and this but one of several specifications under it. I ask, if this were the
only article, whether it would not be " ah accusation ?" I ask, if every
specification or "article," is not," in Kke manner, "an accusation?" and
then, I ask, is not the Ap*ostle's rule, the Church's rule, God's rule, this
Court's rule ; " against an elder receive not an accusation," any accusa-
tion bat on the testimony of " two or three witnesses?"

I am aware that it may be said. this rule was for the government. of the
Presenting Bishops'. It was for them to say whether every " article" or " ac-
cusation"' was sufficiently sustained. That talcing this for granted, it comes
before us now endorsed with their three' names, and so maintained by full
' three witnesses." But this would prove too much, since it would substi-
tute their signatures for evidence, and make presentment condemnation. I
grant that it was for them to apply the Apostle's rule. I wish they had done
so. But if they had. if they had. sent, to us with every "article" or " ac-
cusation" the Scriptural full measure, " three witnesses," it would, still have
remained for us to try their testimony. I remind the Court, that at an early
stage in these proceedings, the question- was raised, what should be the number
of witnesses required for any charge, and its decision laid over for a subse-
quent consideration ; and I insist, that what was binding as the Scriptural rule
on tha Presenting Bishops, in receiving any " accusation" is binding a fortiori
on this Court, in trying every 4i accusation" included by. them in this Pre^
sentment.

I am aware of what is called the argument by cumulation ; that an un-
proved charge is made to lend its color .to another unproved charge, so that
one proved charge is made up pf the two. Against this view, I 'hold, that,
of any number of specifications under a charge, all must be proved as fully
as if there were but one. I hold that no number of specifications, however
great, if -none of them be fully proved, sustain a charge. . It might as well
be claimed, that, from any series of mere minus quantities, plus ever could
result. I cite on this subject the sufficient authority of StarkieV well-known
work 071 Evidence. " The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn
should be fully established. If the basis be unsound, the superstructure
cannot be secure. The party upon whom the burden of proof Crests, is
bound to prove every .single, circumstance which is essential to the conclu-
sion, in the same manner,-and.to the same extent, as if the whole, issue had
rested upon the proof of eaoh individual and essential circumstance." r
American Edition, I. 607,

.*; '

But -I am not disposed to leave the matter even thus. Suppose the ob-
jection waived to the character and competency of the evidence.- Is jft
sufficient, then, to establish the acts charged in this " article," and to estab;
Hsh them as acts of immorality and impurity : and does it follow, that to
deny these conclusions is to charge the witness as a perjured person ? Im-
morality and impurity, as qualities or habits, ave evil from their seeking evil
ends ; and acts are either good or bad, in morals, according to their aim.
It is true that we infer the intention from the act ; but it is also true, that
where -the intention of evil is not manifest, the acts of men are entitled to
any sufficient explanation of them', .which involves no evil purpose. In the
first place, then, is there not great exposure to over-estimation of the facts
alleged, in the impression with which the witness started on the journey,
that the Respondent was not quite himself? I do not at all allow that her
impression was correct ; but she, it seems,- adopted it, and began Jo be sus-
picious of it, from the moment of their meeting at the house of. Mr. Munn.
Should it not be thought of; in the consideration of her testimony, as giving
to her estimate of what occurred, an exaggerated and probably a distorted
character ? Should it not be taken in-eonnec.tion with all she has sajd, and
all she thought, to mitigate and correct it ? And now, as to the. intention
of evil in the Respondent, what could it have been? What could. have
originated what could have encouraged it ? Where was the opportunity ?
What was to come of it 1 In this case; (and, it may as well be stated here, in
every case alleged,) ulterior evil seems impracticable. The actions charged,
\vere passages that could lead to nothing. In carriages in the presence
or immediate reach of husbands, or near relations, or of a Christian Minis-
ter or in a room with doors wide open can any thing be thought of more
improbable ? I do not reason from the office, or supposed character, of the
Respondent. I rather reason from the very nature of things. No, or but
little previous acquaintance, (except in the case of Mrs. Butler, who had
been a child upon his knee) no expectation of future intercourse no at-
tempt to renew it with no insidious preparation 'without a word without
a look of evil suddenly, abruptly, roughly. Is this the working of the
will of a seducer ? Is this the driving of a lust towards its end ?. Is this, as
all experience goes, in rerum natura ? I think not. What then ? Is the
witness to the present allegation a perjured person ? Are all the other
witnesses perjured in , like manner? ' I make no such presumption.
Doubtless in the affidavit, and in the testimony under this present articfe,
there are discrepancies not easy to be. recpn oiled. The improbability
of the statement, that a 'considerable portion of ten or fu-elve miles were
driven afteT dark, when the parties started an hour before sunset, on a day
when twilight lasted two hours after the sun. was dawn, and continued to
drive. steadily on. The disagreement between the affidavit and tho testi-
mony of Mr. and Mrs. Butler, as to when and how the most offensive im-
pression was first received by him. The singular want of understanding,

.for so many years, between the witness arid her husband, as to this point.
so that that which never did occur, and which she never said occurred,
should yet be sworn to in. his solemn affidavit. But I leave all these. to
state what I believe to be the true solution of this case, and of the rest.

. The Respondent is a man of free and unsuspecting nature. The law of
kindness overflows in him. He has' indulged it always in acts of great
familiarity; He has acquired a habit which might easily permit, in him,
freedoms of posture and of gesture, which another, with less purity of heart,

might carefully avoid. It has been manifest in all his intercourse.
It is proverbial. Those who have known him well, think, nothing of
it. In every ten to whom it might occur, there might be nine to do so ;
the tenth might view it otherwise. I do not justify it ; I regret it. But
there never seems to have been the thought of harm in it. It never sought
concealment : it was never gone after : it was never followed up : it was
done with the manner of a father to a child : it was accompanied with words
to that effect, as several witnesses have testified. He had been so exten-
sively connected, as a pastor and as a friend ; so many had grown up upon
his knee, as with the present -witness ; these acts of fondness had so insen-
sibly stolen on, from infancy to childhood, to girlhood, to womanhood ; they
had so shaped his whole demeanor, that they were done, when done, with-
out a thought, and never thought of afterwards. In these ways, a care-
lessness of manner was acquired, which rendered postures that might be
mistaken, and motives that might be misconstrued, and gestures that might
be misconceived, and contacts that never were intended, an easy thine ;
and yet, however liable to error, in the judgment of the second per-
son, or of the looker-on, in him without a thought of evil, 'k is
so that I account for what must have occurred, to give any semblance
to the statements of the witness under this, as under the other articles.
Less occurred, I have no doubt, than in her excited apprehension was
supposed. Less occurred, I have no doubt, than to her recollection, over-
wrought by recent agitations, and the conforming influence of sympathy,
especially on female temperaments, now appears. I feel well satisfied
-that, had she not been governed, at the time, as she a/': nits she was, partly
by her remembrance of the kindly ways of her father's familiar friend,
and partly by what she supposed the excitement of his condition, the wo-
man nature that was in her would have overleaped the thought of prudence,
and found rescue long before. Nothing, as I believe, on full consideration
-of the evidence, was done, that had in it the thought of immorality or im-
purity. I therefore '" declare" the Respondent, in my "opinion," -not
guilty of the charge, or charges, alleged in Article I. of the Presentment.

II. I am called on to declare whether in my opinion the Respondent is
"guilty" or "not guilty" of immorality and impurity in the following "arti-
cle" which has just been read, viz: "that the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk,
Bishop as aforesaid, at the said time and place mentioned in the last speci-
fication, was under the influence of, and improperly excited by, vinous or
spirituous liquors, drunk by him, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, contrary
to his duty as Bishop, and to the scandal and injury of said Church."

If it were proved that this were so, it could not be alleged as a charge of
present immorality. To have been " improperly excited" seven years and
a half ago, could not be claimed as going to establish the existence now of
evil habit. Not to say that by the very language used, a question of less or
more is introduced, entirely inconsistent with the terms of a Presentment.
But such as it is, it is by no means proved. It is not alleged that any thing
was drunk upon the road. The duties of the day a full morning service,
and a sermon, with the Holy Communion ; a full evening service and a ser-
mon, with Confirmation and setting out directly after the latter, hardly
allow the opportunity which such a charge required. It rests on the smell
of the breath, on a talkative disposition, on the supposed thick ness of the voice,
and on sleeping heavily, all which might have occurred without improper
excitement : and against all which are to be set the admitted facts, that

293

many letters were read, some read aloud, and all without the slightest fail-
ure in articulation or intelligence.

I therefore declare the Respondent, in my "opinion," not guilty of the
charge or charges alleged in Article II. of the Presentment.

III. I am called on to declare whether in my " opiniort " the Respondent
in this case is " guilty" or "not guilty" of immorality and impurity in the fol-
lowing " article" which has just been read, viz : that " the said Benjamin
T. Onderdonk, being then Bishop as aforesaid, was travelling in a public
stage from Batavia, in the Diocese of New York, to Utica in the same Dio-
cese, for the purpose of attending a meeting of the Convention of the said
Diocese, then about to be held at Utica ; that the only passengers in the
said stage were the said Bishop and the Rev. James A. Bolles and a young
woman to the said Presenting Bishops unknown, and whose name they ar
not able to furnish ; that the said Bishop and young woman occupied the
back seat, and the said James A. Bolles the middle seat of the said stage j-*
and that thereupon afterwards, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk impurely
and unchastely put his arm around the body of the said young woman, and
took other indecent liberties with her person, and behaved in so improper
and unbecoming a manner, that the said young woman endeavoi'ed to get
beyond the reach of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, and fipally, with a
view to escape his rudeness, left the stage before reaching tke place of her
destination : which said conduct of the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, the
said Bishops present as contrary to his consecration vow in that behalf, ami
to the scandal and injury of the Church aforesaid."

It would be fatal to this article, were there no other objection to it, that il
comes into the Presentment on inferior evidence, where there was better ta
be had. Three Bishops, under this Canon, come in the place of two-thirds of
two-thirds of the whole number of clergy in any Diocese ; and of two-thirda
of two-thirds of the whole number of parishes canonically in union with
the Convention in said Diocese ; they are thus made equal to four-ninths
of any Diocese. It is a tremendous responsibility. It must be borne with
very inferior opportunities, and with a liability to error greatly increased.
It must, therefore, if the peace of (he Church, and the fraternal intercourse
of the Bishops are to be preserved, be exercised with the nfost rigorous
care. It should not have suffered itself, in this case, to make use of any
other person's affidavit, when the only witness, Mr. Bolles, was equally
accessible. " There is, however, as it seems," says Starkie, " but one rule
of policy which operates as a general principle of evidence ; the exclusion
in other cases being casual and fortuitous, and depending on grounds un-
connected with he principles on which the system is founded. This rule
or principle consists in requiring the best evidence to be adduced, which
the case admits of; or rather, perhaps, more properly, in rejecting second-
ary and inferior evidence, when it is attempted to be substituted for evidence
of a higher and superior nature. This is a rule of policy grounded on
a reasonable suspicion, that the substitution of inferior for better evidence,
arises from some sinister motive ; and an apprehension that the best evi-
dence, if produced, would alter the case, to the prejudice of the party." I.
102. I desire here, once for all, to disclaim any doubt of fairness in the
Presenters, in this case. I look at facts, as they hare come before us-
As to the first "article," that it was sustained by but one witness, so to
this, besides that ob^ction, I also object, that that one witness, by his affi-
davit, was not made the basis of the charge j but the affidavit of a persoa

294

who was not a witness, and who could, therefore, give but hearsay evidence,
used for that purpose. Nor does the testimony .of the only witness at all
sustain the charge. It is proved by him that the particulars were other-
wise than they are charged. It is proved by him, that he attached no
serious importance to what did occur ; and never would have mentioned
it, but for the rumor of the Butler case, which met him at Utica. It is
proved by him, that in the conversation of himself and a third person with
the Bishop, had at Utica, immediately thereafter, he (the witness) expressly
corrected, and positively denied, what constitutes, in this Presentment, the
whole gravamen of the charge. I therefore declare the Respondent, in my
"opinion," not guilty of the charge or charges alleged in Article III. of
4he Presentment.

IV. As no evidence has been adduced under the fourth " article" of th
Presentment, I of course "declare," as my "opinion," that the Respondent
is not guilty of the charge or charges alleged in it.

'V. I am called on to declare, whether in my " opinion" the Respondent
in this case is "guilty" or "not guilty" of immorality and impurity, in
the following " article," which has just been read, viz., "that between the
months of May and July, in the year of our Lord 1841, to wit, on or about
Sunday the 13th day of June in the said last mentioned year, the said
Benjamin T. Onderdonk, then being Bishop as aforesaid, visited St. James'
Church, Hamilton Square, New York city ; that soon after the services of
the Church were ended, and on the day last aforesaid, he left tho said
church in a carriage in company with Miss Helen M. Rudderow, a young
lady, to proceed as a guest to the house of her brother, John Rudderow,
Esq. ; that while riding in the said carriage, by the side of the said young
lady, he, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, impurely and unchastely
thrust his hand beneath her dress, upon the bosom of the said Helen M.
Rudderow, to her great alarm and consternation, and in violation of the
proper duty of a Bishop, and in breach of the consecration vow of the
said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, to the great scandal and injury of the Church
of Christ."

Referring to the statement made at length, before, of habits of innocent
familiarity in the Respondent, which, to one who did not know him well, (as
was the case with the witness to this, and every other article in the Present-
ment, since the first,) might easily present the appearance of improper
freedoms ; considering the time and place : and circumstances of the al-
leged occurrence, as involving an inevitable exposure ; considering the
absence of that instinctive refuge %vhich a woman finds or makes, who
feels herself insulted ; considering the subsequent deportrnent of tho wit-
ness in this case towards the Respondent, as inconsistent with the thought,
at that time, that she had been so aggrieved ; considering that she stands
alone in the Presentment as a witness to this charge, appearing chiefly in
her sister's affidavit, upon hearsay merely ; considering that in her gene-
ral attestation, in her own brief affidavit, that " every word" of her sister
Jane's "is true," when she was not a witness of what is alleged to have oc-
curred between the Respondent and her sister, and could know it only on
her statement, she has shown herself not clearly sensible of the so'emni-
ty of testimony under oath, I declare the Respondent, in rny " opinion,"
not guilty of the charge or charges alleged in article V. of this Presentment.
VI. 1 am called on to declare whether in my "opinion" the Respondent
in this case is "guilty," or "not guilty," of immorality and impurity in the

following " article," which has just been read, viz. : " that on the same day
mentioned in the last specification, the said. Benjamin T. OnderdonJj,
"Bishop as aforesaid, was received at the house of the said John Ru'dde-
*' row, in the parlor thereof, by Jane O. Rudderow, and that thereupon^ the
."said Benjamin T. Onderdonk impurely and 'unchastely thrust his hand
"into the bosom of the said Jane O. Rudderow, apd upon being repelled,
"took other indecent arid unbecoming liberties with. the said lady, ia viola-
*' tion of his duty as Bishop, and his consecration vow in that behalf, and
"to the great scandal and disgrace. of his said office."

On the same grounds as those alleged before, under the last article, in-
creased by greater improbability, if that be possible, that the acts of the
Respondent, at the time, could have been such as to be thought insulting,
and by fuller evidence of subsequent cordiality, evincing a continued ab-
sence of such conviction ; rejecting the single witness, as insufficient, by .
the rule of the Apostle, to prove any ".accusation" against the Respondent;
and deeming what did occur between them as fully met by the explanation
given before, of the Respondent's manner, I declare him not guilty, in my
"opinion," of the charge or charges alleged HI article VI. of this Pre-
sentment.

VII. I am called on to declare whether, in my "opinion," the Respondent
is " guilty," or " not guilty," "of immorality and impurity," in the following
4 article" which has just been .read. V That on or abqut the 17th day of
' July, in the year of our Lord 1842, the said Benjamin *T. Onderdbok, then
'being 'Bishop as aforesaid, held a confirmation. at. Zion Church, I^ong lei-
4 and, in the Diocese of New York : that after the services were ended; the
'said Benjamin T*. Onderdonk returned to' the house of the Rev. Henry jf,-
" Beare. where he was a guest> in the carriage of the-said Henry M.. BeareV
" in company with Mrs. Charlotte E. Beare, the wife of the said- Henry ^
*' that the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, and Charlotte E. Beare, occupied
" the back seat of the said carriage, and the other persons in the same Were
"so situated, as to have their backs towards the Bishop and the said Cbar- '.
'* lotte ; that thereupon, he, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk, impurely andf .
*' unchastely put his .arm around the' body of the said Charlotte, drew hef
"towards hicnself. and at the same time felt her bosom in. an improper and 1
"indecent manner, so as to Scandalize the feelings of said lady, and cause
Mher to remove herself, from him as far as the side of the carriage would
" permit, to avoid his rudeness, in violation of his duty as Bishop, and
< of his consecration vow, in that behalf, and to the disgrace of his -^aid
"office."

In the absence- of more than one witness,. (the article in the Presentment,
moreover, contrary to the rule alleged before from Starkie, is /bunded oo .
the affidavit of the husband of the witness, and not on her owe;) in the ex-
treme improbability that an impression then' received of actual impurity
would have kept silence under it, and again exposed itself Jo a repetition of
the sams, rather than walk a quarter of a mile,, through Mr. Franklin'*
lane, or request Mr. Thomas Beare to go that much out of his way ; in the
muclj greater improbability that such an impression would have exposed "
itself at night to such a repetition, when, for all thaf has been shown; the
other carriage, and the boy that drove it in the morning, might have beep-
employed ; and explaining whatever did occur to excite the apprehension,
of an undue freedom, -by the indulgence in the careless way alluded 'to -be-

296

fore, I "declare" the Respondent not guilty, in my "opinion," of the
charge or charges alleged in Article VII. of the Presentment.

VIII. I am called on, finally, to "declare" whether, in my "opinion,"
the Respondent in this case is "guilty," or "not guilty," "of immorality
and impurity," in the following " article," which has just been read, viz. :
" that in the afternoon of the said 17th day of July, in the year of our Lord
1842, the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk held a confirmation at Whitestone
Chapel on Long Island aforesaid ; and after the services, went to spend the
evening at the house of Joseph L. Franklin, Esq., on said Island. That
about 9 o'clock at night, the said Bishop was returning home to the house
of the said Henry M. Beare, where he was a guest, and was accompanied,
in the carnage of the said Henry M. Beare, by the said Charlotte, the wife
of the said Henry she being constrained by circumstances to ride with the
said Bishop, against her desire, and she and the said Bishop sitting alone on
the back seat. That while thus on their way, the said Benjamin T. Onder-
donk again insulted the said Charlotte E. Beare in the grossest manner, by
impurely and unchastely putting one arm around her body, while he thrust
the other hand beneath her dress upon her naked bosom ; that, upon the
same being indignantly repelled^ the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk repeated
the indignity, and finished his rudeness by passing his hand in the most
indecent manner down the body ?f the said Charlotte, outside of her dress,
so that nothing but the end of her corset bone prevented his hand from being
pressed on the privsfte parts of her body : all which acts and doings threw
the said Charlotte into the deepest distress, to the manifest scandal and
injury of the Church, of Which the said Benjamin T. Onderdonk was a
Bishop, and in violation of his vows before God, solemnly entered into on
his consecration."

I apply to this " article" as the sulstratum of my explanation, the solution
given throughout, before. I grant' that there may have been what seemed
to the witness (again the single witness) ah undue familiarity of manner;
and that, in the careless way before described, motions may have been made,
and contacts may have occurred, without a thought or consciousness in the
Respondent, which she misunderstood and misapplied. But I am unable to
resist the natural argument from my reliance on a woman's instinct, espe-
cially with her husband within her reach, against her then appreciation of
them in the way set forth in the Presentment ; and I find it impossible to
reconcile the uncalled for acts of courtesy and hospitality which have been
clearly proved, with such a sense of wrong as is therein declared. The strength
of this case lies in the supposed admission by the Respondent, at the second
interview, with sundry of the clergy, as inconsistent with his.alleged denial, av
the first. The testimony here is somewhat difficult to reconcile. I put myself,
that I may get their sense, as nearly as may be, in the place of the witnesses of
the alleged admission. I suppose myself to have understood the Respondent,
on the second day, to admit that he had done the gross acts charged in the
Presentment ; and, I then ask myself, how is it possible that Dr. Milnor, Dr.
Muhlenberg, Dr. Higbee, and, above all, Mr. Beare, as Dr. Milnor positively
testifies, could have consented, expressly or by implication, to " say no more
about it ?" I feel myself compelled to stand between their characters as
Christian men, and Christian ministers, and such an explanation. On the
other hand, I suppose the great anxiety of Mr. Beare to have been, to have
his wife relieved from the denial. of her veracity, (as Dr. Muhlenberg, I
think, expresses it, " her word,") which had been just reported to him ; and

297

the Respondent readily ad witting that be designed to bring no charge against
her veracity, at the same time that all that she alleged against himself, a?
being offensive, was without foundation, and the mere result of her misap-
prehension ; and the conclusion then becomes most* natural. Mr. Beare was
relieved from the impression that his wife was charged with lying. Allwere
relieved from the impression that immorality or impurity was necessarily
involved in her statement of the case. And they parted v. ith the understand,
ing that the affair was settled, and no more to be said about it. And there
is a further, and, if possible, even more conclusive test, that this is the true
solution, in the closing words of the second interview. If the Respondent
really owned his guilt, and Dr. Milnor understood it so, are notms admo-
nition, and the Respondent's answer, most remarkable? We are to sup-
pose Dr. Milnor, when the Respondent had not only confessed impurity, but
convicted himself of falsehood, coolly addressing him as follows : " I hope,
Bishop, that what has now occurred, will put you on your guard ; the more, as
I have heard of other similar rumors !" This is surely not the language of ,
an aged Presbyter, whose mind was burdened by his Bishop's confession of
aggravated immorality, denied .by him only the day before. And what does
the Respondent reply ? ."In regard to rumors of this kind, Doctor, about
Clergymen, there are few that have not, at some time, had occasion to en-
counter them. : ' Is this the answer of one who had just owned bis guilt?
And if it had been, if be had so understood it then to be, could the rejoinder
of Dr. Milnor have been what has been stated ? Must it not rather have
been in words to this effect: "In regard to rumors not admitted, Bishop,
your remark is well ; but as you have just confessed all that relates to Mrs.
Beare, I see not how it can apply to you." I thus dispose of the weight at-
tempted to be brought to bear upon this case by the alleged discrepancy be-
tween the Respondent's conduct at the first, and at the second interview ~
and am compelled to "declare" him not guilty, in my "opinion," of the
charge or charges alleged in Article VIII. of this Presentment.

G. W. DOAXE, .
Bishop of JYezc Jersey.

ADJUDICATION OF THE SENTENCE.

The undersigned has declared his " opinion" that the Respondent in this
case is not guilty of " immorality and impurity," as charged in the Present-
ment. He holds to that conviction. A majority of the Court, however,
have decla'red that in their "opinion" he is '-'guilty';" and by the Canon,
" the Court," of which the undersigned is one, must now "pass sentence,
and award the penalty of admonition, suspension, or deposition." The un-
dersigned, and those who agreed with him in "opinion," must withhold
themselves from the further action of " the Court," and so expose the Re-
spondent, who, in their " opinion," is not guilty, to the highest sentence which
the Canon knows ; or else they must unite in consenting to a lower sentence
on one, who, in their opinion, is deserving of none. Between these two,
the undersigned does not permit himself to hesitate. " Deposition," by
the present canonical provisions of this Church, is irrevocable. Should

. .. ',- - 298

uch be the decision of a majority. of. this.Court, not. only the Respondent,
but themselves would 'be cut off from any future 'beneficial action. The un-
dersjgned Is bound in conscience, so far as in him lies, lo'avert a result-so
'unjust and so unhappy. Therefore, although he. has voted thaf the Respon-
dent-is- u not guilty," and still believes h tin so, his '"sentence" is, tiia.1 he
receive (he lightest "admonition" permitted by the Canon,

G. \V. DOANE,
. . .",* Bishop of New Jersey.

FARTHER ADJUDICATION: O# THE SENTENCE.

The Court having failed, m two several scrutinies^ to "'pass sentence"
on the Respondent, bya majority of their votes> the undersigned now con-
sents to "suspension," to avoid "deposition."
... . . . G. W. DOANE,

* s : Bishop of New Jersey.

OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF THE NORTH WESTERN

DIOCESE/- ^- : -

l VOTE for admonition.

Had I been permitted yesterday to give my real opinion,.! would have
said that articles 1st, 3d, 5th, 6th, 7lh, and 8th, were not proved, according
to the Apostolic rule, 1 Timothy, v. 19, by which I consider myself bound
4a judge in this case*

Article 2d, Not proved.

Article 4th, Not proved ; no evidence being brought forward.

And I would have added in reference to articles 7th and 8th, as follows:
;If the declarations of -the Bishop, which -he made to the Rev.' Mr. Beare,
had -been considered by the Reverend gentlemen who were present on that
occasion, an acknowledgment of guilt, they were solemnly bound to pre-
sent-hint (the said Bishop) for trial; or, at all events, they could not have
agreed-to bury the subject.

JACKSON KEMPER.

299

OPINION OF THE BISHOP OF LOUISIANA.

[CONCURRED IN BY TIIK BISHOPS or RHODE ISLAND, AND THJE SOPTH WESTERN

MISSIONARY DIOCESE.]

THE undersigned, constituting a part of the majority of the Court duly
convened in St. John's Church in the city of New York, for the trial of the
Rt. Rev. Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, Bishop of the Protestant Epis-
copal Church in the Diocese of New York, according to the provisions of
Canon III., " On the trial of a Bishop," passed hy the General Convention
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, at its
session held in October, 1844, having in their individual capacity, as mem-
bers of said Court, given their verdict respectively, that their accused brother
is guilty of several of the charges and specifications contained in the Pre-
sentment upon which he has been tried, deem it proper, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, to enter upon the 'records of the Court a brief
statement of the reasons by which they were influenced in the rendition of
the verdict aforesaid.

First. The direction of St. Paul to Timothy, (v. 19,) " Against an elder
receive not an accusation, but before, or by, two or three witnesses." was in
this case strictly complied with, inasmuch as three of his brother Bishops
presented accusations of immorality against the Respondent.

Secondly. Though some of the immoralities with which the Respondent
was charged were alleged to have been committed more than three years
ago, yet, as no limitation to the inquiry of the Court, in cases of criminal
prosecution, is fixed or recognised by the Canons of the Church ; and as the
acts alleged in the Presentment all occurred since the elevation of the Re-
spondent to the Episcopate, and were charged against him as violations of
his consecration vows; and inasmuch as this Court, before entering upon
the trial, after full discussion, solemnly decided that none of the accusations
could be rightfully dismissed on account of the remoteness of the period
when the facts oh which seme of them were founded, took place the under-
signed felt sacredly bound to enter upon the examination of all the. allega-
tions contained in the Presentment, and to pronounce upon each of them a-
sentence of Guilty or Not Guilty, according to the law and the testimony.

Thirdly. Although two of the specifications on which the Respondent has
been found guilty, viz., tiie fifth and sixth, are respectively supported by the
clear and direct testimony of only one unimpeached witness each, yet, as
this was the full amount of testimony which coold possibly be expected,
considering the peculiar nature of the allegations ; and inasmuch as im-
moralities of the same kind, alleged in specifications first, seventh, and
eighth, were proved, either by the testimony of two witnesses, as in one
case, or, as in the two others, by the clear and direct testimony of one un-
impeached witness, and corroborated by the acknowledgment of the Re-
spondent himself, to other witnesses, whose testimony has been given on this

300

trial, we are of opinion that the witnesses to the several specifications ad-
minister mutual support to each other ; and, for these reasons, and others
which might be stated, the undersigned are persuaded that the verdict of
Guilty, which it has been their painful duty to pronounce against their
offending brother, as to the charge of immorality and impurity set forth in
the several specifications in the Presentment upon which that verdict has
been given, is sustained by the full number of witnesses, and the full amount
of testimony that was ever required by the Levitical or the ecclesiastical,
by the statute, the common, or the canon law-, in support of a like verdict in
any case of criminal prosecution.

LEONIDAS POLK,
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the

Diocese of Louisiana.
J. P. K. HENSHAW,

Bishop of Rhode