USA > Maine > Oxford County > Waterford > The history of Waterford, Oxford County, Maine, comprising Historical address, by Henry P. Warren; record of families, by Rev. William Warren, D.D.; centennial proceedings, by Samuel Warren, esq > Part 8
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19
Traveling was largely on horseback for both sexes, in the saddle or on the pillion, man and woman, husband and wife, tandem.
" Raisings " were common. One hundred and eighty-one frame buildings of all kinds were erected previous to 1803.
132
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
Buildings were heavily timbered, and raised a broadside at a time, and under not a little stimula- tion. It was inspiring to the by-standers as well as to the sturdy workmen at the frame, when the mas- ter carpenter, in proud consciousness of authority, took his stand, and with more than military air and lungs shouted, "All ready ! Take her up!" Shout- ing, "Heave ho!" as the side went slowly up, till it was near the perpendicular; then, with an al- tered tone, he cried, "Halt," and so the whole, till the heavily timbered skeleton was erected. The aged and decrepit, well helped to grog, busied them- selves in making the needed pins to hold the frame together. All complete, some rustic wit, skilled in the art of putting things, mounts the frame and "names" the building in rude, racy doggerel, be- speaking all good things for the owner, his good wife, sons, and fair daughters, and this for all time.
Carpets were not then; the floors were sanded rather, and swept capriciously or ornamentally by fantastic flourishes of the broom. Pins were scarce ; thorns were used largely instead. Flowers and things of taste were rare; things of art were criti- cized as extravagance, savoring of godless pride and vanity. Furniture was simple, neat, and sufficient. Hair cloth, veneered furniture,-all that wretched aping of gentility that so mars the simplicity and attractiveness of modern rural life,-was unknown.
133
SOCIAL LIFE.
Bonnets then were bonnets, shading the face and the beauty, not unlike the section of a broad um- brella. Boots were rare; shoes were worn, if any- thing. Clothing was home-made and coarse, the rough surface of those home-wrought fabrics being as useful to the skin as the modern crash or Turkish towel. Many in this assembly can remember their experience in " breaking in " a tow shirt.
Each farm was a factory village as well. The farmer made many of his tools, did rough mechanical work, cobbled and sometimes made his shoes. His wife spun yarn, wove woolen and linen cloth, cut and made the family clothes. The store was but lit- tle patronized. That modern mill-stone-a huge store bill-was seldom hung around the necks of our fathers. Waterford for the first half century of its history raised its own bread and meat, made much of its own sugar, raised the raw material and manu- factured most of its clothing. The nice sub-divisions of labor peculiar to modern times are profitable only when each division can find constant employ- ment at its specialty. It is questionable whether New England farmers, especially in the hill towns of northern New England, far from markets, can afford to become simply producers of raw material. Does not their prosperity demand that, to a considerable extent, they return to the habits of their fathers and become mechanics as well as farmers ? Certain-
134
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
ly Waterford, all Oxford county, ought to raise its own bread and might do so. Our fathers did not ask themselves whether it paid to raise Indian corn or any other necessary. One thing they knew, that loafing and consequently debt did not pay.
The growth of Maine, Oxford county, and Water- ford between 1800 and 1820 is shown by the follow- ing tables.1
1810.
1820.
York,
·
41,877
46,283
Cumberland,
42,831
49,445
Lincoln,
38,570
46,843
Waldo,
19,941
22,253
Hancock,
13,499
17,856
Washington,
7,870
12,744
Kennebec,
31,565
40,150
Oxford,
18,630
27,104
Somerset,
12,286
21,775
Penobscot,
7,831
13,870
Total,
228,705
298,335
The line of settlements in our State was pushed back between 1800 and 1820 west of the Kennebec an average of but a single (incorporated) township; east of the Kennebec an average of six, or about forty miles. The frontier towns then are for the most
1 These numbers express the aggregate population in 1810 and 1820, of the towns and plantations which formed the respective counties when incorporated. For population of counties and towns in 1790 and 1800, see pages 66 and 68.
135
GROWTH: 1800-1820.
part frontier towns to-day. The growth of our State since 1810 has been mostly by natural increase.
The population of Oxford county by towns in 1810 and 1820 was as follows :1
1810.
1820.
Albany,
165
288
Andover,
264
368
Fryeburg Academy Grant,
now Stoneham,
13
Bethel and Hanover,
975
1,267
Brownfield,
388
727
Buckfield,
1,251
1,501
Denmark,
436
792
Dixfield,
403
595
Fryeburg and Stow,
1,004
1,186
Gilead,
215
328
Greenwood,
273
392
Hartford,
720
1,113
Hebron,
1,211
1,727
Hiram,
336
700
Lovell,
365
430
Mexico,
14
148
Newry,
202
303
Norway,
1,010
1,330
Paris,
1,320
1,894
Peru,
92
342
Porter,
292
487
Rumford,
629
871
Sumner,
611
1,058
Sweden,
249
Waterford,
860
1,035
Woodstock,
236
409
Scattering,
138
808
1 Only those towns are enumerated which are now-1878-a part of Oxford county.
Bachelder's Grant,
136
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
The valuation and live stock owned in Waterford in 1810 and 1820 was as follows:
Valuation.
Horses.
Colts, two
years old.
Colts, one
year old.
Oxen.
Cows
Cattle three
years old.
Cattle, two
years old.
Cattle, one year old.
1810 1820
$61.036 73.250
108 116
13
27
98 186
423 447
197
183
TOWN OFFICIALS AND POLITICAL RECORD.
1798.
M.1 Eleazer Hamlin.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Africa Hamlin.
Daniel Chaplin. Solomon Stone.
T. Eli Longley.
C. David Whitcomb.
S. M. Lieut. James Robbins. Thaddeus Brown. Jonathan Plummer.
1799.
M. Dr. Stephen Cummings.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Solomon Stone. Eleazer Hamlin. Dr. Stephen Cummings.
T. Solomon Stone.
C. David Whitcomb.
M. Eleazer Hamlin.
T. C. Eber Rice.
1800.
M. Dr. Stephen Cummings.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. David Mc Wain.
T. Solomon Stone.
Solomon Stone. C. Samuel Brigham.
Ephraim Chamberlain. Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 45.
T. Solomon Stone.
C. David Whitcomb.
Pres .? Elec. S Solomon Stone.
1801.
M. Eleazer Hamlin.
T. C. Eber Rice.
T. Josiah Shaw.
C. Samuel Brigham.
Gov. Elbridge Gerry, D. 36. Caleb Strong, F. 32.
1802.
S. M. Thaddeus Brown. Jonathan Plummer. Jonathan Stone.
1 M., Moderator; T. C., Town Clerk; S. M., Selectmen; T., Treasurer; C., Collector.
E. Gerry, D. 22.
and
137
TOWN OFFICERS :- POLITICAL RECORD.
1803.
M. Solomon Stone.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Thaddeus Brown. Samuel Warren. Jonathan Stone, jr.
T. Dr. Cushi Hathaway.
C. John Chamberlain.
Gov. Caleb Strong, 62.
1806.
M. Hannibal Hamlin.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Simeon Woodbury. Hannibal Hamlin. James H. Robbins.
T. Jonathan Plummer.
C. James H. Robbins.
Gov. Caleb Strong, D. 84. James Sullivan, F. 17. Adonijah Brown, 1.
1804.
M. Hannibal Hamlin.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Jonathan Stone, jr. Hannibal Hamlin. Eber Rice.
C. John Chamberlain.
Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 64. J. Sullivan, D. S.
Pres. ( David Cobb, F. 73.
Elec. ( James Sullivan, D. 1.
1807.
M. Jonathan Houghton.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Eber Rice. Daniel Chaplin. Samuel Warren.
T. Josiah Shaw.
C. Jonathan Houghton.
Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 88. James Sullivan, D. 21. Elbridge Gerry, Esq., 1.
1805.
M. Hannibal Hamlin.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Jonathan Stone, jr. Jonathan Houghton. America Hamlin.
T. Jonathan Plummer.
C. Isaac Smith.
Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 67. James Sullivan, D. 6. E. Gerry, D. 1.
1808.
M. Simeon Woodbury.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Eber Rice. Daniel Chaplin. Samuel Warren.
T. Josiah Shaw.
C. Simeon Woodbury.
Gov. Christopher Gore, F. 96. James Sullivan, D. 21.
10
138
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
1809.
M. Simeon Woodbury.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Samuel Plummer. Solomon Stone. Calvin Farrar.
T. Calvin Farrar. T. Calvin Farrar.
C. Simeon Woodbury.
Gov. Christopher Gore, F. 110. Levi Lincoln, D. 15.
1812.
M. Simeon Woodbury.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Solomon Stone. Eber Rice. Jonathan Plummer.
C. Thaddeus Brown.
Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 109. Elbridge Gerry, D. 29. William Phillip, 2.
Pres. ( Nath. Goodwin, F. 93.
Elec. ( John Woodman, D. 12.
1810.
M. Solomon Stone.
T. C. Calvin Farrar.
S. M. Solomon Stone. Abraham Whitney. Daniel Green.
T. Calvin Farrar.
C. Thaddeus Brown.
Gov. Christopher Gore, F. 105. Elbridge Gerry, D. 17.
1813.
M. Daniel Green.
T. C. David Farrar.
S. M. Daniel Green. Jonathan Plummer. William Monroe.
T. Calvin Farrar.
C. Thaddeus Brown.
Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 110. Joseph B. Varnum, D. 22.
1811.
M. Solomon Stone.
T. C. Calvin Farrar.
S. M. Daniel Green. Eli Longley. Joseph Pratt.
T. Calvin Farrar.
C. Thaddeus Brown.
.Gov. Christopher Gore, F. 84. Elbridge Gerry, D. 23.
1814.
M. £ Daniel Green.
T. C. David Farrar.
S. M. William Monroe. Solomon Stone. Abraham Whitcomb.
T. Calvin Farrar.
C. Eli Longley.
Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 111. Samuel Dexter, D. 28.
139
TOWN OFFICERS,-POLITICAL RECORD.
1815.
M. Daniel Green.
T. C. David Farrar.
S. M. William Monroe. Solomon Stone. Abraham Whitcomb.
C. Ebenezer Jewett.
Gov. Caleb Strong, F. 118. Samuel Dexter, D. 33.
1818.
M. Daniel Green.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. William Monroe. Jonathan Plummer.
Daniel Green.
T. . Calvin Farrar. T. Calvin Farrar.
C. Ebenezer Jewett.
Gov. John Brooks, F. 106. Benj.Crowninshield,D.19.
1816.
M. Daniel Green.
T. C. David Farrar.
S. M. Solomon Stone. Abraham Whitcomb. William Brown.
T. Calvin Farrar.
C. William Willard.
Gov. Gen. John Brooks, F. 105. Samuel Dexter, D. 30.
1819.
M. Solomon Stone.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. Daniel Green. Samuel Plummer. Solomon Stone.
T. Jonathan Plummer.
C. Theodore Stone.
Gov. John Brooks, F. 78.
Benj.Crowninshield, D.26.
1817.
M. Daniel Green.
T. C. Eber Rice.
S. M. William Monroe. Jonathan Plummer. Daniel Green.
T. Calvin Farrar.
C. Thaddeus Brown.
Gov. John Brooks, F. 103.
Henry Dearbourne, D. 24.
1820.
M. Solomon Stone.
T. C. Daniel Brown.
S. M. Daniel Green. Samuel Plummer. Peter Gerry.
T. Jonathan Plummer.
C. Theodore Stone.
Gov. William King, D. 86. Ezekiel Whitman, F. 61. Scattering, 4. Pres. ( Joshua Wingate, jr., 22. Elec. ( Wm. Moody, 22.
140
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
Representatives to the Massachusetts Legislature from Waterford :
1803. Eber Rice.
1813. Calvin Farrar.
1807. Eber Rice.
1814. Calvin Farrar.
1809. Hannibal Hamlin.
1815. Calvin Farrar.
1810. Hannibal Hamlin.
1816. Calvin Farrar.
1811. Calvin Farrar.
1819. Eber Rice.
1812. Calvin Farrar.
The discussion of the question of separation of the District of Maine from Massachusetts commenced as early as 1785. Repeated conventions were held in Portland, which were but thinly attended. It was impossible to get more than a third, sometimes not a quarter, of the towns to send delegates.
In 1792 the question of separation was submitted to a popular vote in the district with the following result : yes, 2074 ; no, 2525.
The people of Lincoln county (Lincoln county included substantially all the country between the Androscoggin and Penobscot), were the most ardent advocates of the change. From their geographical position they suffered most from the inconveniences incident to district government.
The coast towns in York county were bitterly op- posed to separation. They met in convention, and voted to request the state of New Hampshire to take them under its charge, if Massachusetts would not allow them to stay annexed to her.
141
SEPARATION FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
In 1797 the records of the "Supreme Court " were moved to the counties to which they appertained, and the clerks of the counties were authorized to authenticate copies. This removed one of the prin- cipal causes of opposition to district government, and there was no further agitation of the question of separation until 1807, when the district voted, yes, 3,370 ; no, 9,404. Waterford voted, yes, 1; no, 80.
This matter was allowed to rest until 1815. The subject was again revived, and an organized effort was made to accomplish the object. The opposition to separation was political, sentimental and practical. The state of Massachusetts was strongly Federalist in politics. The district of Maine was Democratic, or very close. The Federalists of Maine to a very con- siderable extent preferred to be under Federal rather than Democratic rule, although they had to submit to certain inconveniences. The sentimental objec- tion influenced many. Massachusetts was the early home of doubtless more than half the men that voted on this question. Go back one generation and it was the home of nine-tenths. Separation from Massachusetts meant, or seemed to mean, the sund- ering of a hundred ties which bound them to the past. The practical or economic objection had some weight; it undoubtedly would make a perceptible increase of taxation.
The arguments in favor of separation were obvious.
142
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
You can understand the feelings that influenced at that time the mass of people in our State by imagin- ing how you would feel if the question of di- viding this old town was proposed.
Societies were formed in different places, public meetings were held, and leading gentlemen in the district made great exertions to arouse the people to favorably consider the subject. Numerous petitions were sent to the legislature requesting that the sub- ject might be submitted to a popular vote. The request was granted, and the vote taken, with the following result: yes, 10,393; no, 6,501. Waterford voted, yes, 38; no, 85.
The legislature of Massachusetts at once passed another act, regulating the principles on which a separation might take place, and authorized the in- habitants to send delegates to meet in Brunswick the last Monday in September, 1816. They were also required to give their votes on the question whether it is expedient to form the district into an independent state, which votes were to be returned to said convention ; and if it appeared that a majority of five to four of the votes so returned were in favor of separation, the convention was to proceed to form a constitution, and not otherwise. The vote stood as follows: yes, 11,927; no, 10,539. Delegates were chosen. Eber Rice, Esq., represented Water- ford.
143
SEPARATION FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
Separation was plainly lost. But some smart pol- iticians construed this act to mean not an aggregate majority of five to four of all votes returned, but the ratio of the majorities in the several towns and plantations. This peculiar manipulation of votes was known in political circles at that time as the " Brunswick arithmetic."
By thus interpreting the vote the required ma- jority was obtained, and application was made to the legislature of Massachusetts to sanction the sep- aration. The legislature quietly cancelled this smartness by the resolve, "That the powers of the Brunswick convention had ceased, and that it was inexpedient for the present General Court to adopt any measures in regard to the separation of the District of Maine."
January 18 and 19, 1819, the senators and repre- sentatives from Maine, friendly to separation, met and decided to urge their towns to forward petitions in favor of separation, and asked that the question be again submitted to a popular vote. In response, the legislature passed an act authorizing the people to vote on this question on the fourth Monday in July, and if a majority of fifteen hundred was ob- tained in its favor, that delegates should be chosen to meet in Portland the second Monday in October, 1819, to frame a constitution for the new state. This act passed by a large majority. The discussion
144
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
throughout the state was earnest and thorough, and resulted in a majority of 9,959 in favor of separation. Waterford voted, yes, 42; no, 52. This convention met at Portland, Oct. 11, 1819. Mr. Josiah Shaw was our delegate. The convention framed our present constitution.
December 7, 1819, Waterford voted to accept the result of the convention held in Portland. Yes, 35; no, 23.
April 3, 1820, the first election of state officers occurred under the new constitution. May 31, of the same year, the first legislature convened at Port- land.
It is evident that the opposition to separation came from Maine rather than Massachusetts. When- ever a proper request was made to gain the sanction of the legislature to test the matter, permission was freely granted, and the final conditions of separation were perfectly fair.
TOWN HISTORY.
1820-1875.
The divorcement of the church from state control followed closely on the separation of the district from the mother state.
We have seen that the Congregational was the
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 145
established church in Waterford, as it was gen- erally in New England. At the time of its founding in 1798 there was entire unanimity in the town (so far as the records and traditions show) as to the advisability of building the meeting-house, and hiring a Congregational minister. Mr. Ripley was not the unanimous choice of the people; but the opposition to him was on personal not ecclesiastical grounds. During the last of his ministry here, the old-time christian harmony was rudely broken, as it was throughout the state. The causes of this I will briefly state. Their bearing on each other and rela- tive importance belongs properly to an eclesiastical history.
1st. The activity of other denominations, especially the Methodist and Baptist.
The Baptist denomination was quite strong in Oxford County at this time. In 1813 there were thirteen Baptist and only twelve Congregational ministers within the county limits. Naturally, these denominations did not care to support both their own and the Congregational church. So they demanded to be released by law from paying to the support of Congregational preaching. A law was therefore passed by which any one could avoid pay- ing his ministerial tax by bringing a certificate from some other parish in town, stating that he was a member of it; as then he was supposed to contribute
. .
146
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
to its support. Of course many took advantage of this, and joined other societies with which they had no sympathy, and for whose support they gave little or nothing.
The following is a copy of one of these certificates made out in 1805:
This certifies that is a member of the Society called Methodist in Waterford.
Committee of the Society, JOSIAH SHAW.
STEPHEN SANDERSON.
This was the first certificate of this kind that I find on the town records.
2d. The growth of the Unitarian and Universalist denominations and free-thinkers throughout New England, especially in Massachusetts, and in the Dis- trict of Maine. Naturally, persons holding these views did not care to support Orthodox Congrega- tional preaching.
3d. The feeling that the union of church and state, or, if you prefer, the taxation of all to support a single church, was non-American ; was contrary to the spirit if not the letter of our Bill of Rights. This view came to be held by the Congregationalists themselves, though at first they stoutly resisted it.
In 1815 the town, through a committee, had asked Mr. Ripley to relinquish a portion of his salary. He consented, on the condition that the money relin-
147
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 1
quished be a nucleus for a fund for the support of a learned Congregational minister.
The opposition to paying the minister tax became so bitter that the town refused in 1819 to keep its agreement with Mr. Ripley longer, and voted not to raise his salary. They subsequently reconsidered this vote. This action was clearly illegal, as the contract could be broken only by mutual consent, or by the advice of a council.
This year the constitutional convention met at Portland, and framed a constitution for the new state. According to this, no one could be taxed to support a minister save with his consent. This consummated the separation of church and state. But the new law did not go into effect until the ratification of the con- stitution, and the town was restive; so again in 1820 they voted not to raise Mr. Ripley's salary, and sent to him a committee, asking the terms upon which he would make a final settlement with them. Mr. Rip- ley made the following proposals, which were ac- cepted.
That the salary for 1820 be paid in full ; that a note of hand for $250 be given him; that the par- sonage lands be appropriated according to original design; that his personal and real estate be exempt from taxation during his natural life, except toward the support of a learned Congregational minister.
This agreement was faithfully kept, though twice
148
HISTORICAL ADDRESS.
an unsuccessful attempt was made at town-meeting to tax him. August 20, 1821, the town voted to ex- tend a call to Rev. John A. Douglass, salary $400. The town and church united in this call.
Attempts were made by the town authorities to collect the minister tax in 1821 and 1822. Many refused to pay and were arrested. The constable started for Paris with one party. John Baker was raising a barn that day, so the constable's party in- sisted that they ought to stop and help. The consta- ble consented ; the parties helped themselves so freely to the rum and other refreshments that the officer was glad to leave them. 1822, Mr. Levi Brown, town constable, arrested (not to their discredit) Joel Ather- ton, Henry Houghton, George Bryant, John Jewell, jr., and others, and took them to Paris for refusing to pay the minister tax. At first they decided to re- fuse to give bail and stay in jail, but squire Howe of Bridgton advised them to pay under protest, and then sue the selectmen. They did this and recovered. The selectmen, to save further prosecutions, made haste to refund taxes already paid. It was not the amount of the tax that made it so unpopular, it was the grim "you must " of the constable.
Mr. Ripley closed his labors in Waterford, Novem- ber 7, 1821.
Mr. Douglass, his successor, is with us to-day ; still the honored senior pastor of the church, the old-
149
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
est settled minister in the State ; he is in the serenity of his old age, enjoying the unshaken confidence of all.
In 1822, I find that parties left the Congregational church without transferring their connection to any other society, by giving notice as follows :
WATERFORD, Oct. 1, 1822.
TO DANIEL BROWN, Clerk of Waterford:
This may certify that I do not wish to belong to the 1st Congregational Church and Society in said town, or be taxed in that Society.
Forty-six left that year.
It may be interesting to trace the town con- nection with the old meeting-house, until its sale in 1843.
In 1832 the town voted that the trustees of the ministerial fund be directed to divide the interest of it among the several religious societies of Waterford.
Each year I find that the town chose a sexton to care for the meeting house. This was because it was still used as a town-house.
The growth of the villages in the lower part of the town changed the center of population, and made the meeting-house hill seem steeper than ever; so the town asked the church in 1841 to send a joint peti- tion to the Legislature to get permission to sell the old meeting-house, and use the proceeds in building a town-house on the Flat. In 1843 the house was
-
150
HISTORICAL ADDRESS. .
sold and torn down. A part of its timbers were used in constructing the present town-house.
Several years before, in 1836, the old church de- cided to abandon its meeting-house and rebuild. A bitter discussion now arose between the north and south parts of the town as to the location of the new meeting-house. The north part said the center of territory was north of Davenport hill, and that the major part of the support of the minister came from the north part of the town, and declared that if the meeting-house was moved south of the old site, they would secede, and build a house at the Jewett guide board, about half a mile to the east of Peter C. Moshier's. The question was referred to a committee from abroad, who located the house part way down the hill from the old location, toward the Flat. The north demurred. Then the south part decided that the new church should be located on the Flat, and argued that the valley road, then anticipated, would practically make the new location nearer to the north part of the town than was the old.
A meeting was held in the old school-house, that formerly stood opposite Daniel Warren's, of all those in the north part of the town that were in favor of building a meeting-house at the Jewett guide-board. The Chaplins, Greens, Warrens, Jewetts, Capt. Thomas Kilborn, Mr. Henry Sawin, the Hors, and others,
151
LOCATION OF NEW MEETING-HOUSE.
were there. Capt. Daniel Green presided. There was great unanimity and enthusiasm. During the debate, a young theological student, who was doubt- ful as to the enterprise, suggested to Dea. William Warren in an undertone, that, as it seemed the house was sure to be built, it was important that steps should be taken to call an ecclesiastical council, and be set off and formed into a new church; then they would be regular and could hold ecclesiastical rela- tions with the other churches ; while if the new house was built without taking the proper steps, and wor- ship be established there in a way that might seem irregular, they would fall under censure, and fail to get their house dedicated or be organized into a church, and could not be represented in the County Conference. On the presumption that their case was right, it would be safe and best to proceed orderly and with the sanction of the churches. The deacon thought steadily for a few minutes, then rose, and presented these as his own views, and moved that they did not proceed till such steps had been taken. Several hesitatingly acquiesced, and said they were too fast. At length a leading man arose and said that if all this had got to be done they might as well go home, and left the house. Several followed. There was a quandary. At length others said, "it is of no use," and departed, till at length the moderator was left alone with the young student who had made
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.