Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 2

[17] broken into a thousand fragments by the infuriated populace. O, lamentable departure from duty—O, shameful outrage upon private property—by one who had sworn, not to destroy but to protect property—not to pander to the lawless desires of a mob, however “wealthy and respectable,” but to preserve the public peace.

The act was wholly unjustifiable. The Mayor might have as lawfully surrendered me to the tender mercies of the mob, or ordered the building itself to be torn down, in order to propitiate them, as to remove that sign. Perhaps—nay, probably —he was actuated by kind intentions; probably he hoped that he should thereby satisfy the ravenous appetites of these human cormorants, and persuade them to retire; probably he trusted thus to extricate me from danger. But the sequel proved that he only gave a fresh stimulus to popular fury: and if he could have saved my life, or the whole city from destruction, by that single act, still he ought not to have obeyed the mandate of the mob—no indeed! He committed a public outrage in the presence of the lawless and disobedient, and thus strangely expected to procure obedience to and a respect for the law! He behaved disorderly before rebels that he might restore order among them! Mr. Henry Williams and Mr. John L. Dimmock also deserve severe reprehension for their forwardness in taking down the sign. The offence, under such circumstances, was very heinous. The value of the article destroyed was of no consequence; but the principle involved in its surrender and sacrifice is one upon which civil government, private property and individual liberty depend.¹