[97] Mr. May began the defence, and spoke pretty [well?] for1 nearly an hour, but was frequently interrupted by the members of the committee, who, with one exception, behaved in an insolent and arbitrary manner. Mr. Loring then spoke for about fifteen or twenty minutes in a very admirable manner. Mr. Goodell then followed at some length, very ably, but was cramped by the committee. I succeeded him pretty warmly, but without interruption.2 Prof. Follen began next, with great boldness and eloquence, but had not proceeded far before he3 was stopped by the chairman of the committee, very impertinently,4 who said it was a mere matter of favor that we were permitted to be heard at all. We resented the imputation, and asserted our right to be heard—and finally told the committee that we should petition the Legislature for leave to be heard as a matter of right, which we did to-day, and are to be heard next week. The effect has been good for our cause.
This text is part of:
1 May's Recollections, p. 188. Ebenezer Moseley.
2 Mr. Lunt, not content with his many outrageous interruptions on this occasion, had the dulness to invent another, of which he represented Mr. Garrison to have been the victim (see p. 108 of his preposterous “Origin of the late war,” Boston, 1866, and the citation from it in a letter to the Boston Daily Advertiser of Feb. 17, 1883). There is no mention of it in the official pamphlet “Account of the Interviews which took place on the 4th and 8th of March,” etc., published by the Mass. A. S. Society. Mr. Garrison's opening ran as follows: ‘Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as your honorable committee have said to the abolitionists, “ Paul, thou art permitted to speak for thyself,” I, for one am disposed to reply with all sincerity, “I thank thee, King Agrippa.” Yet I am not willing to consider it merely as a favor that we are permitted to appear before you’ (Lib. 6: 50).
4 Dr. Follen had been showing the relation of cause and effect between the Faneuil Hall meeting and the mob of October 21, as foreshadowing the result of legislative resolutions censuring the abolitionists. ‘Would not the mobocrats again undertake to execute the informal sentence of the General Court? Would they not let loose again their bloodhounds upon us?’ He was interrupted by Mr. Lunt: ‘Stop, sir. You may not pursue this course of remark. It is insulting to this committee and to the Legislature which they represent.’ This farce was repeated at the second hearing. ‘Am I, then, to understand that speaking disrespectfully of mobs is disrespectful to this Committee?’ inquired Dr. Follen (Lib. 6.47; “Life of Follen,” p. 396).
The Century Company. , 1885-1889.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.