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

[279] responsible for any sentiments uttered in its columns, we abhor that sectarian bigotry which would proscribe their free utterance, and clog its editor with the shackles of any party or sect.

4. Resolved, That while there exists among abolitionists such irreconcilable difference of opinion, both as to fundamental principles and on questions of party politics, so far from deeming the course of the Liberator faulty in respect to political action, we look upon the ground it has occupied as the only one upon which any anti-slavery periodical can stand—the urging, upon every individual, action consistent with his principles and his conscience.

These resolutions, together with kindred testimonials in years past by George Thompson, William Goodell, Amasa Walker, Maria W. Chapman, N. P. Rogers, and others, were afterwards embodied in a circular by the financial committee of the Liberator.

On February 13, the New York Executive Committee¹ notified the Massachusetts Board that the contract hitherto existing between it and the Parent Society, as to the collection of funds in its proper territory, was at an end, and that independent agents for Massachusetts had been appointed. This action was a great surprise, since the Board had made, through Joshua Leavitt and through H. B. Stanton (who had, before the annual meeting, been sent on as a delegate in regard to the pledge), a request that the Executive Committee would send agents into the State to raise the amount of the pledge due on February 1, on the simple condition that the sums be remitted through the Massachusetts treasurer; and had already offered to pay Stanton's salary and travelling expenses in this service of the Parent Society. They immediately deputed Wendell Phillips and Henry G. Chapman to visit New York and remonstrate on their behalf with the Executive Committee, who, however, remained stubborn, having already, in fact, printed a circular representing the unprofitable and unfair working of the contract. In vain were explanations given of