Page:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker Slavery volume 5 .djvu/177

Rh 1. Dr Dewey's conduct had been misrepresented ; lie had never said that he would send his own mother into slavery to preserve the Union; it was only his son, or brother. [Mr Parker remarked that the principle was the same in all three cases, there was only a diversity of measure.]

2. Dr Dewey's motives had been misrepresented. He had conversed with Dr Dewey; and Dr Dewey felt very bad; was much afflicted—even to weeping, at the misrepresentations made of him. He had not been understood. Dr Dewey met Dr Furness in the street, [Dr Furness had most manfully preached against the Fugitive Slave Act, and thereby drawn upon himself much odium in Philadelphia, and the indignation of some of his clerical brethren elsewhere,] and said, "Brother Furness—you have taken the easy road to duty. It is for me to take the hard and difficult way! I wish it could be otherwise. But I feared the dissolution of the Union!" &c., &c. Mr Osgood then proceeded to censure "one of this Conference," [Mr Parker,] for the manner in which he had preached on this matter of the fugitive slave law. "It was very bad; it was unjust!" &c.

Rev. Dr Gannett spoke at some length.

1. He said the brethren had laughed, and shown an indecorum that was painful; it was unpardonable. [The chairman. Rev. Dr Farley of Brooklyn, N. Y., thought otherwise.]

2. He criticized severely the statement of Rev. Mr Pierpont that the fugitive slave law " could not be administered with a pure heart or unsullied ermine." [Mr Pierpont affirmed it anew, and briefly defended the statement. Mr Gannett still appeared dissatisfied.] His parishioner, Mr George T. Curtis, had the most honourable motives for attempting to execute the law.

3. He (Dr Gannett) was in a minority, and the majority had no right to think that he was not as honest in his opinion as the rest.

4. Here Dr Gannett made two points in defence of the fugitive slave bill, of making and obeying it.

(1.) If we did not obey it the disobedience would lead to the violation of all law. There were two things—law without liberty; and liberty without law. Law without