Header img
Beyond Penn's Treaty

Halliday Jackson Correspondence 1799-1824

Page out of 55

I shall proceed on the supposition that a partnership did actually
exist between the member complained of and another person who had
not a sight in society and afterward speak of the actual case.

I believe it is the practice of Society generally when a Complaint is
preferred against a member who stands connected in partnership
with one who is not a member to decline any interference in such
case inasmuch as any advice or decision may be rendered void
by a refusal on the part of the firm to take the advice of Friends, or
by declining to abide by any decision made on a matter referred,
in either of which cases a meeting cannot enforce the Discipline.
It appears to me just that every rule applied to one member should
also apply to another. If an arbitration were granted in such case
the member who stood alone would be bound to comply with an
award given, whilst the other might evade it by alleging the un-
willingness to comply on the past of his partner without whose consent
it might in many cases be impossible he should. I do not know-
of any express Discipline relating to Partnership disputes, but the
above reasons are so forcible that I do not see how a better course
could be pursued than that which appears to be generally adopted
by Society.

With respect to the particular case referred to the Committee of
which I was a member, it appeared by a transcript from the
magistrate’s Docket that suit was brought against G and K
was partners. by which we obtained his opinion in the case.
the award given under the rule granted by him was in the
name of G and K as partners; and it was admitted the trespassing
Cattle were the joint Stock of G and K purchased at their joint expense
and fed for their joint profit or loss. Under this view of the case it ap-
peared to me that all the essentials of a Partnership were clearly
proved or admitted and according to the general usage of Society the
appellant had a sight to sue without asking leave of the monthly
meeting to take such a course. If thou’lt turn to the Dicipline under
the head of "Law" it will be perceived that the overseers or other judici-
ous Friends being convinced that a member is under such necessity to
sue as may satisfy them, such member is not subject to treatment for
suing a fellow member. It appears by what is said above that a partner-
ship between a member and one who is not a member is a case in which
monthly meetings generally hold a member excused for suing a member
and it also appears that one of your own overseers declined to notice this
case on that account. Under all these views I thought myself ob-
liged to sign the Report, in doing which I felt tried on Friends ac-
count who I had no doubt had laboured patiently and faithfully with
a very troublesome member, and who had pursued a Course that at
the time appeared to them a proper one. If I have been in an error
I have no doubt you will chearfully cast a mantle of Charity over
my weakness and continue to believe me your well meaning friend.

Since my return I have heard that some uneasiness was excited by
a report that one member of the Committee had taken a very active part, but
I am not aware that any improper influence was excited by the conduct of
any of the Committee, I hope and believe an open candid and impartial dis-
position was generally prevalent and I am sure much tenderness was ex-
pressed toward the Friends of the monthly meeting concerned.

I am affectionately thy friend B.F.

Thou art at liberty to show this letter to my friends, Edward Garrigues and Jno H Bunting
perhaps it would not be best to spread my views further, this however I leave to thy judgment.