"GEORGIA: THE SITUATION.

        "To any one at all acquainted with the history of nations, the present aspect of our country is anything but encouraging. Emerging from a terrible

physical conflict we find ourselves now in the midst of a war of ideas. What was settled by the arbitrament of the sword is again made the great question of the times, and the measures and men defeated on the field are daily winning signal victories on the less dangerous field of bloodless strife.

        "The fact is not to be disputed that treason instead of being made odious is becoming honorable; and the wickedest and vilest rebellion is now considered as the great war, participated in by gallant and noble men on both sides. What are the causes of this deadly revolution in sentiment? Why are rebels treated as gallant soldiers and allowed to go scott free and to boast of their achievements on the domain of their conquerors? Why are rebel papers allowed to curse the air of nearly one-half of our beloved country and abuse not only every officer of the Government but the Government itself? Has the love of liberty fled the land? Are all the patriots in their graves? Are the men of this generation blind? Or do they regard the insidious and combined efforts as unworthy of attention?

        "The union of States and of people, the free, independent and glorious republic left by our fathers as a precious legacy to the present generation and baptized by the rich blood of thousands of free men, brave men, who offered their lives for its preservation, is again menaced, nay is in imminent

peril. Are coming generations to lose this great boon through the apathy of the men of to-day? Shall the world be robbed of liberty and the hope of struggling free men allowed to perish? Oh, that the Nation may awake and that the spirit of '64 may revive! Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and that price must be paid.

        "What must be done? The question can be answered in short. Enemies must be treated as enenemies and friends as friends. Those who fought against the Government and were conquered and captured must be made to feel that in so doing they have forfeited all rights to its patronage and that they live merely at the sufferance of an injured but magnanimous government. Those who have labored and fought for the Government should be made to feel that the Government recognizes their services and relies upon their patriotism. In this alone is safety.

        "The Government and the country belong to the loyal defenders of the flag and it is a burning shame, an outrage upon civilization, a disgusting spectacle before the forld, that the great Government allows its veteran defenders to be murdered with impunity by bands of disguised enemies upon its own soil.

        "If the flag cannot protect its defenders, let it be taken down! If men are killed in the United States for devotion to it and there is no arm to

save, let the old flag be buried! If in Georgia union men are forcibly proscribed and murdered for their sentiments and the Government is powerless to protect or avenge them, let that Government give Georgia up to the heroes of the Lost Cause and inform the world that Georgia is an independent government in open hostility to the United States, and the friends of the United States within her borders will seek a more congenial clime. The power of the Nation must be held over this State, and the strong arm of the military insure the reign of law and order. We are precipitated to a crisis. Let us have real peace or open war! Let union men be protected or let them know that they are abandoned!

        "Call out and arm a volunteer force sufficient to make Georgia healthy, or send a good supply of 'regulars' here; regulars in numbers sufficient to meet the hordes of regulators that infest the forests and swamps of the State.

        "Will the President carry out his purpose of peace? Will he with an iron hand crush out lawlessness and ku-kluxism? Are the forces wanting? Let it be known--and ten thousand loyal Georgians are ready, aye fifty thousand if necessary, to accept a gun and 'carpet bag.' Anything is preferable to this awful suspense and the continued 'perishing by the wayside' of good men.

        "O, General Grant! We have confided in you;

we rested our all on your declaration of peace; we supported you because in so doing we thought we were giving our votes for law, order and liberty. Can you not save the lives of your friends? We call on you to suppress this deadly rebellion growing up in this State. If you would prevent a civil war in this State, one which will be a real West India affair, a war in the dark with torch and knife and utter disregard to all civilized rules of combat, the power of the Government must intervene. You, General Grant, must say to the angry elements of Georgia, say it with a firm voice, say it at the head of the army and navy of the United States: 'Peace, Be Still.' "

        Turned out of doors suddenly by the fire of February 18th, as I have shown, we lost no time by bemoaning our condition but immediately set about providing for our future as a church. That very evening we held a prayer meeting at the house of one of our members and the next day I called on a man named Wilson to consult about a lot which he had for sale. He wanted $2,000 for the lot; I offered him $1,800. Ultimately he declined to sell us the lot at all. Another lot, beautifully located was in the market for $2,500; I went to see it; parties would not sell to us. Another at $1,700 was found and the owner was desirous to sell, but when he found that we wanted it for the church, he refused to sell. After several trials I discovered

that we were pretty generally black-listed so far as buying a lot for our church was concerned. We were to be exterminated by a negative policy. I did not complain but continued my search for a site and with the assistance of the wide-awake members of the church finally found a very suitable lot on Cotton Avenue. This appeared to be about our last chance and I determined not to lose it through any negligence in precautionary approach.

        Information of this available lot had been furnished by Alexander Day and Bailey Clark, the latter a barber doing business on Cotton Avenue, hence he could play the part successfully of a private purchaser. The price of the lot was $1,000, $500 to be paid in cash, and the remaining $500 within a specified time. Arrangements were made for Clark to meet the seller in his office at night, bringing the money, and concluding the purchase. Confiding in Clark and handing him the money, at the same time impressing upon him the necessity of having a properly-worded receipt describing the lot and reciting the terms, I waited on the outside, at a considerable distance away from the building, until he should go in and pay over the money. As we began work on the lot almost immediately, the seller discovered that he had not only sold the lot but that he himselfl had been sold. He was a bluff old timer, with a genuine heart in him. He stood grandly upon the honor of his word, remarking:

"Well, you beat me. I would not have sold the lot to your church; but now that you have bought it, send your trustees to me and I will make the deed directly to them." He did so and gave a subscription of ten dollars to our work. The purchase was made on March 6th, less than one month after we were burned out, greatly to the surprise of many who were fast accepting the conclusion that we could not buy a lot in the city.

        We immediately began putting lime, lumber and brick upon the ground and commenced preparatory work. Although I had not the plans complete, I had enough data on hand to enable me to contract for 300,000 bricks seven days after the purchase of the lot, to be delivered right along until all were received. The plans were very plain and simple, and were drawn by local architects. The work was pushed ahead rapidly by day laborers, as there was no one in the church prepared to take the contract. I superintended the work, paying the men weekly, and paying for material as rapidly as we could. I had relieved the church from my own support beyond seven dollars a week, and even this amount I did not always receive. On the 5th of April we laid the corner stone in the presence of about 2,000 people; and on January 16th, 1870, we went into our new church with shoutings of praise to God. Our first meeting was held in the main room, but after that we worshipped regularly

in the basement to allow the upper part of the church to be finished.

        Our removal from the old armory where we had worshipped during our pilgrimage to the new building was accomplished with appropriate ceremonies. We met early on the morning of January 16th, in the old armory and formed a procession consisting of our whole congregation and Sunday school, probably about eighteen hundred persons in all, placing the older members of the congregation in front in order that they might be first to tread the floors of the new building. In the front rank was one "Sister Hannah," an old lady of great courage and zeal and full of the Holy Ghost. She was known as a consistent occupant of the "Amen corner" in the church and no one doubted the genuineness of her piety. All looked upon her as sincere, and accorded her full liberty of expression. She might shout as long, as loud and as often as the spirit moved her to do so, and no one said to her, nay. When she stepped upon the floor of the new church, just inside the door her voice rang out with one rich, ringing "Hallelujah!" and soon there was general singing and rejoicing. Thirty-two persons joined the church on that day, among them Alexander Day who had been serviceable in the securing of the lot. Several babies were also baptized

STEWARD A. M. E. CHURCH, MACON, GA. Erected by T. G. Steward, 1869. Tower added later by Rev. L. H. Smith.

on that day, the first being Lewis Williams, who served many years as organist of the church, and who was employed as teacher in the public schools of the city, and later as superintendent of the blind asylum.

        Reviewing my Macon ministry, I am almost startled at the multiplicity of sphere which I undertook to fill. While superintending the construction of this important church, I was also serving as cashier of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company; commission merchant as above described; publisher of a Sunday-school paper; and contributor to weekly papers.

        The Annual Conference of 1869 was held in Columbus and was well attended. The preaching was especially evangelical. On the evening of February 9th, Rev. Andrew J. McDow preached from the text: "What shall we say to these things, if God be for us who can be against us?"--Rom. 8: 31. About one hundred persons came forward for prayers. On the 11th, the conference sitting with closed doors signed a memorial asking for the passage of the Butler Church Bill. Twenty-eight preachers were admitted into full connection and nineteen itinerants were received on probation. At the close of the session Rev. C. L. Bradwell, our oldest native itinerant preacher, was appointed pastor of the church in Columbus and was received with hearty expressions of satisfaction.

        The Conference of 1870 met in Americus and was enthusiastic. The Baptist church of the city gave us a contribution of $27, and on my motion it was unuanimously resolved that we accept with gratitude the donation of $27 from the Bethesda Baptist Church, and tender to Rev. J. C. Bryant, pastor, and to the congregation generally, our sincere thanks. (Minutes of the Georgia Conference of 1870). The eloquent Mrs. F. E. W. Harper addressed the conference. Conference adjourned to meet in Atlanta.

        The conference in Atlanta in 1871 was my last in the State. It met in the new church which had been built under the direction of Rev. W. J. Gaines. As I could remain no longer in Macon under our rules which then limited the pastorate in any one place to three years, and as my heart was deeply concerned for the welfare of the church and people of that city I earnestly besought Bishop Brown to send the Rev. W. J. Gaines to succeed me. At first he was not disposed to do so, but finally yielded on my insistance. Brother Gaines began his work grandly before I left the city.

        Mrs. Smith, of whom I have already spoken, was helpingn me in my Sunday school, and I commended her heartily to my successor. Naturally there would be some in the church who would object to the prominent part she was holding, she being leader of our music, both in singing and also

M. E. F. SMITH

playing the organ. Aside from this she was endowed with remarkable popular talents, being a fine, ready and sympathetic conversationalist, and a very willling helper in every good work. Brother Gaines was somewhat affected by the assaults made by some who may have been a little jealous and was slow to recognize her usefulness until I assured him that his success in the Sunday school and to some extent in his church work would be greatly aided if he carried with him her co-operation. I prophesied that she would bring his Sunday school up to five hundred. He accepted her labors finally with good heart, and later wrote me that my prophesy had been fulfilled.

        During my whole ministerial life I never introduced the comic element into my sermons but once; and that was while the church controversy in Macon was in its earlier stages. People were indulgnig in much unprofitable talk which appeared to

        *This Mrs. Smith belonged to that class of excellent women who went South during the closing days of the war to engage in the work of teaching the adults and children who had just been released from slavery. She was, in 1865, a young widow of pensive and interesting countenance, engaging manners, sympathetic disposition, and earnest Christian spirit. Fifty-five years after this time, writing to me when I had sustained a great affliction, she said: "What a 'home going' there has been among our loved ones in the past years. Let us think often of the glorious future in the Heavenlies into which our loved one has passed, and pray God to help us to say truthfully (underscoring 'truthfully'), "Not my will, but Thine be done." Speaking of Macon as late as August, 1920, she said: "Dear Old Macon, the best loved city to me, of all the seven where it was my privilege to teach."

        Only a few days ago she passed unto her rest with her life's work well done, and leaving a memory stimulant to sacrifice and helpful work.

increase the ardour of the strife and add to the number of persons involved in it. I preached on The Talebearer; and during the discourse genuine laughter in which my wife heartily joined was called forth. The effect may not have been bad, but I never tried that style again.

        The General Conference of 1868 adopted the presiding eldership in principle, but left it optional with the several annual conferences whether it should be established within their bounds. The conference by vote could say whether they would have the office, and in case they should so decide, could say how many districts there should be, but could not elect the presiding elders. As a result of this perogative the presiding eldership was at once established in all the new, or southern conferences, while those of the north clung to their old form of administration. The Georgia conference as I left it, was divided into six presiding elder districts, each presided over by a progressive and zealous minister.

        When I re-entered the Philadelphia Conference after an absence of seven years, it was pretty much as I had left it in 1864. There were the conservative elders who firmly believed that age and experience were identical; deacons who were patiently abiding their time and traveling licentiates who had learned to "labor and to wait."

CHAPTER V.

MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA CONFERENCE:

        Trial of Rev. J. H. Turpin--Arthur's connection with it. First election of delegates to General Conference--Important measures introduced in General Conference of 1872. Appointment to Wilmington, Del. Condition of education in Delaware. Mission to Haiti--Return to Delaware--Assignment to Brooklyn--Criticism of Professor Huxley's lectures. Transferred to Philadelphia. Note:--Brother Murry and Fleet Street Church.

        The conference met in Union Church, Philadelphia, of which Rev. Joseph H. Smith had been pastor that year and who was succeeded at that conference by Rev. Theodore Gould. The whole number of appointments was only 42; while in the conference that I had helped to build, the appointments numbered more than twice that many. I was placed at the head of the committee on charges and complaints, a position that the brethren generally shunned. There came before this committee Rev. J. H. Turpin, a young minister of my acquaintance, talented and promising, who was callled to answer to numerous complaints coming from the only charge I had ever held in the conference. The accusers were my acquaintances and friends; and the minister a member of my class in the itinerancy. Unfortunately the people making the accusations had depended upon the weight of

their own personal characters, and the vehemence of their assertions, or had been mis-led by their feelings, and consequently they had failed to provide the necessary evidence to support their charges. Turpin was found guilty of improper public remarks about a woman member of his church; but as there had been so much of unprofitable gossip, the committee recommended leniency in his case. As chairman of the committee I presented and defended the report, and thus came in for a good round of scolding from some of the older members of the church that I had at one time served.

        In this conference the first election of delegates to the General Conference took place. This was the annual conference next preceding the meeting of the General Conference which was to assemble in Nashville the first Monday in May, 1872. There was no lobbying, no announcement of candidates, no soliciting. Only one ballot was cast, and immediately after the result was announced, a motion was put and carried making the election unanimous. The delegates chosen were Joshua Woodlin, James Morris Williams, Robert F. Wayman, George E. Boyer, Joseph H. Smith, Thomas A. Cuff, James Hollon and Theophilus G. Steward. James Hollon and Joseph H. Smith later declined and H. H. Lewis and Jeremiah Young were elected to fill the vacancies.

        In the General Conference of 1872, although it

was the first I ever attended as a full member from its opening, I introduced and carried through the measures to establish the presiding eldership (see Conference Minutes, page 20) to improve certificates of transfer of ministers (see pages 54, 106) to locate Church Extension Society in Washington, D. C. (see page 107).

        On the adjournment of the conference I found myself appointed to Wilmington, Delaware. The Rev. Theodore Gould had spoken to me about going to Brooklyn to take the Fleet Street Church, but as I knew nothing of choosing my own appointment, I gave him an answer which he understood as equivalent to a refusal to consider the proposition. This was very far from the fact, as I simply did not feel free to express a choice, for up to that time I was an itinerant after the old school, going where sent without thought other than to do the work.

        The church at Wilmington was not such as to awaken within me pleasant feelings, as I entered it. The building was without architectural beauty, of one story, ceiling low, windows small, wretchedly lighted by day and worse at night by its unsightly and inadequate gas fixtures. The interior was in dark colors, and was dirty withal. On the floor were spittoons, saw-dust filled, and around the walls were the head marks of the more than seven sleepers. It had a small loft in front occupied by

a choir, led by one Peter Blake, a barber of not the highest reputation, a good musician, however, and faithful in his services. He was assisted by Levi J. Coppin, who ultimately became the leader in chief. The congregation appeared quite in keeping with the surroundings in that the women were almost uniformly robed in dark garments. Coming as I did, from middle Georgia, where the people were dressed in very light garb, where windows and doors were open and sunlight abundant, this dark abode with little ventilation, was depressing enough.

        To counteract the depressing effect on the material side I soon found that I had in my congregation the true and the tried--the Hamiltons, the Sterlings, the Jones, Hills, Clarks, Mercers, and scores of other good men and women who would do honor to any community. But a visit from Rev. Henry J. Young and Chaplain W. H. Hunter was the event which aroused me to get to work in earnest. Chaplain Hunter had served in the U. S. Army during the Civil War, and possessed the military spirit in an eminent degree; he could both command and inspire. In this connection I must also mention two great singers, Sallie Masten and Esther Armstrong. These, by their matchless voices and spirit, did much to awaken within me the resolution to get the church out of its material darkness. Miss Armstrong later became the chorister

of the church and literally died at her post, lapsing into unconsciousness in the choir during service. Her voice was singularly stately and devotional, and her beautiful life added to the effect of song. Of Levi Jenkins Coppin I need not speak at length, the world now knows him as Bishop Coppin, traveler, missionary and author. He came to be leader of my church choir, and leader of the entire body of young people of the church at a time when his services were indispensable. He had a voice decidedly individual in quality, readily distingushed, easily followed. Of his singing it can be said, He always hit the notes squarely on the head, no slurring up or down to get the pitch, his ear was exact, his time perfect, and he never forsook the key.

        The congregation of my church steadily grew, especially at the morning services. The factories in Wilmington employed a large number of men, and the church was decidedly a men's church. We had a very encouraging revival and among those who were soundly converted was a Mr. John Raikes, a man ever afterward noted for his thorough-going religious zeal and his uprightness of character. I enjoyed preaching to this Sunday morning congregation to the very highest possible degree, because of the deep interest manifested by my hearers, because they listened understandingly, and because they appropriated so rapidly the truths

presented. I felt my own growth, and rejoiced in the brotherhood around me.

        The condition of education in Delaware was very bad at this time. Rural schools for white children were mere excuses, while for colored children no provision was made by the State. The idea upon which school legislation was based, what little there was in operation, was, that the taxes paid by whites for education should be applied to the support of schools for white children, and colored people should be taxed to support schools for their own children. Against this principle, I protested at once. There was an association known as the Delaware Association for the Moral and Mental Improvement of Colored People, which carried on about all of the work done in education on behalf of the colored people in the State outside of the city of Wilmington. It was an excellent organization, managed chiefly by the Friends. In January, 1873, a convention of colored citizens to consider the subject of schools and other matters was held in Dover.

        In this convention resolutions were adopted pledging the people to continue agitation until school rights were obtained, and declaring that the Delaware Association was not able to furnish sufficient schools for all the people, and that it was the duty of the State to provide schools. The need of schools they said was glaring and imperative.

Summing up on the subject they said, "We specially ask now that equal school rights be afforded us. This we do not ask merely as an act of right, but as a crying necessity without which the future of our race appears almost utterly hopeless. This appeal is addressed not only to the sense of justice, but also to the higher sentiments of generosity and Christian philanthropy. It is well known, that as a people we are not able to sustain schools among ourselves sufficient to well educate our children. To impose upon us this burden is as unfair as it is unwise." The convention further said: "We are as willing and ready to pay our school tax as any other tax. Let it be levied and collected, and we will find no fault. We will share in common with all citizens, all the burdens of civil government, and ask only an equal share in its benefits." These sentiments were put in form by myself and unanimously adopted by the convention. I also offered the following resolution which was adopted: "That we hereby utter our abhorrence of the present penal code so far as it inflicts corporal punishment upon citizens convicted of crime, and regard the whipping post and pillory as blots upon our civilization and a standing reproach to our State."

        The opportuneness of this convention will appear when we recall that the State would be represented in Congress by a Republican member, and that the

Legislature of the State would also have within it Republican representatives who owed their election very largely to the colored voters who had stood by the party to a man. I had served in the campaign as a member of the State Central Committee, had written political documents for circulation, and had stumped the entire State in the interest of Grant and Wilson. It was entirely appropriate that such a convention should be held and that Daniel P. Hamilton, J. W. Layton, from Wilmington, and others, as well as myself should be found taking part in it.

        I made some use of the time in Wilmington in studying the French language under a professor from Paris. His system of teaching was most thorough, taking me just as he would have taken a French child, teaching me the alphabet, spelling and simple reading, until I mastered the mechanical elements of the language quite to his satisfaction. My wife also took music lessons from a German teacher. This study of the French language may have caused me to be specially impressible to an appeal which reached our church about this time from the people of San Domingo. From the fact that my grandmother had emigrated to that island in 1824 was also known to me, and floating fancy concerning her abode there, made me often think of visiting the place. From the above causes and perhaps from others, in the spring of 1873, after two years

of delightful service in Wilmington, I parted from the good people there to try missionary work in Haiti. In 1873 our conference met in Reading, Pa., and soon after its adjournment I prepared to start on my mission to Haiti. I held a commission as corresponding secretary of our Home and Foreign Missionary Society, and I was to explore the field and settle myself in the work there ultimately. I removed my family to New Jersey and sailed from New York for Port-au-Prince on June 5, 1873, on the English ship, Ariel, landing at my destination on the 13th. The day before landing, when nearing the shore I wrote in my journal: "Going to sea as passenger is enough to kill anybody. I cannot refrain from adding: Bless the Lord, Oh, my soul, and forget not all His benefits!" A seven-day sea voyage appeared to me then as an ordeal of important magnitude, since then I have spent six times that many days on shipboard on one trip: still sea life has its wearisomeness.

        I found in Port-au-Prince many interesting Christians, descendants of the emigrants of 1824. A short experience was sufficient to convince me that I had embarked upon a work with insufficient preparation and equipment; I did not know enough of the language; my health was not what it should have been for such a task; I was not provided with sufficient funds to establish myself in this strange land. The country was solidly Catholic, the language

French and Creole, the people far away in manner of thinking and in modes of life. My former experience among the freedmen of the South was of no value to me here. These people were not freedmen, but citizens of an independent country. My health giving down under the sudden change, and finding myself unprepared to cope with the unexpected conditions, I decided to return. My mission did little more than call attention to the difficulties and suggest the things necessary to be placed in the hands of the missionary going there. Bishop Shorter took the matter up in a thoroughly business-like way, and not long thereafter the Rev. Charles W. Mossell and his wife were properly outfitted and despatched to that field. Rev. Mossell and his wife labored there for several years. He was a man of heroic cast, accompanied by a talented and devoted wife. Both won high esteem among the Haitians, and both deserve a brilliant page in our missionary annals. The Honorable John Mercer Langston, our very able minister to that republic, in a memorable address paid a proper tribute to both these missionaries, but especially to Mrs. Mossell.

        Returning from Haiti. I was given an appointment in Sussex County, Delaware. This was done at the urgent request of the Republican leaders of the State. My circuit included Milford, Milton, Slaughter Neck, Georgetown and Lewes. It was

a most interesting field in many respects. The shipbuilding industry was carried on in Milford and Milton, while Lewes was the home of sailors and wreckers. Many of the members of my churches were ship carpenters. The forests of Delaware abounded in good, white-oak timber, and labor was cheap. The ox was still harnassed to wagon and plow. Illiteracy prevailed to an astounding extent among both white and colored people. It was reported that there was not a map nor a blackboard in a rural school in the whole county. Farming was primitive, and society in the feudal form. On Sundays, especially during the months of July and August, the colored people wandered from place to place to attend camp-meetings, usually going by stage loads, at a dollar each, in some poor white man's team. These meetings usually ran from Saturday night through Sunday night and were principally occasions for weird singing with the accompaniment of hand clapping. The preaching was of minor importance, the regular services were gone through with, but the "after-singing" was the feature. I remember one dark Sunday night when the rain was falling rapidly and the crude tents and shacks were flooded, the bedraggled men and women who were practically without shelter made the dismal woods ring with the monotonous song: "Oh, I'd rather be at home, Oh, my Lord."

        The song was truthful and spontaneous, and as the sonorous voices rang out in thorough accord, it spoke a philosophy which was doing its best with a bad condition. For myself the song expressed my feelings and I joined heartily in the sentiment if I did not in the utterances.

        It was on this circuit that I added to my stock of phrases two that were very valuable locally. They were, respectively, "Sawed him off" and "Taint in the wood." When a particular piece was wanted in the construction of the vessel the carpenter would take his pattern and lay it down on the pieces of timber offered. If the piece did not answer his purpose he would remark in vernacular, "Taint in the wood." This expression was frequently employed when speaking of individuals who failed to come up to expectations. A man in giving his opinion of one whom he might think unfit to fill a certain position, or perform a certain work, would with a shake of the head and a doleful sigh drawlingly say: "Taint in the wood." It was a phrase both convenient and expressive. The other "Sawed him off, there" came from the last act performed by the carpenters in launching the vessel. When all was ready, two carpenters began the solemn work of cutting away with the saw the last hold-back of the vessel. As soon as this was finished the ship began her journey down the "ways" to the water. This loosing the vessel was

called "Sawing her off." This phrase too was transcerred to current discourses and when any one terminated an unpleasant discussion by a remark indicating he was done with it, in relating the affair he would say, "I sawed him off there." This, too, was a great labor saving device in conversation, as most pet sayings are.

        Two of my sons were born in Delaware during my term of duty there at this timie. Later I served another period in the State, during which a third Delaware birth took place in our family. The two sons born during this period were Frank Rudolph, born in Wilmington in 1872; and Stephen Hunter, born in Milford in 1874. The former received his name Frank from the mother of Bishop Lee, his great aunt, who was nurse at the time of his birth. Her son, Bishop Lee, was named Benjamin Franklin, but was always called Frank; and it was to preserve this name that my son was given his name, Frank. Mrs. Lee endeared herself to our whole household by her remarkable efficiency and by her winsome manners, and it was a delight to us to accord her the honor of naming the baby; Stephen Hunter was named for my brother Stephen and for my sincere and esteemed friend, Chaplain W. H. Hunter, a man no less esteemed and revered by my wife than by myself. Stephen was a bright, sweet spirit, but he did not long stay with us; he was the first of our family to pierce the

veil leaving only a tiny trail of light as he swept to the other side. Doubtless he is full grown now with that sweet soul unfolded to its fulness unstained with sin. More will be related of this later on in my narrative. Frank Rudolph is now a well-known lawyer with a career expanding daily.

        In the fall of 1874 Bishop Shorter came to visit me in Milford, and with me went partly over the circuit getting a full conception of the field. While on the journey I noted that he expressed no opinions and made very few remarks. Coming home in the evening after a day of observation, he was seated in our dining-room-kitchen, while my wife was preparing supper. She was cooking oysters, freshly caught, of which the Bishop was very fond. I was out temporarily, and a call from the baby interrupted her work. While away but for a moment, the Bishop guarded the pan, lest the supper should be spoiled. As she came back to the stove I was coming in, just in time to hear the Bishop remark: "This is all foolishness." My wife, somewhat startled, replied: "What, Bishop?" "Sending Steward down here." The conversation went no further in this direction. Supper was prepared and passed off very pleasantly. The next morning the Bishop left still adding no further word on the subject he had so abruptly introduced the night before. I had been sent to Milford not by any

expressed wish of the people, but because the Republican leaders of the State desired my aid, and the Bishop had been able to see, through his visit, the proposition in the concrete, and gave his honest opinion of a transaction in which he himself had been the executive. He said of his own act, literally: "This is all foolishness."

        It was but a few days after this visit that I received a short letter, with no explanations, to come at once to Brooklyn and take charge of Bridge Street Church. Trained in the old school of itinerancy, I knew nothing but compliance; and it was the work of a short time to transfer myself and family from lower Delaware to Brooklyn. I was in fact transferred to the New York Conference, was to succeed Rev. James Morris Williams, famous as an able administrator, and a preacher of extraordinary power. The death of Henry J. Young had made it necessary to place Williams in New York and thus the vacancy in Bridge Street Church, which I was called to fill.

        My reception by the church was cordial, but finding a home for my family was a different matter. The church had no parsonage, and houses to rent in Brooklyn were not for colored people, and not for people who had children. I was an objectionable tenant in both these respects. I was colored, I had children, and boy children at that, and these were just of the right age to make their

mark in the house-world. Refused once by a lady landlord, I remarked that I hoped she would never hear herself addressed as mother. My shaft was well-aimed and pointed enough, but it struck nothing. Where its point was supposed to lodge there was naught but vacuum. At length I secured very inadequate apartments in the home of one of my members whose kindness made up as far as possible for the lack of conveniences. Cubans were coming to New York in numbers now and were well received. The real estate agents contrived to get many a colored family into a desirable house by the aid of the Cuban ruse. White tenants rather felt themselves honored to have Cubans near them, and these pseudo Cubans were usually of the upper castes, who did not make acquaintances among their neighbors. They were exclusive and seclusive, and were spoken of in subdued tones. They were Cubans.

        My pastorate of three years in Brooklyn contributed an entirely distinct chapter in my ministerial experience. My congregation consisted of two very widely separated elements. On the one hand I had a number of old citizens of Long Island with more or less of Indian heritage of blood and disposition, conservative and resolute in manner and method; on the other were the late arrivals from the South, principally from North Carolina, aggressive and progressive, but quite easily influenced

toward the right. Fortunately the relations between these eelments during my ministry were harmonious and cordial. Beginning my work, then, in December, 1874, I continued it until cut off by the statute of limitations, the three years' term allowed by the constitution as it then existed. My literary work while here included a series of articles upon Colored Society as I had observed it. They were not written on the questionaire plan but were the jottings of my own observations made in the homes of the people. They were not called "studies," nor did they claim to be scientific; nor did I use the word "sociology." Indeed in the seventies this word was but little used, yet so far as I have noted these articles were the first broad theological papers written with respect to the colored people of this country. They were quoted to some extent, and I was asked to have them published in book form. I also wrote and published several sermons, especially some upon the distinguished women of the Bible which I shall mention later. It was at this time that Professor Huxley came to this country and delivered his famous lectures on evolution. I reviewed his lectures in a Sunday-evening address before a very large congregation. I said in part: "Science is bold, daring and aggressive." Before it there is nothing sacred. Its business is to deal, not with sentiments and opinions, but with facts

and reasons. Its questions, eternally repeated, are How? Why? And yet man is a being of feeling and sentiment. He loves applause, friends and fame, and appears to do so almost without knowledge, and without intention."

        A great American writer upon the human mind has laid down as a necessity that a man must conceive a theory before he will go hard to work to investigate. He sets up his theory, or constructs an imaginary plan, and investigates with enthusiasm because he is devoted to it. If this is true, all investigation must be more or less partial, and subject to criticism and review. But before we assent to this view, let us inquire if the remark that the ideal must first be conceived before investigation is true. Columbus became a great navigator from an ideal of the world's surface which he had formed. How far the actual verified his ideal, perhaps we will never know. Newton by the boldest generalization imagined one universal law of gravitation, and proceeded to investigate. Imagination precedes investigation, and hence we are constantly learning. The man of science goes out with lamp and pick in his hand, and with his pet theory in his heart.

        The slaveholder read slavery in his Bible; the Christian hero regards the Bible as the safe-guard of true freedom. The blatant infidel declares it a book of fiction tinged with gross immorality. Mr.

Paine went so far as to say that he blushed for the honor of the Creator when he heard a book like the Bible called after His name. The pious Christian mother, as she sends her son out amid the corrupting influences of the world gives to him the Bible, and says: "My son, let this Book be the man of your counsel. Let your life be as pure as its teachings, and it will be as glorious as my highest hope and most fervent prayer can picture it." I once heard Margaret Campbell say that one could find in the Bible whatever he looked for, and illustrated by comparing it to a rich clover field in which grew a few thistles. The sheep entered and found an abundance of pasture, while another animal having long ears, came and sought, and found only the thistles.

        In a word, this appears to be a tendency in man: To predict according to his wishes and to investigate with enthusiasm over a pet theory, a theory in which he delights, and upon which he is ever ready to argue. When Shakespeare wrote the oft-repeated phrase--"The wish is father to the thought," he announced an almost universal principle of human nature. But with all this, scientific men are sometimes cowards. Science is bold, but scientists are not always so. I am led to this remark by the course pursued by the great Professor Huxley in his recent very able scientific lectures delivered in this land.

        First, I remark that in attempting to review Professor Huxley, bear in mind two things. His great learning, the result of years of patient investigation; and the careful consultation of the views of others who have searched over this vast field of science. I say, I bear these in mind and approach his work with a feeling of the very highest respect, and would shrink from it altogether, if I did not consider another writing in the same connection. Professor Huxley, notwithstanding his great learning and great reputation, is a man--and only a man. And what is man? Let us have the Professor's own definition. He says: "A man is little more than a mathematical point in duration--but a fleeting shadow" and then, quoting a Scriptural phrase, he says man "is a reed shaken by the wind" of forms. Of course the Professor is no exception. He may be a tall reed, but is nevertheless a reed. He may make a great shadow, but it is a shadow nevertheless. With this encouragment, I proceed to review Professor Huxley's remarks so far as they relate to religion.

        In the first lecture the Professor stated the subject and formally put out of court the theory that the world is eternal upon circumstantial evidence, and then proceeded to put out in the same way and upon the same evidence, the idea that the world was created in six days, which he was pleased to call the Miltonic hypothesis. The Professor turned

MRS. MARGARET STERLING

the shafts of his keen logic against John Milton, the great poet of his own land, apparently, but in fact, they were directed against Moses. There is a little similarity between their systems of creation. But the Professor thinks Milton has fewer friends than Moses, and proposes to assail the weaker of the two. This may be scientific, and among gentlemen of the Professor's plane may be perfectly allowable, but to ordinary people who are doomed to chew their own food, it lacks a littleof boldness. And here the question may be put: Did the Professor really assault Moses? Did he not confine himself in fact to the Miltonic theory quoting the poem and reviewing it? I answer, he did quote the account of creation from the poem, and not from Genesis, but he took occasion to rule out the Bible because of its indefiniteness, and because opinions differ as to its teachings. He ridicules the idea that the term translated "day" can mean anything else than twenty-four hours and so rules out Genesis in disgust, declaring it too flexible, and returns to Milton: And this ruling out of the Bible was greeted with applause. The people who say, "Keep the Bible in the public schools," applaud its exclusion from the court of science. It is put out of court, and Milton, the more respectable Milton, is made defendant. The Bible is pronounced an unintelligible and characterless witness, and goes from court disgraced amid the cheer of the prosecution.

Upon what evidence is this done? Answer: Circumstantial evidence. The Professor lays great stress upon circumstantial evidence, saying, in many cases, it is as good as, and in many cases even better than, testimonial evidence. I prefer to regard circumstantial evidence as corroborative. It clinches testimony, but is dangerous by itself.

        Huxley illustrates the value of circumstantial evidence by supposing a man found dying with just such a wound in his head as an axe would make. He says with due precaution you may conclude with the utmost certainty that the man has been murdered with an axe, and that it is impossible to believe otherwise than that the man has met his death by a blow from an axe. I make bold to say that it might turn out that the man was not murdered at all, but was killed by accident, and was not struck by an axe, but by some other instrument; but How do circumstances attest the origin of things? Here is a peach tree. I know it by its leaves, its bark, its general appearance, and its fruit. How came it here? It grew from a peach seed. I know, because I have planted peach seeds and have seen peach trees grow from them. It was planted say, five years ago as I judge by the size of its trunk, and is of a given variety.

        This is circumstantial evidence, this is the answer of science. But here comes the nursery-man. Let

us consult him: Did you plant a peach seed here five years age? No; I planted an apricot seed here six years ago. And this one remark of Revelation throws down the whole theory respecting that peach tree. Appearances are sometimes deceptive, no matter whether they are outside or inside. To us there are no other kind than outside. If we get beyond the outside it must be by reasoning, or by revelation. In the case before us, reasoning brings us to a peach seed; revelation brings us to an apricot seed, and no man would hesitate a moment to throw away his reasoning, and accept the statement. In a word the circumstantial evidence would vanish like a dissolving picture before the convincing light of testimonial evidence.

        But before we go into the subject proper, we must remove another point of the Professor's argument. He says, "We men of science get an awkward habit--"No," says he, "I won't call it that, for it is a most valuable habit--of refusing to say that we believe anything unless there is evidence for it, and we have a way of looking upon belief which is not based upon evidence not only as illogical, but as immoral." And this sentiment was applauded. Well now let us see where "We men of science" get to, by saying this. According to the Professor, evidence of circumstances may be related: if it consists of testimony, this may be repeated. In every case, evidence is something

that can be presented. Evidence is laid down as the foundation, and belief is built upon it. This is what "we men of science" would have us believe, but in experience the opposite is too often the case. We believe first, and look for evidence afterward, and believe some things from choice without evidence, and would scorn to look for evidence, illustrated by husband's belief in the honor of his wife. Upon examination we find all our beliefs more or less affected by our feelings. Man is not a mere Fairbanks scales. He loves and hates, respects and despises, and although trying to follow evidence is nevertheless unable to present the operation of these feelings. "I have no prejudices," says the Professor, "but follow evidence." Yet he is enthusiastically wedded to his theory of evolution.

        Now we have reached the Professor's central point--the theory of evolution, or Creation, a gradual work, a growth. A grand and magnificent theory, and shadowing forth much truth. Geology is a new science and its conclusions are subject to revision. The Bible says plants were first created; geology shows no record, but asserts that the next stage after the deposition of strata was the lifting up of continents and islands by a slow upheaval, and plant life would naturally follow. But geology shows us shell fish, crab and star fish, and as animal life depends upon vegetable life, we may

infer that grass, herbs and trees grew even before this lowest type of animal life apeared. 2. The Bible says next, The waters brought forth moving creatures having life and birds flying in the air. The age of fish and fowl, followed that of mollusks. Geology brings us relics of great fishes and marvelous reptiles. Professor Huxley says that in the carboniferous age, the age of fish and fowl, there is abundance of evidence of the existence of terrestrial animal remains. He further says that marine animals exist in all strata, and represent the earliest form of life. Further, he says, that no traces of birds appear at the time of the great fishes. He says again, that "Not one solitary species of fish which now exists is found in this period," and declares it utterly hopeless to attempt to harmonize the two records. Professor Mitchell says, "The most that can be derived from geologic discoveries is that animal and vegetable life were introduced at the same time. No vegetable life is found earlier than animal. Geology does show us, however, in the upper or latest strata the remains of animals that are now extinct and of animals that are still living."

        I proceeded to show the purpose of the Bible, and to maintain that existence of discrepancies might be merely the result of omissions, and that where there appeared to be contradictions, it was not yet proven that the records furnished by nature

had been read with infallibility. No one doubted the truthfulness of nature, but the readers of nature did not, and do not claim inspiration, and we are not bound to grant to them the dogma of infallibility.

        Although my pastoral labors were not light, I continued my studies in French under a professor who had taught in Berlin, and also took some lessons in the Berlitz School, determined to acquire the ability to converse in the language. I also studied Hebrew under Professor W. L. Roy, author of a Hebrew and English Dictionary; and Greek under the Rev. Rufus L. Perry, an excellent teacher of that language, continuing also my study of Latin. Beside these special studies I carried on a course of general reading. My notes for May 2, 1876, say, "Finished reading Humes' History of England, containing about 3,000 pages, and have commenced D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation." I was also to give a lecture on the Centennial, and on the 9th I record: "Got out bills, circulars and tickets for my lecture."

        Now came to us our first, real, deep sorrow, the loss of our baby before mentioned. We had rejoiced more than once at the coming of a new member from the Heaven of Love to our household, but we were now to witness the departure of one, Stephen Hunter, whom we had brought with us from Delaware, took the whooping cough with

other members of the family. Neither I nor my wife had any adequate idea of the terrible character of the malady until we saw our children passing through the life and death struggle which it brought on. All had it in a severe form; and all except the baby recovered. On him it lingered and was followed by tuberculosis. As none of my family had ever had this disease, I could not accept the fact of his serious illness, and both myself and wife were constantly looking for his recovery. At length the cough ceased, and the child looked up into our eyes so lovingly, and seemed to fix his pretty little mouth into a sweet smile, while a supernatural brightness beamed from his eyes. His mother and I were bending over him. With that smile still moulding his face into his death-mask, his gentle spirit passed onward to nearer kinship with the tender Heavenly Shepherd. We mingled our tears. Later we carried his little form to be buried in the old ancestral burial ground, first permitting my mother to look upon his face, who, on seeing that smile resting there still, said: "I am so thankful you have allowed me to see him." I cannot say "He sleeps," for I do not believe it: I will say he lives. My notes fritten a few days after record simply on the 25th: "We lost our little baby, aged fifteen months."

        We were now in the midst of a revival and my notes read: "We have taken in over a dozen members.

To-day I have seen two back-sliders reclaimed, and have talked to two sinners about saving their souls. I have visited to-day * * * (names five families). I feel to be engaged in the Master's work. At night went to church; five persons came forward for prayers; had one conversion." A few days later my record contains: "At night had a Love Feast, at which about one hundred persons spoke of Jesus and every one seemed very happy. My wife became very much filled with the Holy Ghost while we were singing a chorus, "Help me, my Lord; Help me, my Lord; When I'm in trouble."

        On several Sunday mornings I preached on distinguished women of the Bible including Eve, Rebekah, Deborah, Hannah and Esther.

        As Moody and Sankey were then opening their great work in this country, after their very successful tour in Scotland, I attended their meeting in Brooklyn and was deeply impressed with their earnestness and faith. Summing up my views on revivals I said, "But what is a revival?" It is when the church puts on strength and comes up to its duty; when the members walk closely with God, watch and pray, and labor with the ungodly in public and in private, and in response to these special efforts, sinners are converted to God. This is a revival, but this is the normal condition of the church, and the idea maintained, that this is the

revival standard, allows for a great falling off in ordinary times. I concluded my discourse on this subject as follows: "Revivals and revivalists aside, I say, let each man attend to his own. Let each man cultivate his own field, and when they say, Lo, here, or Lo, there, go not after them. Do your work and fill up the measure of your day in the work whereunto you are called. I see no signs of revivals in the New Testament church, nor do I believe that revivalists are any better prepared than the regular ministry. The revival needed in the church is one of earnest and solid Christianity, clothing votaries with truth, honesty and purity. Making them Christ-like in heart and life, and preparing them to enjoy Christ's society forever. No spasmodic raptures can take the place of this needed heroic reform."

        On Saturday, March 25, 1876, I write: "A fearful storm, all day. I had a funeral, of course, and got wet and took cold." Any pastor who has lived in Brooklyn will readily appreciate that entry, especially if he lived there fifty years ago. It means a long, cold ride, a wading through mud, and standing in the cold rain, a gloomy return to some point and then perhaps a walk home in the rain from the place where the carriage dropped you. Cramped and chilled you reach your own fireside, at length, but you do not throw off completely the effect of your exposure. My notes for the Sunday

following this funeral read: "Preached in the morning on Esther, and at night on the Transfiguration, but was very hoarse." The reader may note the phrase "of course," and find the cause in my record of the funeral on the rainy day. This was so common an occurrence, that long funerals and severe storms seemed to complement each other." Another interesting note occurs: "Went to church this morning accompanied by my whole family." This was my special pleasure, as during the baby's illness my wife, who occupied the place of the most sympathetic helper, had been unable to attend. One time when she was thus not able to go, she asked the boys who had preached. The little five-year-old answered: "Papa preached, and Mr. Bolden gave the answers." This Mr. Bolden was a very useful local elder who kept up the practice of frequently sanctioning what the preacher said, and Charlie thought he was answering for the whole church, as in Sunday-school class.

        Among the most interesting conversions in Bridge Street I might instance that of a young and very intelligent lady by the name of Thomasinia Hamilton. She was the daughter of Thomas Hamilton, the publisher of the Anglo-African during the 50's. Her father had given her a fine education, but had left her but little else save his name. Her own account of her conversion given to me at the time was as follows: "I fasted and prayed and read, and

finally, I concluded, if believing is all, I will just believe I am saved and go on about my work. As soon as I reached this conclusion, I was overwhelmed by the power of God and found myself crying out: I am saved!" Speaking in a meeting of Sunday-school teachers on the evening of May 16th, 1877, she said: "I thank God for my conversion. It was brought about by a sermon preached by the pastor from the text: "There remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God." She afterward married Rev. Jeter, a Baptist minister, and became the mother of a large family, nearly all of whom were fine musicians. For a long time they lived in Newport, R. I. The conversion of James Tappan and his wife was also remarkable. At the morning service, the Lord poured out His Spirit abundantly and these two people came forward accepting Christ, the husband soon afterward entering the ministry. In one of our very spiritual meetings a young white man became so overpowered and impressed that he regarded his experience as a call to devote his life thereafter to evangelistic work and became a traveling colporteur and preacher, distributing Bibles all over this country and Canada. His name was Schiverari.

        Our fifth son was born while we were in Brooklyn. My grandmother, then nearing her end, and hearing of the event, sent word to me that the boy should be named Benjamin or Levi. I did not answer

immediately and soon another message came inquiring if I had named the baby as requested. Leaving the matter to my wife, she at once directed that we send word that the boy was named Benjamin, and the message reached my grandmother before she left us. This was the name of her husband, my grandfather. My grandmother died at advanced age and had been for a long time an invalid, patient and saintly, so that her going occasioned no real sorrow, but within a few weeks my own mother followed her. She died June 5, 1877, aged only 57 years. Her last audible words were: "The Lord is my Shepherd." I have never been able to speak of my mother in public, on account of emotions which arise and close off utterance, but of her I can write: She was among the most intelligent and most holy of women. She was a teacher of the neighborhood Bible class, and a teacher in Sunday school, a fine story teller, and a reader of good books. Her death brought my second deep sorrow, but it came as a cloud with great streams of light breaking through. The departure of our babe had left a tiny trail of light into and through the cloud, the departure of my mother made such rifts that streams of golden glory came through to convert falling tears into the rainbow of hope.

        Our conference in 1877 met in Oswego, New York, and on its adjournment I was transferred

back to my old conference and appointed to a little church in South Philadelphia known as Zion Mission. My three years' tour in New York had been very agreeable and profitable. When I had been there only a few months the brethren expressed a desire that I should go as delegate to the General Conference but I declined. There were no candidates in those days in the New York or Philadelphia Conferences. There was not a brother in the ministry in those two conferences who could have been induced to print his picture on a circular and send it around among his brother ministers pleading for votes. Perhaps our men were not small of stature at that time and did not have to resort to Zachean methods, or they had not learned the climbing process. At any rate I can testify that during all my labors in those two conferences there was not a single case of a brother climbing a tree in order that his brethren might see him. I grant that this is hardly fair use to be made of the case of Zacheus, for his climbing was that he might see Jesus, but our brethren climb that their good works and dazzling proportions may be seen of their brethren. The whole program may be summed up in one sentence upon the part of nine out of every ten of those who are bidding for the votes of their brethren, and that sentence is one among those earliest formed in childhood days: "I want to go."

        During my pastorate in Brooklyn my nearest associate was Rev. Jeremiah Beulah Murray, a most devout and earnest minister, abounding in zeal, labor and sacrifice. He was in charge of what was known as Fleet Street Church, a church originally composed of members who had left Bridge Street Church under the leadership of R. H. Cain in 1863. Many of the members of this new organization were from South Carolina and the church had progressed rapidly under the pastoral care of Messrs. Cain, Woodlin, Gould, R. F. Way man and now Murray.

        Murray was of a very fervent temperament and the revival spirit ran high in his church. Unfortunately for himself and for the church he quite early fell into an error regarding a bungling piece of church legislation and thus unwittingly became involved in a fiery controversy with his board of trustees. The General Conference of 1872 on motion of Rev. H. J. Young had adopted an amendment to the Discipline within the new section defining the duties and powers of the Official Board reading as follows: "The Official Board shall have a treasury in which the class money, collections for the poor, and all other collections except special collections for the trustees shall be deposited." This legislation, although worded very awkwardly, was very clear to me in one way, and very clear to Brother Murray in another way. As the trustees

were not members of the Official Board, and as they were custodians of the church property, and were responsible for the financial obligations of the church, and had always had a treasury into which all money collected by them was paid, and from earliest times had been accustomed to make general collections, I could not think this legislation meant to overturn the established financial policy of the church by requiring the trustees to deposit their money into a treasury over which they had no control. They were responsible to the people as to the use of money; and in my mind it could not relieve them merely to say that they had paid it over to another treasury. It was clearly stated that the trustees were no part of the Official Board. The Official Board had no control of money collected within its own jurisdiction and the amendment intended to emphasize that only, but not to extend its scope so as to take in any collections beyond the fundamental plan; certainly not those made by the trustees. It should have read, "except the collections made by the trustees." That was its meaning as subsequent legislation has proven. The section now reads: "The treasurer shall hold all moneys obtained under the auspices of the stewards and disburse the same on order of the Board." Brother Murray knew that trustees' collections were divided into "regular collections" and "special collections"; the regular collections occurring at every service;

while the special collections came as occasion might demand. These regular collections he included under the phrase of "all other collections" and directed that they be deposited in the treasury of the Official Board to be administered by the Stewards. I tried to reason with him on this measure but found him invincible. This misinterpretation of the law was fatal to both the church and the minister.

        Wrangling, lawsuits, actual fights, heart-aches and heart-burnings followed. The church split, friendships were broken, religion scandalized and an earnest, pious minister with a character pure as light and a heart abounding normally with love and good-will went to an early grave, wrecked by an error of the head and believing himself to be a martyr for principle. To detail the circumstances of the dismal struggle would be neither profitable nor interesting. All available methods were resorted to by the trustees, to oust the pastor, who, sustained by a party devoted to him took up his abode in the church living there day and night for weeks. The trustees had no authority to lock him in the church, and could get no opportunity to lock him out. Finally an order from the court was obtained enjoining him from living in the church and as soon as he had cleared the doors the trustees posted notices that the church would be closed for repairs and that due notice would be given as to

its opening. Murray and his folowers were thus effectually on the outside and were compelled to seek a new place of worship.

        Out of this storm and stress developed eventually St. John's A. M. E. Church, of Brooklyn. This was the ultimate harvest. But at what cost! Fleet Street Church was lost to the connection and the strain upon Rev. J. B. Murray, robust, whole-hearted and enthusiastic as he was, had been too great and a life of great promise was brought to a sudden close. Although restless and energetic, he died in great peace and in full and blissful hope, free from all malice, strife or envy. A soldier for righteousness as he saw it, and a humble and devout follower of Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER VI.

WORK AT ZION MISSION CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA:

        Rev. John H. Inskip and Mrs. Inskip; The Protestant Episcopal Divinity School--Experiences there--Duplicated by Rev. L. J. Coppin. Delegate to General Conference of 1888. Case of Rev. R. H. Cain. Resolution against separate schools in Philadelphia. Second pastorate in Wilmington, Del. Dedication--Bishop Brown's "Episcopacy." The mixed school question. Appointed to Union Church, Philadelphia.

        In the Spring of 1877 I was transferred to the Philadelphia Conference and appointed to a little church known as Zion Mission, situated on Seventh Street just below Dickerson Street, Philadelphia. The church, bearing the name of mission, was nevertheless a station, responsible for the support of its pastor. The membership was less than a hundred; the people not wealthy, and the building very inconvenient. The congregation was made up largely of people who had moved into the city from the lower part of Delaware, who were sober and industrious, and who had large families; consequently there was good opportunity for Sunday-school work.

        I took charge of the church formally on the first Sabbath in June, 1877, finding there three local deacons: Thomas Jones, William G. Cooper, and Francis P. Main; two local preachers: Benjamin Syres, and Israel Harmon; and ninety members enrolled,

although only sixty-nine had been returned to the Confeerence as active. The Sunday school was large in proportion to the church membership; and Brother Benjamin Syres was superintendent. The school had no organ, but it had an excellent chorister in the person of Mrs. Hester Jane Williams, who was blessed with a strong and thrilling voice and who sang with precision. One of the first steps was to procure an organ. Later during the month of August I organized a Sunday School Missionary Society of eighty-seven members, with Mrs. Wilson as president. At the first meeting sixty-seven of the members paid their dues. Later we remodeled the church building. I remained in this charge from 1877 to 1880, and although my support was barely sufficient to keep the wolf from the door, and my family large and growing, I count those three years among my happiest. The people were cordial and loving, and my wife made here some choice friendns who clung to her whole-heartedly, who shared with her in the care of the children and home, and remained faithful to her to the last.

        Two very important experiences came to me during my three years' stay in Zlon Mission Church. The first of these was my coming in contact with Rev. John Inskip and his holy wife, Mrs. Inskip. These two were sincere professors and preachers of the doctrine of Christian Perfection, or Holiness.

They were earnest and real, free from all sham and pretense; no self-seeking or greed of "filthy lucre" marred their heart-searching efforts. They were devoted to their one work and were blessed of God. By them I was gloriously helped. With them in their exalted work were associated Rev. R. B. Johns, Theodore Gould, Enoch Stubbs and George C. Whitfield, all earnest seekers after the fullness of God as promised in His Word. Nearly all of these wothies who walked with God here, serving Him in the beauty of holiness have gone on to be nearer to Him--nearer to the Great White Throne. And the heavenly-voiced sisters, who sang their experiences in hymns of joy! They too, have gone on to sing praises in "nobler sweeter songs" in the bright forever "where the surges cease to roll." May heaven keep their memories sweet, and grant that their spirits may still call us to that higher and holier life!

        The second experience was as a student in the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church in West Philadelphia. With a letter from Bishop Payne I went to Bishop Stevens of that church and readily obtained permission to join the Junior Class. Here many of my erroneous notions were corrected. I found the professors men advanced in years, ripe in scholarship, and profoundly Christian. I soon discovered that my teacher in Biblical learning, George Emlen Hare, D. D., father of Bishop Hare,

was a man of deep spirituality, a believer in the life of God within the soul, and a hater of all shams.

        Doctor Clement C. Butler was gifted with a fervid eloquence, a loving disposition and was a man of happy devotion, worshipping God with delight. He prayed with the book, of course, but one could feel that his soul soared far above the words. The words were for the assembly, but his soul talked with God. Doctor Butler read prayers it is true; but I always felt that Doctor Butler prayed. Doctor Meir-Smith, our Professor in Homiletics and Pastoral Care, was a wholesome, well-fed Christian man, who believed the preacher should be human and masculine. Doctor Goodwin the subtle, master of all the turns in logic, was nevertheless most reverent in things divine. In a word, I found genuine religion, among the Episcopalians.

        The class I entered was composed wholly of college men, excepting myself. I had never attended even a graded school; never entered a high school as student; never approached a college. I entered the Hebrew class without informing either professor or student that I had studied it before although at the time of entering the class I held a certificate of proficiency from an eccentric Hebrew author and teacher. I took a brief course of intensive Greek instruction from a Yale man, who was the most exacting teacher I ever knew; I then was accepted as full student and was soon at the head

of my class. At the close of my career in the seminary, aside from the diploma of the institution, the dean, Doctor Goodwin, gave me a letter in which he quoted from his report the following: "In the Senior Class, Mr. Steward, a minister of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, who now completes his full three years' course with us has particularly distinguished himself. His essays are of the very highest order, both for style and for philosophical and theological accuracy and reach. I need only add that I have had few men under my instruction, in any classes who have so thoroughly mastered the subjects and system of Christian Theology as Mr. Steward has. Of Mr. Steward's character as a Christian and a man nothing need be said. I will only say that he has commanded the respect and secured the high regard of all here with whom he has come in contact." The entire faculty signed a testimonial containing the following:

        "For character, demeanor, scholarship, fidelity and ability he takes the very highest rank. His accurate thinking, his range of study and his felicity of expression combine to promise distinguished usefulness in any sphere of labor to which he may be called." I insert this record of success in the seminary for the encouragement of men who have not been so fortunate as to have college preparation. An exact reproduction of my experience is found in that of Bishop Coppin. I can exhibit this

best by quoting from a letter written by him June 10, 1887. He says: "Yesterday was commencement, and I pulled through. My place was third in a class of six, which began three years ago with nine. Doctor Hare said to the examiners in the presence of the other members of my class that few men were capable of doing the work I had done in three years. The dean says I actually stood third and comparatively stood first; i. e., granting that my class was made up of Harvard, Princeton and Unlversity of Pennsylvania men, who had nothing to do but attend to their studies, and I with no regular preparation, and a church to carry. Pardon the mention of myself, but remember you were my early teacher, and you recommended me. My constant aim has been to do you credit and I thought you would like to hear from me at the end of the race." Here was a duplication of my own experience and of course the letter gave me a thrill of joy, and affords me pleasure still. I should state also that while taking my seminary course, I also took a course in elocution in the National School of Elocution and Oratory in the evenings. Among the lecturers in this course was the veteran actor James E. Murdock.

        My work at Zion Mission terminated in the Spring of 1880 and I was then assigned to Frankford,

at which place I remained one year. In the Conference of 1879 I had been elected by the almost unanimous vote of the brethren as delegate to the General Conference, although I had not desired to go. The General Conference met in St. Louis and was very little like the orderly body that met in Philadelphia in 1864. Nor was it as well balanced as that of 1872. I had not met that of 1876 and consequently was not prepared for the manifestations of disorder which broke out so frequently. My room mate was the affable H. J. A. Knight, then a very promising young minister who soon finished his course. I myself had become somewhat restive under what I considered the harsh personal rule of some of our Bishops; but this conference convinced me that this kind of rule was a necessity.

        My part in the General Conference of 1880 was not very conspicuous, for I was at that time finishing my course in the seminary and was keeping up studies through the aid of a fellow student who furnished me outlines of the class work by mail. A very important case came up involving an inquiry into the action of the Bishops in removing from the position of Corresponding Secretary of the Missionary Society, Rev. R. H. Cain, former member of Congress from South Carolina. The Board of the Home and Foreign Missionary Society holding its meeting in Bethel Church, Baltimore, on May

3, 1879, resolved that as: "Rev. R. H. Cain, member of Congress from Charleston, S. C., who was appointed Corresponding Secretary of the Home and Foreign Missionary Society at the last Quadrennial Conference had failed to fulfil the duties of the office, his appointment be annulled and the subject referred to the Board of Bishops to fill the vacancy." (Gen'l. Conf. Min. 1880, p. 171.) Cain on learning this, went to his old Conference and was elected delegate to the General Conference, and there instituted proceedings against the action of the Bishops, who acting on the request of the Missionary Society had appointed J. M. Townsend as his successor. He proceeded to bring his case up as an appeal; the Bishops demurred on the ground that there had been no previous trial and conviction; nor had there been any ruling made by a bishop which might afford basis for an appeal. I was of counsel for Cain and argued that the case should be heard. The motion to hear the case was carried by a very large majority. In speaking of this vote to an experienced lawyer in the Congregation he remarked that in the end the Bishops would win. As I was maintaining Cain's right, I asked him whiy he thought so. He replied: "The morals are with the Bishops, and you will see in the wear and tear of the case that the morals will hold, and the appeal will fail." And so it turned out; one member of Cain's counsel abandoned the case

before it came to a vote, and I finally grew so worn and weary of my up-hill job in defending the man who had no defense, that I appeal to the Conference "in the name of everything honorable" to let the matter come to a vote and be done with it. The vote came; the lawyer's prediction was verified; one hundred and forty-nine voted that the Bishops did right in recognizing the vacancy, and in filling it by appointment, and only thirty-two stood by Brother Cain. Yet R. H. Cain was one of "the giants of the Church" as was said at that time; and within a few days after this signal defeat he was elected Bishop. The action showed that many of the voters were capable of condemning an action without entertaining prejudice against the author of the action. Doctor Cain, as a member of Congress, and engaged almost constantly in the affairs of State, was admittetd to have forfeited his right to hold an office, the duties of which it was claimed he did not discharge; and his going to the South Carolina Conference and accepting an election to the General Conference, when as Corresponding Secretary he was a member of the General Conference ex-officio, it was argued, was an acquiescence on his part in what the Missionary Board had done. While the Conference by its action decided that the Missionary Board and the Bishops were justified in what they had done, their subsequent

action showed that Doctor Cain was still well established in their esteem.

        Returning from the General Conference, I began my work in Frankford, laboring there one year. My experiences here were not so agreeable, chiefly on account of the wretched school conditions. I found a poor little "colored school" to which I was expected to send my children. As I did not expect to remain there I did not care to precipitate a fight; but after entering a field elsewhere the Frankford Newspaper kindly referred to me as follows: "The Rev. T. G. Steward, pastor of Bethel A. M. E. Church, Wilmington, who took an active part in Delaware politics last fall by advocating mixed schools from his pulpit (a plain lie) has been semi-officially notified by the trustees of his church that they would learn with pleasure of his acceptance of a call in some other locality. The same Rev. T. G. Steward, when he came to Frankford, applied for an order to admit his children in the Henry Herbert School, and was greatly dissatisfied with his people when he found they declined to assist in overturning the existing order of things." In the succeeding Chapter when I come to relate the story of my second pastorate in Wilmington, I will explain this whole affair.

        One interesting and slightly humorous incident occurred during my stay in Frankford. One Sunday morning I chose for the text of my sermon:

"Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins."--(Numbers 16: 26.) I related the story of Korah Dathan and Abiram's rebellion and drew the natural lessons from it, but said nothing whatever upon domestic relations. The attitude and expression of countenance of a female member of my congregation were such as to cause me to remember her manner immediately, when I learned the next morning that she had fled during the night leaving her husband bewildered as to her destination. I subsequently learned that her home had been an unhappy one and that she had applied, as she ought, the advice of Moses to the Children of Israel, to her own case. She reflected rapidly, and acted decidedly, departing from the tent ere the rising of the next day's sun. Of her after life I have never learned.

        In the Philadelphia Conference in 1878 while Bishop Payne was presiding, the following report written by myself was unanimously adopted--not one vote was found against it:

        "In many parts of the country, and notoriously in this city, the sad spectacle of Colored Schools is still seen. The policy which founds and perpetuates these schools, either with the consent of the Colored people themselves, or against their protest, deserves nothing from the Christian patriot but the severest censure. In whatever light viewed, it is

class leglislation inconsistent with pure republicanism, is opposed to the idea of a common humanity, and utterly irreconcilable with the principles of the Christian faith.

        If it should be objected that we who protest against Colored schools, maintain Colored churches, the answer is: Public schools are public benefits, established by law and supported from public money, while a church is a purely volunteer association. Men in this country are free to choose among several denominations, and colored people are not obliged to join any particular church though it may be called colored. Between the Colored church and the Colored School there exists the wide difference which exists between choice and compulsion. The whole power of the State is invoked to force the colored people to send their children into school-houses, badged with a disgrace as incurable as the ancient leprosy.

        Against these separate schools your committee desires to protest in the strongest possible terms, and would especially invoke the Christian sentiment of this great city, and urge it to rise above the prejudices bequeathed by the demon slavery, and throw open the doors of all its public schools to the children of all the people alike."

        Not long since a minister asked one of our Bishops how he could maintain a colored church and oppose colored schools. The bishop's reply was:

"The church is one thing; the school is another; and turned away." The minister related the matter to me and hinted that the bishop's answer indicated dotage; while to me the suspicion of constitutional dotage lies in the inconsequential question to which the bishop's answer is absolutely complete.

        In the spring of 1881 I began my second pastorate in Wilmington, following Rev. C. C. Felts, and found a new church building partially erected. It was a substantial modern brick building, and when I arrived, was enclosed, and the basement finished, and the people were worshipping in it. Finding it impossible to let the completion of the building on contract, I began the work on July 25th, employing three carpenters, one being Elias Chase, formerly of Frankford, where I had labored the year before. During the course of the work we raised ouside of current expenses for completing the building a little over $1,800 and were obliged to borrow over $2,000, as the work altogether cost us a little over $4,000. The church was ready for dedication April 23, 1882.

        As the thought of dedication had been in the minds of the people for a long time, plans now began to be proposed and discussed, and all were agreed that the preacher on the occasion should be Bishop Campbell. No other name was even suggested; nor was any thoughth expressed but that the bishop of the district would be in complete harmony with this

wish. The district idea had not taken definite form in the minds of either the people or the ministry of the older conferences; and none of the officials of the church, nor myself either, thought of the matter, as we planned our dedication services. We thoughth any bishop within reach was at liberty to accede to our request. And so we invited Bishop Campbell to preach, the invitation was accepted and the matter published. We were still believers in the general doctrine that our bishops might "travel at large" and were free to serve wherever they might be needed.

        Suppposing all was agreeable and taking for granted that Bishop Brown and Bishop Campbell, who were so frequently together, could have no misundrstanding, I wrote to Bishop Brown, informing him of the arrangements made and inviting him also to be present to take part in the service. The whole affair as I now see it was a blunder on my part. I should have begun with Bishop Brown; but in my mind Bishop Campbell was familiar with the work; was near at hand; was senior; and was the preacher wanted. Bishop Brown saw the subject in a very different light from the way it appeared to me, and replied to my letter in a spirited manner evolving entirely new ideas of our episcopacy. I appreciate now as I did then, the feeling under which he was laboring when he wrote among other things as follows:

        "You know, or ought to know, that it is the duty of the Bishop of a District to dedicate his churches--to ordain all preachers in his work; to superintend all the work in his District; and a minister who unstands himself will not infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of the Presiding Bishop.

        "Possibly you have yet to learn that the Bishop has rights which the clergy cannot abrogate and this is one of his rights; and no other Bishop has a right to interfere with such duties, unless there is an invitation extended through a brother Bishop. Nor will any other Bishop go into another Bishop's District to officiate in any duty that is exclusively his brother Bishop's. I hope you will learn that in this world and in the African Methodist Episcopal Church there are those who have rights and those rights must be respected if we would have peace."

        I had lately graduated from an Episcopalian Seminary, and I could see that what the Bishop wrote accorded well with the Episcopalian idea of diocesan episcopacy. But I knew it was too late to argue; and it would do no good to write. I left everything and went to see the good Bishop, and gentleman as he always was, it was not long ere the troubles were like rough places in the linen--ironed out into a smoothness that left no "spot or wrinkle or any such thing."

        Bishop Campbell came and preached as he only could preach on such an occasion; the revival spirit

BISHOP J. C. CAMPBELL

was high in the church and the day was successful. We were then receiving members frequently and penitents were found at every service.

        The floating debt at dedication including the price of the organ was about $2,000 and the mortgage $8,000.

        Rev. C. C. Felts, who later graduated in medicine from the Hahnemann College of Philadelphia, had introduced into our church the method of organizing his congregation into groups or sections under enthusiastic leaders. This was to our ministry as the phalanx was to the Macedonians. It was the method that brought success. Whether Doctor Felts learned it from some one else, as did Philip in respect to the phalanx which he undoubtedly acquired from Epaminondas, is not known. It is highly probable that the three years' army service which Rev. Felts had passed through in the Civil War, was the base out of which his efficient organization was evolved. He had his congregation organized into ten tribes of Israel, the most famous of which was the tribe of Dan, led by Daniel P. Hamilton, a most loyal churchman, a patriotic and valued citizen and a man of talent, skill and industry, possessing qualities of head and heart of the highest order.

        In the Campaign of 1882 it was understood that the Republican Party favored the extension of public-school privileges to colored children on equal

terms with those accorded to white children. The colored people themselves had in their meetings asked, in fact demanded, that their children should share in the common school fund; but nothing whatever was said about colored and white children occupying the same schoolhouses. There was no thought toward what was called "mixed schools." Up to that time outside of Wilmington, and possibly one other place, the colored schools received no support from the public taxes. Indeed I am not sure that even in Wilmington the Colored School received anything from the public-school fund. Our contention was for schools supported from public money. The Democrats taking advantage of the Republican Party's expressed willingness to aid in the education of colored children, charged that party with having the purpose to establish "mixed" public schools. This charge so frightened our candidates that they came out in most cowardly denials and denounced the idea of the so-called "mixed schools." I was a member of the State Central Committee and had taken an active part in the campaign. On the publication of these manifestoes on the part of our candidates I immediately withdrew from the campaign, and left the committee. This action naturally caused some feeling in the church, although nothing like a rupture. Conference would

come on in May and I expected to leave at that time.

        The latter part of April the Gazette, of Wilmington, published that there was trouble in Bethel Church because of the "position taken by the pastor on the mixed school question." In the same article the reporter who had visited me quoted me correctly as follows: "The Congregation understands my views on the school question thoroughly and I have no reason for wishing to change them."

        I then wrote the News the following letter which was published in the next day's issue:

"To the Editor of the Morning News:

        "Sir: You report a fact when you say that some of my congregation have been made dissatisfied with me because I advocate the equal rights of the people. I believe that in this country there ought to be one set of public schools in which all the children should be educated. These have been my views publicly expressed for the last ten years. I see no reason to change them. That unprincipled politicians induce my people to oppose me on this account in order to increase their own value in the political market is a fact which I regret but cannot alter and am not responsible for. The crime of maintaining genuine Republican doctrine--the doctrine that Sumner, the acknowledged idol of the colored people, maintained, has become an offense

to the pious colored people of this city according to the statements of those who claim to represent them, by the side of which theft, adultery and drunkenness are mere pecadillos. I wish to say that I have a better opinion of the colored people of Wilmington than this. I believe that they have been misled, and are misrepresented by trading politicians--politicians who would sell me for old rags if thereby they could increase the value of their political charms.

        I am willing to risk myself among the rank and file of Wilmington's colored people and am not afraid to trust Bethel Church. I have spent on the church since being here $6,921.53 and have raised and paid on this account $4,719.84 or over $2,350 for each of the two years I have been here. I superintended the work of building, myself, and am willing to leave my record for faithfulness to the interest of the church to the hands of all the men who worked in or around the building. I have received over one hundred members into the church, kept up insurance and paid $865.92 interest. We have raised all told in the church in actual cash during the two years, $8,200. No two years in the history of the church can show a similar record, and no church of colored people in the State ever did the like.

(Signed) "THEOPHILUS G. STEWARD,

        Thus ended my second term of service in Wilmington with no change whatever in the hearts of many staunch friends, and no change in my own feelings toward the enterprising colored people of that city.

        In Delaware, three of my children were born: Frank Rudolph and Stephen Hunter (mentioned earlier in this book; and on April 23rd, 1881, Gustavus Adolphus. On the birth of this son I wrote immediately the following lines:

THE NEW BABY

                         Tiny, helpless, chubby and fat
                         Troublesome, fussy and "Cross as a Cat,"
                         Eyes half closed and face all awry,
                         A mouth ever ready to sniffle and cry,
                         Hands doubled tightly into two little fists,
                         Arms that seem nothing but elbows and wrists,
                         There's but little of him--but then he's a boy
                         His father's pride and his mother's joy.

                         He enters our world from the great nowhere
                         And finds a warm welcome and a mother's care,
                         There are hands to nurse him, and hearts to love,
                         And a home somewhat akin to that home above,
                         The new babe's entrance is truly blest,
                         And a new place is opened in the family nest.

                         What matters it though that home is poor,
                         And the mouths to fill were seven before,
                         And father and mother toiled early and late
                         To find bread for seven! There's enough for eight!
                         The "poor man's blessings" crowd around the board,
                         Every new-comer welcomed as "from the Lord."
                         Like stairsteps they rise from young to old
                         Like links interclasped in a chain of pure gold,
                         They bind and are bound in turn each one,
                         From the oldest daughter to the youngest son;
                         While the ends of the chain meet in father and mother,
                         And around the ring stands each sister and brother:
                         The new babe's a new link, and though "Cross as a Cat"
                         He's made our gold chain longer, he's welcome for that.

        The Conference of 1883 met in Bethel Church, Philadelphia, Bishop Brown presiding. Election for delegates took place and for the first time in my experience the effects of Episcopal electioneering came into view. Up until that time neither in the Philadelphia nor in the New York Conference had I discovered any soliciting or electioneering on the part of the men who were chosen to go to the General Conference. There were absolutely no candidates. Suddenly in 1883 all this was changed, and the Bishop had stimulated ambition, which in

itself was not harmful; perhaps it was better that more interest should be aroused, although emulation, rivalry, and even strife should result. The election of delegates to the General Conference was the complete overthrow of those who had been accustomed to lead. New men, good men indeed, were selected; but it seemed strange that such men as Gould, Shaffer and Felts should have been left out. I went down with the rest; and the newly-imported steam roller made the walking good over all of us. The lay-delegates were F. P. Main and Isaiah C. Wears, both remarkably able men. The first of these became involved in a controversy with the Bishop as to his right to represent the laity, he being a local deacon in the church. Mr. Main, however, in reply showed that the Bishop himself had recognized him as a layman, and had nominated him as a layman for membership in the board of trustees of the Book Concern.

        The second important test came to me at the close of the Annual Conference of 1883 when I was appointed to the pastoral charge of Union Church, situated then on Coates Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

        Before leaving my Wilmington ministry I might relate that in completing that important church I employed three carpenters, a foreman (white) named Gould, to whom I paid three dollars a day; a second man, Elias Chase (colored) to whom I paid two dollars and a half a day, and a third man,

Gamble (white), to whom I paid two and a quarter dollars a day. They were all good workmen, the two former being especially expert. The material we used in finishing consisted of the best the yards could furnish. The men were paid weekly and I required them to sign the pay roll which I still have. One man who secured a contract for a large amount of work promising a contribution of fifty dollars, failed to keep his promise and denied having made it. His promise was made to me, and it had nothing to do with awarding the contract, but I was unable to prove it, and he positively denied it, and as he was a highly respectable man of the city and white, of course his word prevailed. The painting was put up for bidders and several came and looked it over, and were preparing their bids. One came, looked the prospective job over, and then proceeded to give me advice as follows:

        "Now, I wouldn't let every Tom, Dick and Harry and Jack-leg painter bid on the job. I would confine it to respectable painters."

        To this I agreed; and as I was sure all who were bidding on it so far were respectable; and as he was a stranger to me, I said: "I know all who have looked at the job so far are respectable, and can vouch for all but you." He did not bid, rightly understanding, I suppose, that to do so would be merely casting away labor and time.

CHAPTER VII.

THE NEW UNION CHURCH:

        Annual report of Trustees--Conference of 1884--Case of John E. Davis. General Conference of 1884--Bishop Brown's "Dogmas"--Sermon on outcome of Cleveland--Blaine campaign. Remarkable Conversion of young lady: "Oh it is grand to be trusting."--Resolutions--Transfer to Metropolitan Church, Washington, D. C.

        My appointment to Union A. M. E. Church, in Philadelphia, I have always regarded as the supreme test of my life. Not long before the conference I had preached there and had expressed the wish that after the people were entirely clear from the church the building might fall down and thus go out of existence. It was such an ungainly, unsightly piece of architecture that I wished for it only the most effective obliteration. Of course my expressed wish offended many of the congregation who were wedded to their old building by long association and by memories of precious seasons of grace they had experienced within it.

        Then again, the church had been served for two years by Rev. J. W. Beckett, a very earnest and popular preacher, always full of good cheer and a remarkably sweet singer. His singing was

perhaps more effective than his preaching. Thousands have been cheered by his songs, and hundreds were led to the altar and into joyous fellowship with Christ by the same instrumentality. At this conference in 1883, there was a petition from the united church for his return presented by a delegation of the official board. The people of the church in Wilmington which I was leaving were also asking and negotiating for the services of Brother Beckett to fill the place that I had previously held. This then was the situation. Union Church unanimously and earnestly wished the return of its pastor; Wilmington did not wish the return of hers. I was in a measure discredited; while Brother Beckett was thoroughly established in the affections and confidence of his people. He was wanted by his people; I was not wanted by mine.

        Without any consultation with me the Bishop read out my appointment to Union Church. A murmur of disapproval greeted this announcement while that of Brother Beckett for Wilmington brought forth a round of applause. It was my intention not to go immediately to the charge; but my friend, Rev. W. H. Davis, who knew the people and who also knew me, advised me to get on the ground at once. I followed his advice and thus prevented a possible, if not probable, "lock out."

        On meeting the official board I found great dissatisfaction.

The men were not only grieved over the loss of their pastor, but were incensed because as they claimed, their petition had been ignored and the wish of the church treated with contempt. I sympathized with them heartily and truly; but assured them that my appointment to them was not of my seeking in any way, and that I had nothing to do but come; and now inasmuch as we were thrown together let us hope, by the will of the Lord. Would they be willing to join in the common work of the church? Will we accept the situation as it is, join hands and go forward? After full and free outpouring of grievances all but two of the members agreed to co-operate for the forward movement of the church.

        It was on a Sunday evening that I was presented to my congregation. The chief of the stewards, recognized as especially the pastor's steward, at the close of the services requested the congregation to come forward and be introduced to the pastor. He also asked that my wife come and stand with me that the people might get acquainted with her at the same time. My wife who was seated in the congregation was unknown, and when it was proposed that she come forward the lady sitting beside her said: "Why, I understand he does not allow his family to associate with the people." My wife replied:

"Well, that is strange; I never heard that of him."

        It was soon time for her to leave her seat and come forward where nearly all the women of the congregation met her individually; but as she remarked to me afterwards with a twinkle in her eye, the lady who had talked with her while in her seat did not come.

        Soon after my arrival a great church wedding was planned for, and the former pastor invited to celebrate it. I was ignored altogether. I directed the sexton to open the church and prepare it, but to keep the pastor's study locked, and if asked to open it to say that the pastor had ordered it closed. This act of mine was inquired into by some of the members, as the invited pastor naturally wished to use the study. I never explained but replied: "A man is sometimes obliged to leave his hat in his seat in the cars in order to retain his seat." I think my reply was understood as there were no more cases of ministers officiating in my church except through my invitation.

        I found here a fine Sunday school, a well-organized church, an overflowing night congregation, but a very small Sunday morning congregation. The former pastor said if we got two dozen out in the morning we might consider it a fine congregation. I set about remedying this at once by preaching every Sunday morning and advertising. In a few

weeks my morning congregation ran up to over seventy. Then I began to cast about to make my earlier wish good in the way of securing a new church building.

        It required much conciliatory effort and much prayer and leaning upon God to change hostile minds into a state of earnest friendship, but by God's grace the work was accomplished in a surprisingly short time. Brothers Walter P. Hall, Robert Jones, W. H. Amos, "Father Turner," the older and younger Brothers Simpson, Isaiah C. Wears, John Clowers and a host of excellent women whose names are recorded in the Book of Life, came up to the Lord's cause gloriously. I must mention especially Sister Hall, wife of Walter P. Hall, and Mrs. Wears and her daughters. It was through the earnest efforts of these that the final vote of two thirds of the members was secured for the purchase of a solid church building and parsonage on Sixteenth Street, just below Fairmount Avenue.

        The opportunity was presented to me by Mr. Isaiah C. Wears and I at once visited the place and on examination considered the building, ground and location desirable for our congregation. During the month of December, 1883, we took possession of our new church but did not open it immediately for worship. The choir from my former church in Wilmington gave in it a very successful concert

conducted by Miss Esther Armstrong, one-half of the proceeds, amounting to $74.89, coming to the church, the other half going to the choir. Soon after the opening of the church for service Frederick Douglass delivered in it his famous lecture on John Brown. The crowd desiring to attend was so great that many were unable to get in. The lecture was well received and netted the church over $200.

        When the day had arrived for us to move into our new church and occupy the new commodious parsonage nothing spectacular was attempted. The people assembled at the appointed hour, and a sufficient corps of ushers directed them to seats until the edifice was filled. The ministers, headed by Bishops J. M. Brown and J. P. Campbell, proceeded from the parsonage to the church and were met at the door by trustees and officials of the church, headed by the secretary, Mr. William T. Simpson, who read the following address:

        "Bishops and Elders: As you are about to enter this building, a house erected in which to worship God, we, the Trustees, meet you at the door, and with pride and pleasure present to you, by authority of the Board of Trustees, these keys. We would that the founders of "old Union" were present to witness this sight. They would admit with us that the wall of prejudice, which has been so long

standing against a movement of this kind, was removed, and truly a new era had dawned on the church. To-day we witness its dedication to God, and the Bethel A. M. E. connection. And with the keys surrendered to your hands, you have free access as ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the Discipline of the A. M. E. Church to enter the pulpit of said church, and from whose sacred rostrum dispense the Word of Life. The door of the church is now open to you and we bid you welcome in God's name."

WALTER P. HALL,

E. H. SCOTT,

WM. T. SIMPSON,

SMITH T. WRIGHT,

HENRY E. BROOKS,

JOHN FISHER,

JOHN R. THOMAS,

WM. T. BRYANT,
Board of Trustees.
Attest: William T. Simpson, Secretary.

        The dedicatory sermon was preached by Bishop Campbell, the ceremony of dedication was read by Bishop Brown. In the afternoon Rev. W. B. Derrick preached; and at night Rev. J. H. A. Johnson, of Baltimore. All of the sermons were spiritual and inspiring. The collection during the day amounted to $3,052.48, the largest amount of money

that had ever been taken up on one day in any church of our denomination up to that time. I do not think this collection was surpassed until Rev. W. Sampson Brooks doubled it in a collection in St. Louis, Missouri.

        The preparation for the collection was built upon the principles first employed by Rev. C. C. Felts in Delaware, only I used the classic military formation of Right Wing, Left Wing and Center Column, with a commander for each. This gave three great divisions in the church and stimulated a wholesome rivalry. I followed military customs of publishing orders as far as I could without weakening enthusiasm. The conference of 1884 found us in our new church and I could but feel that it was the Lord's doings. Seeing myself dangerously near the pit as conference adjourned in 1883, I had thrown myself wholly upon God for guidance and strength and He had brought me to the conference of 1884 with a "new song in my mouth," and I felt "my goings" were established. Praise the Lord!

        One of the methods of determining the progress of a church is to note the returns of the collections. The amount of money contributed from month to month is quite significant as to the attendance and interest. By this standard we may read the progress of the church, as follows: First month, $61.11; second month, $128.10; third month, $80.85; fourth month, $75.57; fifth month, $96.83;

sixth month, $91.44; seventh month, $64.48; eighth month, $76.43; ninth month, $183.32.

        Up to this, January 8, 1884, we were receiving our regular collections and doing nothing in a special way. No subsequent month ran quite as low as the first month, although several ran only about three dollars above it. These figures represent only the money handled by the trustees, and do not account for the finances of the stewards. The amount collected was ample for the running expenses of the church, furnishing light, fuel, sexton's pay and organist's allowance.

        But what was of more importance than the outward or material prosperity of the church was the spiritual activity and growth within the church. Our congregations had become large and our services were attended with manifestations of the Divine presence. Numerous conversions took place, among them some who became very active in after years, notably Rev. Julian C. Caldwell.

        The conference of 1884 was held in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, and was a very pleasant session.

        The report for the year ending April 14, 1885, shows reeeipts $5.863,18 and a payment of $2,500 on the principal of the debt, besides keeping up current expenses and paying interest. The Trustees Report for the year ending April 14, 1886 is not in my possession. These Reports do not include money raised by the Stewards for the support of the ministry and relief of the poor, nor that raised for Conference Claims.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES OF
UNION A. M. E. CHURCH

To the Elder, Corporate Members and Members of the Quarterly Conference of said Church:

        In submitting the usual annual statement of the financial transactions of the trustees for the year ending April 14, 1884, we beg leave to say that the year was a memorable one in the history of the Union A. M. E. Church. One of the most important incidents that occurred was the announcement by the Pastor, Rev. T. G. Steward, of his desire and the opportunity of the church to purchase the present location.

        The growing necessity of a change of location was obvious to all, not only for her future usefulness and prosperity, but even for the retaining of her present position among her sister churches. A movement of this kind, of so much importance and responsibility, required great care and deliberation upon the part of the Elder and the Board of Trustees. They did not desire to remove with a bare majority favoring such action, as it was necessary, according to the Constitution of the Church, for a two-thirds vote of all the males of the Church. It was necessary to secure this vote before definite action could be taken, for fear that any other course pursued would seriously affect the enterprise at the very beginning. This being accomplished, definite steps were taken toward carrying into effect that which was so plainly needed, a larger church. The voice of the members was almost unanimous in favor of removal, and those who could not see their way clear to vote for the proposed change, with becoming Christian grace, went with the crowd when the decision was rendered.

        To God be all the praise and glory. We have had truthfully a successful year in this branch of His Zion. We have abundant cause for congratulation. Though unexpectedly, Rev. T. G. Steward was assigned to this church, yet his energies have been unceasingly employed since he has been here to improve and elevate the character of his people, to imbue them with proper conception of their capabilities of doing good; to enlighten their minds, and to enlarge their sphere of usefulness. If we continue to adhere to the rules of right, keeping aloof from disturbing elements that distract and destroy, we may expect our labors in the future to be as bountifully blessed as our efforts in the past.

I took a very active part in its proceedings, introducing a resolution on divorce, and also as

chairman of the Committee on Education presented a report on that subject which elicited much discussion. The business done by the conference was more in the nature of shaping the work for more effective evangelism than for raising money for specific objects. The spiritual feeling ran high and the services were devotional, the preaching earnest and scriptural, some of it characterized as of the old-time Methodist sort.

        Yet the people of these days gave willingly to the Lord's cause in proportion to their incomes. It must not be thought that because we do not see large sums reported in the financial tables that the people had not learned to give. In 1871 the Philadelphia Conference reported 7,305 full members who paid for the support of their ministers and for the general interests of the church $23,414.78, independent of what they paid for the current expenses of their respective churches and for building and repairs. Up to that date and for some years later there was no systematic method by which the temporal expenses of the church could be reported; and although the sums contributed were considerable we have no reliable record of them. Later, particularly after the General Conference of 1884, this work was much more carefully done.

        Bishop J. M. Brown, whose views of the episcopal office had been expressed to me in his letter referring to the dedication of the church in Wilmington,

Delaware, mentioned in the preceding chapter, on the opening of the General Conference of 1884, delivered a sermon in which he said: "By episcopacy we understand it to be that form of church organization in which the chief ecclesiastical authority within a defined district or diocese, is vested in a Bishop having in subordination Elders and Decons, and with the power of ordination." He supported his views from quotations from Richard Hooker and finally affirmed: "This confirms the position of the A. M. E. Church as to its district episcopacy."

        The gist of the discourse met with very strong opposition and some of its statements were openly challenged as being out of harmony with our doctrines and policy. The Conference finally declared its position by adopting a set of resolutions which have been published in the Discipline ever since. These resolutions expressed deep regret at some of the dogmas preached in the discourse, and declared: "That we recognize the two orders and the one office in our church to be the regularly ordained ministry, and that we are satisfied with the ordination of the same, holding it to be valid and true in every respect." "That there is identity between the Bishops and Elders or Presbyters; but as everybody must have a head, the bishops among us are Primi inter pares--chiefs among the elders." Since that time the subject has not come up for action,

although district episcopacy, subordinate to General Conference assignment has now become fully established in the church. Those who took the lead in having these resolutions adopted were C. S. Smith and T. H. Jackson, the former now a Bishop, the latter professor of theology.

        My only connection with the General Conference of 1884 was in the capacity of counsel for Rev. C. H. Green who took an appeal to that body against the action of the New Jersey Conference by which he had been expelled. The appeal was heard, and the case sent back for a new trial.

        In the second year of my pastorate in Union Church I encountered the usual vicissitudes; trouble in the choir, and trouble among the local ministers. The organist of our church was Miss Phoebe Harvey, who afterwards became the wife of Mr. Samuel J. Diton, himseslf also a lover of music and who had studied the subject thoroughly in the University of Pennsylvania. From this gifted and musical pair came the accomplished musician. Mr. Carl Diton who to splendid talents added long and patient study both in this country and in Europe. I need but mention here a physical collision which took place between Mr. Diton, the father, and Mr. Powell, the chorister, in the church on Sunday evening, February 10, 1884. Although there were actual blows struck and some action on the part of the church followed, and although explanations

and apologies were given, yet I headed the whole affair in the notes which I made at the time as "The Union A. M. E. Church Comedy." The ordinary jealousy of rival male singers in the centre of a corps of sopranos and altos, all more or less attractive and insinuating, doubtless furnished the casus belli. In preparing for the investigation I put in among my precautionary notes: "We are not to decide which is the better musician, or which has the larger number of friends or larger amount of influence." The tempest blew over and Mr. Diton absented himself from the choir thereafter. The choir generally was orderly and efficient, furnishing good special music, and leading the congregation in good old Methodist hymns to standard tunes.

        The conference of 1885 was a pleasant session held in Wilmington, Delaware, presided over by Bishop Cain. I served as secretary. A case of importance came up from my church. Rev. John E. Davis, a local deacon in my church had been suspended temporarily, and disregarding his suspension, he had attempted to take part in the administration of the Lord's Supper. I was controlling the service and as he entered the chancel unasked and seized the emblems and was proceeding

to distribute them to the communicants, I immediately stopped the service and dismissed the congregation. For his action on this occasion a charge of insubordination was preferred against him upon which he was tried, convicted and suspended from his office as Deacon. He therefore appealed to the Annual Conference and the action of the Quarterly Conference was sustained. The result was that his office of Deacon was taken away from him permanently, although his membership in the church was not interfered with. Chagrined at finding himself beaten in his effort to obtain vindication as he thought, he entered civil suit against me and the church, demanding to have the effects of the church action set aside and have himself reinstated as a Deacon in the church.

        After many delays the case came finally to trial in the court of Common Pleas with Judge Allison presiding. After the argument the judge charged that if any error had been committed in the court of trial the appellant had failed to notice it, and that as he had appeared and taken general defense it was too late to bring up any faults as to notification, if there were any. Davis had elected to run his course of redress through the church and had gone as far as he could go in that sphere. He could not now begin another course through the civil courts. He had the privilege of using either the church courts or the civil courts; he had chosen the church

courts and had had the benefit of the church law. The civil courts discovered no error in the church proceedings and would not interfere. With statements substantially to this effect the case was dismissed. Thus ended my second law suit; the first, as has been related, for performing an illegal marriage, and the second for illegally removing a man from his office as Deacon. These were the charges, but in both cases the court decided no law had been violated and certainly no principle of morals had been infringed upon.

        Our conference being held in the new church in Wilmington of which the popular singing preacher, the Rev. J. W. Beckett was pastor, was largely attended and called forth much public commendation. From a long editorial in a journal of that city I quote of date of May 23rd, 1885: "For the colored race the era of Mumbo Jumbo, of fetichism, and Voudouism has passed away, and the African has now asserted with the true logic of a true premise, the rights to an equal recognition among the Caucasian races. He has accomplished it at last, not by any pitiful bending of the knees and supplication for the inherent rights of all men to be applied in the interest of his race, but has for the last few decades been silently and industrially working, until as was exemplified in this recent conference, colored men stood up as leaders. In all things that go to show scholarship, ready oratory,

words to the point, clothing the most practical and progressive theories in language, which for beauty of expression and vigorous, scintillating oratory, it would be difficult to find anything superior throughout the land."

        In my own church in Philadelphia a catastrophe occurred which but for a gracious Providence might have resulted in a great loss of life. On the Sunday of the conference while I was away, the Odd Fellows assembled in the church for their annual sermon which was preached by Rev. W. H. Brown, of the Baltimore Conference. The building was filled with an interested congregation; the services were prolonged, and just as the people had fully cleared the building with the exception of Father Simpson and two or three others, the whole ceiling, not merely the plastering, but timbers, girders, and joists, came down with a crash. Had it fallen but a few minutes sooner, scores would have been killed outright and perhaps hundreds wounded. Here was another drawback. But the basement of the church could still be used and after thorough inspection the building was pronounced safe and we immediately set to work to restore the ceiling. Mr. Elias Chase took the contract and employed as assistants my brother and two other men; and in due time a ceiling was put up there that will remain as long as the walls stand to support it.

        During the campaign of 1884 when the contest

was so close between Cleveland and Blaine, I made no speeches and took no specially active part. My church work claimed all of my time and energy. But while the question of determining the final outcome of the election was pending, and much wild talk was indulged in calling to mind the Tilden and Hayes contest, I took occasion to speak on the subject from my pulpit. The daily press reported my discourse as follows:

        "The Rev. T. G. Steward preached a semi-political sermon in the Union African Methodist Episcopal Church, Sixteenth Street near Fairmount Avenue, last evening. Both the galleries and the spacious body of the church were filled with the colored congregation, as well as a number of white listeners attracted by the announced nature of the address and Mr. Steward's reputation as an original thinker and speaker

        "He regarded the present situation as serious: it requires but a spark to ignite the baser passions and inaugurate riot and blood-shed in all the great cities. He held that it was but the culmination of the fatal surrender of 1876 when whole States were given to the minority through fraud: when open and bare-faced trading was indulged in, by which the local governments were exchanged for electoral votes in undenied defiance of the popular will in three commonwealths.

        "Mr. Steward said that he would not express any

opinion as to who was or was not elected in the present presidential contest; he did not propose to enter at all into that question, but believing that public affairs were in a startling condition and that it was the duty of the minister of the gospel to warn and advise, he wished to recommend soberness in discussion and expression; the avoidance of all heat in argument and the cool, calm and patriotic awaiting of the settlement of the election."

        A few days after this sermon was delivered it was decided that Grover Cleveland had been duly elected President of the United States, thus bringing the old Democratic Party back into power. I then took occasion to speak of the "Incoming Administration" and under the head of general city news the Philadelphia Press reported my sermon as follows:

        "I am not one of those," he said, "who are ready to throw up their hats and welcome the new comer at Washington as a Savior. It is no new power, but one which we have known for fifty years and which breeds nothing within me but fear. The Democratic Party is the party of the old slave holder; and in it I have no confidence. It is a party of assassination. It is estimated that it has murdered at least ten thousand men for nothing but their political opinions. It has not only murdered individuals, but governments as well. It is no new South, but the same old South. The Government

has been handed over from the North to the South; and the Democratic Party may as well acknowledge it.

        "They of the South have one hundred and fifty-two electoral votes based upon murder, intimidation and fraud; and this gives them their power. And then they talk of giving us an administration of justice and morality! The duty of the colored people is to remain firm in their devotion to the principles of the heroic men who did so much for them. We can afford to wait. This is only a temporary chastisement. We are too far along in civilization, too far along in freedom, too far from slavery, for power founded on such a basis to continue.

        "Two results have been predicted of Democratic success in the South--by Tourgee a war between the races followed by segregation or extermination; while others predict a happy era of peace. My acquaintance in the South has taught me that a majority of the colored people are not satisfied. I do not believe everything is so safe as many imagine. The colored man is not the forbearing, lamblike creature he appears to be. The day is past when the Negro will be all the time yielding. Reaction has set in and the Negro will ultimately determine to maintain his rights even by force if he must."

        The above report of my discourse gives only a

faint notion of the whole address, as the paper used only that which would conform to its own scope and policy; and only so much of it as it could afford space to print.

        The winter of 1885-86 saw our church in a generally prosperous condition, with large congregations, flourishing Sunday school and many conversions. Bishop Wayman visited me in the midst of our great revival and preached three times on Sunday with remarkable effect. The spirit of the Lord seemed to fall upon all present; ministers and people were on their feet praising God and shouting, while tears of joy were streaming down their faces. Our congregation was a mixed one. white and colored, but they were worshipping in the unity of the Spirit. It was during this revival that a brilliant student of the Normal School was deeply convicted and was seeking relief and was urged to trust herself entirely in the hands of Jesus. By the aid of the Holy Spirit she did so, and soon experienced the wonderful joy and peace which come through faith. With a beaming face she broke out in richest notes: "Oh, it is grand to be trusting." As I had known of her struggle in seeking for this height, I wrote the following lines:

        "Suggested by the conversion of a young lady at Union Church on Monday night, February 1, 1886, whose first words were, 'Oh, it is grand to be trusting.' "

                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         Trusting my Savior and King;
                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         Now to His praise I will sing.

                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         My burden has all rolled away
                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         My night has all turned into day.

                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         My heart is now free from all sin;
                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         And Jesus now reigns within.

                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         Grander than tongue can express,
                         Oh, it is grand to be trusting!
                         And to feel that Jesus does bless.

                         Lord, help me to be ever trusting!
                         Trusting while life shall last,
                         May Heaven's gates be reached--still trusting!
                         And trusting the portals be passed.

                         And in Heaven, forever trusting,
                         May I stand with the Glorified throng!
                         And still in the grandeur of trusting,
                         May I help swell redemption's sweet song!

        During my busy pastorate here I published my first effort in the domain of theology. It was a small pamphlet of eighty-five pages specially dealing with problems in eschatology, and was entitled "Death, Hades and the Resurrection." I printed only a thousand copies and these all got away from me so quickly that I sought for years to obtain a single copy for myself, and it was not until 1919 that I succeeded. Small as the work was, it brought forth encouraging commendation. It was pronounced "fresh, impressive and suggestive" by so good authority as the Zion's Herald, of Boston. At the suggestion of Bishop Campbell, I followed this with another pamphlet on the "Divine Attributes." This too was quickly sold out, leaving me without a copy for myself, and up to the present I have been unable to procure one.

        My next step in the literary field was to publish a more pretentious book on Genesis, calling it "Genesis Re-read." The press received this very kindly, especially the Philadelphia Daily Press; the conservative Public Ledger commended it as not having "a dull page in it, and as giving evidence of diligence in study and of acquaintance with the leading writers on the subject." The Inquirer said, "The work is done skillfully and evidently by a ripe student both of theology and science," but the note I prized most of all was from the thorough-going Methodist paper of the evangelical type, the Philadelphia

Methodist. That paper said, "The author of this book, Rev. T. G. Steward, is evidently a man of superior culture, thoroughly posted in the literature relating to the subject on which he writes, capable of grasping and developing its great truths and withal wielding a ready and graceful pen. Seldom have we read a book of two hundred and fifty pages in which so much matter was crowded as is found in this book, and especially put in such a form as to rivet the attention of the reader throughout, and often really delight him with the beauty of its diction and the eloquence of its sentences whilst it sweeps away all his doubts, if he ever had any, and forces on him the conviction that its arguments are unanswerable."

        Yet this book after an edition of only one thousand copies was exhausted, and I may say quickly exhausted, was allowed to drop out of print. Why? Lack of enterprise on the part of the Publication Department at that time. Of this book also I obtained a copy only through a friend long after the edition was exhausted.

        My pastoral work in Union Church terminated in the spring of 1886, at which time I was transferred to the Baltimore Annual Conference to assume the charge of our Metropolitan Church in the city of Washington, D. C. The church and congregation were generally well reconciled to my leaving, as they regarded it as an enlargement of

my work, and a further recognition of the propriety of their own appreciation. Also they were to have in my stead the Rev. C. T. Shaffer, afterwards Bishop, who was very acceptable to them. The change was thus made with the best of feeling all around. Good judgment and divine grace earnestly invoked by both the appointing Bishop and Presiding Elders and by the Church and Pastors, will always prove sufficient to effect necessary changes without ill feelings, certainly without the rupture of peace and good will.

        The Philadelphia Conference unanimously by a rising vote adopted the following highly flattering resolutions. The reporters headed the resolutions as "complimentary." I am gratified to have them in my record as the testimony rather to the good will of my people than to my merit.

        "Whereas, we the members of the Philadelphia Annual Conference have learned of the intention of the Bishop to transfer the Rev. T. G. Steward to the Baltimore Conference, be it therefore resolved that in taking leave of Dr. Steward we beg to bear witness to his strict integrity of character, his broad intellectual acquirements and his fearless devotion to the right as it presents itself to him. And be it further Resolved, that we ask for Dr. Steward, on the part of the Baltimore Conference, a

reception altogether in keeping with his lofty character.

(Signed) "B. T. TANNER.

"L. J. COPPIN."

        Whether influenced in any measure by these resolutions or not the Baltimore Conference accorded me a most gracious reception and elected me as one of the delegates to the General Conference of 1888.

COMMON PLEAS COURT
Room A, No. 1--President, Judge Alison

        The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex-- John E. Davis, vs. The African Methodist Episcopal Union Church, T. G. Steward, Pastor, and the Quarterly Conference of said church. The plaintiff, Mr. Davis, was a deacon in the church defendant, the church building being situated on Sixteenth Street, below Fairmount Avenue. In November, 1884, he was suspended from Office and the present suit is a mandamus proceeding to compel the church authorities to reinstate him on the ground that the charges preferred against him were frivolous, and that the defendants had wholly failed to follow the rules as laid down in the Book of Discipline of the church. The defense was that the charge against the plaintiff was for insubordination; that the defendants proceeded regularly in accordance with the rules; that the plaintiff had taken an appeal to the Annual Conference, the highest ecclesiastical tribunal in the church open to him, and that body affirmed the decision of the Quarterly Conference, which had been addressed to Mr. Davis.

        Jury found for the defendants.

CHAPTER VIII.

DEDICATION OF METROPOLITAN CHURCH:

        Pressing Debt--Large building, small membership. Spiritual people--Representative congregation--Excellent choir -- Community work. Frederick Douglas' confession of Faith. General Conference of 1888--Much discussion--Combinations Bishop Turner and organic law. J. M. Henderson and the Ritual. Colored schools in Baltimore--Isaac Myers--A white man and his colored daughter in court

        The Conference of 1886 was held in the Union A. M. E. Church, Sixteenth Street, Philadelphia--my church. At its close my connection with the Philadelphia Conference was severed for the third and last time. I had been honored by the Conference by being elected to the General Conference of 1872 and 1880, had been tendered an election by the New York Conference to the General Conference of 1876, but had declined. I had never been a candidate for anything. I was now transferred to the Baltimore Conference and appointed to the most important charge in that Conference and to the most conspicuous church in the denomination--the Metropolitan A. M. E. Church, in Washington, D. C.

        The Rev. G. T. Watkins had been pastor immediately preceding my appointment, but the elaborate dedicatory services and exercises were in

charge of Rev. B. W. Arnett, financial secretary of the church, and Rev. James A. Handy, presiding elder of the district. I arrived on the ground early, in company with one of my sons, leaving the remainder of my family in Philadelphia. My family remained especially to witness the graduation of my oldest son James from the Institute for Colored Youth, then under the guidance of Mrs. Fanny Jackson Coppin. My wife had said to me: "I want to see my first-born graduate." And so I moved my family out of the parsonage, rented a house and fitted it up as best we could to occupy it only a couple of months. James was Valedictorian of his class and delivered an oration on "Mind," ending with a beautiful and touching valedictory. The commencement occurred June 30th, 1886, and soon thereafter the whole family joined me in Washington.

        The dedicatory services occupied Sunday and all of the week following; during which time I remained a silent observer and an earnest student. The Sunday following I began my administration and soon discovered that my task was a heavy one. The church was in debt; the creditors impatient; and the congregation not wealthy, nor of the extraordinary self-sacrificing class. During the dedications large subscriptions had been announced totalling about $12,000 and this had been published in such a way as to lead creditors to

J. A. SIMMS Efficient Secretary of Metropolitan Church

think the money was on hand. Early Monday morning after my first Sunday's labors, my troubles began, and for two eventful years they kept up. Creditors harrassed me in person and by letter for what was justly due them, and the church kept diligently at work, and kept on paying its debts with commendable zeal; but some of the debts were ageing although diminishing, and creditors, though courteous, were nevertheless importunate.

        I found ministerial duties more difficult to perform in Washington than in Philadelphia; the people were more exacting in their demands for pastoral visitation; the funerals were frequent; and I experienced some embarrassment at times when on being almost peremptorily ordered to attend a funeral, to find when I arrived on the ground one, two, or even three other ministers who had been summoned in like form. Socially the people are freer than in Philadelphia.

        My church was made up generally of a highly intelligent class of people; government employees, business men, professional men, school teachers and persons of character and literary taste. Of course all were not up to this standard, but many were. We had a goodly number of common laborers, washer-women, servants of all grades, and a few mechanics. Our church was not exclusive, but a fair representative of real democracy. The congregation was remarkable for its warm, loving spirit.

There was unity, because there was oneness of spirit. It was simply glorious to preach in such a church building to such a warm-hearted, co-operative people.

        I took charge of the Metropolitan A. M. E. Church, Washington, D. C., on the second Sunday in June, 1886, directly after the close of the elaborate dedicatory exercises alluded to. I should say, that in these exercises during the week-day evenings speeches were made by Honorable John Sherman, Honorable Robert Smalls, Frederick Douglass and others of sufficient public standing to be invited to a place in the great program. On the Sunday of dedication sermons were preached by Bishop Payne, Bishop Singleton T. Jones, and Bishop Campbell. My remark made of the church, written not long after assuming charge, was to the effect that I found the finances in a most confused condition, and a board of trustees lacking in business methods. The debt of the church as I figured it out was about $51,000.

        During my two years there, from the spring of 1886 to the spring of 1888, I managed to raise enough money to meet our enormous expenses and to make material reduction of the debt. But the success in debt-paying was not phenomenal. I am sure it did not meet the expectations of many onlookers who, seeing our congregation increase and knowing that it included many of the leading people

of the city, wondered why we could not raise more money. The explanation was easy when one got into intimate relations with the situation. Our building was large, comfortable, beautiful; our services were interesting and orderly; we had a magnificent organ, a fine choir, an expert musical director, and it came to be the proper requisite to go to the Metropolitan Church on Sunday morning. Here, too, came the visitors who happened to be in the city: thither came Frederick Douglass, the largest figure among the colored people of the city--indeed of the country. Our congregation was large, influential, imposing; but our actual church membership was small. These visitors and friends contributed in the general collections, of course, and contributed liberally; but they did not accept the debt as their debt. Mr. Douglass was a regular and liberal contributor in many ways--giving his money, his presence, his influence and his public services freely in aid of the church. Still we did not raise large sums of money.

        Having noticed Mr. Douglass in my congregation regularly, and his serious demeanor always, I thought proper to address him a letter. I had heard that he was not a believer in Christianity; and it was further said by some that he had little respect for ministers or religion. My letter called forth from his great soul a confession of faith which is so characteristic of the man that I prefer

to insert it in the text of my book without the altering of a word, rather than to put it in a note. Here it is:

Anacostia, D. C., July 27, 1886.

"Rev. T. G. Steward.

        "Dear Sir: In response to your respected letter of yesterday, I have to say, without circumlocution or concealment, that I care less for names, hard or soft than for things; less for forms than for substance: less for professions than for practice; less for sectarian creeds than for manly character. I have frequently heard myself called, in anything but an amiable spirit, infidel. atheist, and disorganizer, by ignorant men, inside and outside the pulpit, who really did not know the significance of the epithets they applied to me, and yet I have never heard such men quote one sentence or syllable from any writings in proof of the justice of charges so noisily made.

        "I do not wonder, therefore, in view of the frequency of such utterances, you should be surprised to find me a regular reader of your church organ, a supporter of your church over which you preside. My line of conduct in this matter is not determined by my approval of the theological dogmas often promulgated from the pulpit. In respect to many of those dogmas I should, perhaps, differ very widely from yourself and others, while I yet find ground entirely satisfactory to my judgment

and conscience for contributing my mite to the treasury of your church, and that of others.

        "You, yourself, in asking for contributions last Sunday stated in theological form the philosophical ground upon which, in this respect, I justify my conduct. You called upon us to give for the glory of God and for the good of man: and in giving, I did both. As to my infidelity, so-called, it has never denied any attribute of the Deity. To me, God is good! God is light! God is truth! God is love! and to glorify God is to lead a life in harmony with these attributes. In this respect man is related to his Creator as the watch to its maker. A watch glorifies its maker when it answers the end of its manufacture, which is to keep good time--always to be true, and never to be false in its measurement of time. As God is true, I would have man true! As God is holy, I would have man holy! As God is pure, I would have man pure. An unclean man in body or mind does not glorify his Maker. He may sing praises to the Lord and call himself a Christian, but he brings no glory to the Lord, no good to his fellow man. Christianity is nothing to me, except as it stands as the representative of the sigh of the soul for a noble life; for herein is the true glory of God.

        "Now looking at the church, apart from what is purely theological and abstract, I see in it

means of promoting honorable character and conduct; and, as I have said, for this reason, I contribute my mite towards its support.

        "I have still another reason for this action, though not one of equal weight with that already given. It is because I would have colored people enjoy advantages for assembling themselves together, for moral and spiritual improvement, equal to those enjoyed by others.

        "A large, commodious and well-appointed church, in pulpit, choir and architecture, is attractive to the people who assemble, and commands respect from the outside world. The African Methodist Episcopal Church (the name by the way is altogether too long and stilted for my taste) is such a church, and therefore, I want to see it flourish.

        "I notice what you say of the Bible, but I have neither time nor inclination to go into questions in respect of its plenary or other inspiration; for if it contains the will of God to man, it is vastly more important to know what that will is, than to know precisely how that will has been communicated--whether by man or by angels, by voices in the air, or by the out breathings and higher aspirations of the human soul. For, if the Bible contains the will of God to man, it contains it in that sense in which God meant it to be understood, and in no other; for it would be absurd and monstrous to suppose an all-wise God to reveal His will and

His law in a sense in which He did not mean to be understood. Hence, as a practical man, I hold it to be much more important to know what the Bible really means, than to know how it was composed, and what degree of inspiration we shall accord to it. And here we are met by a confusion of tongues, and by endless contradictions, each man and sect drawing from it that meaning which commends itself to his or her judgment, and a purely human judgment withal. Whether this interpretation be for peace or for war, for love or for hate, for charity or for bigotry, for men of all races and colors at the same communion table, or whether it excludes a part and sends it off to a little kind of kitchen communion table by itself, like your church--whether the Christian religion is for one race, or for all races; whether free salvation or predestination, is the true meaning of the Bible; whether the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, or the innumerable Protestant sects, constitute the true Church. About these and other endless contradictions I might write interminably, but I lay them aside in that spirit of charity which leaves each to stand or fall to his own master, and justify myself in contributing my mite to the support of your church and the other individual churches, because, upon the whole, I think they contribute to the improvement and moral elevation of those who come within the reach of their

influence; because I hold that the pulpit is capable of being a powerful agent in the dissemination of truth, and I hold that truth is the power of God for the salvation of the world, and I do not limit truth to mere spiritual matters, but to man in all his relations in the family, in the church, in the government, in the world.

"Very truly yours,

"FREDERICK DOUGLASS."

        The number of members reported to the Conference in 1887 was 523, full members, with 97 probationers; a church with a seating capacity of about two thousand with a membership equal to filling about one-fourth of its seats when all are assembled is a burden to carry. Of the five hundred and odd members it is hardly probable that more than three hundred and fifty would be in church on any Sunday morning, hence it could be seen easily that our congregation ranging from 800 to 1,000 was made up largely of non-members.

        For myself my stay in the Metropolitan Church was most happy. I received into the church one hundred and thirty-two persons on profession of faith, mostly young persons from our own congregation and Sunday school. Among these were Laura Wilkes, later becoming a successful teacher and author, Laura and Nettie Arnold; Lillian B. Cross; John W. Cromwell, distinguished author

and publicist; W. H. Dawley, a well-known teacher; and W. H. H. Hart, the lawyer.

        My report to the Conference of 1887 shows that our collections for the year amounted to $4,175.12, but the running expenses of the church had been $1,444.06 aside from some repairs which had to be made on the property of the church. Then, we paid during that year $940.00 interest, which left us about $1,800.00 from collections to pay on the debt. From rents ($608), entertainments ($1,623.12), church clubs ($304), from the South Arkansas Conference, Bishop T. M. D. Ward ($50), we desufficient additional funds to reduce the debt from $51,000 to $47,000, paying off about $4,000.

        While living in this city and serving as pastor of this great church, my wife's mother, Mrs. Martha Gadsden, died in her native city, Charleston, S. C. In all her life she had never been out of the city except to near-by points. Her passing away caused great grief to our household. A brief service was held in our own house, as it was impossible for my wife to go to the funeral. Comforting words were spoken by Rev. James A. Handy, who led in the devotions. News of the earthquake in that city had sent a severe shock to us before the sad message of death came. Of the demise of Mrs. Gadsden, it may be written: Her end was beautiful and triumphant.

        A gracious revival occurred during the winter of 1887-88 in which I was assisted by that great evangelical general, Rev. Theodore Gould. Brother Gould was not a great preacher but he was a man of supreme common sense and great spiritual power, of deep convictions and of unfaltering courage. He abounded in tact and skill and never allowed a meeting to fail. In our revival work, what was most unusual was that we were effectively assisted by the choir--not so much as an organization as in its individual members. I could mention several by name but shall name only our sweet contralto, Mrs. Tyree, who sang with so much feeling: "I left it all with Jesus, long ago." The thrill returns as I recall from memory the happy conversions of that wonderful revival. Many who came in then have already gone forward to that home beyond the river.

        My activities were not confined wholly to church work. The Ministers' Union, composed of all the colored ministers of the city, placed me at its head and on the termination of my pastorate, that body put itself on record in a most beautiful testimonial, speaking of me as having "been a felt power in the community in every good word and work" and stating that I had been untiring in my efforts to promote the welfare of the Ministers' Union in making its influence felt for good in the National Capital."

        Having my own sons in the schools, one as teacher, others as students, it was but natural that I should be interested in the city schools. Two of my sons graduated from the High School and afterwards entered Philips Exeter for one year, subsequently entering and graduating from Harvard. The older at the time of this writing, is a successful dentist in Boston: the younger, a prominent lawyer in Pittsburgh, and one of the electors on the Presidential ticket for the State of Pennsylvania. It was in Washington that the plan of their education was decided upon by the whole family--myself, wife and oldest son all concurring. Not expecting to leave an estate in material value, I determined to give my sons that which I thought would be worth more. In this view I was more than seconded by their mother.

        I visited Mrs. Tyree at her home in Anacostia, from which, after a long illness, she took her flight to the home above. When I saw her she had closed up everything earthly and was only waiting for the swinging low of the heavenly chariot. Two days after my visit it came for her and she was carried to take her place in the choir that sings the song of Moses and the Lamb.

        The spring of 1888 carried me to the General Conference which met in Indianapolis. Here I was called upon to take a very active part in the discussions as I had decided views on certain topics.

My positions were rather negative than positive. First I was opposed to the adoption of a ritualistic service which would involve the reading of the Ten Commandments every Sunday, the recitation of the Apostles' Creed and other things of that kind. It was not that I was then or am now opposed to an order of service more or less ritualistic, but that I was and am opposed to incongruity. I knew our whole trend had been in the line of free and simple methods, and that this attempt to convert the church into the cathedral type could but result in confusion. Men standing up with surplice and gown calling people to come to the table and put their money thereon, employing jests, provoking laughter; people sitting stock still in their seats, lazily and listlessly singing the "Gloria Patri," drawling over the Commandments, grouping three or four of them together to make one response cover all--these are some of the events I foresaw, and some that I have seen. And as to the reading of the Psalter, it fared so badly that it soon dropped out altogether.

        But the main question in the General Conference of 1888, as in that of 1880 was the election of Bishops. In 1880 Bishops Turner and Cain were elected as representatives of that great body of ministers and members who had entered the church in the South Atlantic States since 1865. It was now time that some of the real sons of that section,

some of the new men themselves, who had developed power and leadership should be elevated to the bishopric. I had especially advocated this course and had championed the election of Rev. W. J. Gaines, of Georgia. By my contributions to the Christian Recorder I had won to his support many able men of the North and West, although for myself I had determined never to enter any combination or caucus arrangement intending to control the selection of men to fill the offices of the church.

        In February, 1888, two months before the sitting of the General Conference, Brother Gaines wrote me that he had arranged with Rev. A. Grant, of Texas, Rev. Scipio Robinson, of Georgia, and others to make me, as he said, "Editor of the Christian Recorder." He further said the proposition "would be supported by the South," naming, especially, "Georgia, Florida, Texas and Arkansas." Although Gaines and Robinson were among my warmest friends and the position of editor quite to my liking, I could not persuade myself to join what I regarded as an improper combine and replied that I preferred not to be named for the place. In a few days I received a second letter on the same subject in which Brother Gaines endeavored to overcome my objections and argued that we should have an understanding which in meaning was about the same only it might be dignified as "a gentleman's agreement." After affirming the necessity

of such a measure he added: "I repeat this to you with great earnestness: Let's have an understanding. We have full control of the matter now; all we need is to hold it."

        Events proved that this forecast was exact, but I preferred not to step on board. As Napoleon missed his destiny at Acre, so I missed mine at Indianapolis; but I missed mind with eyes wide open and willingly--not wilfully. The desire to be a bishop in the African M. E. Church never remained with me one hour in my life. The idea has risen in my mind and the desire has kindled, but before it could send forth light, much less any heat, the irksomeness and responsibility of the position coming in at the other door of thought, would extinguish it leaving neither steam nor smoke, no not even coal or cinders. Yet the bishopric in our Church is a much greater office than any man who has yet served in it. "God give us men!"--Big enough to fill the episcopal chair even of our own humble Church!

        The election at the General Conference proved that Brother Gaines' letter clearly and truthfully portrayed the political situation of the church. He was elected bishop on the first ballot running far ahead of any competitor and receiving just two votes more than he had anticipated. Following him in the same ballot with just a bare majority came Rev. B. W. Arnett. Subsequent ballotting elected

BISHOP W. J. GAINES

Rev. B. T. Tanner and Rev. Abram Grant. I may add that all of these, save the feeblest one of the quartette have passed on to their rest. Rev. B. T. Tanner, who for years before his election had not been in good health and never could have been classed as robust, still lives (1920), while Gaines and Grant, both vigorous and of large physical endowment, have long since finished their earthly course and gone above. The bruised reed has outlived the sturdy oak. Thus have I observed it in so many cases. The man whom "nothing hurts" usually succumbs early, while he who gets sick easily holds on his way and like the righteous often "grows stronger and stronger."

        On the second day of the Conference I offered the following Preamble and Resolutions:

        "The Following Preamble and Resolutions were offered by T. G. Steward:

        "Whereas, since the last General Conference final proclamation has been made of the accomplishment of the union between the African Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States and the British M. E. Church of Canada and the West Indies, and

        "Whereas, Delegates from the Conferences lately composing the British M. E. Church appear here duly accredited to this body, and

        "Whereas, Bishop Disney, formerly Bishop of that Church, has been freely and fully recognized

by the Bishops of the African M. E. Church, and has been associated with them in Conferences in the United States, and Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church have been recognized in Conferences formerly belonging to the British M. E. Church, therefore be it

        "Resolved by this Nineteenth General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and First General Conference after the union thus referred to:

        "1. That the present African Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States and Canada is the legitimate successor of the African M. E. Church of the United States and the British M. E. Church of Canada, and that the union between the two bodies has been satisfactorily accomplished, in accordance with the provision of the agreement.

        "2. That we hereby pledge ourselves to stand by this action and to regard the matter as settled; and we shall feel it our duty to defend, by all honorable and Christian means, the integrity of the Church as thus united.

        "3. That all questions as to property, or as to the status of individual churches, are referred to the Annual or Quarterly Conferences where such differences may arise, and that the General Conferences ought not to pass upon such matters only as they may come before it in the regular way, after

all local remedies shall have been exhausted.

"THEOPHILUS G. STEWARD."

        A. M. Green moved to refer the resolutions to a committee consisting of one member from each Episcopal District, upon which remarks were made by A. R. Green, J. W. Early and C. S. Smith.

        J. G. Yeiser moved to amend by striking out the words "One from each Episcopal District," and insert the words, "One from each Annual Conference."

        The motion of Brother Yeiser prevailed.

        The subject matter coming up again, the Resolutions were called for as it is shown here from the minutes:

        "Dr. W. D. Johnson moved that it be the sense of this General Conference that the Bishops and Commissioners of both Churches have complied with the rules, and that therefore the union between the A. M. E. and the B. M. E. Churches was truly consummated."

        B. F. Watson moved to lay Dr. Johnson's motion on the table. Carried.

        Brother A. J. Carey moved that we hear from the Special Committee on Dr. Steward's Resolutions concerning the union with the B. M. E. Church. Carried.

        The Committee reported as follows:

"Committee Room, May 11, 1888.

        "To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference

in session in Bethel Church, Indianapolis, Ind.:

        "Dear Fathers and Brethren: We, your Committee, to which was referred the resolutions of Dr. T. G. Steward relative to the union of the A. M. E. and B. M. E. Churches, after several vain attempts to satisfy ourselves upon the subject matter referred to us, submit the following resolution:

        "Resolved, That it is the sense of this Committee that there appears to be something existing which gave rise to the resolutions offered by Dr. Steward which should claim the attention of the General Conference, and we therefore recommend that the matter be investigated by the Conference.

        "Signed in behalf of the Committee.

"I. N. FITZPATRICK, Chairman.

"Richard Harper, Secretary."

        After long wrangling the resolutions were adopted by a vote of 186 to 64.

        On a question of admitting the lay delegation from the North Georgia Conference, Rev. W. D. Johnson claimed that the delegates had not been elected according to law, and that the North Georgia Annual Conference had refused to enter their names on the list. He read the resolution of the Conference affirming that they had not been elected by ballot as the law prescribes. The Conference minutes say: "Great confusion followed his remarks. The Conference became uncontrollable."

On motion of A. W. Atwater, adjourned.

        When it re-assembled the minute's record: "Dr. T. G. Steward made an able appeal to the Conference for better order. Dr. Derrick read a resolution in regard to better order in the future." (Gen. Conf. Min. p. 26.) When the case came up again Dr. Derrick spoke in favor of admitting the delegates; Dr. T. H. Jackson spoke against their admission on the ground that the method of the law had not been followed." I argued that it was not a question between contesting delegations, and this was not in the nature of a contest. These men had been elected and if not seated the North Georgia Conference to that extent would be deprived of representation. It was these delegates or no delegates: and there was nothing to overthrow their claim to some right to seats here as representatives of their Conference; and there were no other persons present or elsewhere who could show any right to such seats. The vote was taken resulting in 132 in favor of their admission to 38 against it.

        Immediately after announcing the result the following resolution was offered and adopted:

        "Resolved: That the members of the General Conference who voted for the seating of the laymen of the North Georgia Conference, who though elected, acknowledged that they were not elected by due form of law, disavow any intention to the

establishment of a precedent, as all delegates should be elected uniformly by ballot.

"C. T. SHAFFER,

"J. W. BECKETT."

        When the question of the ritual service came up a strange thing happened. The measure was introduced by Rev. J. C. Embry, afterward Bishop Embry, who was at that time manager of our Publication Department. He was a man of ripe experience, having served as Financial Secretary of the Church, a writer of considerable ability, a student and a forceful and logical speaker. He had prepared a neat order of service, which had worked its way into use and was acceptable to many. He wished it adopted in form as it was, and wished it made the regular order of service in all of our congregations. The committee had accepted his recommendations and reported in favor of its adoption.

        Dr. Embry supported his views in a very strong speech, free from all bitterness and abounding in both logic and love. Bishop Payne followed advising that the ritual service be adopted just as the committee reported it. Bishop Campbell expressed himself as not unfavorable to the measure but advised against making the service a part of the law and consequently "binding upon all." Brothers Jenifer and Hayne sided with Doctor Embry. Doctor T. H. Jackson spoke against the section, as

I also did in a few closing remarks of the debate. I had spoken at length against the proposal at the opening of the discussion. The printed record reads as follows:

        "R. Knight moved to extend the time fifteen minutes. On a decision, the vote stood, yeas 40, nays 123.

        "The motion to strike out Section V. was not carried."

        It is very difficult to correct a record as old as that of the General Conference of 1888 and at present I am unable to substantiate my view by evidence as the documents consisting of reports made by newspaper correspondents who were on the ground were lost in the recent destruction of my home by fire. My memory has always been faithful and the Baltimore Sun, whose correspondent was very attentive and very accurate will show in its report of the summing up of the discussion words just about in this form: "Neverthless Doctor Steward was successful and the section was stricken out."

        Not long after this event I wrote in a very animated controversy with the versatile and able J. M. Henderson the following statement:

        "Coming to the General Conference of 1888 another direct effort was made to so amend our rules of worship as to admit the order of service which the bishops had prepared by the authority of the

General Conference of 1880, and which Dr. Embry had printed in such general good form. The effort was supported by high influence by charming eloquence, for I doubt if Dr. Embry ever made a sweeter speech than he did on that occasion, barring the few unfortunate personalities, and by solid argument: What was its fate? The proposition was rejected by such a decided No! that its friends never thought of asking for a decision."

        Had I been wrong in this statement, my wideawake opponent would have convicted me at once of unpardonable ignorance or shocking mendacity. The plain, simple fact is that Section V. which included the special ritual was not adopted. This was done on the morning of May 22nd, 1888, and when the Conference assembled in the afternoon the journal was not read and the election of general officers began at once. The next morning the minutes were read and approved and Conference went at once into the election of Missionary Secretary. The error may have been in the record at the time. The direct vote to adopt Section V. was lost by a very decided majority, no division being called for. No man was more interested in the matter than I was and none better assured as to its final disposal; and the historian who follows the record in this particular, although justified, nevertheless will be in error. Forunately the matter is of minor importance.

        The most important measure of the session so far as our own polity was concerned was brought in by the introduction of a resolution by Rev. W. H. Heard to the following effect:

        "W. H. Heard offered the following substitute for the whole:

        "Be it enacted that the General Conference shall be composed of the Bishops, one ministerial representative for each twenty-four full members and each Annual Conference with less than twenty members shall have but one ministerial and one lay delegate; provided that any and all Conferences entitled to two or more ministerial representatives shall have but two lay delegates."

        This was offered as a substitute for an amendment previously offered by Rev. S. H. Jefferson which made no material changes in the law, merely determining the ratio of representation. The substitute was immediately tabled on motion of Rev. W. H. Hunter. The question of the composition of the General Conference was then open to full and free discussion, and I took the floor and argued against the General Officers being ex-officio members of the General Conference on the ground that it practically continued the existence of the Conference from session to session, and made these General Officers most important members of the body that appointed them and to which they were to report; that in a modified sense they appointed

themselves; reported to themselves; and passed upon their own work. They should not hold so important a standing in the body to which they were amenable. I was followed on this side of the question by J. E. Hayne, A. W. Lowe and A. M. Green; opposed by B. F. Lee, C. S. Smith and Alexander Clark. My motion to exclude the General Officers from the composition of the General Conference on the ex-officio basis was passed by a vote of 101 to 55.

        The question was settled by the General Conference but not by the church. Bishop Turner became the champion of the unseated General Officers, and I became the target. I had now two active controversies on hand: the question of the ritual in which Rev. J. M. Henderson was keeping me busy with arguments which I had to answer; and the General Officer question in which Bishop Turner was assailing my position by "sea and land" with considerable verbiage and some argument.

        To give an idea of the Bishop's fulminations I will present to the reader verbatim extracts from my replies.

        The Bishop argued that to eliminate the General Officers from the General Conference was to change the organic law of the church and that this could not be done without the consent of the whole church. My reply to this argument is seen in the

following article published in the Christian Recorder:

        "The question as to who determines the composition of our General Conference has been brought forward with great prominence in the utterances of Bishop Turner with reference to the action of the late General Conference. Without attempting any reply to the aspersions which that otherwise quite able article contains, I beg leave to direct attention to the main question rather than to follow the extended details which make up the Bishop's article.

        "Before doing so, however, I beg to remark that I consider a bishop as much bound by the law which prohibits `inveighing against either our doctrines of our discipline as any other member of the church. I do not consider though that either this law or any other law, is intended to prohibit the respectful criticism of any action of the General Conference, or the free discussion of any church law. My contention is that under it no one is licensed to malign the General Conference as a whole, or speak evil of any of its members. And bishops above all others should avoid giving countenance to a course at once so disorderly and injurious.

        "The General Conference of 1888 did proceed in a lawful manner to define by law who should compose the General Conference and did accomplish

its purpose. That action is as much law as any other of its acts. It was accomplished without even a protest, and so stands upon the record; and I know of no Supreme Court that can set it aside. The action, therefore, whether wise or unwise, is law, or there is no law in the church.

        "The only restrictions upon the General Conference are those expressed in the Discipline. I doubt if the General Conference has ever recognized constructive restrictions; it certainly has never recognized the conjectural restrictions referred to by the Bishop.

        "The distinction between the General Conferences prior to 1868 and those since, is theoretical, ideal, and even logical; but it has been practically and consistently ignored; so that it has no existence in the history of our church legislation. The powers of the General Conference and the restrictions of the General Conference were the same before 1868 as they have been since. Practically the body has been the same, although its compositions have been different.

        "Great stress is laid upon the fact that the new law does not provide for the ex-officio membership of persons described as general officers; and it is asserted with great apparent earnestness that this cannot be done notwithstanding that it is done. Even this action, however, is no new thing; I remember quite distinctly that the General Conference

of 1868 legislated one H. M. Turner out of a standing membership, and legislated one T. G. Steward into a delegated membership. The former did not cry over lost rights, and the latter did not shout over privileges gained. Both seemed to think it a matter of course and right. I beg to insist that the General Conference of 1868 claimed no rights not claimed by the General Conference of 1888; and yet it legislated men out of a membership of over a half-century's standing--a membership not founded upon the accident of office, but upon age and experience in the ministry. I would also remark that the General Conference of 1868 at its commencement was a partially delegated body, and after the admission of the many delegates from the Southern conferences it was largely a delegated body; and it was this General Conference, composed partly of members by virtue of age; partly of lay delegates; and partly of a very respectable number of delegates from the new conferences, which marked out the composition of the General Conference.

        "With all these facts in the case, it seems strange now that any one should be found willing to call the General Conference before a court and with great solemnity inform it that its action is null and void. It may be perfectly proper for a Bishop to pronounce thus upon church laws and his own church-legislators; but when the full harvest of

may expect to reap a share in the evil and only evil of which it will consist."

        The Bishop added to the work of his pen that of his voice in making fiery, denunciatory speeches before the Conferences during which I came in for a good share of open attacks. The Bishop was an effective speaker, and when aroused could reach eloquent heights and it was not difficult for him to win popular support. The momentum gathered by more than fifty years of movement on the line the Bishop favored, could not be completely annihilated and reverse motion set up within a few months. Before the General Conference of 1892 assembled those of the Conference of 1888 had figuratively repented in sackcloth and ashes, and as for me, the Baltimore Conference in 1891 decided that my views and connection with this subject and others, rendered me unavailable as a delegate.

        I wrote a reply to the substance of the Bishop's speeches but did not publish it because it was decided that the controversy had run its course and further discussion would be profitless.

        "It is worthy of note that the most important change ever made in the constitution of our church, a change which affected, not only one part of the General Conference, or one class of its members, but which dissolved into nothingness the previous method of making up the General Conference and

method of making up the General Conference and constituted that body thereafter according to an entirely different plan, and upon an entirely different principle--a change equivalent to a revolution was accomplished by an unwritten motion offered by the late William Mooore, and adopted by the General Conference of 1868; and this revolution has been thoroughly concurred in for more than twnty years, though never thoroughly sanctioned by any congregation, quarterly conference, or annual conference, in the church. Nor indeed was it ever submitted to any such body for ratification."--Quarto-Centennial Address of T. G. Steward, Charleston, May 17th, 1890, Quarto-Centennial Budget.

        Concluding my two years as pastor in the Metropolitan Church, I was sent to Bethel Church, Baltimore, remaining there until the Spring of 1890. Bethel Church, situated on Saratoga Street, Baltimore, was a notable building. It had been erected during the pastorate of Daniel A. Payne and reflected his intelligence and taste. When I assumed pastoral charge it had been so surrounded in rear and at the sides by other buildings that the light was partially shut out, and the heavy ornamentation on the gallery fronts, and the large columns added still more to the internal obscurity. Nevertheless it was a beautiful and spacious building of the established churchly type, made to worship in,

rather than for holding mass meetings.

        The congregation was well organized and most thoroughly grooved. To every proposition they had a reply beginning with: "We always do, etc.," and which meant so far as the proffered change was concerned, "We will always continue to do, etc."

        As superintendent of the Sunday school I found a man extraordinary in many respects. By trade he was a caulker; he had served in the Post Office Department as an inspector; was a superb detective; had been employed in the U. S. Revenue Department, and was a well-equipped business man. This was in the days when typewriters were few, and Isaac Myers, the man of whom I speak, often spoken of as "Colonel Myers," was a fine penman, an expert and accurate bookkeeper, and an organizer of surpassing genius. His Sunday school was the Sunday school of Baltimore. He was not a teacher; but he could get the people there, arrange them in proper groups, prepare the material, look after the finances, and then practically say to the pastor: "Now here is everything to your hand." There seemed no disposition on his part either to oppose or ignore the pastor. He was not spiritually minded or poetical, but he was singularly practical and efficient in the sphere within which he voluntarily limited himself. Bethel Church in the eighties was very much what Isaac

Myers determined it to be.

        I should add that but a few years later this old Bethel Church awoke from its past enthraldom and turning its face toward the future took a forward bound as startling as it was grand and statesmanlike. A church-building of commanding location and ample capacity was purchased and the congregation which had so long hesitated before the faint steps becoming to a people of moderate ability dared to assume the role of an organization of giants, and giants they proved themselves to be.

        The people of Baltimore, although not noted for literary activities, have nevertheless been long distinguished for business tact for industry and thrift, and for enterprise generally in economic life. They maintained good homes, knew how to make money, and how to organize. Hence should there appear among them a leader with sufficient wisdom not to offend their local pride, and with a purpose which would appeal to their deeper sentiments and a courage which would inspire concerted action, they were capable of accomplishing great things.

        Such a leader came to them in the person of Bishop Coppin, who was of them, and who was endowed with both courage and skill. He induced them, speaking after the manner of the times, to shout from the deep springs of an awakened enthusiasm: "Baltimore uber alles!" and led them into the possession of that great building, the occupation

of which opened a new era in our work in that city.

        To maintain the social ground thus won until the congregation had recovered breath and developed strength for further advancement, Revs. D. G. Hill, W. H. Fickland, L. S. Flagg and J. W. Sanders labored earnestly in the church up unto the coming of the flood tide of war money when the Rev. William Sampson Brooks was called to the pastorate. These aforementioned faithful ministers served as effectually in building up the church and giving momentum to the general enterprise as did those others upon whom the crown of public praise has been bestowed. And I am sure none of them will wish to dim one laurel upon the brow of either Bishop Coppin who inspired the purchase of the building, or of Rev. William Sampson Brooks, under whose ministry the great debt was paid off. The raising of near one hundred thousand dollars among the colored people of Baltimore by that devoted servant of God was the last turn of the key which unlocked the door opening to the bishopric for Doctor Brooks. It was the crowning act of a brilliant pastoral career. Thousands doubtless are praying that the same measure of success, the same rich showers of blessings may accompany him in his great field in Africa whither he has gone as Bishop, bearing precious seed, and from which he will doubtless return rejoicing and bearing his

sheaves with him. May the God of all Grace prosper his labors, preserve him for years of usefulness and enrichen his soul from that bounteous store that never exhausts.

        The schools in Baltimore during the period of my pastorate were very poor so far as they made provision for colored children. There was one school supported by the Friends in which colored teachers were employed which was respectable, but which did not go far on the highway of learning. It, however, inculcated good manners and good morals and thus contributed an important share in the well-being of the community. The public schools supported from the general school fund of the city were the poorest I had met anywhere. The teachers were uniformly white and perhaps as uniformly unfit for the positions they held.

        To illustrate the character of the schools I will relate a Christmas experience which came to me while living in that city. I had two small boys attending a school in Saratoga Street taught as I recall by Mr. Savalle, principal, with two ladies, assistants. The principal was one of those "finished products" who had learned nothing in a score of years, and the assistants were in all respects fit to be his associates. I called to the school to see how the teachers and children would welcome the arrival of Christmas. The school-building had a kind of balcony extending from its second story and

on this I found the big, fat principal and his two assistants. The small school yard was completely enclosed by a high board fence and was paved with brick. This was the children's playground.

        As I entered I found these teachers on this balcony with a pail of cheap candy throwing it down on this dirty brick pavement for the children to pick up, and the children, even mine, were scrambling for it. I was so incensed that I immediately extracted my two boys from the crowd of innocents and with a look of as much scorn as I could command, and I know not what words, sent my boys home, while I went directly from this scene to the Mayor's office. I related to the Mayor just what I had seen and my story appeared to take proper effect.

        A new school house for colored children was building and it was said that in it the experiment of colored teachers was to be tried. In my sermon, which the newspapers reported, I said that trying the experiment as to colored teachers was just as necessary as it was to try whether the gas supplied by our city would burn. The building was finished and although Baltimore was gone over carefully and assistance was sought and obtained to prepare persons for examination, there could not be found eligibles enough in the whole city to supply this one building requiring only about a dozen teachers. The Board of Education then

paused to await instruction from the colored people. In a conversation with one of the leaders, when this situation had arisen, I remarked: "I can have the teachers here within twenty-four hours." "Where can you get them," said he. "I cannot get them in Baltimore, that is certain," I remarked. He then said with great feeling: "Before I would agree to have teachers come here from Washington or Massachusetts to teach here over the heads of our girls, I would go back under the same old white teachers, and stay there forever." And here the conversation between him and me on this subject ended forever.

        The following incident will illustrate something of the hidden things in Maryland:

        One day while walking along the streets in Baltimore, I observed a policeman with a white man of middle age in custody, accompanied by a young colored girl, and also by a colored woman of rather striking appearance. A small crowd was following them. My curiosity was aroused and without asking questions I decided to follow likewise.

        The policeman with his prisoner, followed by the woman and the girl finally entered a magistrate's office, and thither I entered also. As the matter was explained I learned that the woman was a keeper of a house of prostitution; that this white man had brought this young girl there; that the girl had manifested unwillingness; and that the

woman, although following such an abandoned course, was touched by the girl's aversion and had assured the girl that she should not be compelled to submit to the man's desires. This led to the call of the police and to the arrest. She related all this to the judge, the prisoner not refuting any of her statements.

        The girl was then questioned by the judge and gave her answers in a straight-forward and modest manner. Asked as to how she became acquainted with the man she replied:

        "He lives with my mother." Her appearance was such that it doubtless had something to do with the next direct question which the judge put not to the girl but to the lecherous culprit: "Is she your child?" The judge looked squarely at the biped, and he with a baboon grin replied: "They say so."

        The judge was evidently disgusted; but there seemed to be no statute under which the prisoner could be held. The fellow, assuming an air of discourtesy, the judge fined him five dollars for contempt of court, and reluctantly dismissed him, to go on his way of debauchery and incest.

        While very little change of any sort was made in the church while I was pastor, I did succeed in attracting the attention of the public press to the extent of getting reporters to the church; and also here I established Old Folk's Sunday. But sickness overtook me here and reduced me to a

ISAAC MYERS

CHAPTER IX.

APPOINTMENT AS CHAPLAIN IN THE ARMY:

        Recommended by Honorables B. K. Bruce, John R. Lynch and John Wanamaker. With the regiment in Montana--Reception--Col. George L. Andrews, Mrs. Andrews--Refused admission to a hotel dining room--Protests--Commanding officer's attitude--Settled. Regiment ordered to mobilize for Spanish-American War--Recruiting--Montauk Point--Denver. Special order to write history of the colored regulars. Ordered to the Phillipines.

        Early in 1891, I was visiting at the home of Rev. Francis Grimke, who had been for years a devoted friend, and to whose fervent piety and exalted character it is a delight to bear testimony when Hon. John R. Lynch called on Doctor Grimke also.

        After some conversation Mr. Lynch remarked: "Well, this may be Providential. I came here on purpose to talk with Doctor Grimke about Doctor Steward, but now that I meet you both together I will say in Doctor Steward's presence what I had intended to talk with Doctor Grimke about." He then said there was a vacancy in the army for a colored chaplain and that I might fill it if I would accept it. I proposed that Doctor Grimke should take it; but he positively declined, urging that I should take it. I then said to Mr. Lynch: "I do not dare refuse it for it may be the Lord's

way to provide for me. But I must consult my wife before I can give you an answer." He then said that if I wished the place I must meet him at Mr. Bruce's office the next day at eleven o'clock.

        My feeling was that my wife would object, but after prayer over the matter she decided that this was probably the Lord's way. On meeting Mr. Bruce I was affected by the warmth of interest manifested by him. Taking me by the hand, he said: "I know it is said 'Take no thought what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or wherewithal shall ye be clothed;' but men do think about such things, and I want to see you fixed for life where you will not have to care for the wherewith to live." That he should thus concern himself about my welfare impressed me deeply. He had already secured a place for my son in one of the schools, and was concerned now, about me. It was thus that John R. Lynch and Blanche K. Bruce tendered me their influence and aid, requesting only that I should not breathe the matter to a soul, only as they should direct, which request I faithfully observed. With their permission, and upon their recommendation I laid the matter before Hon. John Wanamaker, then Postmaster-General, who had befriended me before, and who knew me well. Mr. Wanamaker joined my other two patrons and this great trio secured for me my appointment as Chaplain of the Twenty-fifth United States Infantry,

the second colored chaplain appointed in the regular service.

        Assurances were given me that I should enjoy perfect freedom in preaching the gospel as I understood it; and on July 21, 1891, I accepted the appointment and was soon on my way to join my regiment then stationed in Montana. Ignorant of army ways beyond what I had learned by observation during the closing days of the Civil War, I arrived at the headquarters of the regiment at Fort Missoula, on the 24th of August. I expected no favors, and merely wrote to the Adjutant what time I would arrive, stating that I would thank him to make temporary arrangements for my accommodation. I was greatly surprised when I arrived to find the Adjutant at the depot with a buggy, an ambulance, and an escort wagon, with two men in it, besides the driver. Provision had been made for myself, family and baggage, but I was alone, with no baggage beyond a hand-bag and moderate trunk.

        On arriving at the post I was informed that I was to take breakfast with the Colonel. This was altogether surprising to me. I made my toilet as rapidly as I could, and was scarcely through when an officer, lieutenant, came bearing the first military message I had ever received, running somewhat in the following form: "The Commanding Officer sends his compliments to the Chaplain and informs

COLONEL GEO. L. ANDREWS

        On coming to luncheon I noticed that my trunk had been removed, but I ventured no remark or inquiry. After luncheon the Colonel, leaning back in his chair remarked dryly: "Well, I suppose you would like to know what has become of your trunk."

        "If you please," I replied.

        "Come with me and I will show you."

        I followed him up stairs and into a large, well-furnished room, when showing me my trunk he said: "There is your trunk; this is your room. Come and go as you please. If you do not find here all you want, ask for it."

        In the afternoon the Colonel's wife took me into the town in her carriage, introduced me to the merchants as the chaplain of the regiment, bespeaking for me their confidence. The Quartermaster was directed to show me the quarters which

were open to my selection and to put in order those that I should select. The members of the garrison came forward to lend me any household goods I might need for use until mine should arrive. Although enjoying the Colonel's hospitality, I set up housekeeping as soon as possible, employing a soldier's wife as cook and housekeeper.

        When my family arrived the Colonel's wife gave a dinner in honor of the new addition to his staff at which all the staff and field officers were present. In going into the dining-room the Colonel took my wife on his arm, and Mrs. Andrews went on my arm. My wife was seated at the table on the Colonel's right, and I was seated on the right of Mrs. Andrews. I take pains to detail this that the reader may appreciate the character of my introduction to the chaplaincy of the Twenty-fifth Infantry, under its noble commander.

        Colonel George L. Andrews was a man of commanding appearance, with a sonorous voice, an excellent administrator, regardful of the welfare of the men in his command, strict as to the matter of discipline, impartial and just in all his actions. He was temperate, and enforced respect for morality and religion, in a quiet and effective way more by example than otherwise. He had a Civil War record and when I arrived at the post was nearing his retirement age. He had been abstemious and had laid up for himself a good basis for the years

MRS. ANDREWS

which might come after leaving the active service. As a matter of fact he survived his retirement twenty-eight years, dying at the age of ninety-two.

        Mrs. Andrews was the daughter of General H. K. Oliver, the composer whose name appears in so many of our church hymnals. He gave us "Merton," and perhaps, above all, our "Federal Street." The daughter was a lover of music and flowers. She played the organ at our services, was loved by the men, and she was very proud of them in return. She had had long experience in frontier life and knew how to make the most out of her surroundings. She was an earnest Christian. Both she and her husband danced, usually leading the "Hops," but the Colonel always went about it as discharging cheerfully a "military duty," while Mrs. Andrews in the same manner fulfilled her social obligations as head of the post circle. The first invitation given to my wife to appear at anything social was from this First Lady, and it included the prescription that ladies were to appear without hats and with gloves. I remember how I felt a slight tremor when the delicate proffer was made to lend my wife anything she might need to wear. Later, I found that borrowing and lending with the old thoroughbred officers of the army went on with but little limitation. My big coffee pot did service whenever and wherever needed. The

friendly helpfulness of the old officers of the Twenty-fifth, I speak from experience, was abundant yet delicate. When my great afflictions came, men said to me: "Do not embarrass yourself; here are ample funds. You have our sympathy and our aid to the full." Captain Glenn, now Major-General; Captain Edwards; Captain Loughboro; Captain Wilson, all of whom attained honorable careers and due promotion, and Major Chambers McKibbin, whose generosity endeared him to me for life--these were some of the men who made the Twenty-fifth so highly esteemed by me. Of course there were others. Of the younger men, I could not forget young Lieutenant McCorkle and his engaging wife, the daughter of Major Ritzius; McCorkle who sang so sweetly: "Flee as a bird to your mountain"; and who traveled with the pall of death hanging over him from Missoula to Chattanooga when our regiment was called into the war with Spain; McCorkle who fell pierced to the heart by a Mauser bullet while bravely commanding his company before El Kaney. Then I recall the many virtues of Lieutenant Vernon Caldwell, and recall also the many pleasant evenings spent in his bachelor's quarters while he related the story of a recent hunt or a fishing trip. And later there came Lieutenant Colonel A. S. Daggett, a prince among men.

        But if we had noble officers we also had men of

CHAPLAIN T. G. STEWARD

        Soon after arriving at the headquarters of the regiment I remarked to Mrs. Andrews that I had not expected any such treatment as I had received; I had expected merely to be shown the quarters I was to occupy. With all earnestness she replied: "Well, that would not have been very Christ-like." Her religion was of the practical sort, seeking to contribute to the comfort and happiness of others.

        I arrived at my post in August and in the following April Colonel Andrews took formal leave of the regiment going into retirement. The parting scene was deeply affecting. Many an old soldier wept as he shook hands with his old commander. Nor was the Colonel himself entirely unmoved. Indeed real tears were shed by both officers and soldiers. It was a beautiful sight to see these men, clad in the paraphernalia of war, hardened by years of service and discipline, giving way to the finer feelings of their nature, and manifesting a friendship as tender and rich as can be found anywhere in American life--officers and soldiers, white and black, all

swayed by a common emotion and mingling their tears in a common regret. Colonel Andrews and been with the regiment over twenty-one years and as he now received the final salute of the officers on parade with choked utterance and voice shaking with emotion he remarked: "That is all, gentlemen." Colonel Andrews, a typical American gentleman and soldier, a useful object lesson for the youth of the Nation with his noble consort. May their virtues long live in their descendents and their memories be green for generations!

        My work among the soldiers grew more interesting daily. I became possessed of the army spirit and identified myself with its discipline and training as well as with its out-door life. I learned how to camp out, and to hunt. In Western Montana we were in the region of the deer, the bear and the coyote and bob cat. I have seen both coyote and bear within the limits of our post. I never hunted big game, however, although bear and deer were often killed by members of the garrison and not infrequently venison and bear meat was served to us as compliments. I limited my ambition to pheasants, prairie chickens, and grouse. Of these I shot many. My sons developed into disciples of Walton and kept us well supplied with fish. The clear mountain streams which ran down into the rich valleys of that region were then, and I presume are now, stocked with beautiful, gamey,

speckled trout; and their waters soft, cool and excellent for drinking.

        For my readers I must condense an account of one out of several interesting hunting trips. Our party consisted of myself and four sons, a corporal and three privates. We were furnished with one four-mule team, one spring wagon with two mules, and we had one saddle pony. We had also tent equipage, rations and camp furniture. Our leave was for fifteen days, during which we traveled about 320 miles, shot 28 grouse, and caught 327 trout, not counting other game and fish. We went through the Flathead Indian Reservation, stopping at the famous St. Ignatius Mission (Catholic); we crossed the beautiful Flathead Lake and made our way northward as far as to the little town of Kalispel, passing through the settlements of the Flathead Indians, and also of the Kootenai Tribe. We returned by nearly the same route that we had taken in our outward journey. We left on the 8th of August and returned on the 23rd, just before the time for the rains to begin. During our whole trip we had no rain whatever. In that part of Montana one could count on dry days from about July 1st to August 24th.

        There were disturbances in the mines in Idaho, in the Coeur de Lene region which became so serious that our troops were ordered there to protect life and property. Then came the Coxey

craze, when a large disorderly mass of the so-called Coxey Army was moving through our neighborhood creating alarm, and some of our troops were ordered out to enclose these and hold them in check temporarily. They were corraled and guarded and taught something of camp life, until the fever by which they were infected subsided--I mean until the mental hallucination by which they were affected had passed away, and they could be trusted to go on their way as rational being. But most serious of all during that period was the Pullman railroad sympathetic strike in 1894. This cut us out of mail for about eighteen days. It came just as the berry crop of the Bitter Root Valley was reaching its full harvest and for eighteen days not a car moved from Missoula, the outlet for the valley. The cities of Butte, Helena and Phillipsburg, which would have taken all of these berries at a fine price, were cut off; as a consequence I saw the finest berries going at five cents a box, with creates offered as low as fifty cents. This was a serious loss to the farmers of that section, and a loss which they were illy prepared to stand. Also there were trains delayed on the railroads filled with passengers who were suffering all sorts of inconveniences. Bridges were set on fire and dynamite was used. Again our small but efficient regular army came to the rescue. Our regiment

guarded the high trestles, and the threatening tunnels, leaving their comfortable barraks and camping along that great trans-continental highway, the Northern Pacific Railroad. I preached to our men while they were so encamped.

        Finally the Government took charge of the road and trains were run by the military, the soldiers from one department guarding the trains and patrolling the road until they were relieved by soldiers from another department. Thus at great risk and amid real dangers, traffic was slowly restored by the ever-ready American soldier.

        On the return of our troops to the post after their service along the railroad the following order of appreciation was issued:

"Fort Missoula, Mont., August 9, 1894.

        "ORDER NO. 81:--In view of the return of the troops who were detached from this post to prevent obstruction and resistance to the laws of the United States by railroad strikers and their sympathizers, the Commanding Officer deems it just and proper to convey to the officers and men so engaged his keen appreciation of the satisfactory manner in which they have conducted themselves, not only as well-disciplined soldiers but as patriotic citizens of this country. Their fidelity, patience and courage under trying circumstances

are a lasting credit to themselves and to the service of the United States.

        "By order of Colonel Burt.

"H. A. LEONHAEUSER, Adjutant."

        In this work the Twenty-fifth Infantry took its full share and won fine complimentary orders from its commanding officer: And--That Is All. This service valuable and heroic as it really was, was the soldier's matter of course duty, for which no medals are given no reward or recognition placed to his credit. The whole nation reaped the benefit of the fidelity of our soldiers of the West at that time, and the Northern Pacific Railroad especially, but so far as I observed no increased consideration was given to the men in blue who delivered them.

        While on duty in Fort Missoula, I occasionally preached in the churches in the city, and up the valley, especially at a place called Lolo, and it is remarkable that while many of the settlers through this region were men who had served in the Confederate Army or their relatives and children, or as some described them, "The left wing of Price's army who had escaped the surrender," they were very cordial to me. I have eaten in their homes and at their general tables in basket meetings in the woods. Many of them seemed devoutly pious. It is also proper to remark for the credit of the men of the Twenty-fifth that although they were

stationed here for ten years and women traveled these mountain roads on horseback or in buggies, these mountain women always regarded the soldiers of the regiment as their protectors. They were always relieved to see our men in blue.

        My usual work on Sunday was to visit the hospital and guard house in the morning after guard-mounting; to visit any in the garrison who might be sick, as well as any soldiers who might be sick in quarters, to distribute any reading matter I might have to the men in the barracks, visiting the companies for that purpose. Afternoon we would hold Sunday school for both children and adults; at night we would have general service for both officers and men. The officers and their families attended quite generally and their families, with the wives of some of the soldiers, took special interest in the singing. Beside the little cabinet organ we frequently employed some of the band instruments. I also, while here, gave two courses of lectures on European history to the ladies of the garrison.

        The year 1893 must stand in my history as the year of deep and harrowing grief; for in it I was forced to give up my oldest son, the one who graduated from the Institute for Colored Youth in Philadelphia in 1896. Not long before his death he wrote these pathetic and forecasting lines:

                         "'Tis death. And what is death? Canst thou tell?
                         A separation. Well, of what, and why?
                         Is it the soul has loosed its carnal bounds
                         And gone to nobler, broader realms on high?
                         If so, 'tis well. But why? That there for aye
                         It may its powers employ. Sensations which
                         On earth it could not feel, in heaven it kens,
                         And knowing grows; and man--that soul--becomes
                         Alike to His creator. This is death!

                         "And this its reason clear. Then it is not
                         A dreadful termination, but of hope,
                         And joy. Yet Nature ever fears a step
                         Which disenthrones her; ever hopes that she
                         May claim man's homage undivided. She
                         Th' inevitable dreads."

        He passed away and was buried in the Gouldtown Cemetery, Rev. Francis J. Grimke, of Washington, D. C., officiating on the occasion, and delivering a most comforting discourse.

        Only a few months after the death of our son, the mother, who had nursed him in his illness as only a mother could, heard the summons from the Land of Peace and Rest. Quietly submitting she gave up her children, saying she hoped to be "Only remembered by what she had done," and calmly entered into rest sending out her last message

MRS. ELIZABETH G. STEWARD

        My son Theophilus Bolden, who was then fourteen years old, expressed the feelings and described the sad event in the following lines:

                         "I turn once more to look upon her,
                         Fading now away so fast;
                         Her work is done, her race is run,
                         She sweetly sleeps at last.

                         "She was indeed, my only friend;
                         In time of grief or joy.
                         Her voice of music had no end,
                         For she loved her merry boy."

        About the time our soldiers were concluding their tour of duty in guarding railroad property as I have mentioned in the railroad strike and as traffic was slowly becoming normal, Chaplain I. Newton Ritner, who was stationed at Fort Keogh, Mont., was passing through our section and took occasion to stop over in Missoula principally that he might have an interview with me. He had informed me, by telegraph of his coming and where I might find him. Accordingly, at the proper time I called at the Florence Hotel, where he was staying for a short time, and was invited by him to take dinner with him in the dining room of

that hotel. What followed will be better understood by the reader from the correspondence here inserted. The first letter is to the Helena paper, which perhaps might be regarded as the representative paper of Montana; the second was published in the Missoulian local daily and headed "An Able Protest." Both articles appeared about the same time, August 10, 1894. To the Helena Journal I wrote:

"To the Editor:

        "While the soldiers of my regiment were performing the most trying duties in the highest possible manner, protecting the lives and property of citizens and preserving the peace generally, especially in and near the town of Missoula, I received a telegram from Chaplain I. Newton Ritner, of Fort Keogh, that he would arrive in Missoula on the evening July 25. He did so, and took rooms at the Florence Hotel, whither I went to call on him at my earliest convenience.

        "As he had but a few hours to stay in the town and particularly wished to converse with me, as I did also with him, he kindly invited me to stay and take the evening meal with him. I consented and dismissed the conveyance I had, expecting to remain with him some time. As we left his room to supper, or dinner as it seems to have been, he left me to go to the office to make the necessary

arrangements, and what immediately followed I will allow him to tell in his own words.

        "He says: 'Upon reaching the desk, I said to the gentleman in charge 'Will it be necessary to register the name of my friend, Chaplain Steward, before we go to the dining room? He will take dinner with me.' He replied that he (the chaplain) could not be admitted to the dining room, as it is contrary to the rules of the hotel to admit a colored man there. I said to him: 'I'm astonished beyond measure that such a state of affairs exists here.' He replied: 'I'm sorry; but if a colored man is allowed in the dining rooms our patrons would all leave us.' I told him that I did not care to discuss the rules of the house, but that my friend who is a clergyman and an army officer should not be allowed to accompany me to the table was a new experience to me. It had never occurred before. He then proposed to send your dinner to my room if I so desired. I replied: 'No, not without previous consultation with my friend, and with his assent,' and left the office and returned to you.'

        "I did not allow myself to talk or even to think of the matter while Chaplain Ritner was with me because I was anxious that his visit should not be further marred, and the above statement was obtained from him after his return to the station, and of it he says: 'The above is taken from the

notes I made of the occurrence at the time for transfer to my diary.'

        "After waiting five days I addressed the proprietors of the hotel the following note to which they have not at this writing seen fit to reply:

"Proprietors of The Florence Hotel, Missoula,
Mont.

        "Gentlemen: On last Wednesday, July 23, about 6:30 p. m., I called at the Florence Hotel to see my friend Chaplain I. Newton Ritner, U. S. A., who then occupied Room 27, therein. Soon after meeting him he invited me to take dinner with him, and as this was my only opportunity of conversing with him and as he seemed so urgent to have me stay, I consented and allowed the ambulance to drive off, leaving me there. Coming down from his room to the dining room he asked me to excuse him while he went down to make necessary arrangements. On his return he informed me with much apparent chagrin that he had been forbidden to take me into the dining room. Hence there was nothing left for me to do but to turn away and thus free my friend from his embarrassment as quickly as possible. Up to the present I have not mentioned the affair, because I have indulged the hope that so unusual and, to my mind, so rude a proceeding would not be left to go unexplained; but as no word has yet come, it seems not only

my right but my duty to ask of the proprietors of this respectable public house some explanation of this very strange conduct. I cannot consent to the gratuitous outraging of my friend's feelings, and the apparent very, very cruel indignity perpetrated upon myself, without at least asking the reason why. Being entirely unconscious of any reason why I should be thus treated anywhere upon this broad earth, much less in this my own country of more than a half dozen generations, I respectfully but anxiously await your reply.

        "That the churches do not share in such a feeling is evidenced by the fact that they have been very free to call upon me for service, and have again and again born testimony to the satisfactory character of the service rendered. At the time of the refusal I was supplying the only Presbyterian pulpit in the city Sunday mornings. And only a few days before, I had taken dinner and supper at the Rankin House, a popular hotel of the city. I had not the slightest idea that there was objection lurking for me at the Florence, or I should have kept well out of the way; and I publish this in order that all others of like character as myself being forewarned with respect to it, may be forearmed, and so avoid running against a disagreeable snag.

"T. G. STEWARD."

        To the Local Paper I wrote as follows:

"Editor of the Missoulian:

        "Some days ago it was my misfortune to be invited to take dinner at a public hotel, only to have the proprietor tell my kind friend that I, because of my color, could not be admitted to the dining room, assigning as a reason for this prohibition that all the patrons of the hotel would leave in case a colored man should enter the dining room. Now this may or may not be true; but that there is enough of probability in it for it to arise to the mind as a reason, entitles it to some consideration. If what the proprietor says is true generally, then it is impossible to carry on the hotel business under the laws of our land. If it is merely true locally, then it argues the need of something to be done for its correction. As to my own experience, I will say that I have stopped, or eaten, in good hotels in New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Illinois and Montana; and have never seen any disaster follow, so I cannot believe the reason assigned is one of general application. I have also taken meals at a respectable house in Missoula, and no unpleasantness whatever was noticeable. I incline therefore to the opinion that the majority of Americans are sufficiently advanced in intelligence to distinguish between so-called privileges, and

business transactions--between private prejudice and public rights.

        "With regard to social matters, I have not the least concern. I happen to belong to no social 'set,' hence in that world I am, and have been for years, practically a 'free lance,' associating with individuals whom I find agreeable and avoiding those who affect me otherwise. This privilege I freely accord to every human being, far or near. If a man finds any comfort in cultivating what he supposes is a 'race prejudice,' I have no quarrel with him; only he ought to treat his prejudices just as he would his curs--keep them on his own premises or muzzle them when he takes them in public. Personally I have never been conscious of anything signified by the term colored. I can feel my individuality and my responsibility, but my consciousness fails to give any response to the adjective that unreasoning prejudice attaches to my person. As a physical fact, I freely admit it, as a thing neither to be ashamed of nor proud of; as of no more moral, intellectual or social worth than height or weight. It is physical, and that is all. As to all other ideas of whatever sort or kind that are sought to be pressed into the word "colored," as applied to people, I have all my life-long failed to find any verification of them either in my own consciousness, or in my actual intercourse with other human beings.

        Would anything be lost if the custom of classing people as colored should be dropped? I do not think the colored people themselves care anything about it, one way or the other; but would it not be better to allow all those words which make distinctions in our citizenship to fall into innocuous desuetude?

        Let me add one thing more: There is no more loyal element in the country than the African element. It is thoroughly American, is physically powerful and enthusiasticly loyal to the national government. This element could furnish one million of soldiers. Let the nation treat them well. No element in the land is advancing so rapidly in the accumulation of property, in the acquisition of intelligence and in the development of strong character. They are rapidly winning places in the front rank of scholarship.

        I again beg to add that in social manners and matters, the cultivated colored people of Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston, to speak of those only that I know, are not only the equals of any of their own financial standing, but as a rule, in musical and literary taste, in conversational ability, and in refinement generally are far superior. This is the uniform testimony of foreigners and even of unprejudiced white Americans.

T. G. STEWARD.

        My commanding officer, Colonel Andrew S. Burt, backed me squarely in my protest and went with me to consult the most prominent lawyer of the place. The next day the proprietor came out to the post to see me, apologized and begged and requested that no action be taken against his house. I demanded that he put his apology in writing, which he did, and also extended to me the freedom of his hotel, with the pledge that thereafter colored persons would be accommodated therein on the same conditions as others. And so ended the matter, with what after results I never learned.

        In the years 1894-95-96 and 97, especially 94 and 95, I did considerable newspaper and magazine writing. My contributions to the daily papers included papers from New York to New Orleans, for all of which work I was paid merely space rates. Several important magazines also received and published my contributions, among which I may name Harper's, Leslie's, The Independent and the military magazines. In a list of army writers made up during that period and published in The Californian, five names were given with cuts and sketches and among them was my own.

        The article immediately following was written in defense of the army in general and in answer

to the feeling which was aroused in our garrison by the circumstance which it relates: