and held him in much respect. When he was told that some sought to cast
imputations on his character, he was greatly surprised, and offered to
give favorable testimony in any form that might be desired. J.R.
Whiting, the District Attorney, expressed the same readiness; and
private misrepresentations were silenced by a published certificate from
them, testifying that throughout the affair Friend Hopper had merely
"exhibited a desire to procure the money for the master, and the
manumission of the slave."

The principal argument brought by Friends, against their members uniting
with Anti-Slavery Societies, was that they were thus led to mix
indiscriminately with people of other denominations, and brought into
contact with hireling clergymen. There seemed some inconsistency in this
objection, coming from the mouths of men who belonged to Rail Road
Corporations, and Bank Stock Companies, and who mingled constantly with
slaveholders in Southern trade; for the early testimonies of the Society
were quite as explicit against slavery, as against a paid ministry.
However, those of their members who were abolitionists were willing to
obviate this objection, if possible. They accordingly formed an
association among themselves, "for the relief of those held in slavery,
and the improvement of the free people of color." But when this
benevolent association asked for the use of Rose-street Meeting-house,
their request was not only refused, but condemned as disorderly.
Affairs were certainly in a very singular position. Both branches of the
Society of Friends were entirely inert on the subject of slavery. Both
expressed pity for the slave, but both agreed that "the way did not
open" for them to _do_ anything. If individual members were thus driven
to unite in action with other sects upon a subject which seemed to them
very important, they were called disorganizers. When they tried to
conciliate by forming an association composed of Quakers only, they were
told that "as the Society of Friends saw no way to move forward in this
concern, such associations appeared to reflect upon _them_;" implying
that they failed in discharging their duty as a religious body. What
could an earnest, direct character, like Isaac T. Hopper, do in the
midst of a sect thus situated? He proceeded as he always did. He walked
straight forward in what seemed to him the path of duty, and snapped all
the lilliputian cords with which they tried to bind him.

Being un