George Washington Doane.

The protest and appeal of George Washington Doane, Bishop of New Jersey; as aggrieved, by William Meade, George Burgess, and Charles Pettit McIlvaine: and his reply to the false, calumnious, and malignant representations of William Halsted, Caleb Perkins, Peter V. Coppuck, and Bennington Gill: on wh online

. (page 4 of 5)
Online LibraryGeorge Washington DoaneThe protest and appeal of George Washington Doane, Bishop of New Jersey; as aggrieved, by William Meade, George Burgess, and Charles Pettit McIlvaine: and his reply to the false, calumnious, and malignant representations of William Halsted, Caleb Perkins, Peter V. Coppuck, and Bennington Gill: on wh → online text (page 4 of 5)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


debt ; and the purpose, from the first, was entertained, to provide
for it, distinctly. This has been done, by the undertaking of another ;
to the entire satisfaction of the Convention : as will be found, in the
Journal, for 1850. Nevertheless, a memorandum of it was sent in to
Mr. Aertsen ; though, as it proved, too late, to be included in
the list.

As to the discrepancy, in the amount of indebtedness, to Michael
Hays, the list was made out, not by the undersigned, but by Mr.
Aertsen, as he best could, without his help : from his note-book ;
from the books of the several banks at which discounts were had ;
and from the memoranda of the broker, by whom, for the most part,
they were negotiated. The difference, as stated, is great. But, it
must be remembered, that neither party kept accurate lists. And,



33

beside, that a great proportion of the notes must have fallen due,
and been renewed, during the five months' illness of the undersigned ;
of which he could have little cognizance. There was no motive, to
any fraudulent statement : since it was certain to be corrected, by
the notes, themselves.

SPECIFICATION 3.

He placed on said list the name of Joseph Deacon as a creditor to the amount
of $23,480 only, whereas, the said Joseph Deacon was at the time a creditor to
an amount exceeding $30,000.

REPLY.

Joseph Deacon, like Michael Hays, endorsed, for the undersigned,
extensively ; and received a consideration, for it. The notes were
obtained, when needed ; and neither party kept any list. The state-
ment, in the assignment, in this case, was made out under the same
disadvantages, as that of Michael Hays. And the maturity of many
of the notes, and their substitution by others, during the illness of
the undersigned, would expose the matter to much additional diffi-
culty. The discrepancy is large : but the circumstances were pecu-
liar. The statement could in no way injure Mr. Deacon, nor benefit
the undersigned.

SPECIFICATION 4.

He stated in his list of debts that there are sundry notes, whose endorsers are
uncertain, amounting to $4,447.36, but he does not specify who are the credi-
tors or holders of said notes ; or the amount of said notes respectively.

REPLY.

The notes endorsed by Hays and Deacon were, for the most part,
discounted, by a broker. The undersigned seldom knew, by whom
the money was furnished. Of what other use, this specification is,
than to swell the number, it is difficult to see. There could have
been no objection to stating the names, had they been known. Not
to know them is scarcely culpable ; surely, not fraudulent.

SPECIFICATION 5.

He states in his list of debts sundry notes endorsed by R. J. Germain, negotia-
ted by F. Woolman for $1,983.25, and yet he does not tell who are the credi-
tors or holders of these notes, or the amount thereof respectively.

REPLY.

This seems to be another item, inserted for the sake of number.

3



34

The undersigned did not know the particulars, alluded to. Of what
importance could it be, that they should be known ? How can the
ignorance of them, or the omission to state them, be charged, as
fraud ?

SPECIFICATION 6.

He omits to place on his list of creditors the name of H. R. Cleveland, who
he well knew was at the time a creditor in trust for the sum of $15,000.

REPLY.

What shall this assertion be called? The indebtedness to the
estate of Mr. Cleveland, in trust, is acknowledged, in the Schedule of
the Real Estate, which forms part of the assignment. It has been
on record, in the public office, at Mount Holly, for nearly three
years ; and accessible to all. Peter V. Coppuck lives at Mount
Holly. William Halsted is frequently, if not constantly, there, at
the Burlington Courts. Caleb Perkins and Bennington Gill are
both within two hours of it. And, yet, they unite, in declaring that
the debt is not acknowledged : and, that, in a document designed to
procure the presentment of their Bishop. They make the assertion,
knowing it to be false ; or else without taking the slightest pains to
know if it was true. In so solemn a transaction, the difference is
small. " Acting," they say, " in the spirit of the 26th Article of
our religion, which declares that it appertaineth to the discipline of
the Church that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and they be
accused by them that have knowledge of their offences, we felt
ourselves called upon to make such an investigation into the nature
and truth of these charges as to perform our duty : AND UPON SUCH
INVESTIGATION, we are compelled," &c. An investigation which did
not go to the whole extent of the assignment ! Or, else, a wilful mis-
statement of its contents !

SPECIFICATION 7.

He omits to place on his list of creditors the name of William Chester, who
he well knew was a creditor to the amount of $800.

REPLY.

This indebtedness is also stated in the schedule, which forms part
of the Assignment. The same remarks apply to this, as to the pre-
ceding Specification.



35

SPECIFICATION 8.

He omits to place on the list of his creditors the name of Sarah C. Robardett,
who, he well knew (at the time he made his affidavit attached to said list) was
a creditor of his to the amount of $3000.

REPLY.

This indebtedness is also stated in the schedule, which forms part
of the Assignment. The same remarks apply to this, as to the two
preceding specifications.

SPECIFICATION 9.

He omits to place on his list of creditors the names of I. B. Parker, and other
Trustees, to whom he knew (at the time he made said affidavit) that he was
indebted in the sum of $10,800.

REPLY.

This indebtedness is also stated in the schedule, which forms part
of the assignment. The same remarks apply to this, as to the three
preceding specifications. The rule, in regard to testimony is,
" Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." What an illustration
of it!

SPECIFICATION 10.

He omits to state the amount of debts due to several of his creditors, respec-
tively, or states the amount as being much less than he knew it to be, at the
time he made the affidavit.

REPLY.

How does this agree with the rule of common justice and of com-
mon sense; which requires, in all "specifications," "reasonable
certainty, as to time, place and circumstance ?" To what end,
such a specification ; but to make a show, by numbers ?

CHARGE VI.

Wilfully contracting large debts without any reasonable prospect of being
able to pay them.

SPECIFICATION 1.

Contracting debts to an amount exceeding $250,000, when his whole estate,
real and personal, according to his own valuation, under oath, does not amount
to one half that sum.

REPLY.

The first remark, in connection with this specification, is, that,
of this $250,000, the real estate of the undersigned stood for



36

$100,000. The objection raised, then, lies against the floating
debt, of $150,000. In regard to that, it may be remarked, that,
if every one carrying on a large business, requiring the use of large
sums of money, were measured by the rule which is here applied,
no one could stand, a day. Granted, that the whole estate of the
undersigned did not amount to one-half of his debts. Was that all,
that he had to rely upon ? Are two flourishing [Institutions to
count for nothing ? He had passed through the fiery part of his
trial. Institutions of such character, could not be established
without a large outlay of money in the beginning. The period
of comparative loss had gone by. Consider the situation of these
Schools, at that time. St. Mary's Hall, during the winter term of
1848-9, (when the undersigned was prostrated by illness,) contained
159 pupils, and Burlington College, 127. There are no means available
by which the net profits of this term can be accurately shown ; but
the results of the following term are known ; and furnish the basis
of what is very near to a certainty. During the summer of 1849,
St. Mary's Hall contained 144 pupils, and the net profits of that
term were - $5.040 69

Now, every one knows, that after the receipts exceed
the expenditures, the cost of every additional pupil
rapidly diminishes. So that, at the period under consi-
deration, we may safely estimate the profit, on the latest
comers, as at least one-half of the term charges : the
difference between 144 and 159 is 15. 15x75 (Jterm
charges) - - 1.125 00

$6.165 69

Burlington College then contained 124 pupils, and
the profits were $3.365 18. An addition of 3 pupils
would give, as the profits of the previous term - 3.590 18

Showing the profits of the two, together, per term - $9.755 87

Being a total annual surplus of nearly Twenty Thousand Dollars.
There is not a doubt, that, had the undersigned retained his health
uninterrupted, and been permitted to carry on his work unmolested,
the number of pupils would have increased, rather than diminished ;
and he might, under the new arrangements, then in progress,
have raised this amount to $25,000 per annum. Let any honest
person look at this statement, which the books of the two Institutions



37

confirm, in every figure of it : and judge, then, as to the value of
this charge.

The amount of the debt was large: made much larger than it
ought to have been, by the cost of procuring money, and the dis-
advantage of purchasing on credit ; to say nothing of various forms
of imposition. But it was not so large, that a few years would not
have reduced it to a manageable amount ; and a reasonable period
of success extinguished it.

SPECIFICATION 2.

Contracting debts to an amount of upwards of $150,000, (over and beyond the
amount of his mortgage debts,) when his personal estate, according to his own
valuation, under oath, amounted to only $17,418 56.

REPLY.

The only real difference, between this, and the former specifica-
tion, is the omission of the indebtedness, chargeable on the Real Es-
tate. It should have stood in the place of that. The remarks, made
in regard to that, dispose of this.

CHARGE VII.

Drawing checks on banks, (in which bank at the time he knew he had no
money to pay said check) and delivering said checks to individuals as good, or
in payment of their demands against him.

REPLY.

There were several Banks in New Jersey, at which special friends
of the undersigned, and of his work, were influential in many cases,
as Presidents, and Cashiers on which, he was permitted to draw
short drafts, from time to time ; to be discounted and placed to his
credit. At their maturity, they were duly met. This was an indul-
gence granted to the undersigned, by those who had an interest in
his work ; and were willing, in this way, to assist him in its prosecu-
tion. He drew no other checks, but in connexion with his discounts,
on any Bank, but that in Burlington ; in which he kept his account.

CHARGE VIII.

Practising deception upon creditors and other persons, by giving or sending
them checks on banks (in which he knew at the time he had no money) in pay-
ment of demands against him. And when informed that the bank on which
said checks were drawn refused payment of the same, neglecting to pay said
checks.



SPECIFICATION L

He drew his check upon the Burlington Bank, and sent it to the Princeton
Bank, or one of the officers thereof, to pay a note of his which was due at said
bank, and on which said note there was a responsible endorser ; and the officer
of the Princeton bank, relying in full confidence upon the payment of the
said check by the Burlington Bank, neglected to protest the said note, and
thereby discharged the endorser ; and the said George W. Doane being informed
that the said check was unpaid, neglected to pay any part of the same for a long
time thereafter : and a large proportion of the amount remains unpaid to the
present day.

REPLY.

The circumstantialness of this specification will not supply its lack
of truth. Its points are : that a note had been discounted, at the
Princeton Bank ; that, it had a responsible endorser ; that, when it
fell due, it was paid by a check on the Burlington Bank ; that it was,
therefore, not protested ; that the endorser was, so, discharged ; that
the check on the Burlington Bank was refused, for want of funds ;
and the payment of the check, for a long time, neglected ; and, then,
made in part. Now, there was no note. There was no separate en-
dorser. There was no payment, by a check. There was thus, for
two reasons, no discharge of the endorser. There was no refusal of
a check on the Burlington Bank. There was a protest. The only
truth, to all these falsehoods is, that the amount was paid, in part.
This was the case. One of the short drafts, alluded to under charge
VII, was drawn, on the undersigned, by the Rev. Mr. Germain ; who
was for a long time closely associated in the business operations, in
which he was engaged. It was accepted by the undersigned, and
discounted at the Princeton Bank. Being unpaid, at maturity, it
was duly protested. The payment of a third part of it, at a subse-
quent date, is acknowledged on the draft. Why did these guardians
of "the 26th Article of our religion" ascertain just enough, to
make the basis of a falsehood ; and not enough to state the truth ?
How is it to be reconciled with their assertion that they had made
"such an investigation," as "to enable" them "to perform" their
"duty?" The occurrence, which the undersigned is thus called on,
under such circumstances, to explain, is nearly four years old.

SPECIFICATION 2.

Drawing checks on the Burlington Bank (when he had no money in said
bank) and after he had been told by an officer of said bank that he must not
draw checks on said bank when he had no money there.



39

REPLY.

The only ground of this false allegation is the habit of the under-
signed, to make his account good, every day, at 3 o'clock. Checks,
which came in, in the early part of the day, would often be unprovided
for, at that time. Provision was made, to meet them daily ; until the
sickness occurred. It is a practice, current, every where ; and no-
where regarded as evidence or intention of fraud. The account was
troublesome, in this way, to the officers of the Bank ; but no objec-
tion, other than that, was ever made by any of them. It may be safe-
ly asserted, and contradiction defied, that no idea of dishonesty was
ever in their minds. So far from it, the Cashiers in all the Banks,
in which the undersigned did business, will testify to his proverbial
punctuality, for years.

CHARGE IX.

Wilfully persisting in making written promises to pay money, at stated
periods and times, and allowing said promises to be repeatedly broken and
unfulfilled.

REPLY.

If this charge means any thing, it is, that when applied to for
payment, the undersigned promised to do so, at a time, when he hoped
it would be possible ; and then was disappointed. He might have
refused to promise. But he was always anxious to meet every one's
convenience; and sometimes undertook what was found to exceed
his ability. If there is dishonesty in this, it is of very common
occurrence. "Whoever casts a stone, should himself be "without sin."

CHARGE X.

That he induced individuals to endorse notes for him under pretence that
they were to renew notes which had been previously endorsed by the said indi-
viduals , and, after obtaining said notes for such avowed object, appropriating
them to other purposes leaving the old notes they were pledged to renew
unpaid, and thus increasing the liabilities of the said endorser without his
consent.

SPECIFICATION 1.

He obtained the endorsements of Michael Hays in the manner set forth in
the foregoing charge to an amount much larger than he would have been
willing to endorse for him.

REPLY.

Michael Hays kept no account of the notes, endorsed by him ;
and so, could never testify, to the amount of them. They were al-



40

most uniformly endorsed, with the dates, blank ; and being, with rare
exceptions, for the same sum, could never be identified, nor their appro-
priation ascertained. Moreover, the endorsements were bought and
paid for ; and were as properly convertible to any use, as bank notes
would have been. The undersigned denies entirely the pretence,
charged above. For the reasons, above stated, it never could be
established. If what is charged had occurred, the protest of the
note would have gone at once to the endorser ; and told the tale.
The falsehood is transparent. Finally, Michael Hays has acknow-
ledged, as can be proved, that he declared under oath before the
G-rand Jury, in August, 1850, that HE HAD NO CAUSE OF COMPLAINT

AGAINST THE UNDERSIGNED.

SPECIFICATION 2.

He obtained the endorsement of Joseph Deacon, in the manner set forth, in
the preceding charge, to an amount much larger than he would otherwise have
endorsed for him.

REPLY.

The very same remarks are equally applicable to this, and the
former, specification. Joseph Deacon has acknowledged, as can be
proved, that he declared under oath, lefore the Grand Jury, in
August, 1850, that HE HAD NO CAUSE OF COMPLAINT, AGAINST THE

UNDERSIGNED.

CHARGE XI.

That on or about the 30th day of April, 1846, he signed the name of
Horace Binney, Esq., to a subscription paper, and thereby making him a sub-
scriber to the amount of $1000 towards the building of a new church in the
city of Burlington, without any authority from the said Horace Binney, Esq.,
to write his name to said subscription paper.

REPLY.

It need hardly be said, that the subscription was made, under the
impression, that it was authorised by Mr. Binney. If it were not,
of course the payment would be refused. In any event, it could
confer no personal advantage on the undersigned.

CHARGE XII.

That, after making said subscription, and with a view of justifying or
exculpating himself, he did, on the 28th day of May, 1847, write a letter to
Thomas Milnor, Secretary, wherein he made the following statement, viz.
" Let me here say, that in procuring a subscription of more than 13,000,
no man or woman put in a single word of condition, or the slightest claim for
equivalent, unless Mr. Binney so makes out his case ;" which said statement



41

js untrue, and was known to be untrue by the said George W. Doane at the
time he wrote said letter.

REPLY.

The said statement, not being untrue, could not be known to be
untrue. No man or woman^'d " put in a single word of condition,
or the slightest claim for equivalent ; unless Mr. Binney so make
out his case." What is here alluded to, as contradictory of this
statement, was the conversion, on the part of several of the subscri-
bers, of their loans to St. Mary's Hall, into gifts to St. Mary's
Church. But this conversion was made, in every case, at the instance
of the undersigned ; and involved, on his part, the present payment
of money, subscribed, to be paid, at his convenience. The payment,
in every case, was made : to the amount of several thousand dollars.

CHARGE XIII.

That he took an undue advantage of his official station and ministerial
character in borrowing arid obtaining money from women and persons little
skilled in business, who were least able to resist the influence of his office and
position, and then disappointed their just expectations by neglecting to fulfil his
engagements to them.

SPECIFICATION 1.
Borrowing of Sarah Vansciver $400.

REPLY.

Sarah Vansciver was, in no way, subject to undue advantage, from
the undersigned. She did not live in Burlington. The money came
into his hands, as often occurred, as a loan ; to be used in his busi-
ness. It was secured by bond and warrant of attorney. The whole
amount was long since paid.

SPECIFICATION 2.
Borrowing of Mrs. C. Lippincott $11,951.67.

REPLY.

Mrs. C. Lippincott was most intimately acquainted with all the
business risks and relations of the undersigned ; and had the deepest
interest in the institutions, for which they were undertaken. She is
connected, by marriage, with the family of the undersigned; and
has been, for almost twenty years, as one of his family. She had
money, variously situated. She desired to call it nearer to her.
She preferred investing it in the work, in which the undersigned
was engaged, and receiving her interest from him, to having it in
any other form. She acted with the fullest intelligence, and with
the most perfect freedom. The interest on the whole amount has



42

been constantly paid, from another source ; and will be, until the
principal is reimbursed.

SPECIFICATION 3.
Borrowing of Mrs. A. C. Winslow $1700.

REPLY.

The undersigned is the guardian of Mrs. Winslow's only child.
She requested him to receive and take charge of a legacy of $3000 ;
partly hers, and partly his. She has received it, in part. The
interest has been duly paid ; and the balance is responsibly re-
cognized, as a debt to be reimbursed. Mrs. Winslow has always
been as one of his own family. Her husband was to him, as a
son. Their child is as his own ; receiving his education, without
charge, at Burlington College.

SPECIFICATION 4.
Borrowing of Mrs. Sarah C. Robardett $3000.

REPLY.

Mrs. Robardett has a bond and mortgage, on property, abundant
for the security ; and duly receives her interest. The record of this
security is at Mount Holly ; accessible to all. But, it did not
suit the four to see it. It is difficult to see how this specifica-
tion sustains the charge of taking "undue advantage," or "dis-
appointing" "just expectations," or "neglecting to fulfil engage-
ments."

CHARGE XIV.

That after making solemn assurances to pay money justly due to an indivi-
dual, he threatened that if said individual complained to the Convention of
New Jersey, he would pay him nothing.

SPECIFICATION.

Michael Hays told said George "W. Doane, that if he did not pay him accord-
ing to his agreement, he would complain of him to the Episcopal Convention
then about to be held on the 28th of May, 1851 ; and the said George W. Doane
then replied that if he did, he would not pay said Michael Hays any thing, or
he should have nothing.

REPLY.

The undersigned had agreed to pay Michael Hays, on condition
that he settled the notes, endorsed by him, without litigation, one
thousand dollars a year, until one half of the amount of his
cudorsements, in principal and interest, was paid ; and had given,



43

jointly, with his wife, an order on the Trustees, in Boston, by whom
her income is paid ; to be obtained from them, in case he failed to
pay it. His sole reliance, to meet this engagement, himself,
was the payment, to him, of his salary, as Head of the two
Institutions. The payment of this salary being deferred, by
reason of the appropriation of the funds, to objects, supposed, by the
Executive Committee, to be more urgent, Michael Hays had then
the remedy, stipulated and accepted, in an application to the
Trustees, in Boston. Instead of making this resort, he threatened,
last Spring, to apply to the Convention of the Diocese. The reply
of the undersigned was, that he would get nothing, by that ; that he
would thus disturb the quiet, which he had agreed to maintain, and
so do injury to the institutions ; and, if that course were undertaken,
the agreement was broken, and the undersigned would pay him, no
more. Michael Hays rejoined, that he did not expect that he
would ; but that he had made his determination.

CHARGE XV.

He has ground the face of the poor and oppressed the hireling in his
wages.

SPECIFICATION 1.

He admits in his list of creditors, that he is indebted to the servants at Bur-
lington College and St. Mary's Hall, in the large sum of $1490.

REPLY.

Fifty servants, in the five months' illness of the undersigned,
accumulated a debt of less than $1500 : an average of $30 each.
Every cent was paid them, from the receipts of the new term,
within sixty days. And this is grinding the face of the poor ; and
oppressing the hireling in his wages. It is not stated what it is, to
have given constant employment, with good pay, to, from twenty, to
fifty, servants, for fifteen years.

As to grinding the face of the poor, there is no class of people,
with whom the undersigned has ever had so much acceptance. And,
were the four false accusers to attempt a rally of the poor of
Burlington, against him; they would find themselves reckoning,
without their host.

SPECIFICATION 2.

He admits in his list of creditors, that he is indebted to William II. Carse,
one of his gardeners, in the sum of $519.16, and also for sundry bills contracted
for him by said Carse to the amount of 592.37.



44

REPLY.

William H. Carse, here set down, by a rhetorical flourish, as
" one of " the " gardeners" of the undersigned, was, not only,


1 2 4

Online LibraryGeorge Washington DoaneThe protest and appeal of George Washington Doane, Bishop of New Jersey; as aggrieved, by William Meade, George Burgess, and Charles Pettit McIlvaine: and his reply to the false, calumnious, and malignant representations of William Halsted, Caleb Perkins, Peter V. Coppuck, and Bennington Gill: on wh → online text (page 4 of 5)