Your Committee, aiming to devest this subject of factitious colourings, and to present the character and origin of the disturbance in a just light, having deliberately weighed the evidence taken on oath in open court, unanimously concur in the following report:

1. That on the evening of the Sabbath, the 21st of November, 1824, a disturbance, amounting to a serious riot, was made in and about the Methodist Episcopal Church in the city of Schenectady, which caused in the congregation, in the act of retiring from religious worship, great agitation and alarm.

2. That this disturbance did originate with three or four students of Union College, and a young man of the city, named O'Brien.

3. That one student of the college, and a young man formerly a student, and on this occasion associated with the students, were indicted for a riot, tried by a court and jury of the county, and, after a full hearing, found guilty.

The first fact, that such a scene did occur, is established by the testimony of all parties.

With respect to the second, the origin of the disturbance, your Committee deem it too clear to be questioned by any candid inquirer, that it was attributable to the joint misconduct of the parties above mentioned, whose behaviour in the church was equally reprehensible and disgraceful: O'Brien's for the rude manner in which he made Lis way into a seat between the students, and, on receiving a threat from them, taking out a knife, opening it, and holding it open in his hat-the students', for not removing their hats from the seat when asked to make room by a person wishing a seat, and when room, it is believed, might easily have been made; but most specially for the threatening question among them, in O'Brien's hearing, after he had taken his seat, about a dirk: for, though they declare that they had no dirk, yet it is manifest that they wished to make O'Brien believe that they had. W. Thompson, one of those students, stated, in his testimony of what took place in the church, that he heard the "question about dirk," and supposed it "intended to intimidate O'Brien;" which question, as O'Brien states, induced him to take out his knife, and hold it open in his hat. The false pretence of a concealed dangerous weapon, for the purpose of intimidating a person in a house of worship, was equally dishonourable and culpable with the opening of the knife, and

VOL. VIII December, 1825.

holding it open in the hat, for the purpose, as alleged, of showing a preparation for defence. The disgraceful scene which ensued, your Committee consider imputable to the exaggerated report of the detention at the church, and the personal danger of one of their company, with which three of the students returned to college, and excited a ferment among other students; for they could scarcely have been ignorant that the course which they took was calculated inevitably to produce disorder and riot. Your Committee believe, from the evidence before them, that there was no "detention" of "Billy" (C. B. Dutcher) at the church; that he might have returned to college with his companions, without difficulty; or that, if he remained in the church, and was in fear of O'Brien, it was easy for him to have obtained the protection of the officers and members of the church, and other respectable citizens, who remained in the prayer-meeting.

This circumstance of the continuance of worship in the church by a prayer-meeting, so well calculated to allay apprehensions for "Billy's" safety while there, seems, however, not to have been reported by the students who returned to college, and excited an alarm. If they knew this fact, as your Committee believe they did, the inference is strong that their real object was not so much to rescue "Billy," their companion, as to gratify their resentment against O'Brien. James C Magoffin testified that he heard one of the students (Anderson) say, "We have been insulted, and will be satisfied." Edward Bayard testified that when the students, on the report made by the three who came from the church,

left the college, they had not heard, nor did they know, that any person had remained for prayer; that they were the more concerned because church was out, because while that lasted they should have considered it a protection." If any of the students, while in or near the church, at the close of its services, apprehended danger, they might have found protection there. If they returned to college, they ought to have gone together. It was as easy for four to return as three. If one, however, remained, and those who returned had any apprehensions for his safety, it was their duty to have applied to the president, or some of the faculty, in his behalf, and not to have excited a riot at a place of public worship on a sabbath evening, as in this case they certainly did. Your committee cannot, therefore. 62

concur in the assertion, that their demeanour, on this occasion at least, was either "peaceable" or "pious."

On the third point, the trial and conviction of the rioters, your committee deem it sufficient to adduce the following extract from a certificate of the county clerk:--

"At a court of General Sessions of the Peace, held in and for the county of Schenectady, at the City Hall of the city of Schenectady, on Tuesday, the 18th day of January, A. D. 1825: present David Boyd, senior judge, J. D. 8. Ryley, &c, judges. The People against John W. Anderson and Toliver D.Huff, indicted for a riot. On motion, ordered the trial of the cause, &c. The court charged the jury to retire, and agree on their verdict. After having agreed, they returned, and by their foreman say, that they find a verdict of guilty. The court sentenced the said John W. Anderson to pay a fine of forty dollars, and the said Toliver D. Huff to pay a fine of twenty dollars, and that they stand committed until paid." Signed,

“J. A. FONDA, Clerk.”

With those facts before them, your Committee cannot but express their surprise and regret at the report on this subject of the committee of the college, whose duty it was to make a quarterly examination of the scholarship and conduct of the students a report to which pains have been taken to give a very extensive circulation, and which broadly declares that, in the judgment of that committee, the conduct of the members of Union College, generally, was on that occasion, especially considering the provocation which had been offered them," remarkably pacific and forbearing;" and that they (the committee) "cannot therefore speak of it to the board of trustees in any other than terms of commendation."

The expression of such sentiments, and from such a source, your committee consider as calculated to exert a most unhappy influence upon the youthful community of a college, whose passions, without such stimulants, are sufficiently ready to be inflamed by the ery of" provocation" and "insult," the watchwords by which fends and animosities between certain students and townboys are too usually excited and fomented, and which it is the duty of all governors and visiters of such institutions to allay and repress. The sanctity of the Lord's day, the premises of an unoffending church, the peace and quiet of a worshipping assembly, composed in a large part, too, of females, were topics which it might have been hoped would have been urged by a committee of clergymen upon a body of young men in a state of excitement, as motives which ought to have led them to still greater "forbearance," even under all the provocation alleged. Nothing of this sort, however, appears. The threats and knife of an "assailant," as he is termed, are indeed mentioned by the committee in terms of strong indignation; but the previous threat of a dirk, in the midst of the church, on the part of the students, is passed over in utter silence. The commendation of their conduct is broad and explicit.

Your committee disclaim any feeling of hosti

lity toward Union College, or any of its gover ors or members. Their object is, without respect to persons, to expose the disturbance of a place of worship to just reprobation; to counteract the pernicious tendency of the official commendation of the parties on one side, and to prevent the recurrence of similar outrages. They do set believe that the students of Union College, as a body, have any hostility to the Methodist church The parents, or guardians, or relatives of many of them, are in some way connected with this denomination; in treating which with disrespect, they must be conscions that they would be reproaching themselves. Your Committee are very certain, too, that no member of any college, who should demean himself peaceably sad dec rously, would knowingly be suffered to be insulted or ill treated in any Methodist congrega tion, without receiving protection and aid Ite our duty to encourage the attendance of youth in our places of worship, and to treat them not only with civility and politeness, but with kindness and affection, and rather to overlook acce sional youthful indiscretions, than, by repelsive harshness and severity, to drive them from among us.

Your Committee do not take upon themselve to vindicate the publications on this unhappy subject, which the excitements of the momen produced in the public journals. On both sides they are believed to have been marked with precipitance. Much less can they consent to be taxed with the task of vindicating the conduct of the young man, between whom and the sta dents the disturbance commenced; or that his conduct shall in any respect be set off against the abuse and violation of the premises and rights of a church with which he had no connexion.

Your Committee have studiously confined them selves to the character and origin of the disturbance, as it occurred in and about the church; and, in their opinion, no extraneous or foreign eitcumstances ought to be suffered to hide those primary points from view. On either side, after the dispersion from the premises of the church, and on the subsequent days, other faults or errosa may have been committed. These your Com mittee do not consider themselves appointed to investigate; nor, if they existed, can they affect the truth of the facts herein stated,-facts which are supported by the oaths of several of the par ties themselves, and by other ample concurrent testimony.

A gross and indecent outrage was committed in and about the church on a sabbath evening, at the close of the religious exercises. Some of the students and late students of Union College, and the young man mentioned, were guiltily concerned in it; and it cannot be justified, an either side, by any provocation even alleged to have been received."

J. EMORY,

F. GARRETTSON,
DANIEL OSTRANDER,
EBEN SMITH,
SAMUEL LUCKEY.