said question was accordingly proposed to him, when Mr. Hunt desired time to consider, and to consult his client, engaging to answer the Committee at their next meeting.

August 22, 1775.

Mr. Hunt attended the Committee, and after much conversation, requested to have the question proposed delivered to him in writing, with leave to answer it in the same way; on which Mr. Hunt was desired to withdraw.

Mr. Hunt was called in again. The Chairman informed him that an explicit answer ought now to be given, and that if he had it written the Committee would receive it; on which he had declared he had nothing further to offer.

Resolved, That Mr. Hunt’s conduct and declaration are by no means satisfactory.

August 29, 1775.

The Committee having taken the conduct of Mr. Hunt into consideration, are of opinion that he has, by issuing the above-mentioned summons and prosecuting the same, endeavoured, as much as in him lies, to contravene the Association entered into by the Continental Congress, and that he has not acted with candour in declaring, “that When he ordered the writ be issued, he did not know or believe that Mr. Schlosser had detained the Linen, for which he had issued the summons, as a member of this Committee, under a suspicion that it had been imported contrary to the Association of the Congress,” which will fully appear by the following affidavit:

William Conn, of the City of Philadelphia, maketh oath: That as he passed the house of Mr. George Schlosser, of the said City, on Thursday, the 17th instant, with three pieces of Linen in his hand, Mr. Schlosser called him, and asked if they were for sale, to which he replied they were, and delivered one of the pieces into the hands of Mr. Schlosser, expecting he meant to bargain for it; but instead of doing so Mr. Schlosser inquired how he came by it: that he, the said Conn, evaded the question by a feigned story, thinking it hard to be so closely pressed to say how he came by it; hereupon Mr. Schlosser told him it was his duty as a Committee-man to inquire, and would not part with the Linen unit he was satisfied how it was imported; that he (Conn) need not be uneasy that the Linen was detained, but if he was so, he should have security for the safe return of it as soon as it should appear to have been imported according to the Continental Association. He, the said Conn, then said Mr. Schlosser might do as he pleased, as he could prove that he came honestly by the Linen; that hereupon he, the said Conn, applied to Mr. Ackroyd’s clerk (Mr. Achroyd not being at home) and obtained a certificate signed by him, that the piece of Linen then in question had been sold by himself for Mr. Ackroyd to the said Conn, and delivered the same to Mr. Schlosser, demanding his Linen. Mr. Schlosser said the certificate was not satisfactory; and that although he knew Mr. Ackroyd, he did not know his clerk; however, that he would lay the whole before the Committee, who would meet shortly and judge of it. That on Saturday, the 19th instant, he, the said Conn, having called at Mr. Schlosser’s house several times, and not finding him at home, grew dissatisfied, and applied to George Bryan, Esq., and informed him that he had a complaint to mate concerning a piece of Linen detained from him, and was proceeding to relate his case when Mr. Bryan (before he had time to mention Mr. Schlosser’s being a Committee-man) stopped him and said it was a matter he had nothing to do with—it was the business of a lawyer. That he, the said Conn, having some knowledge of Isaac Hunt, Esq., applied to him, and informed him fully of his case, and in particular did acquaint Mr. Hunt that Mr. Schlosser had said he detained the pieoe of Linen as a Committee-man; Mr. Hunt gave it as his opinion that the piece of Linen might be recovered by a suit at law, and at the request of him, the said Conn did commence a suit against the said George Schlosser acccordingly.

WILLIAM CONN.

Sworn before me this 25th day of August, A. D. 1775:

JAMES YOUNG.

Ordered, That the above be published.

J. B SMITH, R, STRETTEL JONES,

}

Secretaries.

TO THE PRINTERS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL.

GENTLEMEN: We trust the necessity of the following publication, and the design of its appearing, will be a sufficient apology for the length and inaccuracy of the same, and for our requesting a place in your very entertaining paper:

When any matter becomes so publick as to be the subject of general conversation, and when the minds of some of the good people of the City may be under apprehensions for the peace of it, from a suspicion (however groundless) that a spirit of riot and licentiousness has taken possession of the minds of many of the inhabitants, it may not be amiss to lay the transactions of the sixth instant, with the cause and rise of them, before the publick, that they may be enabled to judge with candour and impartiality in the case, and not be imposed upon, either by their own feares, or the artful insinuations of designing men.

At this time, when large Armies are levied, bloody battles fought, and the lives of the best men in America every day exposed, in the support of the laws of the Congress and the liberties of America, it might well have been expected that no one, however disaffected to our cause, would openly and avowedly espouse the cause of the enemy. In such cases the laws of nature and the custom of nations will justify the severest punishment, especially if the person who acts such a part be a native or inhabitant of the country against which he practices. In the present unnatural struggle, where the child is obliged to defend itself against the violence of the parent, an attempt on our liberty is made, under the form of law; and being destitute of particular established forms of our own to appeal to in the case, we were obliged to recur to the first principles of the Constitution, and to delegate to men, chosen for the purpose, powers to suspend the former laws and customs of our Country, so far as was necessary for the preservation of our privileges, and to establish others of a temporary nature, to answer the present exigencies. This our honourable Congress performed: and that their laws might fully answer the purposes for which they were made, they recommended to their constituents to choose in our several Towns and Counties, Committees to take care that those laws were complied with. On the conduct of these Committees depends the whole success of our measures; for however good the laws of the Congress may be, if they are not faithfully executed, they answer no valuable purpose.

Isaac Hunt, Esq., having for a long time done every thing in his power to hurt the cause of American liberty, at last found an opportunity, which, if properly improved, he imagined would at once overturn what we were so long endeavouring to support. He issued a summons against one of our Committee for doing his duty as a Committee-man, hoping, if he could once turn against us the enginery of our laws, which were made for and answer the most salutary purpose, but which neither do nor can apply in all cases in our present circumstances, he would then play off an artillery which would do more execution than all the cannon of Great Britain. The Committee sent for him, attempted to convince him of his errour, and prevail on him to relinquish the prosecution of the summons: but no! he had luckily found the occasion he so long had sought, of signalizing himself against his Country, and of playing off the established laws of the land against as, and therefore treated the endeavours of the Committee with the utmost insolence and contempt, and refused to withdraw his name from the summons; which was all the Committee ever requested him to do, as they well knew that the withdrawing of the writ itself was not in the power of an attorney, but must depend on the will of his client.

The Committee, knowing the heinous nature of his crime would excite the just indignation of the publick, gave him a week to consider of the matter; but finding him determined to give them no kind of satisfaction, they then published his case, placing his conduct in the most favourable point of view that the facts would admit of, and forbearing to mention that the evening of the day on which the summons was issued, was the time appointed for a meeting of the Committee, who, it is well known have in every instance determined in cases of the like kind, without the least unnecessary delay, and would undoubtedly have done so in this case. And as in this attempt is not only involved