alternative but a separate organization, in which I wished that their
efforts on behalf of the oppressed colored race, might be crowned with
the largest measure of success. I observed, in conclusion, that my
object was simply to state the decision of those with whom I acted in
Great Britain, and that I must decline discussion, being fully convinced
that it was better that the now separate societies should aim at the
common object, in a spirit of kind and friendly co-operation, each in
its own sphere, rather than that they should waste their energies in
mutual contentions, and in the unprofitable discussion of topics not
legitimately belonging to the great question of the abolition of
slavery.

Although I had to address a company almost unanimously opposed on these
points to myself, my communication was received in a kind and friendly
spirit, and I was courteously informed that it would be taken into
consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

My friend, Daniel Neall, at whose house this interview took place, is a
venerable looking man, a native of Delaware, and son-in-law of the
excellent Warner Mifflin. He has been an abolitionist from his boyhood.
Two years ago, he was dragged from the house of a friend in Delaware,
and tarred and feathered, and otherwise mal-treated by a mob of
slave-holders and their abettors; he mildly told those near him that if
they would call at his house at Philadelphia, he would treat them in a
very different manner. He was president of the Pennsylvania Hall
Association, and in the terrible mobs of 1838, manifested a calm, quiet
courage, as rare as it is commendable.

I remained in Philadelphia until the morning of the 28th, and during
this interval paid many visits, and obtained much information, on the