On entering the meeting, we found the question was already before them,
previous to balloting for the officers for the ensuing three years. The
pro-slavery party were anxious to prevent all discussion, but some on
the other side proposed questions which compelled their notice. Among
the rest it was plainly asked, if the southern delegates did not come
pledged against the re-election of Elon Galusha. This was denied, but
certain resolutions which had appeared in the public papers were
appealed to in proof of the fact. The inquiry becoming more searching,
an expedient was resorted to, which, though quite novel to me, was, I am
told, not unfrequently adopted when discussions assume a shape not quite
satisfactory to the controlling powers of a synod. It was proposed that
they should pray, and then proceed at once to the ballot. The ministers
called upon were R. Fuller and Elon Galusha, who were considered to
represent the opposite sides of the discussion. The former individual is
a large slave-holder, an influential leader in his denomination, and had
canvassed and condemned Elon Galusha's views and conduct in the public
newspapers. I must avow, this whole proceeding was little calculated to
remove my objection to the practice of calling upon any individual to
offer supplication in a public assembly. After prayer had been offered,
they proceeded to the ballot, and we left the meeting, deeply impressed
with the profanation of employing the most solemn act of devotion to
serve the exigencies of controversy.

In the evening I met a number of the anti-slavery members of the
Convention, from whom I learned that the vote had excluded Elon Galusha
and all other known abolitionists from official connection with the
board, by an hundred and twenty-four to an hundred and seventeen, which
being a much smaller majority than was expected, they considered the
result a triumph rather than a defeat.