Leesville, Carroll Co., O., June 16, 1852.

Mr. Editor:—I propose, with your consent, to write an occasional article for your paper; for the purpose of jotting down some of the passing events connected with the Anti-Slavery enterprise. That a diversity of opinion should exist among abolitionists, in reference to the best means to be adopted for the overthrow of the accursed system, is not strange, but it is strange that that diversity of opinion cannot be tolerated without division and strife. It does seem to me, that Anti-Slavery men and women, permit themselves to be alienated in feeling, and divided in action by "trifles light as air."

The above reflections have been produced by reading your history of the Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

The spirit manifested there, by some of the leading members present, gives the most indubitable evidence of the sectarian, or partizan character of their minds. While they profess the largest liberty of thought and opinion, anathematizing all sects and parties, they are the most bitter and sectarian in the land. They ostracize everybody that does not adopt their peculiar opinions and unite with them in proclaiming their shibboleth. A State Anti-Slavery Society dare not be organized, unless it is made auxiliary to the American Anti-Slavery Society, without incurring the hot displeasure of some, if not all, of the most prominent members of the great American Anti-Slavery Society, Gerrit Smith, James G. Birney, William Goodell, Edward Smith, Frederick Douglass, and a host of other good and true abolitionists, are read out of the Anti-Slavery Church, because they have hearts large enough to embrace land, and other great reforms, as well as Anti-Slavery. What is this, but the most bigoted Sectarianism? If they cannot see any other great wrong in this country than Slavery, it does not therefore follow that nobody else can.

Ought they not to be willing to let others embrace the poor drunkard, with his poverty-stricken family, in their efforts to do good? I do not wish to find fault with such persons for esteeming their principles, as being better than those that differ from them; for honesty requires them to do this. I must abandon my principles, when I find better ones, or otherwise abandon my claim to honesty of purpose. But this does not justify me in charging everybody with knavery, who happens to differ in opinion from me.—If you believe the Constitution of the United States, a pro-slavery instrument, and I esteem it an anti-slavery instrument, must we, therefore, be at sword's points on accout of it? If you feel it to be your duty to vote, and I regard it wrong to exercise the elective franchise, am I, on that account, justifiable in calling you a villain? Nay, verily!

I am not so vain as to suppose everybody wrong but myself; nor do I think it an impossibility to find an honest man outside of the Garrisonian fold. I think an honest difference of opinion ought to be tolerated, and that among abolitionists, (at the present day especially,) strife and bickering should cease. Let each division of the ranks engage heartily for the emancipation of the bondmen, in the [ ] of such means and measures, as their sense of duty shall dictate. But, in the mean time, let the war-cry be hushed, and the hatchet buried. So mote it be.

A word or two, now, about the "finality of [the] Fugitive Slave Act." Northern servility