We do not have detailed records of Jacob Gruber's activities in Waynesboro, but we know that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Methodist by his adherence to being plainspoken but clear about his mission. He was based here in Waynesboro, but was busy traveling throughout this part of the county and in Washington County. He organized societies in every little village and hamlet, including Rouzerville.

A man of his times, Gruber was a spare man, wiry and slight of stature, and extremely plainspoken. He was unmarried when he was pastor here in Waynesboro and gave 100% of his time to his ministry. He was deeply convinced of the grace of God for all persons, including those in slavery. Gruber was a strong voice for abolition and, some years later, when he was the presiding elder of the Methodist Societies in the area, he became the focal point of a controversy that established a constitutional principal.

Gruber had preached at a Quarterly Conference at a church near Williamsport, Maryland at which slaves as well as their white masters and others were present. In the course of his preaching, he gave a rousing denunciation of slavery. He held forth that the slaves were kept in dire poverty, treated worse than draft animals and kept from receiving some of life's basic necessities. Such was a perversion of the truth and against the Gospel because it took the very life away from those for whom Christ gave his life.

This was not well received by the slaveholders present. A small group swore out a complaint against Gruber, after which he was indicted under a Maryland law for inciting slaves to riot. When Gruber returned to Williamsport for the next Quarterly Conference, he was summarily arrested and jailed. Several Methodist families posted bail for him, but he was obligated to go to trial.

A young lawyer, Roger B. Taney, who later became the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was called upon to defend Gruber in the Frederick, Maryland County Court. He argued the case before the Court in March of 1819 on the grounds that there was no evidence to indicate that Gruber intended to incite a slave rebellion. He also upheld Gruber's right on the grounds of the first amendment. But he went beyond the simple right of free speech in arguing the case He also gave the reasons why Gruber opposed slavery and its many cruelties, and then asserted his own view, saying:

"We are prepared to maintain the same principles [as Gruber], and to use, if necessary, the same language here, in the temple of justice and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law. A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evil of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily or suddenly removed. Yet, while it continues, it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away, and earnestly looks for the means by which this necessary object may be best attained."

Taney won the case. Gruber was acquitted and a constitutional principle for religious expression was created. Of course, the issue would later divide the nation and cause untold suffering for more than a century beyond that.