(Boldface added by me. Rather idiosyncratically, Crowther — or the Bulletin's editor — sometimes used slashes for parentheses, which makes his text confusing to read.  For the sake of readability, I have taken the liberty of changing some appropriate slashes to parentheses.)

Let me correct your last two lines of the "Query" to read correctly:

"...Richard GALLOWAY who came from England in 1649 (?) His grandson Richard whose nephew Samuel, so to brother John, built in 1745 "Tulip Hill," in Anne Arundel Co. Md..."

See my letter (carbon), 28 Jan. 1961, at Md. Hist. Soc., Balto.; The Md. Gazette, 21 May 1729, signers, col. 2, No. 23, which names Richard Galloway, d. 1731/2, as being of "Cumberstone"; Md. Wills, vol. 6, pp. 237-8; The Chesapeake Bay Country, by Swepson Earle, p. 175; and the Galloway, Maxcy, Markoe Papers, 1658-1888, vols. 1-61, Manuscripts Div., the Library of Congress.  I have very complete notes on the 'early' Galloway Family but have not reasearched (sic) down far enough into all branches in order to establish your connection.

However, you will be pleased to know that I have vast notes on the JOHNS Family enough to establish the descent of your Samuel JOHNS, Will dated 27 Feb. 1758.  It is perhaps the most desirable pedigree of any American family yet unproved, i.e.  I have found no spacific (sic) reference yet to our first RICHARD JOHNS to connect (by document) him to the "sensational" JOHNS Family (now extinct) of Dolau Cothi, co. Carmarth, Wales, whose entire pedigree is in hand.  Dates are flawless, timing is perfect, and a blood relation to Queen Elizabeth I (rare indeed in America) has been established through his mother (?).  The direct male line is very, very ancient in Wales.  The variations in spelling (Johnes, Johns, Jones) have been cleared up, but NO document has yet been found to tie our American RICHARD to his father in Wales.  On this point of a proved descent, I must call your attention to my Query in the Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. 56 (June 1961), p. 227.

If not in hand, the following transcript should please you very much.  It is from "The Johns Tree" at the Md. Hist. Soc., briefly:

1.  RICHARD JOHNS, a Quaker Preacher (sympathetic, yes, but I question preacher) emigrated from Wales and settled in Calvert County, Clifts¹(sic), Md.  Married Elizabeth Kensey (dau. to HUGH & MARGARET KINSEY, of A.A. Co.)  Issue:

     i- Kensey Johns; m. Elizabeth Chew (my descent).
    ii- Richard Johns; m. Rebecca Hitchins (Hutchins).
   iii- Acquilla Johns; m. ________ (Mary, dau. to Henry Hosier).
(2) iv- Isaac Johns; m. Anna (Ann) Galloway (your descent).
     v- Abraham Johns; m. Margaret Hutchins.
    vi- Pricilla (Priscilla) Johns; m. Robert Roberts.
   vii- Margaret Johns; m. Gerrard Hopkins (ancestors of Johns — named for this family — Hopkins).
  viii- Elizabeth Johns; m. Henry Fraught (or Troth).

I do not know who penned the Johns chart but all checks by me have found it to be very correct at every point, save for a minor spelling variation here and there.  Also, I have much information on the HUGH KINSEY family in Virginia, 8 Oct. 1655, later moved to Maryland, as early as 15 July 1659, and Hugh was original patentee of land called "Walnut Neck", in Anne Arundel Co. Md.  I have some reference to a Kinsey Family in England but nothing yet to tie it to the Va/Md family.  Also, the spelling of Kinsey/Kensey is very confused on the surface.  It is long and difficult to clear up in detail, what with careless recording clerke who shifted "i^s" for "e^s" and the other way around, so I'll just say that I find the general trend to be:  the original family was KINSEY while members of the JOHNS Family took the given name "Kensey" a (sic) they signed themselves, while members of the HARRISON Family of A.A. co. were given the name "Kinsey."  I have devoted some considerable time to digging into this "i/e"  (sic) confusion and care must be taken to find and (sic) original document in the hand of each member of a given family with this name. - - Mr. G. Rodney Crowther, III. 4411 Bradley Lane Chevy Chase 15, Maryland.

Mr. Crowther is unduly concerned about spelling and appears to have some misconceptions about its importance, which makes me wonder if he isn't more novice than expert when it comes to genealogy.  Most of our ancestors were illiterate subsistence farmers.  They didn't know how to spell their names.  How their name got written down was dependent on the knowledge, experience, and diligence of some clerk who may have been barely literate himself.  Historically, people spelled phonetically, and any spelling that adequately represented the sound was considered "correct," even by the educated.  So, Kinsey, Kensey, Kensie, Kinsie, Kenzie, Kinzey, etc., would all have been viewed, then, as acceptable written versions of the spoken name, "KIN-zee." 

The spelling of English words and names did not settle down until late in the 19th Century when literacy became more widespread — and when population had increased to the point where making a distinction between Kinsey, Kensey, etc. began to matter.  For more on spelling, please see this web page.