Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

.4- — CO'I <U >.. ATiOy. lire doctrine or nullihca tion EXAMINED. nt iian~c of constitutional freedom, SB t!i'; first interest of civil society, and a jealous |p filancc over thos" who are entrusted with au- Wioritv, one of the hi trie st duties of the citizen. {ln such a cause, even some excesses of zeal are » without ajxjlogy. But it occasionally hap jfk ns, that those who are engaged in resiling ,|i i encroachments of power, tuemsclves ad ( xhorhitant pretensions, which endanger | „-iul order, and bring discredit on tin* very of liberty itself. To analyze and expose ip !i pretensions, therefore, becomes also a duty, Wtf no inconsiderable importance. i The Federal Constitution is a compact, by | licit the thirteen sovereign states that adopted f |t. re nounced a certain portion of their powers ; I tied also delegated a certain portion, to be jointly Held bv all the partie lerthe .df a ge £ ral go. . . ihe additional members of 11. confederacy, whicli now embraces twenty, ■pur s'ates, are all on the same political footing % li tic- original thirteen. According to this Constitution, the legislative power is exerciser] by . IT* ijoritiesof both houses of Congress, with the C ucurrence of the President, or by two* thirds m- both houses, without his concurrence. The .Supreme Court of the L States ii the ultimate 4- '»osi.a ry of the judicial power of the general Bovernni' nt ; and when the quosion is duly bro’ r Before that tribunal, it has .a right to decide, V.ether an art of Congress is constitutional or 36 t. Such is a hnef summary of our iegisla ti svsre-m, in its regular course. But it is con nded, that an < x raordinary case has occurred r that the majority, abusing the advantage of tubers, has enacted an unconstitutional law, oppressive !o the minority— hat the judicial de partment promts.-s no adequate redrer, —and bs:. some corre live mor fficacious, must con «i-qu» iitly he employ*-d. Tb- rente iy- win h 1 -jj be*.-u hitherto most, zealot;; v recoaintf.n:’- 1. |s th-.r <■ nominal d N unification, tee m ;V. of which, it :s our pr< sent purpose to examine. The f lowing, we- beli- ve, are substaetiully tliu doc inn* s comprehended under that term. —“ In ail jt a se.sof compact among parties having no com #uon ju Ige, each party has an equal right to judge rm'or i seif, as well of infractions, as of the mode Pjpmd measure of redress. The Federal Conso le 1 ition is a case of such a compact. When a Hu ate considers an act of Congress unconstitution al!, it has a right to nullify that act, within its guvvn limits. The other states have no right to Senforcc the nullified act within those limits. A Hpi.-nerul convention of s'ates must he called for ■lie purpose of propositi -sdr.ir-nts to the con- Bsti;u!;ori, and the; b" I ca ing die qi - ion of con lys'itu i nality. The states in favor of the milll piled act, mils' propose an amendment, conferring [•' on t ’on-gross the power to pass such a law. That Bpower is to he regarded as having never been ■delegated, unless three four'hs of the states, in ■ separate conventions, or in their respective legis , futures, ratify the amendment so proposed.” It we designed to exhibit our own precise tho wory, in relation to tlie subject in dispute, it would .'be necessary to urge several very important Bquuliflcat ous, even of the two first of these pro- Bpos tu-us; but as our object is simply what has Rb< <-n stated—to examine the merits of nullifica tion, we shall admit for the sake of argument, Kthat “in all c; - s of compact, among parties 1 bavin no common judge, each party has an e qual right to judge for itself, as well of infrac il ti Mis, as .ot tli- and cn • nuii aru of •Muiro—-,” laud that “ the Federal Cons-nation is a case of ■ such ci compact. W e shall also in the same imann r, a.dmi; the third proposi ion, concerning I the right to nullify, with such explanations how. ij ever of the term right, as will presently appear. I All the remaining proposi ions we totally deny. Bet us endeavour in die first place to ascer ■ tain, what will be the state of things produced,' I by the exercise of this equal right of interpreta-1 Jtions, whieli has been admitted. Parties enjoy Sing equal rights to interpret a contract, may: I have th o perfect right to a speculative interpre I tation—that is, to an opinion concerning its im-j ■ port ; because two or more persons may enter-! I tain different opinio:..*, without any necessary I interference. But the right referred to in tins I discussion, is obviously the right of practical in iterpretation—-he right of the parties, to give an ietfect to the con ract, conformable to 'heir res- Ipeciive opinions of its meaning. The right ofi I none therefore can be perfect, since the right of leach is qualifier! by tlie right of every other.! 1F or if anyone had a perfect right, of practical 1 ■interpretation—that of giving effect to his own! I opinion ; the rights of all the others must yield Ito it ; and all those o'hers, so far from enjoying ■ equal rights, would practically possess no right lat all. For example—two persons, placed in a ■ situation where they can have no common judge, I agree to build a house jointly, on a specified jpl.m. During the progress of the work, they Iditf-r in their explanation of the original de ls gn. Each has a perfect right to consider his 1 °" n explanation the true one ; but neither can | have the perfect right, to execute the work, ■according to his own judgment; since if such ■were the case, the other who in theory has lan equal right, would in practice have none at lad. As a house cannot be built in two wavs at jth ' same time, their practical rights una\oidablv ■conflict; and each in maintaining his own, must ■necessarily oppose that of the other. Unless,j wherefore, one voluntarily yields, or there is a: f "npromisc, force alone can decide between! lb.cm. In similar circumstances, the result would, the same, if the contract consisted of rccip ■roo.il promises. Each party would have a right ■c interpret the whole contract —not only the! promise made by himself, but the promise made Iby the other.—ls in a wilderness, where no ci vil law exists, it is stipulated between A and B, I ‘hat at a certain time, A shall deliver to B a mim-; ! her ot rars, and on a subsequent day, receive in exchange a number of bushels of grain ; should : a dispute ultimat. ly arise, concerning the quan ! y : . v of grain which was to be delivered, not on- i : ly B would have a right to judge how much had • b oa promised by hint ; but A likewise would ■ have an equal right to judge how much had * been promised to kin. B would have a right to withhold any excess, which he thought was un-|' justly demanded, and A to seize what he tho’t, was unjustly withheld. If there were no com promise, the strongest must necessarily prevail. Foreign nations having no common judge, are i on the same footing with individuals in a state j oi nature ; and a dispute b ?tween them con- 1 oermug the interpretation of a contract or trea- ! 'y, would be governed by the same principles,'j and attended by the same consequences. Sup- P'.se at the ena or a war between iho U. States ahi Great Britain, that the American post of; Niagara should be in possession of the British, -nd the Canadian pos' of Malden, in possession,! ■'t the Americano. Suppose that the Americans,!! ? it understanding by the treaty of peace, that the i; posts were to be mutually restored, should doli | ver Malden to its former masters. If the Bri . tish asserted, that, according to their interpreta tion of the treaty, thev were not bound to re store Niagara, and should finally refuse to eva ’ estate that post : would the Americans acquiesce? ’ Assuredly not. Thev would claim the right of interpreting both siefes of the treaty —of judging ’ how much they ought to regain, as well as how much they ought to restore ; and if Niagara were not surrendered, they would either by a ’ |direct attack, or some other means, very speech- Ily recommence hostilities. *'t j Thus far it is apparent, that a full exercise of , - the right of each party to judge for itself, re jsuits in neither more nor less, than a decision by force. Let us see, whether the c-xercise of . uaii equal right of interpretation, among all the . parlies to the federal compact, would not tend , to a similar issue. Every state on entering the 11 union, delegated a portion of its original sover eign power, and, thereby, subjected itself to (he p l l legislation of the genera! government, to the -extent of the power ceded. But this delega r ( tinn was not made without an equivalent. The j slate at the same time, acquired a share of the .legislative power of the genera! government; , li. e. she acquired the right in conjunction with , iher confederates, to enact laws operating on all the other states, to the very same extent, that „ she had conceded the right, to enact, lav s ope i 'rating on herself. This was the consideration, i the quid pro quo, the very essence of the bar. gain. 1 o exercise over a state anv power which ! >he did not delegate, is a violation of the com -1 pact —to resist a delegated power of the general government, which sic- has exercised conjoint- I iy with otners, by act of Congress, is equal r iy u violation ot the compact. She is as much wronged, when her just power of legislating o ver others is obstructed, as when the unjust pow- I er oi legislating over herself is usurped. She j possesses an equal right to judge, whether she li.as suliored iho one wrong, or the other—or in idiiierent words, if a state in the minority has a fight o judge, that an act of Congress is not , ;constitutional ; a state in the majority has an .equal right to judge, that it is constitutional. I Since bo.fi parties according to the fundamental lj principle assumed, would possess also an equal Jj right ,o judge of “ the mode and measure of re ,.dress;” the one might select its own means of rosis ing, the o'.hcr its own means of enforcing a ’ !law, whose cons' Nationality was disputed. Far ! Bcs in this position, are evidently arrayed a . j gainst each other, with the unqualified licence Mos mutual hostility. If both parties have free choice ol “ the mode and measure of redress,” 1 states in the minority, without doubt, may nulli fy the law whose constitutionality they den l ,' ; and as clearly s'ates in the majority, may en deavour to enforce it, by whatever means are r considered most expedient. If neither party re cedes, and gentle measures are ineffectual, the next resort will be to those which are violent, and civil war is the inevitable result. The millifiers indeed contend, that if a law were nullified, a presumption would be created , against its constitutionality ; and that the ma- I jority would be bound, if it did not yield by re- I pealing it, to call a convention of states, and so- I licit a formal grant of the power to pass such a law, in order that the question might he tested. This notion is utterly unfounded. In the first I place, if the majority of states believes a law . to be constitutional, and persists in maintaining it to be so ; tne contrary opinion of the minori ty cannot create a presumption of its unconsti j tutionalhy unices we adopt the very extraor dinary supposition, that a smaller number is more -i likely to he right than a greater. In the second ■ | place, the act of nullification itself is justified . only on the ground, that all the parties have an ! equal right to interpret the Federal Compact, jand to select their own mode and measure oi’re dress, when they believe that a violation of it i has occurred. The right of the parties must be tne same, whether the violation is supposed to ||consist, in exercising a power which has not ijbeen conferred, or in resisting one which has ac tually been delegated. An attempt therefore by the minority of states, to prescribe any par j ticular mode of proceeding to the majority, would be wnolly absurd—it would be dictating 1 the mode and measure of redress to their oppo nents, who possess by their own acknowledg jment, the full privilege of choosing for them selves. Ihe very first principles of nullifica • lion would justify the majority, in the immediate - employment of such means, as were deemed i most conducive, to the accomplishment of their ' purpose. ; But let us suppose that the majority, suspen ding all measures of coercion, should gratui tously consent to call a convention, for propos ing amendments to the constitution ; and that the parties were accordingly assembled.—The millifiers would say to the majority : “ \V e de ny that Congress possesses tiie power which it has assumed, in passing the nullified act—Pro. pose to the states an amendment granting that power, and we shall sec, whether Congress is to acquire it or not.” To this the majority would of course reply : “ We assert that Congress docs possess the power which it has exercised, in passing the nullified act. Propose to the s'ates an amendment taking away that power, and we shall sec, whether Congress is to lose it or not.” U hat then would have been gained ? The votes of a majority of the convention, must neccssari ; ly constitute the acts of that body; and no a . mer.dment which it rejected, could be submitted ;to the states for adoption. The parties would j end where they began—But it may he argued, that although the majority would possess a for ; mal right, to reject the proposition of the nuliiri- j j ers ; the. latter would have equitable considera- | lions io urge, which ought to ensure its adoption. ' Let us hear them—They would say—The meaning of the paries is the spirit of a compact. W iau we ratified the Constitution, we believed that it did not confer on Congress the power in -question. If the nullified law can be enforced, j |wo live under a government exercising a cower-, j which we did ra-f delegate, or suppose others r o I 'delegate : it is not the government which we de signed. If you propose the amendment suggest led by us. and i* is ratisfied by three fourths of the states. Congress trill n■:ucniahhj possess the i poiser. Hut if you reject our proposi don, the: result must he, that <r nrre ri p, rite may assume tor Congress, a power which constitutionally ! can be conferred only by three fourths of the (States.” Tat se arguments, plausible perhaps at j a firs' view, labour under this material ohjecdon; (that they are not only quiie as good, but even | 'considerably better, on the opposite sid--. For I I the majority without hesitation could reply— ! j“ Ves, we agree with you, that the meaning of : the parties is the spirit of a compact. But when : ire ratified the Constitution, we believed that it j did confer on Congress, the power in ques ion. |[f the nullified law can not be enforced, we live I under a government deprived of a power, which r ore did delegate, arid understood ail others to de . [legate : it is not the Government which we do - -signed. If you propose the amendment sugges - ,ted by us, and ills ratified by three fourths of . jthe States, Congress undeniably divested - \rf the power. But if ws accede to vour-propcsi ? ition, the result must be, that a minority, barely f exceeding one fourth, may deprive Congress of a r ipower, which can constitutionally bo taken a c,| way, only by three fourths of the A i •{ satisfactory reply to this answer, would, we ap i ;prebend, be somewhat difficult. In truth, the . ; theory of nullification pressed to its ultimate 1 1 consequences, would amount to this—that three f I fourths of the states are necessary to confer a power on Congress, while any number beyond j one fourth, may take it away. Whether such a [• i system would be expedient, we shall not at pre. . sent enquire—most certainly it is no' that of ( the Federal Constitution. In the article rela . jtive to amendments, the word power docs not !occur —it declares that “ amendments” “shall . :i be valid,” “ when ratified by the legislatures of ; | three fourths of the several states, or bv con ventions in throe fourths thereof.” Refrench , ing a power of Congress, is as much an amend , rnent, as conferring a power; and therefore to he valid, must require the same number of votes, j When a convention is called, to propose amend ments relative to a power claimed by the majo rity, and denied by the minority, it is evident that the final decision must depend altogether on the form in which The amendment is submit ted to the states. If the amendment proposes ( to give the power, the power will be lost, be cause a small minority is sulficiem to reject it ; and for the same reason, the power will be sanc tioned, if the amendment proposes to take it a way. The form of the amendment then being absolutely decisive, and each party having an | equal right to support its own construction ; it is the height of extravagance to expect, that a I majority maintaining the constitutionality of the; power, would agree to incur certain defeat, by i soliciting a grant, whitib they Knew that a min ority exceeding one fourth was predermined to refuse. It is already we think sufficiently proved, that a minority exceeding one fourth, lias not the : constitutional right to impose its own construc tion on a majority. But there is a farther evi dence which appears to us so striking, that it would be improper to pass it entirely without notice. If the framers of the cons nation de signed, that such a minority should have the right of laying an interdict, on the exercise ofj any power which it considered uncons itution-J al, why did not those framers plainly say so . W hy did they not indicate the manner, in which that right was to be enforced ? There was no motive, no apology for a mysterious silence. They might have simply provided, that the dec laration of this minority, thro’ their respective slate legislatures, or conventions, should be suf ficient for the purpose. Instead of making this obvious provision, or any other equivalent to it, they did not even grant to such a minority, the right of calling a convention—a privilege which belongs only to Congress, acting on the application ot’ two thirds of the states. Here Then, if we admit the pretensions of the nullifi ers, is the most astonishing anomaly ever wit-1 nessed in government. The constitution intends! that a momentous power shall be possessed bv a certain proportion of the states ; and though !an obvious mode might have been provider, fori | its safe and easy exercise, no mods whatever) : was designated ; and hitherto none better has! ; been devised, than the open resisance of a whole. Is ate, to a general law of the land ! It will be difficult indeed to believe, that the sage authors of the constitution, were guilty of such a blun der—one which would disgrace the barbarous] legislation, of a Tartar horde, or a Hottentot! kraal. The necessity and the facility of pre-i scribing regular means, for the exercise of such! a power, supposing it to exist, ai«c both so niani-; fes: : tiiat tlie absence of all provision of the kind, is alone conclusive proof, that tlie exist ence ot the power itself, never was contemn!a ted. Thus wo have shewn, that even if the majo rity should assent to the calling of a convention, the nullifying minority must, nevertheless, fail,! in the accomplishment of their purpose, since they could never cause their construction to be recognized. Each party, according to the prin ciple originally assumed, would remain on the ground of itsejual right, to “judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” In such a position, there would be no impediment to hostilities, and unless one side or the other receded, they must necessarily ensue. If this is evident in the abstract, it is even more manifest, in the case of the existing tariff law, on which it is proposed that the experiment of nullifica tion shall he tried. Suppose, that by the opera tion of such a measure, the ports of South.Caro lina are made free. If they remain so, and the state is still to be considered a member of the union, tlie principal importations of the whole 1 country, must be concentrated in those ports. Congress could not impose duties on the coast ing trade—New.York, Pennsylvania, and oth er states, could not afford to import directly from abroad, articles subject to a duty in their own ports, but exempt from it in those of S. Caroli ! na ; and, consequently, all parts of the union would probably obtain their foreign supplies)) through Charleston. As almost the whole fis-jl cal resources of the government are derived from the custom house, it is evident, that there would be nearly a total failure of the revenue. Other evils equally great would ensue. Every holder of dutiable articles purchased under the j tariff, would find them reduced in value, to the | amount ot the duiies which had been paid on I them. Ship-owners, "landholders, merchants, i artisans, all the inhabitants ot our other large cities, who owe their prosperity or subsistence to foreign commerce, would be exposed tj ruin and beggary. All the dependent agricultural | districts would participate in the shock. In the : monwv market, which is so sensitive to every ■ political and commercial vicissitude, confidence would be destroyed, private credit would be sus pended. public credit would be menaced—em barrassment, and bankruptcy would pervade the! land. Is it reasonable to expect, that the other! members of the confederacy will permit such a i state of things to continue, or even to commence ?i| If every party to the compact “ has an equal j rirht to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as ot the mode and measure of redress;” surely j fins is a case, in which tlie majority would not j fail to exercise their privilege. Even states in ‘the minority, deprecating such a wild career of j ! political innovation, would at least not disapprove ' the by which it was arrested. Ac cording to the latitude of choice conceded, bv ; the fundamental principle of the nuliifiers, the I majority might, in these circumstances, adopt j any mode of proceeding, which seemed most ex-' pediont. The reasonable presumption however 1 -N is. that ths moot obvious, gentle, ana effectual . j plan would be selected—that of immediately -! blockading all the ports which had been made f free. If the nullifying state did not then sub i mil, it must resist by force, and the very first . blow would be the commencement of civil war. o: It is superfluous to enquire, by what species of t |>oliticai agency, the majority of states would, -j in the present instance, perform this indispensa l! bk duty of self defence. They would doubt . | less, without any reference to new fangled theo ■ i ries. act through the instrumentality of the ge m O * C' ? j neral government, whose direction is in their ■|i hands. An objection from any quarter, to this i mode of operation, would be unreasonable ; but I coming from the nullifiers—those who claim for i all parties, an equal right to judge of “ the .1 mode and measure of redress,” it would be su f j premely ridiculous. From the premises, we think ourselves au-j t thonzed to conclude, that the believers in the j . doctrine of nullification, labour under an extreme | delusion—that the pretension of any minority! exceeding one fourth, to impose its construction j . of the constitution on a majority, is in the high-, est degree chimerical—that those who resort to . i nullification as a peaceful remedy, are rushing I blindfold into hostilities.—The nullifiers have spoken of the natural r.ght of parties, each to , interpret a compact for itself, as if it wore a con stitutional right, whose exercise is compatible • with the maintenance of a common government: I ,| when it is palpably in effect, the mere privilege | II of mutual warfare. In speculating on the inter-; | prelation cf the constitution,they entirely forget! |j that the states which ratified this instrument, J- adopted X as a whole, and as much for the sake • jot the powers, which they supposed it to confer jj on the general government, as for the sake ofj those, which they supposed it to reserve to the ! | states individually—They forget, that theopin non of any state, believing a power to have been delegated, is entitled to as much consideration i as the opinion ot another state, believing it to have been reserved—Finally, they forget, that in • every disputed case, where there was a variance in the original understanding of the parties, the intensions of one side or the other must necessa rily he frustrated; and that this unavoidable in convenience may as properly be endured by seven, as by seventeen—by any minority, as by I any majority. | V. hen there is a material, and irreconcilable! difference cl opinion, between the parties to the Federal Compact, it is manifest, that secession is ■I the only effectual remedy for the weaker. It has ; indeed been maintained, that the right ofsecession i itself, is only the right of nullifying the whole Constitution and laws. Those who are misled j by such an assertion, can have paid but little at-i tendon to the import ot the words. Nullification is f represented as an act performed under the con. sutution, anil compatible with the continuance of the general government. Secession on the con trary, as is implied by the very term, dissolves tiie government, releasing those who secede,; from the obligations of the compact. To call se-|j cession, therefore, a species of nullification, is a mere solecism. But it is farther urged, that ad nutting the two measures to be essentially differ ent; the scheme of nullification can at worst only eventuate in the other, and in the meantime isj j more, gentle in its operation. This is a most I i pernicious fallacy. Whenever secession is un-! j equivocally proposed to the people, the data will |j | be fairly before them—.they will choose, with a,! j full knowledge of the alternatives—they will de-ji | cide their destiny in open day. But when nulliJ) ficauon is recommended to them, as being, in fact, ' ae Ci die best means of pr eserving the union, j (notwithstanding we have seen that it is decided- 1 ly tue reverse;) if they credit such a represen. ! tation, they have net the true data before them | —they are deciding upon premises absolutely i false, and may precipitate themselves into a re ; volution, when their purposes are diametrically i opposite. Inc claims of nullification loagreat -Icr gentleness cf process, are equally futile. If i tliG scutnern stales, impelled by their wrongs, .mould, through a convention, or in any other manner, propose to the majority, that the Union ■ be dissolved by common consent; either those I j wrongs will be redressed, or their proposition'; will be accepted; for no rational man will cher isa the desperate project, of retaining them in the union by force. The parties would arrange the terms of a peaceful separation. The laws of the general government would be respected by both sides, until the moment of dissolution; and then the ports of each becoming foreign to the other, their respective systems of impost could be enforced, without collision or inconvenience. We have already seen, how different would be the \ consequences of nullification. We have seen, that the nullifying state being still considered a member of the confederacy, no duties could be imposed on her coasting trade—that her ports ' being free, she would absorb nearly the whole importation ofthe country, and distribute supplies to every district of the union—that this state of affairs if acquiesced in, would cause a failure of ! the public revenue, and a convulsion in com-! merce, which must scatter dismay and ruin, i along the whole extent of our coast. The gov- < eminent could not submit to such evils. It would immediately interpose, to secure its own peculiar interests, and those ot the community at large j committed to its protection. For the nullifying state there would remain, only the two alterpa° lives, of humiliation, and civil war. I But while we demonstrate that open secession!] greatly preterable to the chimeras of nullifica-ji tion, and that it is in fact the only proper reme-jl dv, \% hen the policy ot the general government jj is no longer endurable : let it not be supposed, 1 ! that we contemplate such au event with indiffergj cnce, much less witu satisfaction. No! even if ] j finally constrained to such a course, by obstin- i ate injustice, every good citizen will adopt it. ; , with the most sincere reluctance, and profound: regret. Long! long! may the patriotism and! intelligence of the American people, defer that, unhappy day, when sordid cupidity, or flagitious' amoinon shall be permit:ed, to destroy the mag nificent system ot Republican Union, which has descended to us. consecrated by the blood of he roes, and the wisdom of sages—-bv the hopes, and the admiration, of all civilized men. * I Our tas;-c is ended, if not completed. In this plainessay, the writer has endeavoured to avoid i all attectation of learned technicality, or rheto-l rical ornament, which could only have tended i| * to obscure the subject. Ilis highest aspiration!], has been, through the medium of a simple and q perspicuous s y!e, to transmit the rays of truth h? uncoloured and unrefracted. ' |u OGLETHORPE. - r ~ - • i: TO >ll ss C TEACHEIiS. p | ANTED—-a Male or Female Music Teacher cf j: c v - steady Labi's, c impotent to instruct on Flano;i a an:,. Guitar— in a respectable Female boarding School—j Application may be rn ue to Dr. M. Antony, Augusta, j: June 26 & 3 jj? Ogr SHERIFF’S TITLES, I 1 For Sale at thru Office. J iCS^—^gE—L JLLU-i XL IPUPWra—f-illK i-» j Slats 113 la* 30, 1833. Appointment by the Governor. — John’ P. King, Esq. , Judge ol the Court of Common Pleas of the City of Augusta, Vies Robs a r Raymond Reid, resigned. Ur Oca renders will not be sorry to find a scarcitv of editorial matter in this day’s paper, when we present them with such a rich treat as the examination of the doctrifie of Nullification by “ GoLETHORrE.” We would not often trouble our indulgent patrons with our lucubra tions, it we had to offer them in every paper produc tions written as is the one published to-day. On our first page, and under the head of “Deferred Articles,” will ba found several pieces of some interest. : Respecting the Teachers’ Convention, we have recoiv | ed the address of ?»fr. Slade, which we shall publish, |as soon as we find room for it. The bill introduced by j j|Mr. Tipton, of Indiana, for the formation of five com -1; panics of Rangers, for the protection of the Northwes j tern Frontier, has passed both Houses of Congress. .1 VOICE OF GEORGIA. We stated in our paper of the 19th instant, that we j would publish, under the head of “ Voice of Georgia,’’ the expression of public sentiment in Georgia, with re gard to the approaching election of President and Vice -1 President of the United States, as conveyed through ; the medium ot the press, and as the newspapers, con j turning articles in relation to the subject, should come to hand. lathe same paper we published two articles : one from the Georgia Journal, and another from the Macon Adverfser: both advocating the re-election of General Jackson to the Presidency, and the election of Mr. Van Daren to the Vice-Presidcncv. In accordance jj with our intention, we publish in tins day’s paper, an ar ■ tide from the Federal Union, the organ of the Clark 'party in tnis State, against the nomination and election |of Mr. Van Curcn. lv edo so because it is our sincere I desire to act towards the dark party, with liberality and fairness, and to give to its followers, upon a subject so important to the American people as the presidential election, ?. chance ot being heard jointly with the party to which we belong. In extending such a courtesy to our opponents, we do not.part wfh the editorial privi liege of commenting upon any article we are willing to (publish, whenever a"sense of public duty will require j that the expression of our opinion should accompany the article. In thus placing the subject before our rea ders, they will have it in their power to compare both sides ot the question, and to draw such conclusions as their principles of public justice and their partialities may dictate. Though in the minority in the State, yet the Clark party ia strong, and can count among its num bers, men honest ana upright, having the welfare of the F Estate at heart; but who, at the same time, arc mis guided by erroneous political principles, and whose im plicit faith in the infallibili y of their leaders, has led tnem to advocate doctrine ', .and pursue a policy, fre quently at variance with the best interests of the state, with the wholesome changes which the state constitu tion demands, and with an impartial and proportionate distribution of the legislative power among the people. Notwithstanding the differences which have separated, and still separate, the two parties, it is hoped that on those great questions of federal and state policy, in which the Union, the independence and sovereignty of the states, and the free exercise of jurisdictional pow. er by the state of Georgia, are involved, both will act l in concert, ana throw in the balance a moral and physi | cal weight sufficient to give to the cause of freedom, j liberal principles, and democratic government, a dccid jed preponderance. The jirae approaches when an ap peal will be made to the patriotism of the Clark party: ihe presidential election, and the tali of a Convention to revise the State Constitution, are questions about which there should be no division : We hope and trust there will be none. In our next paper we shall offer a few comments on the article of the Federal Union. THE CHOLERA, V e have received the afflicting intelligence, that the Cholera has mads its appearance on this side of the At- I antic. Letters received in New-York from Montreal, dated June 11th, state, that one vessel from Dublin, , with a full number of emigrants, had lost 12 persons j during her voyage, by the Cholera; and that the dis ; ease had been officially ascertained as existing in Que bec, where 15 cases had been reported, on the 9th, and several death*. The municipal authorities of Al banj and New.\ ork, have taken prompt measures to prevent the introduction of the disease into those cities and neighborhood. With feelings of the utmost regret, do we announce the demise of the Collector of this' port. Major JOHN STEVENS, whose spirit took its flight on Sunday nitrht last, after an indisposition of only thirty-six hours. Ma ;jor Steaens was beloved by those oflns iellovv-citizens who knew him for his firmness of character, urbanity of manners and principles. In his official capacity he was ever assiduous, which gained for him the additional esteem ofthe merchants, who, with the rest of his fel low-citizens, deeply deplore his loss. [<S , «c. Repub. j Messrs. Editors, Please to announce M. B. | Lamar, Esq. of Columbus, a candidate for the Representative Branch of Congress, at the dec- 1 tion in October next, and that he is not a caucus candidate. A VOTER. H. (PARSONS, | Hus lately received a supply of Boston N. York made I PIAXO FORTES, ‘ _ Comprising a variety of qualities from 150 to 40D • Dollars each. They are offered on very accorntnodat mg terms. June 26 3 plal\teks» hotel i GA LVE.S VIIXE, GEORGIA. TSIIE PLANTERS’ HOTEL in this plac r -, G yet kept by the subscriber. Promises and pledges are j the common order of the day in such cases, but as here- ' tofore he refrains from either ; ye; he hopes to be able • to give as general satisfaction as any other man so high j up the country. G dnesville is a pleasant Village, and is ! perhaps one of the healthiest places in the Sta-e |L in the immediate vicinity of the Go'd Region, with t ro * ' Lime-stone springs near it, one is 1 1-2, and the other 3‘ miles distant, with a good road to each. A St .go has commenced running from Augusta to this place twice a week. “ L. CLEVELAND. Gainesville, June IP, 1832 3t 3 Wanted aI ihb OKI-r, < ‘ two or three APPRENTICES ; applications to be mane aeon. June 26 3 1 H*“~~ " ———— AUGUSTA MARKET, June 26, 189/. COTTON, 3 1-2 a 10 CORN, 60 a 65, retailing 75 SALT, 50 a 55 B ACON, 7 a 10 MOLASSES, N. Orleans, 34 a 35 West India, 32 a 33 WHISKEY, in Hilda., 38 a 40 in bla., 40 RUM, Jamaica, 112 a 125- N. E. 40 a 42 GIN, Holland, 115 a 120 Northern, 40 a 46 BRANDY, French, 125 a 150 Imitation, 65 a 70 Apple, 45 a 50 Peach, 87 a 100 SUGAR, St. Croix, best quality, 10 a 11 N. Orleans, 8 a 9 Loaf, 14 a 18 COFFEE, 14 a 1G COTTON BAGGING, Scotch, 15 a 18 Kentucky, 24 a 2fc American, 22 a 24 FLOUR, Canal, 8-. B 1-2 Georgia, 5 a 6 BAR IRON, Assorted, 5 STELL, German, 16 Blister’d 10 LEAD, 7 1-3 | NAILS, Assorted. 7a 7 1-2 I SOAP, Northern, 8a 9 ( ANDLES, Northern, none Georgia, 15 Sperm, 36 GUN POWDER, Dupont’s, 7 REMARKS. Nothing doing in Cotton—the Stocks very email aad diminishing. Savax.vaii, June 23. —COTTON, S 1-2 to 101-2. The demand quite moderate, and the sales of the week not exceeding 1200 to 1500 bales, at all prices, from 8 1-2 to 10 1-2, principally at. 9a 9 1-2. The Stock in first hands, for calc, quite email, and the business of the sea. son fast drawing to a close. Charleston, June 23, —COTTON, 8 1-2 a 11. The Sales of the week have been about 300 bales Uplands in the lower qualities, Irom 8 1-2 to 9 5-8, and a few fine front 10 to 10 3-8. The last unfavorable accounts from Liverpool, together with the want of shipping, has closed all transactions for the present. Mobile, June 15.—COTTON, 8 a 10.1-4—choice, none. The business of the season nearly closed; but s small stock on hand for talc. Liverpool, May 10.—COTTON, Upland, 5 7-8 a 17 l-Bd. Alabama 5 3-4 a 6 5-Sd. The complexion of the Market presented the same cheerless aspect as lor a se ries of weeks previous, and the transactions were at a decline of l-8d lb. upon the previous currency; the anxie ty of holders to sell continues undiminished, while on the other hand, consumers are indifferent about purchasing beyond a very temporary supply ; there were SGO Ameri. can taken for export, and the import of the week was 23,600 bales. The sales of Saturday were 3000 bales, no change in price—there has been, and still is, a considerable excite ment throughout the kingdom, arising from the resigns, tion of Ministers and the formation of a new Cabinet; this has no doubt had some influence on our market. BANK STOCK.—Twenty-five shares ot Augusta Bank Stock, were sold on the first Tuesday in this month: 10 a 120 1-4 &, 15 at $l2O, for SIOO paid in, with div. off. AUCTION SALE. BI'J. On To-Morrow Morning, 27th instant, at 10 o’clock, will be sold, without reserve, to close a consignment. -M- .81 BARRELS Sweet Wine 9 half Barrels Shrub 6 kegs Manufactured Tobacco Lot of Castings, &,c. Ac. 3 Steel Corn Mills, with fly wheels 1 large Beam ami Scales, with 60 weights of 60 lbs. each All suras over <soo, four months credit for approved endorsed Notes. ALSO, Sundry other articles of GROCERIES, FURNITURE, &c. Terms Cash. June 26 BY WEDNESDAY’S MAIL, Will be received the Drawing of the KEW-YORK CONSOLIDATED LOTTERY * Class, No. 20, for 1832. HIGHEST PRIZE , 10 9 000 DOLLARS. Scheme, Prizes of 10,000 Dollars, do do 3,760 Dollars. 5 do do IjOOO Dollars. 6 do do 500 Dollars. 6 do do 300 Dollars. 20 do do 200 Dollars. 30 do do 150 Dollars. 01 do do 100 Dollars. &c. <fec. <fec. Arc. dro. Tickets 83, Halves 81 50, Quarters 75 Gems. Beers’ Official Prize List. DRAWN NUMBERS OF THE UNION CANAL LOTTERY, Class, No. 12 for 1832. 19, 9, 40, 51, 14, 31, 20, IG, 13, Lowest Prize $ 10. Prizes Cashed and 6'? Prompt attention paid to orders at DEEDS’ Fortunate Lottery Office, No. 241. Bread-Street. JLT Address W. P. BEERS. ’ June 26 BY WEDNESDAY’S MAIL, H ill be received the Drawing of the NEW-YORK CONSOLIDATED LOTTERY. CLASS NO. 20, for 1832. SCHEME, 1 PRIZE of 10,000 DOLLARS 1 do of 3,700 DOLLARS 5 do of 1,000 DOLLARS 6 do of 500 DOLLARS 6 do of SOO DOLLARS 20 do of 200 DOLLARS 30 do of 150 DOLLARS 51 do of 130 DOLLARS &:c. &:c. &c, <S:c. <S:c. Tickets 83, Halves 81 50, QH&rters 75 .?• DRAWN NUMBERS CF T~ 7 UNION CANAL LC': .. TT-.- Chss No. 12, 19, 9, 40, 51, 14, 31, • lUT PRzes cashed and ;t ;.,: t at?' ders at rr* ' JM _ Office , tinder LV EngJc an P , Broad-Zireei) •*’ -* f-V* v j , \ V .'-.Alloa XX. Ax. X-i ij J Lille