Newspaper Page Text
Jppling Sept. 13tli, 1832.
0, H. SdlOCKLEV, Esq.
Sir,—In answer to your note of tho lltli
ins!- requesting me to say what I heard Judge
Schley say. at the last lerm of this Court, on
t l, fl subject of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of Wor
cester vs. the State of Georgia.
I will premise by saying that my memory is
5 o confused t. at I dislike to trust it in reci
ting any thing that happened six months since,
and especially a conversation like the one nl-
ludpdto. In speaking of the decision, I think
that I heard two gentleman remark that they
could not say whether it was correct until fur
ther examination ; one of thoao gentlemen it
is mv opinion was Judgo Schley. 1 further
recollect, that I was impressed with tho belief
that Judge Schley was or would be, on exam
ination of the decision, in favour of its eorrecl-
ness . It may be proper to remark, that tho
other gentleman informed me, that my recol
lection is incorrect in attributing to him the
expression beforo mentioned.
Respectfully Yours, &e.
GARNETT ANDREWS.
■ —SCO—
FOR THE SOOTHERS BANNER.
To tin Troup Parti/ throughout the Stale:
I have been a long time laboring with you
in weal and in wo, in assorting, maintaining,
and defending the true interests of Georgia.—
You cannot have forgotten, I trust you will ne
ver forget, the many struggles we have had
together j you must recollect the hard fought
contests of 1825, when we bared our breasts
to the assaults of foes from without, and of en
emies from within; when heodloss alike of
the taunts of the ambitious and the sneers of
the designing,slnedder to shoulder we pressed
on to the successful acquisition ot our rights ;
when tho dnring hand ui' Federal usurpation,
had attempted to wrest from us our rights, had
impiously sought to crush our feehln slate be
neath the fell swoop of its mighty arm, had
abrogated at its will thn Treaty which hud
perfected those rights, and hud insultingly
held out to us, another in its stead, hearing
the impress of faithless compromise, when in
the languago of a haughty despot, it had dicta
ted to us the terms of our submission ; when
it had paraded an armed force on our borders
to overawo our peuplo into subjection ; when
the military officers of the Federal Govern
ment were feasted throughout our Slnte, teas-
ted at public dinners, and encouraged in their
warfare upon our rights; when every insult
which could bo offered to the sovereignty of
tho Slates and the rights of tho Slnles, was
heaped upon Georgia. When insulting lyrnn-
nv raised the rod of correction over our heads,
we threw back every insult into tho teeth of
oppressors, defied every threat, end us n band
of brothers, bv union and concert of action,
achieved a triumph for the sovereignly of the
Slates, as brilliant in its completion, ns it had
been hopeless in its commencement. For
this honest defcnco of our rights, for which
even our then opponents insulted and abused
us, but for which they now npplaud us, we
wero denounced and proscribed—our publi ■
men were hurled with vengeance from every
office within the gift of tho legislature ; new
offices wore created, with which to reward the
enemies of our Stole—and the public confi
dence most shamefully imposed upon und
abused. Wo exposed those enormities, prac
tised upon the rights of the poople, asserted
■and zealously maintained them, anil brought
the Government to its proper and healthv
-stale. For thus doing, tho seal of eternal re
probation has been fixed upon us by our polit
ical adversaries. They never will forgivo us
—their hatred against us is as lasting as time.
They never have relaxed a nerve—they never
will, until they succeed in dividing our ranks,
and destroying our phalanx. On former oc-
casinos they had well nigh proved suecessful,
but tho integrity of tho purly snved us. A
mighty crisis now approaches us. They have
imposed too much already upon our suscepti
bility, under a false and mistaken notion of
prinriple, they have attempted to lead us to
the adoption ot a morse which must end in
our complete and final overthrow. If we but
listen to the seductive strains of their Siren
song, the day of our political existence will
shortly end in a night of endless discomfiture.
We are exhorted, and we adopt loo readily
pursuit of an enemy which is already flying
before us ; we are allured from our entrench
ments by the phantoms which they present to
deceive us; while they the more successfully
bear off our political treasures. We are slow
to believe tho reality, but experience will con
vince of its existence, when it is too lato to re
pair the injury our indiscretion has entailed,
or retract a s|pp our folly has imprinted —
While you are dividing among yourselves, and
resolving that you will not support a candidate
for Congres of your own party, unless he ad
opts the principles of nullification or its re
verse, your political opponents are united in
themselves, widening your breach and smi
ling in their sleeves at tho prospect of your
speedy, and certain, and final downfal.
With such lights before you, as the present
state of affairs create, I ask you tho solemn
question—will you on tho first Mon
day in October next, bind yourselves hand
nnd foot, and deliver up our parly, formed by
constant struggles for principle, into the hands
of your political enemies I If your candidates
for Congress arc all heartily opposed to the
Tariff, if they are determined to uso every ef
fort, auccessfully to oppose it, I ask you, will
you bring certain destruction upon your own
party, by dividing your ticket, because your
candidates differ us to the mode only of oppo
sing the present oppressive act of Congress,
and when this division in your ticket will do
no more for you than destroy your party 1—
Surely no man who fell the agonizing pain*
of 1825, can think of such a course for n mo
ment. I am personally and intimately ac
quainted with every person on the Troup tick
et beforo you, ord pledge myself that there is
not one who is not zealously opposed to the
Tariff—not one who is not prepared to uso ev
ery effectual mear-s for its destruction; and not
one who does not feel indignant at its partial
and oppressive operation. With these fee
lings and opinions, I beg you to pause nnd re
flect, if you can sustain a single objection
against a riulhfier nr an nnti-nullifier in the
character of a representative in Congress?—
Your representatives there are not clothed with
conventional powers; they cun only art ns
legislators, and if they aro heartily opposed
to the Tariff, and that they are I again repeat
my pledge, they must pursue one course, and
act in one way.
To those of yon who believe nullification the
proper remedy, I ask you, what will you do ?
Report says that not more than one nr two of
the Clark candidates are millifiers ; you can
not therefore vote for that ticket. Will you
abandon your party to ruin, by permitting that
to he elected, by refusing to vote for your
own ? To those who are opposed to nullifica
tion as the proper inodo of redress—will you
permit your party to bo ruined by supporting
those of tho Clark ticket who agree or say
they agree with you in sentiments on this sub
ject, in place of those of your own party who
differ from you, nnd when you gain nothing by
such a step, but loso all hopes of your future
political existence I
These are serious questions, upon which
you should deeply reflect. Tho oxcutemetit
about nullification is calculated to mislead
your minds from iho truo interests of your par
ty. Suffer it nut to do so, but let mo exhort
you to reflect well on the future consequences
resulting to the welfare of your slate; if you
do, as n fell -w laborer in the good cause,
lei me urge you to go to tho polls with this as
your Motto—United wo stand, divided wo
fall.” Tha' we Khali ihen succeed, I beg you
to entertain no fears.
AN OLD TROUPER.
—9*20—
FOR THE SOUTHERN BANNER.
Messrs. Editors,—In your paper of the
31st nil., you publish the vindication of the
course pursued by the citizens of Lexington,
nnd admit that “ it is fnir and right to allow
them a hearing.” For this Sir*, a repl my
thanks. Some of the presses in the Stale
have shut us out from their columns, when
seeking admittance, not to cast censure on
others, hut to defend ourselves from the most
unmerited vituperation. It is their privilege
to do so, but it is equally ours to complain,
I had hoped that tho temper of mv last arti
cle, hastily written, would nt least have dis
armed your resentment. But in this I am dis
appointed ; you not only reiterate the old
charges, but prefor new ones. One of the
totter is so personal to myself, that to ho si
lent might with Rome imply guilt; I must there
fore beg permission a second time, to throw
myself on the indulgence of your readers.
A word or two to reply to the questions
you propound. Ynu ask, “ ran we lay our
iiunds on our hearts and say that we had good
reason to believe on the 21st July, that be-
cause Messrs. Forsyth and Wnyoo voted for
the reduction, they had by so doing abandoned
those high and commanding views," viz : “ of
waging a war of extermination against the 1
T irtff.” Wo of Lexington, pretend not igno
rance of the fact, that those gentlemen have
lor years past opposed tho Tariff in debate
Indeed our Senator declared at the opening
the last Session of Congress, if I mistake not,
that he would “ dm resisting in the last ditch.”
We must, therefore, “ in candour” admit, that
at the lime referred to, wo hurl no reason to
doubt but that tlioso gentlemen were still wil
ling to contend against that odious measure,
by argument, protest, nnd remonstrance. We
did suppose, however, that the time for this
mode of resistance had passed.
Ucorgin, by her protest of 1828, demanding
tho repeal of the net of that year, declares
•• that she expects thnt that deliberate snd
solemn expression of her opinion, will be care
fully preserved in jusiifiention of her charae-
ter to tho present generation and to posterity,
if unfortunately Congress she ild render ne
cessary measures of n decisive character for
the protection of the people of this State, and
the vindication of the Constitution.''
Now our mode of reasoning was this : Con
gress by the act of 1832. in our opinion, and
ill tho deliberate judgment given under the
oath of office, of our Troup, Wilde, Clayton,
Lamar, Ncwnnn, Thompson nnd Foster, had
disregarded this solemn appeal, and continued
to pervert lo our prostration, thoso powers
granted for clearly defined nnd well under
stood purposes.” W T o concluded, therefore,
thnt the period hud arrived, contemplated by
the protest, when the Stnto was bound in hon
our •* to adopt measures of a docisivo charac
ter"—to endanger the public peace, and to dis
turb the Union ? No ! But “ for tho protec
tion of the people of this Slate” from the ex
ercise of unwarrantable authority, and to vin
dicate the Constitution. Wo conceived that
the vole of one of our Senators and Repre
sentatives, had precluded them from acting
will) us. As relates to the former, our most
fearful anticipations have been more than re
alized. In proof of this, I refer to bis speech
delivered at tho Richmond meeting. We
have never questioned motives, their integri
ty can only be known to tho senreher of hearts,
and lo that tribunal we leave them. But that
liiiie portion of Mr Forsyth’s constituents,
whom with his usual decorum nnd suavity as a
public functionary, ho denounces “ as deplo
rably ignorani,” are entirely willing to submit
the doctrines for which ho there contends, lo
the censure or approval nf the country.
Yuu state that you might retort upon us,
our “ illiberal argument,” and contend that
:he balanco of our delegation who refused
their support to thn Tariff of 1832, virtually
say, “ give us the bill of 1828.” True gentle
men, you might thus reason, but as 1 conceive
with the same want of propriety that charac
terises tho epithet just quoted, and other simi
lar ones introduced into your strictures. They
voted against the act of 1828, believing it to
bo unconstitutional and oppressive, nnd they
withheld their suffrage from ils successor of
1832, for the same reasons.
A passing remark on the evidence you ad
duced, that wo desire to “ dictate nullification”
to the people of Georgia. We commenced, it
is alleged, “ by proscribing two of our most
distinguished and patriotic members of Con
gress—because forsooth, thoy were not as we
are—wedded to Nullification.” We pro
nounce this a most groundless accusation. In
our explanatory toast—a part of which is quo
ted in the foregoing sentence, we declare that
“ if thoy are for resistance,” not by word*, but
by action—the mode nf that action to ho pro-
sorfs of the system, out of whoso labour is
raised, not only the money that is paid into the
Treasury, but the funds out of which are draw n
the rich reward of the manufacturer and his
associates in interest. Their encouragement
is our discouragement. Tho duly on imposts
which is mainly paid out of our labor, gives
them tho means of selling to us at a higher
price, whde wo cunnot, to compensate th
loss, dispose of our products at tho least od-
vanre.” Have tho majority in Congress Iho
right lo impose these oneqoal burdens, redu
cing all the Southern States lo colonial suf
fering, dependence, nnd disgrace ? I satisfied
tnyself they had not, nud then, the only re
maining question to he solved was, as Con
gress will not relieve us, and the Federal Ju-
scribed by tho proposed Convention of tho dieiary cannot, aught not the sovereign power
oeoplo of the State, we are for them■ We
disuvow ever having proscribed any person
for not adopting that particular plan of resis
tance which we prefor. Your second piece
of testimony is contained in the following in
lerrogitnry : “ And further, how is it, that
every subscriber to this print about Lexing
ton, (with one honored exception, &c.) has
discontinued his paper, and on tho broad
ground loo, of our opposition to peaceful Nul
lification ?” When you shall have published
the entire letters of your subscribers who havo
withdrawn their patronage, nnd not till Ihen,
I ran dotermino whether this ground is
well taken or not. For one, the writer dis
claims the imputation, and von yourselves
well know that he is amply fortified in doing
so. As against my friends and neighbours, I
doubt much whether your position is tenable.
There is a wtdo difference between the li
liertij and Iho licentiousness of the press—had
vntt ns public Journalists, attacked Nullifica
tion, “ in thoughts that breathed and words
Hint burned.” and yet observed respectful lan
guage towards its advocates, I do not believe
thut you would have Inst a single patron; (hut
you hnvo not done this, I appeal to the whole
tenor of your editorial comments since Com-
menccinenl, and especially those on thn Ogle-
lltorpo meeting. You havo not failed sirs, to
impute to us the most selfish nnd degrading
motives, ns the exciting catiso of our move
ments, and in rnrroh.iraltun of this. I refer lo
tho strictures which I am now endeavouring
to answer. Abuse is too cheap nnd plentiful
to be paid for in these troublous times.
Perhaps I do Judgo Crawford injustice, in
saying that his object in demanding a Conven
tion of the Slates is a preliminary measure to
secession. The assertion is literally true, but
does not convey perhaps tho whole truth. And
my principle is, “ give lo every man his due."
The purport of his conversations has beon
this, that ho would ask a Federal Convention,
perhaps it would bo granted, and it might af
ford us relief. He did not think it very proha-
bln it would, but that it was more likely to do
of the Stales to interfere, for the p rpose nf
arresting the operation nf the unconstitutional
nnd tyrannical laws of which we complain ?
Tho power to do this being granted lo no
other tribunal, I inferred readily, it was among
those reserved lo the States and to the people
respectively ; and in this position I am sus
tained bv line upon line, front Iho writings of
tho most distinguished statesmen and jurists,
und by the proceedings of at least half tho
Slates in the confederacy. It is relatod of
Cato that ho closed every speech with “ Car
thago must he overthrown.” And upon ex
amination, I find that all who havo belonged
“ to the genuine school of republicanism,”
havo made this the fundamental dentine of
Slnte rights; Jin act of the Federal Govern
ment unauthorized by the Constitution is void,
and ought to be resisted by the Sovereign Slates.
Itecogn zing this principle, Virginia in 1798,
passed an act lo nullify the sedition law They
imposed n line nut exceeding two tltotisnnd
dollars and imprisonment for one yenr. upon
every person in the btate, who should attempt
to cxocuto that law, or aid nud nlict in enfor
cing it against a member of the Semite nr
House of Delegates. In 1799, Kentucky fol
lowing in her wake, declared tho alien nnd se
dition laws “ altogether void and of no forco,”
and then adopit-d that memornhlo resolution,
penned by Thomas Jefferson, confessedly
better acquainted than anv other man with our
I'rama of government—‘•Resolved, That the
several States who formed Iho Constitution,
botitg sovereign and independent, havo tho
nnqueationablo right to judgo of its infrac
tions, nnd that JVunification by those sove
reignties of all unauthorized acts done under
colour of that instrument, is the rightful reme
dy." Conse, I intrant you gentlemen, to chnrgo
Mr. Calhoun with the authorship of this
“ newfangled heresy ;” the honor clearly be
longs to tho sago of Monticello. In 1803,
Pennsylvania nullified the decision of tho U.
States’ Court, in tho enso of Olinstoad, and
passed an act directing the Governor to protect
tho just rights of tho State bv “ any means or
Chief
so than Congress ; that if it refused to meet measures he might deem neeossary." I
us, or met and refuse to relinquish tho pro-' Justice Tilghman asserts that, “ the United
leclive system, he would then separate, lie j Slates have no power Legislative or Judicial,
thought it duo to tho Constitution itself, tn I except what is derived from tho Constitution,”
mako tho effort before resorting to stronger and “ that when titeso powers nro clearly ex-
measures. I will not repeat >ere iho objec- j ceodod, the independence of tho States arid the
lions which I before urged against this project, peace of the Union, demand that the Slate
Judge Crawford, however, in vtow of tho op-, courts should give redress.”
pressions of the Tariff, has repeatedly declar-1 In 1809, the Legislature of Massachusetts
ed, that if the power to protect manufactures j resolved, thut Iho embargo nets wero unjust,
was clearly delegated by tho Constitution, ho | oppressive, und unconstitutional, and ns such
would soredo from tho Union, rather than sub-1 not binding on Iho citizens of that Stale.—
mil toils operation. These statements will Judge Parsons, in his speech hofore the Con
not ho denied by that vcncruhla statesman.—
Indeed,learning that his toast at Milledgeville,
unexplained, had been perverted at the North,
to the prejudice of tho South, ho has felt nnd
expressed a desire to havo tho matter rectified.
This brings me to tho last count in your in
dictment, in the beginning of which yon inti
mate a desire to be informed when I became
wedded to this good damn, Nullification ; and
as is usual with you, look out at once for
something selfish and sinister, which has in
fluenced my choice. Were I disposed to re
taliate, 1 would introduce here Mr. Locke's
anecdote of inn Siamese King and the Dutch
Ambassador—when the latter informed his
Royal Highness, that in cold wenthcr in his
nation, the ice free zed thick enough tu support
vcntion in 1783, usos the following languago;
“ Sir, thn people themselves have it in their
power effectually to resist usurpation without
being driven to an appeal to arms. An act
of usurpation is not obligatory, it is not law.—
Any man may bo justifiud in hts resistance to
it. Let him he considered as a criminal by
tho General Government, yet his own fellow
citizens can nlnne convict him ; they are his
jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not
all the powers of Congress can nurt him, and
innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if
the supposed law which lie resisted, was tin net
of usurpation.” Jtflin Hancock of Sag-tda-
hock, “ tho first to recommend tho destruction
of tea in Boston Harbor, nud the first signer
of the Declaration of Independence,” has the
an Elcphnut—tho abrupt reply was, “ now I j distinguished honor nf being tlm first Govern-
know you lie," for what you relato is ronlrary or who nullified in Ins resistance to Federal
lo my experience. Wero / disposed to imitate usurpation, ns early as 1793, by refusing to
your example, I would nsk, gentlemen, reflect- obey the summons ol tho United States’ Court
tng upon iho internal workings of your own i f°f the appearance of Massachusetts to a suit
bosoms, is it contrary to your experience, nnd
therefore incredible with you, thnt human ac
tion should proceed from any other than wick
ed inducements anil selfish motives ? But I
forbear, my own conscience would cundemn
mo os wanting in thut cnarity which “ thinketh
no ovil.”
It is certainly true that I was introduced to
Vice President Calhoun, at Washington City,
at a hotel where wo casually met; nud yet
strange to tell, hut it is true as it is strange,
ho neithei communicated to mo what kind of
empire he designed establishing, nor promised
me that 1 should ho " groom of the stole—
master of the Horse, nor Lord Chamberlain.”
It is quite possible thnt he has all these splen
did arrangements checked out in his own mind,
but I suppose from the publicity of tho place,
(the bar room) the shortness of tho time, and
of uur acquaintance, he did not think proper
lo make mu those advantageous offers, “ cal
culated in dazzle and bewilder (he better feel
ings and susceptihilitiea of our nature.” But
levity is ill-befitting the subject under discus
sion, and by your leave I’ll become “ serious
in n serious cause,” nnd relate to you the his
tory of tny conversion to Nullification,
l looked upon tho North nnd beheld its
unparalleled prosperity, the poor growing rich
and tho rich richer. 1 saw even their work
shops more costly than our finest public edifi-
I knew that all this change was not at
tributable to superiority of soil, climate, nr in
dustry. I cast my thoughts homeward, and
baheld it languishing in poverty and sinking in -
to decay, und inquired with solicitude, why is
this unequal lot ours ? There eoold bo hut
one answer. It is the Tariff “ We are the
then commenced against her.
In 1809, tho Legislature of Connecticut,
thnt land of steady habits, nullified a war mea
sure of tho General Government. In 1320,
tho Slntu nf Ohio recognized nullification lit
tho act of outlawry uhich she passed against
the Branch Batik of the U. Slates and it* of
ficers. It is true that after asserting and en
forcing her principles, she entered into u com
promise with that institution. Alabama re
cognized and adopted the doctrine by her
Rank resolutions in January, 1831. And in
this same year, Maine asserts this sovereign
right to its fullest extent,in the proceedings of
her Legislature, relative to iho North Eastern
boundary. The Stale of Smith Carolina, af
fords many precedents in point, nnd among the
rest I will select only the nets of 1820, '22,
'23, for tho prohibition of free negroes and
persons of color from entering the State. And
having gone through theso various instances
taken from abroad, i will conclude with my
own State. But here the half cannot be told.
Her political history beginning with lite case
of Chisolm vs. Georgia, and terminating with
the acts of her last Assembly, abounds in il
lustrations of the interposition nf State autho
rity, to resist Federal encroachments. In the
exercise of this “ villified, abused, though
peaceful” remedy, the 25th section of the
Judiciary of the U. States, tho mtercoursn
law of 1802, and tha Treaties of Hopewell,
llolston, l'elltco, &c. tho supreme law of
the land, vanish, and “ leavo not a wreck be
hind.” What Georgian can read the letter ol
Gov. Troup to tha Secretary of War, of the
17th February, 1827—his General orders is
sued from Ibe Executive Department of the
same date, and also all Ilia message of De
cember, 1825, and not feel the blush of incon
sistency crimsoning his cheek, when denoun;
ring nullification? And where is the Geor
gian, who, when told that nullification does
not mean Disunion, nor a Frigate blockade of
Charleston, but lo hang Tassels, imprison
the Missionaries, and survey and occupy the
the Indian country—that will lend his voice
in making this denunciation ? Not one, I
verily believe.
Gentlemen, I could fill your paper with the
opinions of distinguished men living and dead,
who hnve claimed for the Stales the right to
resist to tho lust extremity, National usurpa
tions ; taken too from all the ranks of the va
rious political parties that have arisen in this
country, and the langunge of many venerated
for their talents und services, would sound
strange and startling to our ears in them days
of tameness and submission. But I will for
bear to “ pile Ossa upon Pelion,” lest my arti
cle become ohjectionahln fori ts length; suffice
it to any, to use reverently Iho language of an
evangelist, the world could hardly enntnin the
hooks, were all that had been written nnd spo
ken by oor Jeffersons, Madisons, Giles, Ran
dolphs, Ilcnrys, Martins, Pinckneys, Lees,
Pendletons, Lincolns, Lowndes, Dexters, &c.
published.
There aro many I know who admit the
remedy, hut still consider it revolutionary in
its character, and that it must result in civil
war. To revolutionise means to throw off one
form of Government, nnd in assume another.
If revolution, therefore ensue, it is produced
by the Motional, which departs from Iho form
established by Iho Constitution,and not by tho
Slate Government, which attempts lo bring it
hack to thnt form. Thn other danger cannot
exist, becaitsu tho Exeeutive of this Union
has no power by tho Constitution to resort to
force, and it is from this instrument alone that
he derives all his powers. If this opinion is
disputed, I refer to the Journals of the Con
vention, (pages G8 and 12G) where it will np-
pear the power was sought and unhesitatingly
rejected, “ as repugnant to our institutions,
nnd derogatory to the sovereignty of thn
States." And if you contend that Iho General
Government will employ force nt all hazards
to enforce her arbitrary mandules, I reply thnt
this consequence or result, is no test of tho
unsnundness of tho principle for which I con
tend. For oxnmplo. should Mr. Clay bo olcr-
tod,an event which I hope and trust kind Hea
ven will avert—but should ho succeed, there
can bn no doubt he would uttempt to undo hy
physical force, all of our proceedings relative
to the Chemkeo lands. And where, I again
enquire, is tho citizen prepared lo submit nnd
pronottneo our proceedings wrong, revolution
ary, and lending to Disunion, because of thin
result ? No one, I belicvo will stand forth nnd
sav, I am the man.
Gontlemon, whether it bo now proper trt
apply this remejy,is another question. Admit
the right of the State, und the expediency of its
application note, wo will dohnte hereafter. For
one, I am for no unnecessary delay; I look
upon it honestly und sincerely “ns simply nnd
essentially n contest on the one side for the
principh-s of despotism, and on thn other for
the principles of liberty.” I am nn liumblo
unofficial individual, seeking no office, and re
solved lo accept none. I havo determined that
as for myself, “ a private station is the post” of
duty. But I am alarmed at the prospect of
amalgamation which threatens our confedera
cy. 1 believe with thn New Hampshire Con
stitution, thnt tho doctrino of non-rosislnnca
against arbitrary powor and oppression is ab
surd nnd slavish, and destructive of Iho good
nnd happiness of mnnkind. And with a cele
brated essayist of 177G, that tho Rtrenglh and
power of usurpation, consists wholly in the
fear of resisting it; and that in order to ho
free, it is only sufficient thnt wn will it.
LEXINGTON.
•Mr. Prosser,
Tho Celebrated American Rival
FIRE KINO,
B ROS leave to inform llio Ladies and Gentlemen
of Athena, that tho Third anil LAST exhibition
of hia extraordinary pnworr, wit! Hike place at the Ma
sonic Hall Ihia evening. For particulars, sec bills.
Sept. 21.
To the Public.
H AVING noticed a few days since in the Federal
Union, an advertisement signed Thomas Little,
in which, beaiden olherlow abuse and vulgar falsehood,
my treatment to hia son John Little is called in ques
tion. I would hero tako occasion to state, that the said
John is a regularly indented apprentice of mine, und
that I can prove by my immediate neighbors, that white
with inn he was not only well trenled, but repeatedly
expressed his entire satisfaction wills his sit nation.—
The worthlessness of his father will prevent my taking
any further notice nf bin contemptible publications.
sCT* • would again caution any person from har
boring, trusting, nr employing John Little. Iliacarn-
logs, as they justly belong lo mo, I shall proceed to
collect of whosoever shall find him employment—but
hia debts, I will not ply a cent of, as long as he re
mains trom his duty.
WILLIAM VEIIONEE.
Athens, Sept. 27—21—It
NOTICE.
4 LL those having demands against the Estate of
Anthony It. Cheatham, lalcol Clark county, del-
ceased, arc requested lo render in their accounts ac
cording to law j and all those indebted to the Estateof
said deceased, aro requested lo come forward and set
tle their accounts immediately.
MAliV W. CHEATHAM, Adin’x.
GEORGE M. ARCHER, Adm’r.
Sept. 37—21—4»d.
GEORGIA, CLARK COUNTY.
W HEREAS Matthew Hester, Administrator of
Charles Hester, deceased, applies for letters of
Dismission from the further Administration on the
Estate of said deceased:
These are therefore to cite and admonish all and sin
gular, the kindred and creditora of said deceased, to
he and appear at my office within the limo prescribed
ay law, lo ahew cauie, if any they have, why said leu
tera should not be granted.
Given under my hand Ihia 13th Sept. 1833.
JOSEPH LIGON, e. 8. o.
Sept. 87—SI—mBm.