Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.