Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

P of'' “The ferment of a free, is preferable to the torpor of a despotic, Government.” VOL. II. ATHENS, GEORGIA, AUGUST 31, 1833. NO. 24. The Southern Banner, IS rUBLISlICD IN T1IE TOWN OF ATHENS, GEORGIA, EVERY SATURDAY, BY ALBOft CHASE. TERMS.—Three dollars per year, payable in ad- ranee, or Four dollars if delnycd to the end of the year. The latter amount will l>c rigidly exacted ot all who fail to meet their payments in advance. No subscription received lor less than one year, un less the money is paid in advance ; and no paper will be discontinued until all arrearages are paid, except at the option of the publisher. A failure on the part of subscribers to notify us of their intention of re- linquishment, accompanied with the amount due, will be considered as equivalent to a new engagement, and apers sent accordingly. Advertisements will be inserted at the usual rates. jU-All Letters to the Editors on matters connected with the establishment, must lie post paid in order to secure attention. [n’Noticc of the sale of Lind and Negroes by Ad ministrators, Executors, or Guardians, must be pub lished sixty days previous to the day of sale. The sale of Personal Property, -in like manner, must be published furty days previous to the day of sale. Notice to debtors and creditors of an estate, must be published forty days. Notice that Application will be made to the Court of Ordinary, for Leave to sell Land or Negroes, must be published four months. Notice that Application will lie made for Letters of Administration, must be published thirty days, and lor Letters of Dismission, six months. Watches, Jewelry, &c. B B. LORD has just re ceived from New York, and is now opening at his old stand in this place, a Splendid and Fashionable Assortment of Watches, Jewelry, Cutlery, MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, Plated and Brittania Hare, Perfumery, &c. AMONG WHICH ARC Indies’ and Gentlemen’s Gold Lever and L’Epine WATCHES; Silver Lever, L’Epine and common do.; Ladies’ and Gentlemen’s Ear and Finger Rings, and Breast Pins of a great and beautiful varioty; Rodgers’ fine Pen Knives ; Wade &. Butcher’s, and 1 Rogers’ Razors ; a Kent Bugle, Clarionets, Flutes, Flageolets and Violins ; Walking Canes ; Mathemat ical Instruments; Salts of Vinegar (anew aiticlc) ; Silver Table and Tea Spoons; Chess Men ; Opera i Glasses ; Pist es, &c. &c. 3y Clock anal Watch Repairing attended to as usual. Athens, July 13—17tf. T IIL subscriber tenders his thanks to his custo mens for the liberal patronage he has hitherto received. Besides continuing the business at his old rtand, known as tl^e FRANKLIN HOTEL, He ha* purchased the establishment at present occu pied is a Tavern by Dr. TINSLEY, where ho will be pnpsrjd for the accommodation of Families.— The Hand is well known as being every way eligible. No txertions will bo spared to merit a continuance of list liberal patronage, by which he has been cn. eotraged thus to oxtend his business. - JOHN JACKSON. March 16—52—tf. W ar e-House, factorage & Commission Bu siness, AUGUSTA, GEORGIA. T HE Subscribers beg leave to announce io their friends and patrons and to the country in gen. oral, that they have removed to the large and commo. dious Fire Proof WARE.HOUSE on the south side uppeT end of Broad-street, lately occupied by Jno. C. Holcombe, where they will continue to transact tho above business in all its legitimate branches.— They renew their pledgo to abstain from all specula, tiona upon cotton, and aro prepared to extend the usual facilities upon produco in store. They return their thanks for the liberal share of patronage already conferred, and solicit its further continuance. MASON &. RANDLE. August 17—22—6t. factorage And Commission Business. T HE undersigned think it proper to inform their friends and the public, that they still continue [the above business, at their New Fire Proof Warehouse, Broad.Strect, Augusta. They intend having nothing to do with the pur- ! chase of Cotton, but will devote themselves exclusive. |y to business confided to their care. -They ire pre- pared to make necessary advances, and respectfully renew the oflbr of thoir services to the public. STOVALL & SIMMONS. Augusta, August 1—21—2m. To Journeymen Tinners. W ANTED inunedirtely, by the subscriber two JOURNEYMEN TINNERS. To good workmen, constant employment and liberal wages will be given. WM. VERONEE. Athr-s, Juno 22—14—tf. For Sale, A GENERAL Assortment of IRON on consign, ment, ot seven cents per pound'. FINNY MOORE. July 20 18tf. FIRE WOOD. V AM clearing a piece of wood land, about two ~ miles from Athens, directly on the road to Moore’s Any person wishing fire wood now and du ring ’ho winter, can have it on reasonable tenna^— Apply to Mr. Lane on the plantation, or to myself. ROBERT R. HARDEN. July 27—19—Gt. For the Georgia Courier. I intend, if circumstances permit, to offer, through your paper, some of the reasons, which lead me to oppose the plan of Reduction, proposed by the late Convention. And in doing so, I shall endeavor to address the understanding of your readers. “ One of the People,” in the Courier of the 10th and 14th Junohas appeared in favor of the plan—and he hasdis- covered that no “ argument,” has yet been adduced against it. I do not know what that writer calls « argument.” But I confess that if the arti- 'cles, which have appeared in the Journal and Recorder (not to speak of other papers,) do nol contain “ argument,” I do not understand the mean ing of the word. Let me suggest to “One of the People,” that this sneer ing style of sovereign contempt for an adversary, this short hand method of answering an argument, by denying that it is “ argument,” is in very bad taste. Some people may, perad'venture, read both sides, who are as capable of appreciating an “argument,” as “ One of the People”; and if they do, ho and his sweeping assertions must look rather small, m the only eyes to which he can wish to appear large. My intention is to an swer this writer. I shall do it respectfully for very many reasons; Jmt principally for two—I consider any writer, who enters the lists with one, whom he profsscs to despise, guilty, by his own showing, of self-degrada tion : and secondly, “One of the People,” though writing in what 1 must be excused for considering a very bad cause, does it in a manner to shew that he is worthy of a better one. My objections to the proposed plan arc— 1st. It docs not answer the end, proposed, in calling the Convention. 2nd. So far from removing existing evils, the proposed plan will in crease them. 3rd. In both Houses of the Legislature, under the proposed amend- ment, a minority of the People will elect a majority of members. 4th. The taxes will be paid by one portion of the State, and their pro ceeds appropriated by another. 5th. The federal basis ought to have been retained, in one house, at least, and if it be rejected, a great and permanent injury, to the State, and to the South, will be unavoidable. I shall consider this last subject first, because “ One of the people” has thus far, confined himself to it. But, before proceeding to the discussion, l must be allowed to remark on two of this writer’s preliminary observa tions—that the plan is the best now to be obtained; and that some of its defects, at least, are owing to the “ exorbitant demands” of its opponents; the friends of the plan (and they only, according to the writer’s inference) being “ anxious to act for the good of the State, regardless of either party or local interest,” and their good intentions being defeated by the un reasonable extravagance” of the other side. As to the first remark, I have only to say, that if the time has come, when a majority of the people cannot adopt a better plan-of government, than to give all power to the mi nority, it is time to dissolve into our original elements, and begin again. The only reason why no better plan “ could be obtained,” in the Conven tion, was, that a combination of various local interests had fixed upon their plan for their own purposes—and being a majority, voted down every al teration proposed, as a matter of course. But I am yet to learn, that a Convention, in which the small Counties may have their proper influence, (instead of doubling it as they did in the late one, by sending delegates in equal number to their entire representation in the Legislature) will be forced to come to such a “ l..mc and impotent conclusion” as the one be fore us. I submit to the writer himself, whether the other remark is liber al, or just, or worthy of such a pen as his. It assumes that the friends of the proposed amendments were « anxious to act for the good of the State, regardless of local or party interest,” the other side going for “ local or party interest” exclusively ; when it is a well known fact, not merely that the amendments were carried by a combination of “ local or party interests,” but that that combination was openly avowed and boasted of, on the floor of the Convention! It is well known that every testing vote was a “ local or party” vote, and the yeas and nays will show it. And shall we be told, in the face of this, that the majo rity were the impartial, unbiassed, friends of “ the State,” “ without re gard to local or party interest,” and that the “ exorbitant demands,” the “ unreasonable extravagance” efthe other side, drove them to extremes? Whether these demands, in the first instance, really were “ exorbitant,” “ unreasonable,” or “ extravagant,” will, I trust appear in the sequel of this discussion. But when it was found that the adoption, of what the mi nority thought right, was impossible, plan upon plan, for compromising the difficulty, was proposed in vain—and, at last, the plan of Mr. Hull, which was offered, only as a final effort at compromise, and with a view to miti gate an evi^ which was found unavoidable, was rejected; and now, we are told, forsooth, that this state-loving, party-hating, local-interest-despising majority, were driven to extremes by the unreasonable, exorbitant, extra vagant demands of a known and ascertained minority! Really, this is not only insufferable, but ridiculous. ’ As I am net. one of that army, who “ swore so terribly in Flanders,” I shall not stop to discuss, further, the preliminary remarks of “ One of the People”—nor shall I trouble myself with his remarks on the “ Georgia Times.” Mr. Slade must fight his own battles. 1 will proceed, there fore, to state why 1 consider the federal basis the proper one for the House of Representatives, instead of that of white population alone. And if “ One of the People” finds that my remarks are “ not arguments,” why’ he will not have to answer them—that’s all. To the point then. The question is, ought any allowance to be made in fixing the ratio of representation, for the number of our slaves ? The triumphant answer to this question is, that persons, and persons only, are entitled to representation ; that slaves are only property; and that, to allow them a place in the computation, is aristocratic, giving the rich power over the poor, “ and all that sort o’ thing.” Let me do “ One of the Peo ple” the justice to say, that he has haiTthc good sense to treat this sort of slang, about aristocracy, &c. with the contempt it deserves. I shall not advocate, here, the propriety of giving slaves a representation, as proper, ty—Because, merely as property, I do conceive the argument goes to show that all other property should be computed too; and though I am one of those who believe such a plan to be correct, on principle, yet it is unne cessary to go into the support of it, here, as the question has nothing to do with the purposes of my discussion, and the ground, necessary to be oc cupied, is broad enough without it. We are told, if we go back to first principles, persons only are to be represented. Be it so. If slaves are not persons, they have no existence. They are persons, in the strict, literal sense of the word. They live, and move, and act, and think, .and speak, and are as much human beings, as “One of the People,” or myself. Upon the strict abstract principle, then, for which our opponents are such sticklers, without reference to the peculiar laws of this part of the coun try, si ives, poor and friendless os they may be, are entitled to be represent ed, not by three fifths of their numbers, but by the whole. It happens, howev- er, that the laws of this Stale make negroes, “ chattels personal, to all intents and purposes.’ Now this, it must be remarked, is not the Constitution of the country, but only a statute law under the Constitution. And,infram- ing a, fundamental law, I am yet to leam, how or why the people are to be held bound, by previous acts of their legislature. It is, however, a part of the settled policy of the State; and though, if I were to follow the example of my opponents, in insisting on first principles, without any regard to exi isting circumstances, by which we must be governed, and which compel us, in this instance, to let these first principles give way to this necessary poli- cy, I should bring them to the necessity of conceding full representation to slaves; yet I feel tue necessity of admitting that this literal argument will not do, in practice. The gentlemen on the other side wish to disregard circumstances, and rely on principle, just far enough to sejt their own pur. pose. But when we cany out the principle of representing persons, they bring us back to the “ circumstance,” that these persons are property ! This strikes me as being an unfair mode of argument Take circumstan- ***» from the beginning to the end, gentlemen, or let us have principle, throughout Now I admit, that I do not think it either proper, or pru- dent to revert to these principles, without reference to the state of facts, to which they areto be applied. What is the state of facts? These people are a part of our population, and likely ever to remain so, of an inferior caste. We are obliged, independent of all other considerations, from regard to our own safety and to theirs, to keep them in servitude, and to consider them as property. But their character is not, exclusively property. It is a mixed one. For certain purposes, they are property alone, and for other purposes they are only persons. “ It is only under the pretext,” says James Madison, “ that the laws have transformed negroqs into sub jects of property, that a place is denied them in the computation of num- bers.” If they are to be considered as persons, they become a part of the people, and are entitled to full representation as such. So far then, as their character of persons is merged in that of property, they are not to be computed. So far as their character of persons remains, they ought, on cveiy principle, to be computed. Mr. Madisou,inthe54thNo. of the Fe deralist,* from which I have quoted above, insists on this mixed character, as being the only true one. He tells us that, in being bought and sold, compelled to labor for his master, and liable to punishment at his master’s caprice, the slave is property—but is a person, in being protected by law, against the violence even of his master, and in being subject to punishment for breaches of law. He is sold and controlled as property—is protected and punished as a person. So far, Mr. Madison. Now I ask “One of the. People” to tell me, if a slave is only property, on what is founded the law for his personal protection? As property, the master only could claim the protection of law for him: and yet we find him protected even against his master. Again—if a slave is not a person, on what is founded the law, making him amenable tothe public for breaches of law—establishing a re spectable tribunal for his trial, and, for the Iiigher offences, even giving him that most inestimable personal privilege, a trial by Jury 1 Is property amenable to law? Can a beast be punished by law? I should like to see a jury cmpaunelled to try a mad dog for murder, and the defence of insan. ity set up in his favor. I do not know how this view of the subject will strike other minds. To mine, it is not only satisfactory, but conclusive; and I have the venerable name of James Madison to quote, as the author of the argument. If then, this be correct; if the slave is of a mixed cha racter, of person and property; so far as his personal character remains, he ought to be computed in fixing the ratio of representation. The only difficulty, then, is to ascertain what proportion of his personality does re- main. The Constitution of the United States, and that of Georgia, have fixed on three fifths; the remaining two fifths of his character as a man, politically, being considered as merged in that of the slave. The precise, ly correct mathematical proportion, it would puzzle “ One of the People,” myself, or a greater man than either of us, to fix upon. We find the ra- tio of three fifths already fixed in our existing Constitution; and it seems to me, before that proportion is altered, some reason should be shown for making it more, or less. Besides, we are not now disputing as to the proportion of slaves to be computed, but whether they ought to be compu- ted at all. There is another important reason for retaining this basis of represen- tatiou ; and much as it has been scouted at, it docs not seem to me to have been answered. All will admit the extreme importance, not only to Georgia, but to the entire South, of retaining this basis in tho Federal Constitution. We are told, however, that rejecting it in our own Con stitution, cannot affect that instrument in any way. If it can and will affect it, I presume the advocates of the free white basis will be few.— It seems to me there can remain hone, if that tendency be made obvious, unless tlcre be some politicians mad enough to sacrifice the interests, not to say the independence, of the South, to local or party views. Now, it is perfectly well known, that this feature in the Federal Constitution was the result of compromise, in the Federal Convention; that it excited strong opposition to the ratification of that Constitution, at the North.; and that the ratification was greatly aided, to say the least, by the publi cation of the Federalist, the very work from which I have borrowed most of my argument. It is also well known, to all who know’ any thing about the matter, that, from the ratification to this day, the northern people have complained of this bK*is, as unjust and unequal, and been anxious to get rid of it. I know this is denied. But many publications have 1 seen, from northern pens, against this basis ; many respectable northern men have I heard complain of it. It has been, again and again, complained of in Congress—and, during the last Congress, by no less a man than John Quincy Adams. One of the propositions of the Hartford Conven tion (which, whatever else it may have been, was certainly composed of the very first men in New England) was to amend this article of the Federal Constitution ; and, finally, repeated amendments to this article have been formally proposed, by the Legislatures of Northern States.— Now, really, in the face of all this, to deny that this feature of the Fed eral Constitution is obnoxious to the North, and one which they would change, if they could do it peacefully and constitutionally, is perfectly ridiculous. I shall consider it, then, no longer a debateable matter, that they do desire to change this basis. And I ask the friends of our patent project of amendment, how they will answer their northern brethren, when they say to them, in proposing this change, “ You admit this basis to be wrong, on principle: Yon were the only Southern State, that incor porated it in your own Constitution : You have seen your error, and have stricken it out, as radically wrong; and we only ask you for what, you yourselves being judges, is mere, sheer justice.” I suspect the South ern man, to whom this is addressed, will have to answer it after the man- ner of “ One of the People.” “ Verily, brother Jonathan, all this is no argument.” “ One of the People” says, indeed, that there is no analogy between the Federal and State Constitutions—that, in the Federal Con stitution, this basis was adopted to protect those States, to whom this “species of property” was “peculiar;” whereas, in this State, the “ rights of slavery are the same, in all the Counties.” This proves too much, or it proves nothing. If these rights be “ the same in all the Goun- ties,” then why object to this basis ? It will operate equally, every where. If they be not the same, then the analogy between the Federal and State Constitutions remains in all its force, and “One of the People” must go back, in answering the northern man, to his favorite argument of “no argument” Having considered the rejection of the federal basis of representation, ns a reason why the amendments to the Constitution, proposed by the late Convention, ought not to be ratified, I come now to treat my other ob jections, in their order. 1. My first w is, that the plan of the Convention does not answerthe end proposed, in calling that body: which .is shown, by considering what was the mischief to be remedied, and what would have been an effectual re medy. “ One of the People” rests his defence of the Convention, mainly, on the ground that their plan will save the State a large annual expenditure. If the saving of money were really the object for which the Convention was called, they have not done half enough, and the people ought not to be satisfied. If expense is to be reduced, without regard to any other principle, why not reduce the Senate to twenty, and the House to fifty, at once ? This would have saved the State some $50,000 per annum, instead of the $20,000, which, it is said, the proposed plan will save, and would have been economising to some purpose; while the laws would, probably, have been as well made, as they will be now. Expense was, and ought to have been, one object. • But, if the people of Georgia have verily made up their minds to sacrifice substantial and permanent politi- ' cal interests—rights, purchased by the toil, and consecrated by the blood of their fathers—to the paltry consideration of dollars and cents; they deserve to be slaves, fend most certainly will be: for, when men are in the market, they will always' find purchasers. Public money is a thing to be husbanded, and with care too ; hut when public men sacrifice prin ciple, to preserve public money, they forge't their duty, and betray their constituents. If the people sanction it, they betray themselves. Another object, which these gentlemen say they have attained, is the reduction of the House of Representatives, from a disorderly assembly, to one of suitable size, for business and for decorum. To what extent is this true ? The House is to consist of 144 members. Reject the amend ment, and it will remain, as it now is, 175. The difference is 31* I. suspect it will be found that these few odd members*—about 18 per cent, of the whole—will make but little difference in the order of the house, or the despatch of business. An assembly of 144 men, always under more . or less political excitement, must be rather mobbishc. adding 31 more, could make matters very little worse. To attain the object proposed under this head, the reduction should have been still greater. These objects, then, have not been properly answered. But, if they had been, they were not the primary objects of calling the Convention. Thev had, it is true, their influence, but were only minor considerations. The chief and primary object was to equalize the representation, by giving each part of the State its proper proportion of power, and no more; and to sd. ter that iniquitous system, which gave, to more than forty counties, a re. presentation, whose annual pay far exceeded the amount of.taxes, paid by their respective counties to the Treasury, These were the evils, which a great majority of the people expected the Convection to remedy; and what would have been a proper remedy ? Such a plan, surely, as would have made a majority of the Legislature elective by. an actual ma- jority of the people—a plan, that would have given to the people weight, at the State House, in proportion to their weight at home. This would have been equalization„ Has such a plan been offered to us ? The an swer will be found, in my Second objection, that, 2. So far from removing existing evils, the plan proposed will increase them. . What was the inequality before ? In the Senate, the large and small Counties were precisely equal. In the House, every County had one representative; and for the additional members, the ratio of- increase was so large, as to give to the small Counties a most unreasonable ad- vantage. Even upon the white basis, this inequality was enormous. For example—Bryan, Wayne, Glynn and Randolph, having an average white population of less than seven hundred, were entitled to ono repre sentative each—that is, to one for every seven hundred inhabitants.— Oglethorpe, Wilkes, Columbia and Richmond, with an average white pppulation of more than five thousand, had but three members each, or one to every one thousand six hundred and sixty-six inhabitants. This gave the former Counties an advantage, of more than 6even to one in the Senate, and more than two to one in the House. And this example is only one illustration of an inequality, that ran through the whole State, between the large and small Counties. Now, how ttyes this beautiful Convention scheme remedy such a state of things ? The Senate remains as it was, in regard to the relative inffuence of the Counties; and. in tho House, all the reduction i3 from the large Counties, the smaller still re taining their one member each. Thus, by way of another example, in the Counties above referred to, the proportion, in favor of the smaller ones, is still seven to one in the Senate, while in the House, each of the large Counties losing one member, the inequality is increased to nearly four to one! The effect is the same throughout the State, though not, in every instance, so glaring; so that the result of the scheme will be, to increase the relative power of ti e smaller Counties, which was, already, far too great. If, then, it be mathema’ically true, thet addition, is the converse of subtraction, surely such a plan must aggravate the evils which the Convention was intended to remedy. 3. In both Houses of the Legislature, under the proposed amendment, a minority of the people will elect a majority, of members. This is a simple matter of fact, to be proved, not by “ argument,” but by figures. And, that my demonstration may be unanswerable, on the principle of “ One of the People” himself, I shall predicate my statements on the white basis alone. I will remark, here, that I shall not attempt to exhibit the Senate, and the House, respectively, in their worst possible features. By making one division of the State, a monstrous inequality will be discovered in ffie Senate; by another, one, about as bad, will be found in the House. But, iu order to treat the matter fairly—(we mu6t give even the devil his due)—and to show that the same majority of the people are in the minority in both houses, I shall make the same division ; for both. I take the Senatorial districts proposed, from the 14th to the 30th inclusive, (see the annexed Table I.) omitting the 22d, which lies west of Flint river, and, if included, would make my division too irregular in its form. This gives me a compact body of Counties, comprising the whole centre of the State, and containing a free white population of 163,- 176 persons. All the other Counties of the State contain 146,659 free white persons.- Of these two divisions, the majority are to elect sixteen Senators and sixty-seven Representatives; tho minority, twenty-nine Se nators and seventy-seven Representatives. On this basis, then, Coun- lies, which arc nearly 17,000 in the minority of the whole people, will have a majority of thirteen in the Senate, of ten in ihe House, and of twenty-three on joint ballot. It is also to be remarked, that this power of the minority must and will increase. For, by a glance at the map, it will be seen, that all new Counties, hereafter to he formed, will unques. tionably be laid out, in that region, not included in my division. It will be recollected that, on the plan proposed by the Convention, cveiy new County is to have one representative; and that one is to be taken from the County, lowest in population, of those electing three. Now the five lowest Counties, having three representatives, on the [dan proposed, are Jasper, Elbert, Jones, Washington, and Houston—all of them included in the majority district. Without allowing, therefore, for the probable increase of the Cherokee country, which, it is generally supposed, will, in a very few years, still farther curtail the consequence of the centre of the State; every new County formed will take one member of the house from the majority, and add one to the minority; thus increasing the rela tive power of the latter, two votes. If five new Counties are formed, then, the five last mentioned each losing one representative, the majority, in the House, of a minority of the people, will be increased to twenty, that identical minority already having a majority of thirteen, in the Sen ate ! And this, “ God save the mark”!!—is EQUALIZATION!!!! 4. The Taxes will be paid, by onepdrtion of the State, and their proceeds appropriated, by another. I do not, of course, mean by this, that all the taxes are paid by one portion of the State, and the whole power of appropriation vested in an- ether; but that the portion, paying by far the larger amount of taxes, is in the minority in both houses. From the Statement, made by the Comp, trailer General, to the late Convention, it appears that the same sixteen Senatorial districts, referred to under the last objection, pay taxes, to the’ amount of $76,974, and all the rest of the State pa vs but $56,258.* A district of country, then, paying, in round numbers, $76,000, has thirteen less Senators, and ten less Representatives, than a district paying but $56,000: and on joint ballot, is in a minority of twenty-three. Be it remarked, also, that, of this sum, paid by the minority Counties, Chat ham alone pays $13,474; and Chatham is to bo deprived, under the new system, of one of her three Representatives. The annexed Table 1. taken from official documents, will show my statements to be correct. The result of my. preceding calculations is —a region of country, lying in compact form,through the centre of the State, from the Savannah to the Flint River, contains a majority of 17,000 of the free white population of Georgia; pays, in taxes, $20,000 more than all the rest of .the State, and is to be tn d minority, in both Houses of tjie Legisla ture—a fixed minority of thirteen, in the senate,and a minority often, in the. ’ House, to which will be added two more, on thejormtion of every new County. This brings me to the conclusion of the objections, with which I be gan. Whether “ One of the People”, will be able to find « argument”; m them, I cannot say: but one thing is certain, so far as my objections rest on statements and calculations, they belong tp that class of * * This Number is in some editions, erroneously attributed to Mr. Jay. 1 thatwinna ding, “ And iTV nna be disputed,” * Let me remark, once for all, that, in my calculations in regard to taxes, I have re. jected all fractions of a dollar. It saves much trouble, and docs not alter the genar. al result. *