Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

- . < it , " k ’-SteS r. ^ * . < \ ® Hi0kf v u- • ■ f called facts—things that may, sometimes, be evaded, but can never be denied. _* . } There is one more view of the subject, which I wish to take, before leaving it: and my object is, to show that, whatever division may be made, the small counties are to have a most decided, and most unreason, able advantage, on the adoption of the proposed amendments* ' I have already shown the relative weakness, in the Legislature,' of the actual strength of the State, lying in one compact body. I now remark (and the annexed Table II. proves me correct) that the twenty six most pop. ulous Counties, without reference to location, have a great majority of ■ the free white population of the State, and are in the minority, in both Houses. These Counties, as the Table shows, have a white population of 176,139, with but sixty seven Representatives, and a weight in the Senato equal to thirteen Senators. The remaining Counties, with a pop. nlation of 133,696, having thirty two Senators, and twenty-seven Repre sentatives ; thus giving to Counties, which contain a minority of the peo- plo, by more than 40,000, a majority of ten in the House, and more than two thirds of the Senate ! ! ! If freemen will not listen to facts like these, of what use can it be, to address them at all? Has'the spirit of party, like Aaron’s rod, so swal lowed up every other feeling, that no language is loud enough, no appeal strong enough, to break the wizard spell? Has argument lost its force, or truth its omnipotence ? I will not say, in the language of a respectable and intelligent man, who represented an adjoining County in the Con vention, that if these amendments prevail, we are “ bound hand and foot, and delivered to our enemies but I will say, and I do believe, that, by adopting them we shall abandon, not only every true principle of South ern policy, but the only principle, on which a free government ever did, or ever can exist—the principle, that tub will of THE PEOPLE, is ■ TUB LAW OF THE LAND. RICHMOND. For the Georgia Courier. I am glad to find, that « One of the People,” when he disposed of all his opponents, at once, os having offered « no argument,” had not read the various remarks, that had appeared in the Journal and Recorder.— Let me assure him they do contain argument—and so do others, which he has not probably seen, in other papers* The Milledgeville papers are 60 generally read, here, and so much looked to as the semi-officials of their respective parties, that it was perfectly natural for me to suppose “ One of the People” had seen them ; and I put it to his own candor (for he cer tainly has candor) whether I had not reason to infer, that he meant to in clude those papers, in his sweeping sneer. While on these preliminary matters, let me observe, that, if the ‘‘mod erate party,” small as this writer’s last number makes it, had been, in re alty, as far above “local or party interest” as he represents ; they would not, and could not, have been driven, by the «irritation and excitement,” raised on the opposite side, to such extremes. They held the balance in their, own hands. Why did they not do their duty, and keep both ex- tremes steady ? Was the violence of one party (the existence of which I do not admit) an excuse to them for « going the whole hog,” with the other ? On the question, between the white and the federal basis, there was a difference of but three votes. Where was the moderation of these “moderate” men, that not even three of them could be rallied, “ to the rescue?” Where were they, the next day, when a motion was made to reconsider, knowing, as they did, how nearly the house was divided ? Where were they, on Mr. Hull’s motion, when their votes would have produced harmony, and a conciliation of all parties ? If the plan of the violent party would have reduced more than half the extent of the State to a condition “ worse than colonization is not more than half the popu lation and wealth of Georgia, in as bad a predicament under the plan proposed ? I ask “ One of the People” to examine the calculations and tables in my second number, and answer me. And then, I beg him to say which is worst—that a majority of the people should govern the great er extent of territory, or that the greater extent of territory should rile a majority of the people ? 1 beg him, further, to recollect, that if the plan of the minority had succeeded, in Convention, the Senate would have been organized, according to population; but that the thinly peopled counties would have had a very great advantage, in the house—nearly as great as they now have, and indeed, i think greater. And then, I ask him to say, which of the two plans was most “ unreasonable,” “ exor. bitant,” or “ extravagant,” and to which of the two would « moderate” men, really free from “ local or party interest,” have most inclined ? The plan Which he hastily denounces as “exorbitant,” &c. gave to the ma jority of the people,' the Senate, and to the minority, the House. This was VIOLENCE. The plan, which his friends, the « moderate party,” were forced into by this « violence,” gives, most decidedly, loth houses to the minority. This is MODERATION. “ My kingdom for a dictionary” ! ! i “ One of the People,” in endeavoring to « entangle” me, with those who support the same side of the question, discovers that I use different arguments and place the subject on a different footing, from them. Does a man of his intelligence suppose, that there can be but one mode of de fending the right side ? Is it an argument against the soundness of a position, that it admits of a variety of illustrations? Because a dozen men give a dozen different good reasons for the same opinion, does it follow that they are all wrong? I have been .taught no such rules of x logic. ' * u . , The writer says, my position is the « most unpopular of all”—(it may bo so; but that docs not disprove it)—“ and perhaps the most untenable.” Perhaps it is. And yet, such minds as Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, and James Madison, held it unanswerable. “ One of the People,” here, and here only, states my argument unfairly. I have never con tended, that slaves ought to be fully represented, “as persons.” I only urged that such must be the result if the abstract principle of represent, ing persons only, without reference to circumstances, were insisted on. I contended that slaves had a mixed character, of persons and property; and endeavored to add a little of my own, to Mr. Madison’s argument. “ One of the People” has certainly not answered this position—for he has not even noticed it. 'If the writer means that I wish to “ smuggle a principle into the Con. stitution under a false name,” without avowing its true merits, as “an oblique mode of representing valuable and taxable property,” he must himself admit, that he does me injustice. I expressly stated, that I held this latter principle to be correct; but considered it unnecessary to press it, for the purposes of my argument. It had been urged by others. I wished to place the subject on another footing; believing, (as I am still stupid enough to do, in spite of the “ entangling” into which this writer has brought me) that the more various the grounds that sustain a princi ple the more certainly is that principle correct. One more remark, and I have done. “ One of the People” says, that to give slaves «* representation as persons, they must he allowed to vote for representatives.” This will be true when it is found that in order to give free white women and children “representation, as persons, they must be allowed to vote for representatives” and not before* RICHMOND. answered this ? Admitting, as he does, that my views are “ entitled to respect, both for matter and manner,” and not even alluding to the main subject of my argument, does he mean his readers to infer that my re- marks are unanswerable ? ' , Blit I have said, in former numbers, all I intend to say, on the Federal basis. It was ia answer to my other objections, that my friend—I have good , reason to believe , that term correctly applied—wrote this, his last, and far ablest paper. • My first objection was, that “ the end proposed, in calling the Conven tion, had not been answered.” «One of the People” and myself, it seems, are. at issue, as to what that end was. I insist, that the great ob ject was equalizatiort: and my proof is the fact, that the inequality of the old system has been the chief and almost the. only burden df all the com plaints, on this subject, with which the press has teemed, for several years. I do not mean that Utopian equality, which would attempt giv ing to every man, under all possible circumstances, a precisely equal de gree of actual power. In arguing against the practicability of what eve ry body knows to be physically impossible, my friend is « fighting wind, mills,”* as decidedly, as did a celebrated redresser of grievances, in a for- • mer age. It is perfectly certain, that human wisdom can devise no plan, which will not leave a physical possibility of the minority’s governing —as in the case of the ten counties, of 1,000 voters each, put by this writer. But when did, or when will, such a case ever occur ? The equal- ization, which we require, is a practical affair—that the majority of the people may have a majority, somewhere, in enacting laws. We have not asked, that they should have a majority in- both Houses. Let these persecuted « square miles” of pine barren, for which this writer “ so feelingly raises the cry of supplication,” have a majority in one House— not because it is right that they should b ave it, but because wc are willing to concede far more, than our opponents can, with any show even df de cency, demand—but, if you please, let the people have a majority in the other House. The evil compl fined of was, that these “square miles” had by far too much power : and we wished to give.that power to the in habitants. Under the old system the “ square miles” had only a major ity in the Senate. The thirty-two comities, in the first table annexed to my second number, sent eighty-five members to the last House of Repre sentatives—a majority of four, of the whole House. They are now to send sixty-seven—a minority of ten. So that the “ square miles” are now to govern both Houses. This, certainly, is very queer equalization. “ One of tiie People” says that, to allow each county one r epresentative, and at the same time, to equalize and reduce, is impossible. So it is, in the lower House alone. But, on increasing the inequality in that House -which was inevitable—for the sake of reduction, was there any difficul- ty in changing the basis of the Senate, and thus restoring the balance ? And would not this have been done, if the Convention had had any re gard for justice, or for principle ? But we are told that the object was not to equalize, but only to reduce. And why reduce, without equalizing ? To save expense, and rid the State House of a mass oi Legislators, who were only in each other’s way. I did not misrepresent«One of the People,” when I said lie rested his defence of the Convention, mainly on the ground of saving expense. He says he “ knows not” how I as certained that. I gathered it from his* own writings, which contained no other reason. When I made that statement,.only his two first num bers had appeared : and except his attempt to answer the objection ia re gard to the Federal basis, those numbers coataiu no reason iu favor of ratification, and allude to none, but that of economy. In fact, on the two grounds above stated, and on them alone, can the advocates of rati fication reply, by way of positive argument. All else that is said is only in attempting to « answer uud confute” objections, that are unanswerable. I say, again, that equalization was as much more important an end, than these, as political principle is more important than money. W hat peo ple, that deserved to be free, ever sacrificed principle, to gold ? And what people ever did, or ever will, remain free, after making the sacrifice? And I say, therefore, it cannot be shewn, that'the end proposed, ia call ing the Convention, has been answered. 2. “So far from removing existing evils, the proposed plan will in crease them.” If the aforesaid inequality be an evil; this cannot be denied; for figures show it. But “ One of the People” says it is no evil; and what proves it none, is that sundry of the large counties, who are to lose by the change, are" the “very authors of the proposed plan of reduction.” If this be indeed so ; If the delegates of these large counties, in convention, spoke the real wishes of their constituents; it is uot the first time, that men have given up their substantial interests, under the maddening intluence of political cxcitemeut, without, perhaps, being aware that they were making the sacrifice. One principal object, of my troubling the public, has been to . For the Georgia Coiprier. « One of the People,” in your paper of the 8th, has undertaken to ful fil his promise, to “ answer and confute” my second number. He has certainly said more in favor of his side of the question than I thought even he could say: and has done it in a manner aacreditable to himself, as such reasoning, in such a cause, can be, to a man of his acknowledged talent But, has he “answered and confuted” my objections? As it is ‘about three weeks since those first objections appeared, I ought, perhaps, to re- peat them. They were, that the plan submitted—“ 1st does not an, ewer the end proposed, in calling the Convention.. “ 2d. So far from removing existing evils, the proposed plan will in- crease them. . « 3d.' In both Houses of the Legislature, under the proposed amend- roent, 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 proceeds 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.” The last objection, “ One of the People” hkd discussed, in his previ- ous numbers; but while he admitted that my View of the subject had its merits, he never even noticed my argument, nor has he yet done so. I rested my position on the principle laid down by Mr. Madison, of the slave’s «mixed character, of person and property.” Why has not the writer show the real character of this sacrifice^ Whether these large counties “ will be very grateful to Richmond, for espousing their cause,” is of little moment to one, who only “ stands, the shadow of a name.” But be it known to “ One of the People,” that the voice, 1 raise in their be half, is not the “cry of supplication.” I have sought favor for none, and of none. I only call on those, who have the power, now, to use it, while they can, for their own preservation. My voice is that of one of the same majority with themselves; seeing a danger, perhaps unseen by them, and raising a note of alarm; pointing to the precipice before them and warning them to beware. The plunge is not yet made. But mark me, people of the middle country!—once made, it is made forever. And when you wake from your dream of party frenzy, and find your selves in chains, what consol..lion will it be, that you * own hands forged the fetters ? Precisely that, I suspect, which the “ struck eagle” felt, when, turning his expiring eye to the arrow that had wounded him, he saw it feathered from his own wing: “ And the same plumage, that had warmed bis nest, Drank the last tile-drop of his bleeding breast.” 3. «In both Houses of. the Legislature, under the proposed amend ment, a minority of the people will elect a majority of members.” 4. “ The taxes will be paid by one portion of the State, and their pro ceeds appropriated by another.” In relation to these two objections, unanswerable as they arc, if true, I have only to say, that neither of them is denied, nor any attempt made . to evade their fore.e—a very prudent course, on the part of « One of the People;” for these same tables, which he thinks have blown me “sky. high,” prove them both, by the simple and satisfactory process of addi.' tion. In my humble opinion, Lord Mansfield’s advice, as to the impru- dence of giving reasons, does not apply to cases, where those reasons amount to mathematical demonstration. I have been taught, that such demonstration is not only safe, but the only sort of proof, which leaves no possible room for cavilling. Perhaps “ One of the People” learut his rules of argument from a higher source. Of these four objections, then, this writer has directly attacked neither; much less has he “ answered and confuted” them. He has endeavored to evade them, and divert attention from them, by laying down certain propositions of his own, which remain now to be considered. Some of these need only be stated, to refute themselves. Thus, we are told that, in all representative republics, the “ execution of the will of the majori- ty” “is not aprinciple of primary importance,” but only “an important principle, to be regarded.” That is to say, the minority are to have some little respect, for the will of the majority, but are not, as a matter of course, to submit to it!! What sort of fatuity can have possessed such a man, as my friend “ One of the People,” to offer, seriously; such a.proposition, ‘ to an intelligent community ? Does it need a reply ? It sets even ridi- cule at defiance. . Bat, let aa soe pa what he docs baso his theory of representation; the will of the ma jority having boon so summarily disposed of.—His first proposition is, that “ represen tatives should be so distributed, as to bring, to the councils of the country, a true knowledge of the wants, interests, feelings, and wishes, of the people of every por tion, of it.” Be it so. Does it follow, that every portion, populous or not, is to be equally represented ? Must every square .mile of territory have the earae weight in the government—a square mile, in the centra of Savannah, or Augusta, the same with a square mile in the centre of the Okefinocau swamp ? O ! no. “ Some ad. vantage must be given to population. How much, we aid not told. But, os the writer fa defending the scheme, proposed by the Convention, I suppose it will be safe, to let a majority of the people elect within ten of half of one House, and within thir teen of half the other. ABthey happen to bo a majority, th&y shall have “ tome ad vantage,” hut not enough to balance the “ square miles :” for that would not allow the “square miles” to govern, as they of right oight to do! In short, territory must have the power, in both Houses; the will of the majority of the people.being only a ** principle to be regarded,” but the rights of the sqnaro miled being of first importance. This writer says I do not oppose each county’s having one member. I do not; be cause I believe, if jve pun ever place the Senate on a proper basis, it will bo well to give each county one representative, as a matter of “ concession.” But, os a matter of right, upon no principle offreo government, can a county, with 1000 inhabitants, claim dne representative, unless you give ten, tp a county with 10,000. Such an ar rangement, I know, would, in Georgia, make the House n mere mob. I am cpntcnt to waive the strict right, as a matter of expediency!, and compromise : but when the right is waived, and the small counties hive taken double their proper weight, in the House; they, very modestly, claim four times their proper weight, in the Senate And “ One of the. People” says they might to have it!! His second proposition fa, that “the proportion, between the people and their rep resentatives, ought not to be the same, where the people .ire many, as where they are few.” And “ this shews,” saya he, “why Hall, Habersham and Gwinnett, have not, and ought not to have,” the same proportion of members, as Wayne, Glynn, Ac. By the bye, the writer, very discreetly, here takes to himself the advice of Lord Mans- • field, which he basso kindly recommended to me; and simply lays down his propo. sition, as a truism, without giving any reason for it. He shows, at least, “ the better part of valor;”, for reasoning, till dooms-day, never could convince any man of com. men sense, that such a proposition can be true. It amounts to this—that the more sparse,a population fa, the greater weight should they have in the Legislature. The writer quotes the principle, hut he does not give his author. And really, 1 am unwil ling to believe, that he quoted it from the original text. For, if he did, he can hardly continue to claim that character, for candid argument, which I have always conceded to him. In the 55th number of the Federalist, Mr. MADISON applies this principle to the whole United States, as one community, for the purpose of showing that the ratio of representation, in Congress, ought to depend on the entire number of people to be represented—tout he no Where even dreams of saying, that, in different parts of the country, at the same time, the ratio ought to vary, with the denseness of population. • Hfa third principle is, that majorities of small bodies ore likely to agree with ina. jorities of larger bodies, of the same community.” This is true, where their interests are the same. But where the larger and smaller bodies have several interests, as the diffarent sections of Georgia have, by this writer’s own admission, it would be worse than ridiculous, to expect such agreement. This diversity of interest Was insisted on in Convention, as a reason for “ protecting” the weaker counties. By a combination between those weaker counties, and some of the stronger in a particular part of the State, the proposed plan has been brought before the people; and that, with the avowed purpose, of taking power from the middle country, which contains a majority of the people. Now. does this writer expect, in such a state of things, that the “ma jority of the small body” will agree with a majority of the larger? Can he pretend to believe, that, in the “ reformed” legislature, the wishes of that portion of Georgia, which contains far the greater part of her population, and pays much the largei part of her taxes, will pee vail ? If so—if the majority of the smaller portion, will always agree with the majority of the larger, why represent the larger at all ? Refusing to represent them, would “ save a great deal of expense,” and would make the two hou ses of a very “ convenient size, for doing business.” We are told that a “ very large concession is made to population,” in the Senate. A *.* very large CONCESSION”—mark that word. It fa matter of “ concession,” then, an-! not of right, that a majority of the people shall elect sixteen Senators, out of korty-pive !! !* A “ concession” to population, of what territory was rightfully entitled to !—The writer surely forgets himself. This fa saying that “ square miles,” of right, should be precisely equal in the Senate, whether inhabited by white men, or by alligators. He himself refuses to submit to such outrageous nonsense as this.— No one, of the “ many respectable and talented advocates” of such a sheme, has, as yet, had the hardihood to maintain it, publicly, except the other anonymous writer before referred to, and a delegate elect to the late convention, who, not attending, gave his views on the subject, in un address to his constituents. All that was said, in Con vention, in favor of a territorial Senate, when explained by votes, was shown to refer to tiie county principle, now proposed. “ One of the People” has also discovered, that, by dividing the State into north ern and southern sections, the former will have an “effective majority,” in both Hou. ses. Tiie fairness of this division 1 do not admit. Let me make another. That part of the State, not covered by the Okefinocau swamp, will have a very largo ma jority, in both Houses. Does this prove any thing ? Does it disprove either of my objections? Does it show, that the thirty-two counties specified in my first table, are a minority of the people, or that they elect a majority of either House ? If this division be the correct one, and the argument proves any thing, it proves entirely too much. If the interests of this northern division be really one and indivisible, as op. posed to the rest of the State, why make their majority so extravagantly large, in the lower House f Wiiy not cat oif all the loungers, get rid of all the “ surplusage,” at once ? Reduce the House to ninety, which, allowing for the expected division of Miprray, would be one for each county. This, if “ One of the People's calculations” be correct, would give his “ northern division” fifty-four members, leaving but thir ty-six, for the Southern—a pretty “ effective majority" I guess. If this be the true view of the subject, then, the convention have not gone far enough. They might have saved us another •’820,000 per annum; and they ought to have .lone it, and to have reduced these insiguiricant populous counties, which Jack, in his seven leagued bools, might walk over, one at a stride, to their proper level, by the side of such magnifi cent “ sovereignties,” .is Ware and Lowndes, containing five hundred pine trees to their one. I hope, with this writer, that, in voting on this question,'the people will “look to their own interest.” With him, too, I can truly say, “ what effect ratification may have on p.irty honor, I know not, and care notbut I very well know, and so does ho, what effect it is intended to have. ' Let the party, to which he belobgs, and of which he is a chief ornament, take warning from his words—“ Any party ascendancy produced by conventional arrangement alone, must be merely temporary”—and let them remember, that if those amendments prevail, high as their avowed expectations were, at Milledgeville, of this “ temporary ascendancy," the day of reckoning may be nearer than they suppose, when they will be called called to “ give an account of their stewardship,” to an insulted people, whose birthright they have bartered “ for a mess of pottage.” RICHMOND. TABLE I. Shewing the Free White Population* and amount of Taxes* in 1C of tla proposed Senatorial Districts* No. of District. Counties. WMfe Pop. Taxes. No. of L 14. \ Henry, 8,367 1,566 3 ( Newton, 8,101 1,565 3 IS. S Walton, } CUrk, 7,078 5,134 1,793 2,419 3 o 16. S Oglethorpe, 5,313 2,776 o i Eliiert, 6,389 1,854 3 17. t Greene, 4,865 2,589 o ( Taliaferro, 3,105 1,070 1 18. \ Wilkes, 5,210 3,219 o l Lincoln, 2,785 1,258 1 19. i Morgan, 5,093 2,357 2 t Putnam, 5,294 2,257 2 29. S Butts, 3,367 817 1 ? Jasper, 6,531 2,658 3 21. .) Pike, 4,713 1,148 o r Upson, 3,921 1,361 2 23. j Crawford, « Monroe, 2,764 1,040 i 9,723 3,250 3 24. ) Bibb, 4,475 8,271 2 ( Houston, 5,601 1,304 \ 3 25. S Jones, 6,196 2,654 3 f Baldwinf 3,123 2,397 1 26. J Twiggs, 4,548 1,618 o < ‘ Wilkinson, 4,785 964 2 27. S Warren, 5,043 1,987 o ( Hancock, 5,022 2,364 2 23 i Columbia, 4,317 2,806 2 t Richmond, 5,558 ‘ 10,666 2 29. | Burke, 5,193 2,738 2 ‘ Scriven, 2,216 1,093 1 30. S Washington, 5,812 1,375 3 t Jefferson, 3,514 1,710 2 Remaining Counties, 163,176 $76,974 67 f 146,659 56,258 . 77 Total of tho State, 309,835 $133,232 144 TABLE II. Showing the Free White Population of the 26 most populous .Conn* ties. No. Counties. Pop. . No. of Rep. No. Counties. Pop. No. of Rep. 1. Hall, 11,177 3 17. Oglethorpe, 5,313 2 2. Gwinnett, 10,721 3 18. Putnam, 5,294 o 3. Habersham, 10,262 3 19. Wilkes, 5,210 2 4. Monroe* 9,723 3 20. Burke, 5,193 2 5. De Kalb, 9,020 3 21. Clarke, 5.134 2 6. Henry, a 8,387 3 22. Morgan, 5,093 2 ‘ 7. Newton, 8,101 3 23. Warren, 5,043 2 8. Franklin, 7,517 3 24. Troup, 5,026 2 9. Walton, 7,078 3 25. Hancock, 5,022 2 10. Jackson, 6,734 3 26. Chatham, 5,004 2 11. Jasper, 6,531 3 p. . 12. Elbert, 6,389 3 176,139 67 13. Jones, 14. Washington, 6,196 5,812 3 " 3 Remaining Counties, 133,696 77 15. Houston, 5,601 3 Total of the State, 309,835 144 16. Richmond, 5,558 2 ' ij t i Extract from the Presentments of the Grand Jury of Sumter County. The late Conv ntion at Milledgeville admonishes us that in these times, it is dangerous to meddle with the Constitution, for when public men act with an eye single to the. advancement of party interest and the gratifica- tion of individual ambition, it is time the Constitution should be let alone. The small an^reak counties in the State will each retain their senator by refusing to' ratify the proceedings of the Convention, and in point of strength be gainers, and in as much as great inequality exist in their pro posed arrangements we trust that their proceedings will not be ratified ; we think that there was a manifest determination in a majority of the Convention to withhold from the people the best method of reduction, or they would not refuse to submit to the plan proposed by the minority, yfe look upon it 09 unfair not to trust the people with their own rights. Albon Chase and A. U. Nisbet* Editors. ~To Correspondents.—M. S. has been received, but a e or our paper this week. It will appear in tr next. rr The Address on the subject of Manual Labor bchools is unavoidably laid over. It will be attend, ed to, however, at an early period. “ Richmond.” We lay before our'readers this week, the able and conclusive arguments of this wri- ter, in fuyor of a rejectment of the proposed amend" ment to the Constitution. We earnestly recommend them to. the attention of such as are not yet convin. ced of the danger and degradation that awaits then if the amendment is adopted. Maj. Crawford.—Mr. Pemberton says there »-j, ' compromise between the Nullifies and Maj. Cm. ford. This acknowledgment coming from him, is ci:. tircly satisfactory; at least so far as Maj. Crawford is concerned. The compromise was, then entirely among themselves—between the few who wished to briiig out a third candidate and the many whooppos. ed that project; and this was brought about by Mai Crawford’s consenting to comply with the request o 1 ' Mr. Calhoun, to the publication of his letter. Tlih was all very fair, and we rejoice-that the ultras were so easily sati sfied. The letter as published contains nothing which we were not long since aware of, as regards Maj. C’s opinions. We always knew (and are only surprised that any should have dou >ted) his attachment to the doctrines of State Rights, as professed by Jefferson and Troup. The letter only reiterates that which was before generally known, viz: his discipleship to that school. But how Mr. Pemberton could draw from it the inference he has, with respect to Maj. C\ views on the subject of the course of South Carolina, wc are at a loss to determine; for if, as he would k. duce the belief, there was something said in the let ter on this subject, we are compelled to believe from circumstances almost conclusive, that that something was adverse to the South Carolina doctrines. Aud the declaration of Mr.' P. that ho, Maj. Crawford, had avowed that Carolina was right in nullifying the Tar. iff Laws, and that he blamed her for accepting the compromise and rescinding her ordinance, is so far from being, as we believe, true—so far from what we have understood to be the facts, from gentlemen who were at the meeting and heard the letter, and so or. posito to the sentiments which we know Maj. Craw, ford expresed to different individuals in this place du. ring the late Commencement, that wc would be rec. reant to the cause which we advocate, and to onr trust as public journalists, were wo to allow it to pass unccntradictcd. Maj. C. if ho said any thing on the subject, may hive advanced the opinion, among oth. ers, that South Carolina had disgraced herself by a:- cepting the compromise. But how conld Mr. Pern- berton draw from such an expression of opinion, the conclusion, that he justified her course, and on!" blamed her for not going farthor ? The Union Par- ty in South Carolina, say the same, but we htv; never heard them accused of being Nullifiers forsav- ing so. * • We are sorry that Mr. P. in his zeal for the pccc- liar tenets of Smith Carolina, should have <n> fir for. gotten the interest of the cause he now professes to advocate in Georgia, as to have expressed any such conclusion ; and for two very good reasons: i 1st. Because we believe he had no fast grouidsm which to have founded such a conclusion, and 2d. Because if he had, the promulgation of i was well calculated, under the circumstances, to do touch harm and but little good. The Nullifiers were satisfied, as we have unler- stood, from good authority, with the simple dceltpa. tion in Ma>. C’s. letter, that he processed the doctriics (in relation to State Rights and Nullification) of ty. Jefferson. Of course Mr. Pemberton’s version of’i opinions was uncalled for by them, and well calcuL ted to arouse tho jealousy and distrust of that portio; of the Troup party who profess to belong to the Jef ferson school, bet who reicct the new doctrines taught in the South Carolina branch of it. But we hope to hear no more on this unprofitable subject. Wo all profess to believe in the doctrines professed in Mai. Crewford’s letter ns published.— Then why quarrel about our different interpretations of them, when we haven formidable and common enemy to contend against, viz: consolidation, and* common pumoso to accomplish, viz: the establish ment of State Rights,and the preservation ofthe consti tution, in its native purity n ud simplicity. Let ns say no more then about South Carolin Nullification, W unite heart and hand in nullifyin? the proceedings« the late Convention, and in the election of Joel Clif ford. , However he mav differ with some as to the rerort)’ of South Carolina for the Tariff yet weal! know hun to be the advocate of “ State Rights and State Beo- ediesand occupying as he does this efev ted po tion, we can sec no just grounds of objection to bo by any who profess those doctrines, whatever u be their peculiar tenets. As well might we object to and oppose the Christian religion, because we mg* happen to differ in our peculiarities of faith and pr*- tice. These remarks, we hope, will satisfy Mr. Pember jsq remarKs, we uup«« . ton on two points alluded to in his notid? of us > week, viz: that we are not only satisfied with week, viz : that we are noi omy • Crawford’s “ Nullification" as declared in his pubw ed letters, but that we are not, as he — “ f * •ZZZT'cm _The deceptive cry of the leading ratifiers, ts, tify our amendment of * men on an evMy frce whK sci Mn’winhaW'iooq^ weight in the Le ^ atU "'' Is to the Senate, they acknowledge that ’ the apportionment, of representation for tha ofthe Legislature, they had referee?alono