Newspaper Page Text
or a go through hfr kitchen ami
laundries, and all the varieties of places
in the routine of dofhestic management,
and vet the gown retain, its snow-like
whiteuess, unsullied by even a single speck.
In her conduct to her servants, her disci
pline was prompt, yet humane, and Iter
household was remarkable for the excel
lence of its domestic*.
Onr filial task is done. Few females
have ever figured in the great drama of
life, ainid scenes so varied and imposing
with so few faults and so many virtues as
the subject of this brief memoir. Iden
tified with the father of this country in j
the great events which led to the estah-j
lishement of a nation s liulepemlence, j
Mrs. Washington necessarily partook
much of his thoughts, his coum ils ami
his views. Often at hi* side in that aw
ful period that “fried men’s souls,” her
cheerfulness soothed his anxieties, her 1
firmness inspired confidence, while her
devotional piety toward the .Supreme lie-!
ing enabled her to discern a ray of hope, |
amid the darkness of a horizon clouded!
by despair. )
After along life abounding in vicissi-!
tildes, having a full measure of sorrows |
but with many aud high enjoyments, the!
venerable Martini Washington descended
to the grave, cheered by the prospect of
a blessed immortality, and mourned by
the millions of a mighty empire.
TH B’l A » V<!> C A T Si.
ISKUNBW ICK,(Oa.) SEPTUM ISKR 28, 1837
FOR SENATOR
HON. THOMAS»JJt TI.MR KINO.
PUHI.ir MEETING.
The Citizens of Glynn County, favorable to
the proposed Convention of business men at
Augusta, are requested to meet, at tiin Court
House, in Brunswick, on MONDAY, ‘id
day of October next, at 11 o’clock, A. .M. for
the purpose of choosing delegates to attend
the Convention.
Some weeks since the Savannah (ieorgian
contained several articles of a very imagina
tive Cast, in which the editor indulged himself
in dreams
“As wild as Helen's garden bird."
The theme of his “fanciful mind” being Sa
vannah, which he pictured as a terrestial para
dise, and his object being to show that its port
was perfectly capable of supplying the wants
of the State, ami affording all the necessary
fttciluie* for an importing and exporting
trade.
We should have replied to the articles at.
th© time, but a regard to the cotirtisies of the
pTotewivotv prevented us; V»t wc Uncw c\«»t \\,w
mmMitEditor was just entering into the con
tests attending an election, and his hands were
miffioieMly'occupied in managing the compli
cated machinery necessary for the occasion.
But that is over now—the important question
lias been decided—the awful agony is over
and it is now known who shall eat corporation
dinners and perform the alderumnic duties of
the city. The Editor can again resume his
airy fabric, and delight his readers with
“Poetry in prose.’’
In these sober utilitarian days, it is truly re
freshing to meet with such flights of fancy, and
to find a few choice spirits bold enough to set
fact at defiance and give truth the go-bv. And
»e more particularly enjoy those efforts of im
agination, as we lay “the flattering unction” to
our soul of having first excited the ‘poetic fury,’
by some comments on the “Absenteeism,” ol
w hich the Georgian complained. The unfor
tunate statement of the trtnh in that case has
nlartned the Editor of the day, and he is now
anxious to “hedge aside from the direct forth
right” But while we admire the versatility of
his genius and willingly admit him to ho the
equal of Iludibras, ill arguing on both sides,
w# feel constrained to hold on to his confes
sions, and the w riter of the vecoml article in
the display of his legal lore, can inform the
poet that confessions fairly obtained, arc the
best sort of evidence. Onr readers w ill doubt
less recollect the alarming nature of con
fessions, and the pathetic lamentations which
the modern Jeremiah poured over the desolat
ed citv. We now turn to the examination of
this gossamer.
With the exordium of our poetic Editor, we
shall not especially, trouble ourself—all his
nourishes about ‘'hostile prejudices,” “petty
motives,” “interested individuals,” and other
charges of that sort, will pass for just what tin y
nre worth, and at the worst they can do rio
harm. To come then to lire point. He
states with much pomposity that Savannah
twenty years ago, did the imp'." s ‘ -mb-of
Georgia, and the question w diets r a • pre
sents itself—why site has r eased ,* . .o r is
answered in a very easy off hand ;r.a r. e-r, by
asking, Why ha# the South c eased to be a r
owa importer? This is no answer, and the
attempt to tatlier the sins of Savannah on the
whole South is really a piece of ingenuity truly
admirable. We will give abetter answer, but
first will refer cur readers to some statistical j
facts in relation to the growth of die State.— j
In 1810, the cotton crop of Goorgil was 20,000.- 1
000 lbs. In 1833, it was 85,000,000 lbs., and
we can safely estimate the present crop at 13,-
> 000,000 more. In 1810, the population was
252,43a !n 1830, 516,823, and in 1837, prob
ably 700,000. Such has been the rapid im
fcovement of the State- -such the devclopc
went of its agricultural wealth. Now let us
Mb whether it-* con nerc° hi' pice with
the productions of its soil. In 183.1, the erjiforts
of Georgia were about $8,500,000 and her for
' cign imports fell short of .'•400,000. In that same
i year, the cotton crop of Carolina, amount
ed to about sixty live millions of pounds:
1 her export s were 811,.100.000, and her foreign
imports were nearly 1*2,000,000. Here we see
! that while Georgia has- been increasing at a
rate as rapid as the growth of any of the Wes
tern States, her commerce lias diminished in
an inverse ratio. One important reason is,
that Savannah has heretofore been her only
seaport: and the tenn used by the Georgian
with so much exultation is one great cause of
the present insignificant state of the commerce
of Georgia. . The situation of “her only sea
port” is extremely unfortunate. It is some fif
teen miles from the ocean, on a fresli w ater
river, so obstructed by wrecks and mud, that
ships are obliged to take in a part of their car
-4 .... 1
1 goes nt. the distance of four miles from the
city. The Georgian says very gravely, “the
ship owner is content in view of advantages
derived from having his ship clear of Dock to
bear the expense of lighterage 1” Now if the
advantages of “being clear of the Dock” arc
so great, it. may well he asked, why do these
ship owners ever make use of Docks? why j
not load at the “wrecks” or lower down at Tv-!
bee? why come to the town at all? Wei
doubt not. the merchants of New York will
generously remiincratiMhe Editor of the Geor
gian for furnishing them with a modus' opernn
rli by which vessels call be loaded and unload
ed more ndvantageously, w ith lighters, than in
the old fashioned mode of loading along side a
wharf. Really such an argument disgraces ;
even this cause, hopeless us it is.
We now come to the sickliness of the port.
The ingenuity of the Editor hero shines forth.
| Instead of meeting the question fairly, he en
deavors to avoid it—talks very learnedly of the
! health of the resident population, and marshals
j out in grim array the bills of mortality furnish
ed by the Sexton: of whose appointment by the
Corportion, he gives an exceedingly minute and
interesting account. Now these bills have lit
tle to do with the question,and like the old lady’s
| broken China, are “w isely kept for show.” The
I business men who come from the North all
I depart at the approach of the sickly season
and the population consists ot those who be
come acclimated. Ho, the oveersoers in rice
plantations enjoy tolerable good health, and the
planters on the rich bottom lands of Louisiana
manage to live. The .truth is, the human sys
tem becomes accustomed to any climate. We
have heard of men thriving at Sierra Leone,
i known through the world “as the white man’s
grave.” But we will admit fir argument’s
I sake that the city of Savannah is healthy, and
1 ascribe it. Vo t.Vio ennao (tivm \iy ><» IYK iklh -
j the introduction of the dry culture planting in
the immediate vicinity. But this does not ex
tend to the “wrecks,” where vessels partially
load and unload, so as to be “clear of the
docks,” hut in the midst of the putrid atmos
phere of the rice fields. It is a fact well known
to the Editor of the Georgian that there are
few citizens willing to spend a night on the
river. For the purposes of commerce a port is
required which shall hi l healthy at all seasons
not only for the merchant who lives in a palace,
lmt for the sailor in his forecastle, oil the riv
er. Does Savannah oiler such ? No ship can
cuter from a foreign voyage during the sickly
season—death would be the sure fate of her
crew. Even “the Yellow Fever Crews” who
run between that port and New York are locked
up in jitil, out of regard to their health. The
moment they cast anchor, they are marched in
to jail and tli re remain, until the blacks have
unloaded' and reloaded, and when ready to
sail, the crew are liberated, and placed on
hoard. Tim inconvenience of navigating tin*
river, the delays and expenses incident to load
ing by lighters, render it about as cheap during
I the Winter, and vastly cheaper during the
’the Summer to send the cotton coastwise to
I New York, and thence to Europe. The su-
I perioritv of the New York packets in celerity,
certainty and accommodations secure to them
, all the passengers, and enable them to carry
freight at a very cheap rate, while the iloatiug
population of the South produce tin* same low
ness of rates between New York and Savan
nah. This lias its effect oil other Southern
jKirts, because they are ali on fresh water riv
ers, and are unhealthy during a portion of the
year—but never are effected to tin* extent of
(the “only seaport” of Georgia. Charleston,
we have already show n imjiods to a mu -h larger
extent and a vastly gre/er proportion than
Savannah. But t.'io G e-gum h very careful
to touch lightly cm ~ :ports, an 1 dwells
v. itJi much s ituffttCtion on the fart that Savan
nah has done the n porting of the State. But
who hies ever disputed the fact. Every body
.knows, that the cotton ot Georgia is obliged to |
go to market—it must find an outlet, and is in
part poured forth through Savannah. This
do**.' not prove liisc Sucar.tuili is fitted for-a
Commercial City-—it only shows that despite
its disadvantages Georgia has been compelled
,to make use of it. But is not the Georgian
j aware that the superior advantages of Charles
ton enable that city to give higher prices for
' cotton, and that a large portion of the Sea Isl-
I and crop, and much from the Altamaha, aud
j even the Savannah rivers go to Charles
ton for a market. Talk about commanding the_
j trade of the Great West, when you cannot con
| trol the trade of your own river! Several of
the Savannah factors have established brancli-
; 1 es in Charleston, and the difference in prices
| between thetwocitles. offers frequent opportu
BRUNSWICK ADVOCATE.
nities for extensive and profitable speculetions.
j Sea Island is frequently worth from three to
five cents advance on Savannah prices at
i Charleston. While this state of affairs contin
ue, it is absurd to think of transacting the trade
of the West
The littl@*rgument and few facts embodied
jin the articles of the Georgian are “as two
grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff:”
hardly- worth the search, but having a leisure
hour, we have picked them out. And to what
do they amount? Simply to this; that the
city of Savannah is tolerably healthy for the
resident Summer population, and that she ex
ports a large part of the crops of the State to
Charleston, New York and Europe.
We [impose in our next, to show that the va
rious causes which have operated to diminish
die importance and commerce of Savannah,
eidier can have no effect on Brunswick, or can
be easily obviated. And wc shall be aided in
this by the language of some of die political
friends of the Georgian, who have been stigma
tized by that modest sheet, as “interested indi
viduals,” and in reference to w hom contemptu
ous allusions have been made, because they
preferred Brunswick to Savannah.
To the exclusion of other matter, and to
the great inconvenience of our publishers, we
insert today a long communication in answer
to our remarks on the nomination of Mr. King.
It is divided into different sections with all the
precision and accuracy of the Li mean classifi
cation, and we shall very briefly- comment on
each of the topics unnecessarily brought into
the discussion.
It commences with a volley of solemn wit
ticisms and dolorous jokes levelled at our poor
self, which have excited our amusement, very
much as would the spectacle of the “ghost of
of buried Denmark,” gliding through a quad
rille iu the “cerements of the grave,” or sing
ing a jovial ditty with his sepulchral tones.—
Wdien a man’s humor prompts him to exclaim'
“let me piny the fool,” our good nature will
not allow us to baulk his inclination, nor dp
we grudge him a Hinirle smile he may raise by
such a grotesque exhibition. “Public Rights’,
may play as many “antic, tricks” as suit him
and our columns shall furnish him a stage for
his Harlequin feats, so long as he chooses to
employ them.
As he has been pleased to devote some
portion of his dignified leisure to our private
affairs, it would he ungrateful for us to pass
over his kind solicitude in silence. Wc will
say to him in the words of Dr.Ollapod—“Thank
you good Sir, 1 owe you oneand it shall be
our endeavor to pay him before we are done
The very charge he'brings against us, of
linking assertions, instead of proving facts, is
an offence he commits in the first Setting but-
This paper is not owned by the Brunswick
company, nor are they in any manner connect
ed with it: and what is of more consequence,
not a single person lias the slightest control
over its columns but ourself. This charge has
j hern frequently made against us, but we have
chosen to wait until a proper opportunity pre
sented itself, to rebut an accusation so derog
atory to our character, and so injurious to the
reputation of this paper. The independent
conductor of this press, we alone are responsi
ble for its language, and tire sole judge of
w hat it shall promulgate.
In justice to Mr. K ing and ourself, we state
that he lias never at any time, or in any man-
ner, attempted to exercise the slightest influ
ence over our conduct. However desirous we
may have been to receive his advice, the fear
that some individual, animated by such feel
ings as tincture the effusion of “Public Rights,”
might cast it in our teeth, lias always deterred
us from seeking it. We are more indebted to
“Public Rights” in this particular, than to Mr.
'King. 11 is advice, so gratuitously bestowed,
receives from us that respect which it de-
serves, and no more.
If “Public Rights” be desirous of proving
our dependence or subjection to any individual,
he lias been most unfortunate in his reference
to our conduct at the Bethel meeting. Doubt
less as a compliment, we were nominated as
secretary, and declined the honor, giving as a
reason, that not acting with that political party
we considered any interference of ours as ex
em dingly improper. A sense of wliat was
due to ourself and the respectable meeting,
was iho motive which regulated our conduct
on that occasion. Another individual, well
known to “Public Rights,” placed in precisely
the same situation, differed from us, as to what
constituted propriety, and took the most prom
inent part in the deliberations of the day; it
was to us a novel sight, we must confess, to
see nu individual haranguing a party with
which he did not profess to act, and advising
them what course they ought to pursue.
But passing over all this matter which has
nothing to do with the question at issue, we
will take tip the gentleman’s legal argument
• We-agree witU our opponent, that the most
important point at issup is whether these lands
were vacant at the timo .Mr. King placed his
head-right Neither nre we disposed to object
particularly to his definition of “vacant lands
but we protest most strenuously against the
evidence lie would use to prove the fact of va
cancy or appropriation. Does he seriously
i contend that “long possession and public opin
j ion" must be regarded as conclusive against
the State ? Has he made the wonderful dis
covery, that public opinion shall create titles to
land in Georgia ? The argument is too pre
'■ posterous to bo combatted. Without joining
in the compliments to the intelligence of the
, j|r
county, or descending to those arts of the
demagogue, which it pains us to see “Public
Rights” adopt, we shall not do so much injus
tice to the citizens of Glynn, as to suppose
they can be be deceived by such language—
I tie*v would indeed be biting at the bare hook.
1 T •
; Neither can we submit to the monstrous doc- ]
trine contained in the paragraph, “if they:
(lands) are not, (vacant) it is obvious that no
one has the right to run them up and that those
who have done so in the face of the general j
impression that they were public property,
must establish the fact of their vacancy, or j
they stand convicted of a public wrong. The j
burden of proof rests on them.”
Possession we have always been taught to
consider as prima facie evidence, and throwing I
the burden of proof on the party attempting
to eject. The establishment of any other
principle would totally change the rules of
evidence, which now obtain in every Court of
Justice in this country. And in criminal pros
ecutions would subvert that merciful maxim
which presumes innocence and demands proof
of guilt. Let the principle be once
ed, that every act militating against “ public
opinion” or opposed to popular prejudices,
should be considered a public w'rong, and
throw the burden of proof on the accused, and
our Courts of Law instead of Tribunals of
Justice, would become the instruments of op
pression. The assertion that, “traditionary
evidence” is proof ot property in land will be
at least new- to some of our readers, and un
doubtedly excite more smiles than will be lav
ished on the jests of our opponent It is an
assertion however worthy to keep company
with the principles advanced before. We
j shall feel grateful to oiyr correspondent if he
will point out to us any judicial decision which
j sanctions this doctrine, and will judge away
| the property of the state, or of the citizen, on
“traditionary lore.” A title by possession
cannot be set up by a corporation, nor can it
in any case be of force against the state. —
These principles are so welf known, that we
are almost unwilling to introduce them here.
Can “ Public Rights” have the effrontery to
argue, that because the Commissioners of
Brunswick since 171 HI, have been authorized
to rent certain lands and appropriate the pro
ceeds in a manner set forth by law, and the
people of the county have supposed that these
lands belonged to them, therefore this consti
tutes a valid title against the State or even in
dividuals. These Commissioners have been
the mere agents of the State, to perforin speci
fic acts, which prove that the State has never
relinquished its title. They do not owe their
powers to the “traditions of the Elders,” but to
j the statute of 179(1. As to the AcademyyCvm
\ IV.r ,ve know, lliey jjjgy derive
i their authority from old women’s tales, they
certainly are not recognized by the laws. The
Trustees of the Academy have not been in
legal any time, and we challenge
“Public Rights,” to produce any authority of
law by which they can exercise control over
the lands in controversy. We have tried to
say this with “a pretty air of defiance,” and
trust our doughty foe will find it “irresistible.”
We want him to hold on to the doctrines ad
vanced at Bethel, that these afe Academy
lands.
Now for the written law. The account giv
en of the establishment of the towns of Savan
nah, Augusta and Brunswick, with their com
mons is quite plausible, but we wish “Public
Rights” would stick to fads. lie insists on
receiving nothing but the legal tender, yet is
very willing to pay his own debts in the “coin
age of his brain”—but this will not pass cur
rent with us. T)i£ commons of Savannah
wore undoubtedly vacant until 17(50, when the
Legislature passed an act ascertaining the
metes and bounds of the commons, and appro
priated them to the use of the citizens of Sav
annah—mind you not the inhabitants of the
County of Chatham. “The vacant lands lying
to the North and South of Augusta,” were reg
ulated by an act of 1783, and ordered to be
sold for the benefit of the city of Augusta, and
otherwise disposed of. Eet us now examine
the several statutes which relate to Brunswick.
The first is admitted to be that of 17!)(j, which
provides for the survey of Brunswick, and the
commons, appointing Commissioners to per
form this duty and further providing—That
anv person or persons who may attempt to run
any part of the commons or town3 of Bruns
wick or Frederica, under any pretence what
soever, shall be liable to a fine of five hundred
dollars, to be recovered in the Superior Courts
of the said County, by the Commissioners, or
any other person or proprietor of anv lot or lots
in the said towns, which said money shall be
applied one half to the use of the Academy,
and the other to the use of the person or per
sons suing for the same ; and all surveys here
tofore made and grants surrepliously obtained,
are hereby declared null and void, and any per
son or persons taking by virtue-of any survey
or grant as aforesaid shall be liable to the
aforesaid fine, to be recovered in manner afore
said.” Another clause empowers the Com
missioners to rent or lease any part or the
whole of the commons, as may best be deemed
by them for the speedy settlement of Brunswick.
And ordering the sale of certain lots and the
moneys arising to be appropriated to the bene
fit of the Academy. This statute, and as we
shall show, all others, so far from appropriating
these lands even by implication, maintains the
opposite and assqjttttiie ownership of the State.
Why, if these lands had already been granted
does the State regulate their management ?
j Why should it attempt to provide for the sale
or the lease of lands not belonging to it? And
| this not only once, but repeatedly. The ac
tion of the Legislature on this subject has been
uniform and consistent, never for a moment
yielding its right to control these commons.
! Whatever may have been the opinions of the
Commissioners, the Legislature of Georgia has
ever deemed these vacant lands and used them
j in such manner as it deemed best.
| It is not necessary to discuss here whether
the fine can be recovered or not; but allowing
| that Mr. King his subjected himself to its pay
| ment, this cannot invalidate his grant. The
j State demands of him the payment of the cus
tomary fees and leaves the fine to be recovered
by any one who chooses to prosecute him.—
The statute furnishes a right of action for any
individual who may be injured by the act of
running and entering upon these commons.—
Therefore any person injured by Mr. King’s
act can commence a suit against him, and pro
vided he recovers the fine, that cannot destroy
the grant of the State. The statute intends to
redress private wrongs, not invalidate grants
obtained legally. The statute it will be seen
make all surveys and grants heretofore, that is
previous to its passage, null and void—it is
retrospective in its action and has no reference
to future acts. The statute of 1796, does not
then vest the fee simple in any individual or
corporation. In 1797, one year after the ap
, pointment of these Commissioners the Legis
lature orders peremptorily the sale of five hun
j dred acres of this very land. This surely i3 a
| very high handed measure, and we are* aston
ished that the bull dog of the “Public Rights,”
does not raise a growl and show his teeth. It
j is not yet too late to feel some indignation at
I this illegal conduct of the Legislature. This
law created only one year after the first, clear
j ly shows that the Legislature did not conceive
they had parted with their property by the
statute of 1706.
In 182(5, we again find the Legislature ap
pointing new Commissioners and clothing
them with the powers given to the former
bound and expressly prohibiting them from en
croaching on the property of the State adja
cent to the town. Yet “Public Rights,”
stougliily maintains that the property had al
ready been given to the County of Glymt. Its
1835, the Legislature orders the sale of 300
more of this land and appropriates the proceeds
to the Academy, and the Free School Fund
equally.' This too after the long continued
“ possession ” of the Commissioners. Every act
of the Legislature instead of showing that the
land belongs to the County, proves it to belong
to the State. Surely if it were the propertyjpf
the County, the State never would have oil&~
initteil mt Ougrant an act of irfiitul icOAR la nap,
trol property already granted away—the peo
ple would have been allowed to manage it as
they pleased. In 183(5, the city of Brunswick
was "incorporated, and the power of the Com
missioners over Brunswick, transferred to
the city corporation—and they alone arc the
parties interested. They are the proper per
sons to commence an action against Mr. King,
and if it be admitted that he cannot hold the
lands, they return to the State. But the de
cision of the Superior Court at its last term in
in this County in the suit against Dart & Davis
will be conclusive on any action brought
against Mr.#K ing. These individuals were
prosecuted under the section of the statute of
’96, which we have copied at length, and ob
tained the judgment of the Court in their favor
We have given, we believe, the- length and
breadth of the legal argument, which very ap
propriately winds up by asking us “whether
it is legal to do what the law prohibits,” which
is answered for us in these words, “You will
find it a question to be asked, but nofto be an
swered.” In all simplicity of heart we deem
it a very simple question, and not so very diffi
cult to answer. If “Public Rights,” finds this 1
so difficult of solution, we are unwillingly
compelled to charge him “more in sorrow than
in anger,” with some portion of that mental
obliquity laid at our door.
Having sighed over the gentleman’s pleas
antries, and smiled at his legal positions, we
now touch on his code of morals, and will dis
cuss the propriety of Mr. King’s conduct, aside
1 from his legal rights. It is written “when Mr.
, K. first directed his attention to the subject of
these lands, they were in the possession of die
Commissioners of the Academy.” If so, they
had an illegal, wrongful poseession—for the
statutes of 1786 and 1826, provide for the ap
pointment of Commissioners of the town, who
alone are to rent the lands, and execute the
other provisions. The Trustees of the Acad
emy are a different body entirely distinct and
independent of the Commissioners of the town.
In fact the ground contended for at Bethel is
now given up, and the Trustrees of the Acade
my are admitted to have nothing to do with it.
With a full knowledge of the facts, Mr- King
chose to pursue.a course pointed out by law—
under a legal title he took possession of these
lands,and any citizen feeling himself aggrieved,
is at liberty to commence a prosecution,and “try
conclusions” with him. But really we cannot
see the necessity of his calling a meeting of the
citizens, to learn the state of public opinion,
before he pursued a course of conduct which
he believed to be perfectly justifiable. He might
with as much modesty call the people together,
to learn if they approved his mode of planting,
or take their advice about the regulation of any
of his private affaire. Does lie who is so ten
acious of “Public Rights,” who submits with
such deference to public opinion and bows with
such stately dignity to the majesty of the peo
ple, assemble the citizens whenever he is de
sirous of changing his residence, or proposes
a purchase of property. But had Mr. King
adopted this- time serving, sycophantic policy and
assembled the people and a majority had de
cided they eonfidftred the property to be theirs,
and chose to keep it as it was, would that have
been a bar to every one else ? Surely not—
The lands would have been entered upon at
once by others, and tire question been risked
the issue on their own account But why
should Mr. King be expected to do every tiling
for the Academy ? Has he not already raised
$16,000 for the purposes of Education ? Be
sides if these lands were not vacant—if they
belonged to any body, they are the property of
the lot holders in Brunswick. Such, if we mis
take not, will be the ground on which we shall
yet drive “Public Rights.” Not the Trustees
of the Academy— not the people of Glynn,
Out the lot owners ot Brunswick are the per
sona aggrieved, and until they complain, all
sympathy bestowed on them, will be so much
thrown away. It was with the greatest diffi
culty Mr. King obtained the passage of the
Resolution ordering the sale of the 300 acres
—for it was contended by some of the friends
of Brunsimck that these lands were the proper
ty of the city, and ought not to be given to the
Academy* And had any attempt been made
to secure the whole to the Academy, it w ould
have met with defeat. If the argument of
“Public Rights,” prove anything, and the lands
are not subject to being run up, he himself ad
mits that they belong to the citizen* of Bruns
wick. Mr. King then transferred from the city
to the Academy and the free school fund, 300
acres and yet he is now accused of not having
done enough. “Public Rights” is so absorbed
in the Academy, as to consider Brunswick a
subject of secondary importance, possessed of
no rights. He blames Mr. King for appropri
ating the lands belonging to Brunswick, for
the building of the Rail Itoad, and at the same
time censures him for not securing the lands
to his Academy. “If anil If said the lawyer.”
\Ve contend, however, that they do not belong
to either. Mr. King has a grant, is in legal
possession, and notwithstanding the assertion
of “Public Rights,” the burden of proof is on
those who would eject him. The assumption
that these lands were public property all rests
on this, that every body thought the lands be
longed to every body, and this is the sum and
substance of the “ traditionary evidence” and
“public opinion,” of which we have heard so
much.
The charge of intolerance is added to “the
weightier matters of the law,” and Mr. King
is taken to task for saying that “those who
are not with us are against us.” If this be an
error, Mr. King sins in good company. The
words were borrowed from him, “who spake as
never man spake,” and with him must “Public
Rights” join issue on tlie charge of intoler
ance.
“Public Rights” asserts that Mr. King's
election will be no criterion by which to judge
| the sentiments of the people in regard to his
conduct. We shall be inclined to consider it
as evidence that the people of Glynn are
satisfied with his services—that they appreci
ate hi* efforts to call public attention to the
harbor and to direct capital and population to
this point, and that they wish well t© a project
which must enhance the value of the whole
County and give it that degree of importance
which it must attain should Brunswick suc
iceed. It would indeed be singular that the
i people should elect a man who-they believe
I has deprived them of their property—his elec
! tion will prove that they do not consider him
j guilty of any such conduct,
j W r e shall make no reply to the flattery be-
I stowed on the citizens of Glynn. The remark
j was made by some individual full as obser
i ving as Major Dallgetty that, when an a
! person began to flatter him he always took
good care of his pockets lest they should be
picked, and whenever we see such flattering
words addressed to the dear people and their
“sweet voices” sought for in such dainty,
words we always watch for the prize sought.
“Public Rights” is mistaken in supposing
we wish to give a political complexion to the
discussion. We have already disavowed any
such intention and his acquaintance with us,
slight as it is, should have taught him to,place
more confidence in our assertions. Neither have
we made any insinuations against the Trustees
| of the Academy, but in fact spoke of them as
they are, honorable men for whom the commu
nity entertain the highest regard. They have
taken an open and manly stand in the affair
and having been instr uctcd by their Counsel,
that they cannot institute an action, of course
will not as the “natural guardians of the a
cadeniy” feel any further interest in the mat
ter.
The indignatiou of “Public Rights” is liAc
that very useful appentage of the Theatres,
“a icooden poke r painted red hot” —it looks ve
| ry fiery but does not scorch.
We shall brave its power arid again chal
lange “Public Rights” to the discussion of the
subject.—Having without much ceremony thus
delivered a prologue for this “Comedy of £r*
Tongue now lay it before our readers as the
prfliflption of one of the ‘wise men of Gotham-
To tht Editor of the Brunswick Advocate :
Si r, —In the leading article of your paper of
the 14th inst., which is devoted to the promo
tion of the election of Mr. Thomas Butler King
to the Senate of this State, you have deemed it
proper to agitate the question of his attempt to
run up the Commons of Brunswick; and not
content with the Kpleavor to vindicate that act,
you have labored to vilify the motives of tho3e