Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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