Newspaper Page Text
'^w—wu JMUPiu.m.u !■.»■■■.■ i j v - xrr :.~t . <■■.■_««*—_<hjr-» mw.-if!-’* —h -1 ■■■»■ *y *■ m ■«m»»hip ■«■}» . . .»»>■■■■; 'n ..in, tm» ,* ~ .j, ■>■ . „■■ ,»n u-. „■ ~. ~ u _ _ T . __., 1- _ ,
BY A. 11. PEMBERTON* AUGUSTA, SATURDAY, JMEO, 1535. TOLITIHE 19—1\(), »0.
Published every SATIIRDAI Morning;
No. -, Broad-Street, under the
Globe Hotel.
t AUCUST.i:
WEDNESDAY, JUNK 3, 1835.
•* Be. just , and fear not. 1 '
difference of opinion.
If we recollect aright, the Athens Banner not
'long ago lectured our brother of the Sentinel, be
cause he called the three delegates from Georgia,to
the Baltimore Convention, Georgia delegates.
That Convention it appears, has recognise • the
trio, f Try — Oh!) as delegates representing
Georgia. The Banner still contends, that the dele
gates are merely circular—beg pardon—“ circuit
l delegates.” Which is right—the Convention, or
the Banner ?
COURTS IN JUNE.
Superior Courts. —Ist Monday, Ist, in Rich
mond and Dooly; 3d Monday, 15lh, in Chatham.
Inferior Courts.—lst Monday, Ist, in Camden,
Morgan, Lowndes, Laurens, Pike, Sumter, Musco
gee, and Cass; 2d Monday, Bth, in Glynn, Liber
ty, Greene, Gwinnett, Decatur, Monroe, Harris,
Campbell, and Paulding; 3d Monday, 16th, in
Mclntosh, Columbia, Putnam. Appling, Fayette,
Troup, and Cobb; 4th Monday, 22d, in Bryan,
Oglethorpe, Ware, Newton, & Coweta.— Const.
STRANGE COINCIDENCE.
The Baltimore Chronicle of the 20th inst
says:—“We have now the Van Burcn Conven
tion in session, and an enormous Hog exhibiting
in our city. Whether the owner of the Hog
thought it a favorable lime to obtain visiters, or
designed a sly hit at the Convention, we know
not. As faithful Chroniclers we note the coin
cidence, leaving conclusions to others.”
Wo wish the Baltimore Chronicle had inform
ed us, whether it was a White sow, or black Bore
Upon reflection, however, it is immaterial, as it
is well known they all belong to the family of
•“ spotted pigs.” What an uproar there will be
in the sty! By the bye, we should like to hear
from our contemporary of the Constitutionalist
a seenndem artem homily on this “ hog-eat-hog”
exhibition ; or, as be has heretofore emphatically
styled it, the “ Monkey system” of scrambling
for office. As the rival candidates belong, by
their own shewing, exclusively, to the hog and
monkey party, his developments, bump or no
bump, would be highly interesting.
THE PENNY MAGAZINE,
OF TIIK
Society for the diffusion of Useful Knowledge.
This is the title of a new work published in Lon.
don, and republished in New York, No. 71,
Maiden Lane, by Wm. Jack sox. It appears in
pamphlet form of 40 large octavo pages, ornament
ed with a large number of well-executed engravings.
The typography of the work is beautiful and cor
rect. Twelve No’s, constitute a volume of 480
pages, which is furnished at the exceedingly low
price of I2J cents a number.
The Pissi Magazine is an admirable col
lection of articles on natural history, general mis
cellany, and notices of gothic and modern Archi
tecture, splendidly illustrated. It is a very useful
•work, and deserves encouragement. An agent is
now in this city, and maybe found at Mrs. Fox’s,
corner of M‘lntgsh and Ellis-streets.
dj® We make the above notice, because wc
voluntarily promised the agent to do so, after pur
chasing the work; but having performed the pro
mise, and done nothing more than sheer justice
to the work (which is a most useful, interesting*
and cheap one,) we feel bound to warn the pub
lic against the impositions of the agent, who, we
learn, sells at various prices, upon the principle,
of course, of getting from each purchaser, as much
as he can. We gave him the price he asked for
the two bound volumes (,3,75) telling him that we
believed wc had heard some one say, he had
bought them of him for $3 50; and though they
were quite cheap, even at $6, & the other 25 cents
was a mere trifle, yet we did not wish to pay
more than others. He declared most solemnly
on his honor, that he had not sold them so; less
than three dollars and seventy five cents; and that
the usual price was si, yet on the same day, we
saw two other volumes that he had sold for $3,
and understood that several gentlemen who very
much desired to purchase the work, and did not
complain of the price, refused to do so at any price,
from disgust at these impositions. Wo value the
work very much, and regret as much that the pre
judices of the public should have been thus justly
drawn upon it.
Since writing the above, we learn that Mr.
Thomas Plant, Bookseller, of Augusta, has
' a number of complete setts of the work, com
prised in three volumes, handsomely bound—
being one volume more than the Peddling a
gent has—and will sell them as low. And, to
say nothing of the impositions of the Pedlar,
persons living in the city, should prefer to pur
chase from one who, like themselves, is interested
in the welfare of the city, and contributes to its
prosperity and support, by the payment of Rent
and Taxes, and the patronage of others, who like
himself live in the city, and are similarly interes
ted in its general business and welfare. All per
sons residing in the city, being interested alike
in the welfare of one another, ought in common
justice, as well as common benefit, to patronize
one another, rather than pedlars or travelling a
gents, from whom they arc always liable to impo
sition ; and with regard to Books, whenever any
arc wanted, which are not for sale here, we under
stand that any of the Booksellers will procure
them as speedily as practicable, for any person
• who will furnish them with an order, even for a
single copy.
APPRENTICE’S COMPANION.
We have received the Ist, 2d, and 3d No’s,
of this valuable publication. It is principally in
tended for the moral and intellectual cultivation
of a juvenile class of society, whose interests,
we are sorry to say, are too often unfeelingly and
culpably neglected. The object of the Apfben
er tick’s Companion, is designed to coireet this
evil; and should, consequently, enlist in its be
half, the patronage of every good and considerate
- man, particularly those who arc master Mechan
ics, whose imperative duty it should be, we think,
- to furnish their Apprentices with a copy of this
_' little work, if they wish to make them, as they no
doubt do, better citizens, or more useful arlizans.
Its object, says the Prospectus, “ is to advise and
persuade them to habits of temperance, in
bustry, and frugality ; that they may, by
perseverance, and a proper aj,plication of their
0 time, qualify themselves to discharge their sever-
3 ‘ al callings, with credit to themselves, and to the
e entire satisfaction of the community—and also to
S take such part in the administration of the affairs
of our country, in connection with the farmer, as
lt should of right and justice devolve upon “ the
ir bone and sinew” of the Republic.”
(ff The Apprentices’ Companion is pub
lished once a month, each No. containing sixteen
i- octavo pages, at the exceedingly low price of %'ifty
i. Cents a year. It is issued from the office of the
t, Mechanics’ Magazine, No. 35, Wall-street,
New-York, and published by D. K. Minor.
We again earnestly request all persons who
i, have apprentices under their charge, and have
1 thereby incurred the deepest and most delicate
, responsibilities to them, the community, and the
, country, to take this most valuable and cheap of
all periodicals into serious consideration ; and, to
advance this object, and aid in rewarding, or at
least compansating (for reward is out of the ques
. tion at such a price,) the novel, noble,& praisewor
; thy exertions of the publisher, wc will receive and
? forward subscriptions, free of all extra charge to
J; the subscribers or publisher. We have no hesi
. tation in pronouncing this work the most useful
and valuable in the country ; and wc feel a deep
- interest in promoting its circulation. Having ap
prentices under our charge, we can well under
t stand its inestimable value, both to them and our
s selves ; for the true relative interests of the mas
■ ter and apprentice arc so closely identified, that
r neither one can be benefited or injured without
, alike benefilting or injuring the other. The ap
> prentice who does well for himself, cannot fail to
f do well for his master, and vice versa ; and in
, deed so benign and beautiful are the arrange
ments of Providence, generally, that We believe it
1 impossible for any one to promote the real inte
i rest of another, in any respect, but particularly
those under his immediate charge—whether
apprentices, children, or slaves—without thereby
equally promoting his own.
PROM THE FEDERAL UNION.
“ Backing Out.—The Augusta Chronicle is
dissatisfied at our designating the pretended right
' of a minority to control a majority, as a Calhoun
doctrine; and demands proofs of the correctness
of this imputation. We readily comply:
In establishing so plain a position, it cannot
bo necessary for us to quote the writings of Cal
houn or his disciples. The doctrine in question
contains the vital principle of their system;
without it, that system is inoperative. At the
bottom of their theory, is the right of a single
state to decide authoritatively, whether any
given act be in violation of the constitution of
the United States. From this principle, Mr. Cal
houn and his disciples draw the inference, that
when a single state has declared, that a law enact
ed by Congress is in violation of the federal con
stitution, the federal government is bound to sus
pend the operation of the law so declared to be
unconstitutional; and that the other twenty-three
states are bound to acquiesce in its suspension
although they may all believe it to bo constitution
al, and desire its enforcement. This is the theo
ry of Calhoun ; and on this theory his followers
have acted in South Carolina. That single state
declared the tariff' to bo unconstitutional; and on
her solitary judgment demanded its suspension.
She insisted that it was her right to arrest the
operation of this law, although the other twenty
three states might dissent from her judgment, and
desire that it should be executed. According to
this part of his scheme, a law passed by a ma
jority in each branch of congress, may be suspen
ded by a single state in opposition to the judg
ment of twenty-three states. In a matter of com
mon interest, affecting the common compact, one
slate prevails against twenty-three ; a minority of
one controls a majority of twenty-three.
Mr. Calhoun and his disciples further main
tain, that when a state has declared an act of
congress to be unconstitutional, the other states
are bound to assemble with it in convention, in
order to decide, whether the law in question be
constitutional or unconstitutional. They main
tain, that in the federal convention thus formed,
, unless a majority of three-fourths shall concur in
believing the law to be constitional, it shall be
adjudged unconstitutional, and shall be abrogated.
' There arc twenty-four states. According to Mr.
1 Calhoun’s scheme, if seventeen states (four more
I than a majority) shall declare the law to be
. sanctioned by the constitution ; and seven states
(six less than a majority) shall declare it to be
in violation of the constitution, the judgment of
the seven shall prevail over the judgment of the
seventeen—a minority of seven shall control a
majority of seventeen.
1 The parties to a compact may agree, that a
' minority shall govern a majority of them. Wc
■ have an example of such an agreement, in that
part of the federal constitution, which requires
the concurrence of the legislatures of three-fourths
* of the states, or of conventions of three-fourths
> of them, to make any change in that instrument.
- But without any such agreement of the parties,
I in the cases whch we have exhibited, Mr. Calhoun
and his followers maintain, that a minority has a
’ right to control a majority.
1 Wc did not affirm, that Mr. Calhoun main
j tained, as a universal principle, the right of a
minority to control a majority; on the contrary,
we stated, that the nullifiers never apply the doc
’ trine when the majority is on their side—ln South
1 Carolina, the nullifiers have a majority ; and in all
i that relates to the state-government, and the ad
e ministration of the state-laws, they maintain and
exercise the right of the majority to govern the
minority. . , . ,
Wo are gratified at the disavowal of this 1« i-
T damental doctrine of nullification, by so sturdy,
■- zealous, and uniform a professor of the absurd
theory, as the Editor of the Augusta Chronicle.
It augurs well. It leads us to hope, that the
1 phrenzy of the passions is passing off from the
a minds of those who have been duped and led
astray by the more crafty and ambitious; and that
they can now perceive the absurd character, and
vicious tendency of those doctrines, which the
i. Union party has never ceased to condemn.
A few more such disavowals, ami wc shall
find our quondam friend, of the Chronicle, again
on outside.”
i,
I The preceding remarks of the Federal Union,
■ arejvcry ingenious, but, by no means ingenuous.
> In replying to them, we shall, in the first instance,
■ take the liberty of again informing our readers,
• that the Federal, in speaking of the relative prin
• ciples of the State Rights and Union parties,
, made the following sweeping declaration, without
s any qualification whatever;
• “ That party [meaning the Union party,] has
• constantly vindicated, what Mr. Jefferson decla
• red to be the fundamental principle of republics,
' the right of a majority—in opposition to the Cal
houn doctrines, that a minority has a right to con
t trol a majority.”
As the question at issue between the two par
! ties, is purely a constitutional one, so far at least,
> as regards reserved rights, the unqualified asser
-1 tion of the Federal left it to be inferred, that
1 our doctrines claimed the political absurdity of
: the minority having a right to control, not mere
ly the unconstitutional, but also the constitution
al enactments of the majority. This was logi
cally and indubitably the meaning of the editor,
1 if he meant any thing at all; for, if it was not,
i he would, at the time, have made the acknow
ledgement which has been reluctantly, partially,
and awkwardly, conceded by him, that, in the
peculiar system of our government, the minority
have privileges, which constitutionally entitle
them to the right of controling the majority.
But,no —it was not the intention of the Federal
to do us any thing like justice “in the premises,”
until we challenged it to the proof. And,
what is the nature of the proof now adduced by
it 1 Why, a sophisticated, yet, as we have ad
mitted, a very ingenious subterfuge.
Let us see. What says the Federal at the
onset 1 It says, “In establishing so plain a po
sition, it cannot be necessary for us to quote the
writings of Calhoun or his disciples.” 0, yes—
wc readily admit it is not “ necessary ” for the
furtherance of the unconstitutional doctrines of
the Federal to do so; for, if it did, the people
whom they have led astray, would bo enlightened
as to the true character and meaning of those
“writings.” Such a course, although fair, honor
able, and above board, would, nevertheless, be en
• lirely unnecessary to the purpose of the Federal’s
i party. We are ready to concede, too, that “at the
■ bottom of” our “ theory, is the rignt of a single
State to decide authoritatively, whether any given
, act be in violation of the constitution of the U.
States.” This is the primutn mobile of the Jef
fersonian principle, as we recognize it; and it is
■ held forth even by the Union party in their con
ventional declarations. Those declarations em
brace, as orthodox, the Kentucky Resolutions,
drafted by Mr. Jefferson, which say, that “the se
veral states which formed that instrument [the
; constitution] being sovereign and independent,
have the unquestionable right to judge of the in
fraction—and that a Nullification, «y those
sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done
under color of that instrument, is the rightful
remeiiy.” These resolutions, wc repeat, the
Unionists have declared orthodox ; yet, strange as
it may appear, deny the right they confci. “The
several states” means, and it is of universal accep
tation, each and every state—so, by a plain and
irresistibly conclusive deduction, each and every
state, has, and have, not only “the unquestionable
right to judge”—aye,“authoritatively” judge—but,
also, in the exercise of a “lightful remedy,” to
Nullify. What says the Federal to this 1
Dare it, in the face of this common sense deduc
tion, resort to the stale subterfuge—the pitiful
plea of the rights of the majority 1 Or, will [t,
with the rank fatuity of its party, insist, that Mr.
Jefferson meant the majority was invested with
the privilege of nullifying. Surely not! What
a monstrous hallucination, to contend that the
majority has the right to nullify—Nullify what 1
A violation of tha constitution! No—for every body
knows that the minority cannot violate the Con
stitution. What, then, has the majority to nulli
fy 1 The minority 1 No—for although the ma
, jority may possess the power, they have just as
much right to exercise it, as the Banditti have to
overthrow the traveller, despoil him of his proper
ty, and cut his throat. The Federal dare not
deny that the right of nullification exists; and as if
must be evident to the shallowest comprehension,
that it would be altogether supererogatory & non
sensical to vest it in the majority, who can by no
possibility have anything to nullify but their own
acts, it follows, and no demonstration can be clear
er, that the right of nullification is the inherent
right of the minority, or of [“the several states,”
which means each and all of the states, in the in
dividual exercise of their respective sovereignties.
The Federal says, “ That single state [South
Carolina,] declared the tariff to be unconstitution
al, and on her solitary judgment demanded its
suspension. She insisted it was her right to ar
rest the operation of this law, although the other
twenty-three states might dissent from her judg
ment, and desire it should be executed. Accord
ing to this point of the scheme, a law passed by a
majority in each branch of Congress, may be sus
pended in u single state, in opposition to the
judgment of twenty-three states.”—The Federal
here, again, mystifies the question, and attempts
to delude the people. 8. Carolina did not act “on
her solitary judgment,” in relation to the uncon
stitutionality of the protective tariff; but was sup
ported by the judgment of the Southern States gene
rally. Neither did S. Carolina, insist “that it was
her right to arrest the operation of this law,”
throughout the Union, as the Federal would infer,
but that it was her right, as a sovereign State, to
arrest its operation within her own limits. It is
not our intention to concede for a moment, the
right of a state to judge of the constitutionality, or
the unconstitutionality of a law, and to act upon
thatjudgment. Were we to do so, we would be
compelled to admit, as the argument of the Fede
ral admits, by irresistible conclusion, the right of
the general government to free the slaves of every
proprietor in Georgia, and that Georgia would be
' wrong if she resisted such an act on the part of the
1 general government. Disguise it as they may,
this is the plain and inevitable tendency of the ar
gumenta of our adversaries, in their opposition to
■ 1 the right of a tingle state to nullify an uncon
i, I stitutional act of the federal power. The Federal
i ( ' and its fellows, may yield this right of our state,
. I and its citizens; but, God forbid, wo ever should.
, I What we maintain is this —and had the Feder
t al stated it fairly and honestly, we should not
have been under the necessity of correcting it:
, wc maintain, that a minority has the right to
control the unconstitutional acts of a majority, in
self defence—defence of their reserved rights.
The Federal affects a great deal of horror al such
. presumption; notwithstanding it was a lusty advo
cate of the minority opposition in South Caroli
, na, and backed its “ butcher knife ” system, as
was recommended in that State, by some of the.
descendants of the old lories of the revolution,
. There is a wide distinction, between the acts of a
|- minority in a State, and the acts of a State mino
, rity; inasmuch as the latter, acts as a sovereign
, authority, and the former does not. A State is
not only sovcieign,in relation to her municipal con
cerns, but also sovcrcign'as an independent mem
ber of the confederacy. She certainly would be the
most weak, impotent, and contemptible of slaves,
, were she to be shorn of her sovereignty, both at
homo and abroad—but, it is to this submissive
and degraded situation the Unionists would sink
us. It is true, that a majority in a State may be
wrong, flagrantly wrong; and we have a me.
1 lancholy illustration of this fact, in the present
administration of tho government of Georgia—
but, the only remedy for tli* reformation of its
abuses, is the operation of time, and tho good
sense, virtue, and patriotism of the people. A
State, however, when oppressed by the general
government, has a remedy, and a “ righful reme
dy” too, which has been successfully exercised
time after time, individually, by almost every
State in the Union. Every man, acquainted with
tho history of the general govern"
■ ment, knows this to be true—and the Federal dare
not deny it.
We are sorry to be the innocent cause of des
troying the gratification expressed by the Federal,
atwhatitelegantly callsour" Backing Out." If
the Federal editor would back into a fair, open,
and manly course, by republishing our replies, as
we do his, we should estimate more highly his
justice, candor, and independence. Until he does
so,impartial men will scarcely consider him entitlccl
to the distinction of a fair & honorable adversary.
Wo defy him to shew, and know it impossible
for him to do so, as he does himself, that what he
calls “ Backing Out," conflicts, in the slightest
1 degree, with any sentiment or opinion that we, or
Mr. Calhoun, have over uttered on the subject.
And yet, “ in establishing so plain a position, it
, cannot be necessary for it to quote the writings of
, Calhoun or his disciples” ! ! Oh, no, such wri
tings arc not only not necessary for such purpo
ses, but it cannot afford to quote them, fairly,
for any. Ifit were disposed to do them justice,
would it neglect to publish those unanswered and
unanswerable writings of Mr. Calhoun, which
have made him an object of its enmity and abuse!
or refuse to publish our replies to its misrepresen
tations of us, when called on to do so as advertise
ments, for pay 1 One might have supposed, that
if it had naught left of justice, it could have been
reached by its love of self, if of nothing else.
FOR THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE.
THE ANTI-PHRKNOLOGJNTH.
1 know them ; yea,
And what they weigh, even to the utmost scruple.”
In reply to our article in the Chronicle of the
23d inst., the Editor of the Constitutionalist makes
a candid confession of his want of information
on the science of Phrenology, and declines a
“ scientific discussion” of the subject; conse
quently, wc have nothing to offer in reply, to his
remarks, as wo are unwilling to enter into a con
troversy upon any conditions than those proposed.
Wc agree, perfectly, with him, that a “system
may bo perverted to bail purposes”; but, if this
be admitted as an objection to all sciences that
may be so perverted, where will his condemna
tion end I
Since our short notice of the article on tho
subject, translated by the Editor of the Constitu
tionalist, wc have found the No. of the Albion
which contains a version of the same story. As
“ silence is sometimes construed to imply acqui
escence ; or, at least, a conscious inability to re
ply,” and, as no answer has been made to the
statements contained in the said articles, wc will |
now undertake to examine the grounds upon
which they stand before the public, as contradic- ,
lions to tho doctrine of Phrenology.
If the different versions of this article, be,
carefully examined, the reader will be struck, both
with the looseness of the language, and the ab
solute discrepancy, between the two, in point of
fact. In order that the two statements may be
compared, we will transcribe them entire, and
unmutilated. The following is from the Consti
tutionalist :
“ The autopsy of M. Dupuytrcn has shewn
that the skull of this extraordinary man, accord- ,
ing to the system of Craniologisla, bore the in
telligence of a common man. The head of Na
poleon had given a flat and conclusive contradic
tion to the system of Gall and Sputzhcim. There ]
exist many analagous facta; and among them ,
this one; M. Magendic kept, for several days at
his house, the skull of M- do Laplace, between 1
those of two idiots. The phrenologists, on ex- I
araining these skulls, were obliged te make a i
mark in order to designate the one they took up (
for M. do Laplace; and they did not succeed once
in twenty times. Very recently the head of a 1
sheep has been locotized, the expression now u- 1
sed in France by Phrenologists, and the most I
prominent bump found, are those which relate to ,
ready wit, metaphysics, and a love of good."
The Albion has the story thus related :
«The autopsy of the remains of Dupuytren
proved that the brain of that eminent man was
but moderately developed. The skull of Napo
leon exhibit) the same conformation. These two
facts are not the only remarkable disproofs of the
system of Gall and Spurzhcim. Ur. Magendie
has in bis possession the skull of the celebrated
Laplace. He has placed it between the skulls of
two idiots, and it lias rarely happened that any
one could discover the difference between them.
In Jhc skull of a sheep, the phrenological organs
lof wit, metaphysics, snd religious veneration,
have been found to be prominently developed.”
mw——a— mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
1 1 Wc shall commence with the case of Dupuy
, j tren, as the first in order. Now, upon whose au
thority, arc the results of this autopsy given to tho
- public! We have neither the name of the anato
t mist who made the dissection, the manner in
; which it was made, tho names of those who wit
i nessed tho examination, tho manner in which the
principles of phrenology were applied, or anything
connected with it, save the simple unanthentica-'
i tod statement, that the ‘ ‘autopsy of M. Dupuytren
has shi*vn that tho skull of this extraordinary
man, according to tho system of the craniologists,
i bore the intelligence of a common man.” Will
the reader be so good as to refer to the version of
, the same remarks in the extract from the Albion!
It is usual, for tho autopsy of so great a man
as M. Dupuytren, to come to the world through
some respectable medical or other scientific Jour
nal, together with the names of tho individuals
present, and a full account of the examination.
If, in the opinion of those who look to the evi
dence upon which assertions are founded, the
above conditions arc considered necessary to enti
tle tho article from the French paper to any ere"
dencc, wc will give ourselves no further trouble
on tho subject, as regards them, hut leave it to its
destiny. But, as there arc those who arc wil
ling to use such un assertion, however unauthen
tic, against the spread of a doctrine, which, from
some cause or other, has arousod their prejudices,
wo will say a word or two more in reference to
the case. It is said that “ the skpll boro the
intelligence of an ordinary man.” Now, by whom
was the application of the system of the cranio
logisls made! By a Phrenologist, or an Anti
phrenologist ; and, if by the latter, was it in the I
presence of the former ! On this subject wc arc <
left totally m the dark. In order to have made 1
the exposition fair and conclusive, they should '
have given the proportionate development of the •
regions of the head, and of each organ, admitted I
by tho Phrenologists, separately ; then combined
them,according to their different degrees of activity
and magnitude; the results, applied to the character
ofM. Dupuytren, would, most assuredly, have con
firmed or disproved tho doctrine. t But as this
course was not pursued, the assertion in question
can he entitled to no credit whatever. '
Next comes the head of Napoleon. One trans- I
later says, that “tho head of Napoleon had given I
a flat and conclusive contradiction to the system i
of Gall and Spurzheim.” Tho other, in speak- I
ing of tho developments of Dupuytren, observes,
that “ tho skull of Napoleon exhibits tho same
conformation.” Besides the looseness of the
translation, cither on one side or the other, would
it not appear, from the version of tho latter, that
tho skull of Napoleon was actually in tho pos
session of some of the scientific men of Paris,
and that it bad been submitted to Ilia tests of
Phrenology! But who believes tills! While
the skull of the Emperor is mouldering upon the
rock of St. Helena, we find the wise men of tho i
day talking about its developments contra- <
dieting tho doctrines of Phrenology, with ns I
much gravity, as though they had it before i
their eyes, and had actually applied the Cranio- i
meter and found it wanting. But, say the op- c
ponents,wc have examined the bust of the Em- i
peror, taken by Dr. Anlomarchi, after his death, j
Slop, gentld reader, let us enquire a little more s
into this matter. The same bust, which appears o
to have been brought out its so triumphant un o- c
verthrow of Phrenology, attracted the notice ol o
the Phrenological Society of Paris, which has for a
its President, M. Andrnl, one of tho most dis- «
tinguished Pathologists of the age ; and at its An- ii
nual Meeting, in August, 1831, tho uubject was Ii
brought before them. It appears that Dr. Anto- ll
inarchi never took a complete bust of tho Empo- d
ror. Tho cast, taken by him , merely gives the a
face, forehead, and upjicr part of the cranium, li
and was not intended as a Phrenogoligeal ape- ll
cimeu, but merely to give an accurate cast ’1
of the features, with more particular reference o
to a correct likeness of the Emperor. Now, u
in order to have obtained a complete Pbrc- a
nologcal cast,'it should have been from the entire ii
head and face, such ns was taken of Spurzhoirn ••
a copy of which was exhibited by Dr. Barber, in fi
this city, during his course of lectures, giving the tl
actual dimensions of every part of the head. ft
Antomarclii’s cast, however, was analyzed,
before the society, by M. Dumoutier, at its an- "
nual meeting, and remarks were niado upon a
such organs as presented any remarkable degree
of development. He particularly distinguished H
those organs which enabled the individual to judge
of form, dimensions, and space; those of culcula- 11
tion, and classification, or order; that which cna- n
hies one to remember places, relative situations, P
and events. In the inferior region of tho cast, H
where it had commenced covering the lateral or- 1,1
gans, the organ of acquisitiveness, or that which ,c
prompts to the love of possession, is visibly large, ta
as also that of secretivenoss, or a desire to dis- 11
semble. In concluding his remarks, M. Du- Hl
mouticr observed, that the head of Napoleon, p
plircnologically considered, gives indication of a ll
high genius, and, in a physical point of view, was ll
a model of beauty. In addition to this, the hat of, p
the Emperor, which he wore at Waterloo, wasiCi
brought to the meeting of the society, by a gen- j a]
tleman, who permitted the company to examine it a
at their leisure; and those who tried it on, decla-j o
red their conviction, that Napoleon’s lies ', was o
much larger than it is generally represented to b
have been. These arc facts which speak sor j o
themselves, as they were published under the '1
direction of a society composed of some of the: a
first scientific men in Paris. The entire pro-;
cccdings of the society have been transcribed into ] c,
the London Lancet, and the 4tb No, of the An- g
nals of Phrenology, jiublisbed in Boston. n
It is stated, in one of these translations, that ti
« M. Magendic kept, for several days, at Ins house, j n
tho skull of M. dc Laplace, between those of two! g
idiots. The Phrenologists, on examining the tl
skulls, were obliged to make a mark in order to p
designate the one they took up for M. do La- b
place.” Tlf* Othei read) thus I “ Dr. Magendie <
■ has in bis possession the skull of the cclebrntei
■ Laplace. He lias placed it between the skull:
i of two idiots, and it lias, rarely, happened that
■ any one could discover the difference between
i them.” The latter does not accuse the Plireno
. legists with bavin ; made the blunder with regard
i to the selection of tho skull of M. do Laplace!
; and it certainly cannot be a matter of surprise, to
1 any one, that those unacquainted with the
details of the science, should have failed in mak
ing the selection. 11 appears, by the first transin
, tion, that some of them did select the skull of M.
dc Laplace; or bow could they have placed a
f mark upon it, as slated! The truth is, the suinr
objections, brought against tho two first cases, will
i apply equally to that of the idiots. Are any ol
i the circumstances connected with either of the
• idiots, during life, mentioned ! Nothing of the
i kind. Before the discoveries of Phrenology, and
the appearance of the valuable work of Dr. Spurz
hciin, on tho subject of insanity, the most vague
terms were applied to tho various derangements
of the intellect. With some, idiocy is used to
denote the entire class of affections commonly
known under the terms, idiocy proper, fatuity,
insanity, monomania, &c. The article in question
docs not inform us to what class these idiots, us
lie terms them, belonged. Now, we are all aware
that an individual may have a well developed
brain, and exhibit the most splendidid intellect,
and yet become completely fatuous, and drag out
many years of existence in Ibis stale of idiocy, as
some are pleased to term it. Os this, numerous
examples arc on record, if not within the personal
knowledge of the most superficial observer. A
gain ; it is well known that an individual may be
come deranged, on some subjects, and remain per
fectly sane upon all others. Under these circum
stances, no phrenologist would ventuio an opinion
farther than the manifestation of tho mind during
tho healthy state of the brain. Wc are not told
whether the two idiots, ranked with Laplace,were
connate.; or, whether they became so after birth,
and at what lime of life. Now, na regards con
nate idiots, wc beg permission to refer our readers
to Spurzhcim’s work on insanity, where they will
find (ho following remarks: “Tho brain of an idi
ot never resembles the bruin of a sane person. Its
form or texture is diftorent, Ofien it is found to
1,0 very small, even when the cntornnl appearance
is not bad, I have known the skull of an idiot to
bn throc-fourlbs of an inch in thickness. Some
times the uppoi and anterior parts of tho brain are
not found. M. Payan, of the Hospital dcs Infcns,
in Paris, in 1825, found, in the head of an idiot,
only tho lower convolutions of the brain.” This,
we think, is sufficient to place tho experiment of
Dr. Magendic on its proper basis. In such eases,
we must know something about the substance
contained within the cranium, in addition to its
external configuration.
Ami now, for this said sheep’s-head story,which
appears to have allimled so much amusement to
our anti-phronologieal friends. Here, again, wc
find a mis-translution of the uiliele, or a misstate
ment of the facts, by some one. Tho two ver
sions before us do not coincide, and the same cir
cumstances related in the other papers that came
under our notice, were differently stated. It nj,-
pcared that the anti-phrenologists had applied the
standard useil by the phrenologists, for locating the
organa, to the bead of a sheep, ami come to the
conclusion that that animal jwssessed the organs
of“ ready wit, metaphysics, and a love oj'good,"
as one has it; and, according to the other, “ wit,
mcla/ihysicsfliu l religious veneration ;” consider
ing it a good joke upon the advocates of the dec
trine, as their own standard had thus brought
them into derision. Tho article in question, evi
dently implies that the phronulogi. Is had made the
application, and drawn the conclusions. Admit
ting, however, that there has been no mistake on
this point, then, one of two things must follow.
Tho writer of tho original, has either been guilty
of a wilful misrepresc tation, or committed an
unpardonable blunder, in attempting to write on
a subject, of which, according to hi t own shew
ing, ho is totally ignorant. We euro not which
his translators prefer ranking him under. In the
first place, phrenologists admit no such organ ns
that of nielajihy sics ; and if our opponents will take
tho trouble to examine some authentic v/ork on ,
tlie subject, they will find that the capacity for i
metaphysical investigations dejtonds upon the 1
combined or concurrent action of several faculties, j
Further, the advocates of phrenology, bring for- ,
ward, as an evidence of its truth, the fact of there s
being such a wide difference between the brain of
a human being, and that of the lower order of ani
mals. Upon examining tho two, which, it ap- |
pears, the writer of the paragraph has never done, |
wc shall find that mo n possesses those parts of the
brain called the reflective organs, and veneration, 1
together with many others; while the other is to- ‘
tally destitute of them.—We do not know what to ,
make of one of the organs, which the translalbr )
gyles “ a love of good.” It is something new to
phrenologists. It would boa strange course, if |
the advocates of a doctrine should I,ring forward I
the results of an application of their own princi- 1
pies, that would completely turn them into ridi- |
rule, as facts in suppoit of their science. But, (
again; a candid examiner into the subject, will t
also find that there is no such tiling as an organ d
of wit, or ready wit, as one terms it. There is an ’
organ of mirthfulness, which some have called wit;
but it is by the coneuirenl action of this, and two c
or more faculties, that genuine wit is produced. *
The organ ofmirlhfulneas is also jieculiar to man, I
anil not found in any ol the lower order of animals.
Wc presume wc have said quite sufficient to ,
convince any unprejudiced mind, that the parti- '
graph in question is a base slander, and total mis
representation of facta.—So much for this part ■ f (
tho subject, which appears to have arsused the |
mirthfulness, if not the wit, of the anli-phrenolo- I
gists. We shall now leave the sheep’s head in J
the hands of those who havo taken it under thoir
peculiar guardianship. Such a toy is well calcu
lated to fill the capacity of the writer of the urti-
c’.e that appeared in the French paper—
■■ r " ii=rTi aa.
,(l " How xvnll the subject suits his noble mtnd;
A fellow-feeling makes us wond’rous kind."
it
conclusion, we will say a few words with
regard to the application of the principles and
I deductions of phrenology. It appears, in the
. present case, that our opponents have not said a
' v °rd us to the structure and physiology of the
brain; or, in other words, examined the true prin
ciples of our doctrine ; hut, they have perverted
tbs application of the phrenological standard to
I Bl| b their own purposes, and then painted their
a results off ns established facts. This really would
mn ' m ' onc of the great father of misrepresents
|| [ ,loll ' wlw represented as quotiag from the sacred
)f ! volume, in order to destroy the effects of its holy
lC j tru| b». Who is presumed to be Ure best judge of
I the application of the principles of any science,
I j and tbe correctness of the deductions which fol
low 1 The man who has carefully studied the
o science, and applied the principles to facts, or he
‘ who has never given the subject onc moment’s sc
rions reflection, and condemns the whole, in loto,
P without nny reservation whatever; and tlren, upon
(he hack of this declaration, lakes the standard
( which ho neither professes to believe or to have
studied, and by its application to cases, attempts to
0 | bring forward results to overthrow the doctrine t
j The answer must he clear to every enlightened
mind. We do not expect to convince those who
j will not listen, read, or investigate facts, hut con
s tent themselves with a condemnation of the whole
, science. There arc those, however, who object to
1 ' the science, but do not wish to condemn it with*
. out u hearing. For these we intend our remarks,
as the barefaced assertions of the former class, may
have a tendency to prejudice them against a can
did examination of the subject. Phrenologists
are always ready to conduct a fair argument with
those who ore sincere in their objections, and, at
the same tune, candid and honorable disputants.
, When wo are attacked by the former, and a mis
representation of facts is brought forward to sup
. port their sophistical reasoning, they must expect
to lie ex posed; »Sc, as they come to the contest with
j bard knocks, it is but fair play that they should get
im occasional ent and thrust in return. Some of
, these anti-phrenologists remind «s of an anecdote
related ofa gentleman who had aclf-eateem and
jirmneaa rather more fully developed Ilian the oth
er organs—a combination which would require an
enlarged intellect, and the beat constitution of the
moral (lowers, to preserve the individual from the
imputation of obstinacy. The first time this gen
, thimaii saw asparagus, lie began to cal the white
part; and when some kind friend apprised him of
( his error, and told him he should oat the green,
and not the white, he replied that lie “ al-waya ate
j tile while part.” He, however, observes the wri
ter who relates the circumstance, did not eat any
•non;; and ho was never after wards observed to
eat asparagus. Now, it any of our opponents
should, through ignorance, have taken hold of the
science of phrenology by the wrong end, wo would
advise them not to act the part of the gentleman
w.lb large eelfesleem anijtrmneaa, and, like him,
for the more gratification of the first faculty, de
prive themselves, ever afterwards, ofa most deli
cious scientific treat. The properties and use of tbo
gilts of nature, must first be understood,liefore they
can he enjoyed ; and so, also, with the natural sci
ences ; tiie principles upon whicli they arefound
eil, and the laws by which they are governed,must
he curelully studied, before that, which, to the in
experienced eye appears like chaos itself, can as
sume that beauty mid harmony which these im
mutable laws stamp upon ail the works of the
Great Author ol nature.
GALL.
latkht new*.
The Hill of Indemnity Passed liy Iho
IrcillU Chamber ot Deputies t
Nkw-Yohk, May 2C.
A i rived, yesterday, the packet ship Napoleon,
which sailed from Liverpool on the SStli April,
bringing us London and Liverpool papers of the
25tln
These papers contain the important news that
Iho hill making the necessary appropriation for
the payment of the spoliations committed by
France on our commerce, laid passed the Cham
ber of Deputies by a very largo majority—ls 2.
Wo extract from two files of London papers,
and from a Liverpool paper every word they con
tain on this interesting subject, and still the infor
mation obtained from these sources will hardly be
found sufficiently explanatory. That the hill
has passed there can be no doubt, but the pay
ment of the money appears to be accompanied try
a condition in relation to the President's Message.
A n amendment was adopted, on motion of Gen,
Vatnze, requiring that the money shall not be paid
until France obtains a satisfactory explanation
from the President, for the language he thought
proper to adopt towards the Government, which
will prevent the payment of any part of the In
demnity until after the meeting of the next Con
gress ; hut as the interest will be constantly ac
cruing, this delay is of no moment The requir
ed explanation will doubtless be forthcoming in duo
season—mid all will then be well.
Mr. Livingston, it appears, is to quit Paris, and
after the indiscreet anil impolitic publication of
Ids correspondence made here, nothing clso could
ho expected. He has positive orders from the
Federal Government in any event to leave France
and whctlier lie take England on his way home,
or return in the Constitution frigate, is a matter
oflittlnimpoitance in a public pointofview. On
tit i wlm'e, we think the matter may now be cons',
d red settled, and that the amount of money a
greed by treaty to he paid over to us by the French
Government, will be iorthcomitu; in due season. •
The British ministry are filling up all the
ordinate offices as a matter of chtnscjWjlJedlwir
adherents. The Great Seal com
mission, Sir Charles Pcpys, Master of the Holla,
Sir Launceiot Shadwcll, Vice Chancellor, and Sir
John Bosanquct, one of the Justices of the court
of Common Picas, arc the Lord Commissioners.
The Karl of Muigrave has been appointed Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland.
The Radical press is decidedly out in opposi
tion to the Melbourne Ministry.
General Valdez the Spanish Minister of War
has taken the command of the Quaen's army in
tiie north of Spain, in place of General Mina who
had resigned.— Courier Enquirer.
The Morocco Lion recently made a first ap
pearance at Baltimore,’ in the I.ast day* of Pom
pe|. He enacted the arena scene to a wonder.