Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

eu.v-.the constitutional power of Congress to •liner it. In justice to tint body, we invite your randiil attention to a brief consideration ot tltctr vi j ws on thin subject. The cowtitutioual validi ty or invalidity of an act ofCongresi does not ne- . <-i-s*ary d ip m.i up m the question whether the judet-ii departm 'i* "f the goveruieut w ould af firm the one or toe other of these propositions, ft may bo t'l u an net will in its operation and ef fect' he subversive of the principles of the consti tution, and yet on its face be superior to all just exception on that ground. Literally and iu terms it may bo in rxeention of an expressly granted power; in its operation and effect it may not only transcend that power, but may directly contra vene it. finder the pretence of supplying a re venue, Congress may raise money hpyoud the purpose to which it can be legitimately applied, nr may increase the duties to au amount which will he prohibitory of importation, and conse quently destructive of nil revenue to lie derived from that source. Still such an act would pur port to lie in the execution of tho power to lay and collect taxes; and courts of justice judging of its terms, and hy what is apparent ou its face, would not alBrin its invalidity. Hut the consti tution is equally obligatory ou every department of tho government—on the legislator who cuacts, as well as on tire judge who interprets a law. If the former shall so veil his unlawful purpose as to defend it from the scrutiny of the latter, is it less a violation of his constitutional obligation! If it be such a violation, can it be .constitutionally valid? If, instead of the absence of any express grant of power to protect manufacture., the constitu tion had contained an express clause of inhibition, an act of Congress imposing' duties beyond the purposes of revenue, mid thereby operating as a bounty to tlic manufacturers, would be, they insist admitted to be in violation of the constitution, and yet. tho repugnance would not lie manifest upon its face, aud would therefore elude the ju dicial power. A numerous and intelligent portion of the A- tncrican people believe that this view is applica ble to the tariff of 1828. They admit the posver of Congress to lay and collect such duties as they may deem necessary for tho purposes of revenue, and within these limits 90 to arrange those duties as incidentally, and to that extent, to give pro tection to the manufacturer. They deny the right to convert what they denominate the inci dental into the principal power, and transcending the limits of revenue to impose an additional du ty substantively and exclusively for tl)» purpose of affording that protection. Th!$ admit that Congress may countervail the regulations of a foreigu power which may bo hostile to our com merce, but they deny their authority permanent ly to prohibit all importation for the purpose of securing the home market exclusively to the dom estic manufacturer,—and thereby destroying the commerce they were entrusted to regulato, and fostering au interest witli which they have no con- titutionol power to interfere. That portion of our fellow-citizens of whom we speak, do not therefore hesitate to nffinn, that if the right to enact the tariff law of 1828 be referred to the au thority to lay and collect duties, &c. it is a pal pable abuse of the taxing power, which was con ferred for tho purpose of revenue;—if to tho au thority to. regulato commerce, it is as obvious a perversion of that power; since it may be extend ed to an utter annihilation of the objects which it was intended to protect. Waiving, however, this discussion, wo concur in the opiuion, that if tho aggrieved party is deprived of the protection which the judicial department might otherwise afford, it would strengthen his appeal to the A- merican people to unite svith him in correcting tho evil by peaceable and constitutional means. But there is a view of this subject which may claim the concurrence of all those who are pre pared to admit that the tariff is unequal in its op eration, oppressive and unjust. The Coustitu- tion of tlie United States had its origin in a spirit of compromise. Its object is the security of tnoso rights wltich are committed to its protection—its principle that of an equal participation in the be nefits and in tho burtheus of the government. A system of taxation which is unequal in its opera tion, which oppresses the many lor the benefit of the few, is therefore unjust, not merely with re ference to the great and immutable principles of right which are applicable to human conduct, but is moreover in direct collision with that con stitutional equality of right, which this instrument was thus confessedly intended to secure. A dis tinguished jurist of Massachusetts, one who L advantageously known as such to the people of the Union, has said of the system of which wc complain, that “it is calculated to destroy many of the great objects for which the constitution of ihe United States was originally framed and a- dopted." Who will affirm that such a system can consist with tho spirit of the constitution? Its enactments may be so veiled as to dude the judi cial power, and may therefore be obligatory upon the other departments of thogovernment—but as between constituent and agent, between tho peo ple and their rulers, tlie charter will in such caso have been violated, and it will bolong to them to correct the evil—Why should we fear to enunci ate this principle? Is it bccauso of the danger of those interests which have grown up under the system? A just consideration of tho subject will lead to a directly opposite result. If it be con ceded that the system is oppressive, unequal ami unjust, can those who profit by it deceive them selves with the expectation of Its permanency? Is it prudent to dose their eyes to the consequences, to which, sooner or later, this conviction must in evitably lead? Distinguished as this systom is, by every characteristic which may define a tyran ny the most odious, why should wc, who are its victims, not stand upon our chartered rights? As men and brethren wo appeal to you then to urnto your efforts with ours in the correction of tills abuse. A system which is unequal in its o- poration and therefore unjust—which is oppres sive, because it burthens the many for the benefit of the few—grossly, fatally unwise and impolitic, since it is subversive of the harmony oftho Uuiou —which is in violation oftho principles of free gov ernment, and utterly at variance with tho spirit of justico and mutual concession iu whichthe consti tution was conceived and'adopted; such a system, if per severed in, must alienate our affections from each other, engender discontents & animosities, & lead inevitably, and with a force which uo human power can resist, to tho most awful.of all calam ities. We entreat those who differ from us, se riously to ponder this view of tho subject. We entreat them not to misunderstand us. We can not be deterred from tho discharge of our duties to ourselves and our common country by the mo- nance of consequences, and wo arc equally inca pable of using its languago to others. It is as men and brothers—in the spirit of an affection which is still warm and undiminished, that we would call their attentiou to those inevitable re sults, which neither they nor wo will have the power to avert. P, Examine the subject for a moment in its con nexion with tho principles of an cnlightcd politi es! economy, and bee u' the eoiisidcr.itious which are urged to sustain this system are not fallacious and delusive. The view must bo necessarily brief —consisting of hints and suggestions rather than of an extended argument, or of minute details; but our object will be attained if these may servo to awaken a spirit of dispassionate inquiry. We are the advocates of free trade. The ar gument which sustains it rests upon a proposition which may not be denied. It is the unqcustiona- ■We right of every individual to apply his labor and capital in the mode which lie may cutWBive best ca calated to promote his own interest. It is tho interest of tho public that he should so apply ider- it, II ■ understand* better thau it can be uu, stood by the government, what will conduce to lii< own benefit;—aud since tho majority of indi viduals will, if properly protected, lie disponed to lul.ow tlirir interest, such au application of their in .In-try ami capital must produce in the result tho greatest amount of public good. Let it be re membered, that tlie question relates exclusively to the application of capital. It cannot be generated by an act of legislation. The power of tlie go vernment is limited to its transfer from one em ployment to another. It takes from souio less f tvored interest, what it bestows ou the one which it professes to protect. It is equally untrue ’that such a system gives greater employment to labor. Its operation is couliued to tho simple change of its application. Laws which protect by bouuty any peculiar species of labor, cauuot bo said to eucoui'ge American industry—that is, directed to various objects. These laws favor ouly a single class; and since the bouuty is not supplied by the government, but taken from the {socket of the in dividual, the protectiou which is given to one spe cie* of labor, is so given at the expeuse of every other. That course of legislation, wltich leaves American capital and labor to the unfettered dis cretion of those who possess the one mid apply the other, can aloue be denominated the “Ameri can System," The interference of Government, with the right of the individual to apply his labor and capital in such mode as he may thiuk most conducive to his owu iutcrcst, thus necessarily operates to dimin ish tho aggregate araouut of production. In o- ther words, the amount of the necessaries andcon- veniencies of life which are enjoyed by the com munity is necessarily diminished. If ail nations then were willing to adopt the system of free trade for which wc contend, which is accordant to the spirit of Christianity and calculated to unite nations iu harmony aud peace, it cannot be doubt ed that the interest of each would be promoted. The only question which can be raised on this part of the subject is, whether the adoption of a restrictive policy by one or more nations, makes it the interest of others to reciprocate those res trictions. The answer seems to be sufficiently obvious and satisfactory. The proposition which asserts the superior advantages of a free trade a- mong all nations, rests upon the following princi ple. Tho universal freedom of action which it allows, tends most thoroughly to develope the mo ral and physical cuergies of each nation, and to apply them to those objects to which they are best adapted. The proposition must be equally true iu relation to each nation, whatever Ynay be the policy adopted by others. The na tion which resorts to a restrictive policy, legislates to her owu disadvantage by interfering with the natural and most profitable employment of capi tal. To the extent to which she thus excludes another nation from an accustomed or from a de sirable market, she occasions, it is true, iu that na- tiod also a displacement of capital from its natur al channels. But cau the remedy consistin a re taliatory system of legislation! ina system of fur ther restrictions imposed by the latter nation?— Ifit bo truo that a restrictive system is injurious to the nation imposing it, does it cease to be so in regard to the latter nation, because, of tlie .wrong done hy the former, aud because it is also injuri ous to such nation? When we apply these views to the Corn Laws of Great Britain, considered with reference to their effect upon us, is it not then obvious that a system of pretended retalia tion, which enfetters the productive energies of our own people, whatever may be its effect upon that nation, must necessarily increase the evils we ourselves are destiued to sustain? The question to be determined depends upon tlie calculation of probabilities, to the.correct estimate of which, much practical information is obviously indispensable. Constituted as that body is, it is difficult to conceive of one less fitted for such re ference. On the other hand, there is always e- upughof individual enterprise, intelligence and capital, to test ally experiment which gives a fair promise of ultimate remuneration, notwithstand ing it may he subject to temporary loss. Left to individual enterprise; the question would be deci ded hy those who have every motive and every means to come to a just conclusion—'while the proposed suggestion would throw upon Congress those visionary projectors, who having failed to obtain the support of discreet aud intelligent capi talists, would play the sure game of securing pro fit, if, by the rarest accident, profit should arise, and of throwing the loss upon tlie community, if loss should ensue. It is said that a dependence upon other uations, for those manufactures which are essential to our want9, is inconsistent with our character as na tion; aud in this view that the tariff is essential to national independence. To us the term seems to be strangely misapplied. It is agreed that a sys tem of free trade among all the nations of the world, by securing the application of the highest cuergies of each, to those objects which it was best qualified to produce, would enlarge tlie amount of production, and increase the sum of human com fort. But such a stale of things would, accord ing to the argument which is urged, be a state of universal dependence; and precisely the same consequence would follow in relation to the com mercial intercourse of any given nation with the other nations, of the world, to the extern of that intercourse, whether a system of free tradeor of partial restrictions should, prevail. That inter course consists iu the mutual interchange of com modities, and it is impossible to conceive the idea of a dependence ou the one side, without re cognizing the fact of a corresponding dependence on the other. But such a state of mutual de pendence is a source of gratulation rather than of regret, since it gives to each uation au increased facility for tlie dcvelopement of its highest ener gies, enlarges the sum of its enjoyments, aud af fords the surest guarantee for the peace and har mony of the world. If the suggestion bo urged iu its application to the necessities of our country during a state of war, aa equally satisfactory answer may be gi ven. It is unquestionably the duty of every go vernment to be prepared for those conflicts with other nations, which it is not always possible to avoid: but this is most effectually done by the unrestricted exertion of its peaceful energies. In a government constituted as ours is and separa ted .as it it. by the Atlantic from the nations of the old world, it is reasonable to presume that such conflicts will be rare. The intervals of It is strongly urged as a motive to tho continu ance of tlie existing tariff, that its operation had been to effect a reduction of prices. Theso have in fact, fallen since 1816, and our opponents con tend that this, has been tho result of domestic competition. A moment’s reflection will demon strate tho fallacy of this assertion. We present a single fact in the outset. The diminution of price has been general, as well in relation to articles which are not protected by the existing tariff of duties, as to those which arc. It cannot there fore have arisen from this cause. Let us remember now that this diminution of price has occurred every where—abroad as well os at home—and not ouly in an equal, but as a necessary conse quence of the tariff, in a greater degree tliere than here. Among the causes which have produced this result, two prominent ones are presented to your consideration-thc diminished amount of the circulating medium of the world, and the aston ishing improvements which havo been introduced in the modes of production. The cost of produc tion is less; tho comparative value of money has become greater. Can we wonder at the result? Take the case of cotton goods—these havo fallen in price here since the enactment of the tariff. But the same thing is truo not only in an equal, but in a greater degree abroad—aud tbc reason is obvious. The causes which havo produced this result—those which havo been before stated—have elsewhere been left to exert their full influence in peace will probably be of much the longest dura tion, and our system of permanent policy should therefore be regulated chiefly with a view to this state of our national existence. But the deci sive answer to this suggestion is, that money con stitutes the sinews of war, and that its exigencies are best provided for by enriching the nation iu time of peace. A system of free trade will main ly conduco to this object. The resources which it will furnish will second the services of the neutral trader, and these, with our own internal manu factures, which are already independent of legis lative protectiou, will amply supply our wants in such au emergency. It is one and not tho least of the evils of the system which we deprecate, that it has a tenden cy to demoralize our citizens, to habituate them to evasions of the laws, and to encourage tho o- dious and detestable practice of smuggling. It is the effect of the protecting duty to raise tne price of commodities considerably above that at which they could be imported nt a moderate revenue duty. Unless this is so, it fails to accomplish its destined object, and is entirely useless. The in evitable consequence is, the temptation to clan destine importation, and the facilities which are afforded by our widely extended inland and ocean frontier, give impunity to the smuggler. On tho several interests of agriculture, navi gation, commerce, tho mechanic arts, and even on manufactures themselves, this system operates with an injurious influence. Speaking with re ference to that portion of agriculture, which is employed in the production of articles which must be exported to a foreigu market, it is obvi ous that any considerable diminution of com mercial capital, by its transfer to other employ ments, must have a tendency to diminish thoir price. It is in the southern portion of the Uni on that this will be most extensively felt. The domestic market will consume aportion of its effecting the reduction of price. Here their opera tion has been restrained oy the conflicting influ ence of the tariff. The reduction therefore with us has necessarily stopped at a point, which is ascer- t nineil by adding the amouut of duly tc tile price of the imported article. Thus tho diminution of price here has not been produced hy the tariff, but in de spite of it—and has been retarded by it. Bat for this law tho imported, which would toko the place of tho domestic article in the consumption of the country, would bo obtained at a price greatly be- lowthatwhichwoactuallypay, aud the difference, amounting yearly to many millions of dollars, would be saved to the community. It cannot be doubted that tho prices of all Commodities, the domestic production of wltich is forced bp the im position of a duty on a foreign article of similar description, are raised by tlie amount of duty ne cessary to effect the exclusion of the foreign arti cle, or that this increase of prico is paid by the consumer, and that tho loss of tho nation which is occasioned by this system of protection, is ly equal to suen difference of price. The success which h^s*tteiulcd the manufac ture of cottons, is usod to illustrate and enforce another suggestion in favor of the tariff. It is said, that by means of the protection afforded by government, manufacturers are enabled to over come the difficulties incident to now enterprises, and that tltis protection is ultimately repaid to the community, in the reducod prico at wltich the ar ticle is furnished. We havo already shown Urn this reduction in prico in tho case referred to, bas not resulted from the protective system. Lotus look, however, at this suggestion, apart from that consideration. If it be conceded for the purpose of the argument, and only- for that purposo, that a manufacture might bo established by a tempora ry encouragement from government, which would not otherwise, at least at that time, come into suc cessful operation, & that tho community might ul timately be repaid in the manner wbicii is suppos ed, the following considerations seem decisively to repel tho force of that suggestion. Tho ideaofpcr- manent protection is excluded by the nature or the proposiuou. That which is proposed is temporary merely, & the question whether it is to be ultimate ly repaid to the community is of course made to du- pend on the successful operation of tho protected establishment. It is Congress who are to deter mine in advance, upon the propriety of putting at hazard the interests of tho community, by the for ced establishment of the proposed mwmfacture. S reat staple, which is comparatively small, and 10 immense residuo will seek in vain for a for eign market, if the manufactures of other nations are in effect, aud permanently excluded from our ports. This state of things may not at once oc cur. The necessity of having a supply of the raw material for tho employment of ner manufacto ries, may induce our great customerxo submit, for a time, to a system of purchase instead of ex change;' but sho will be urgeo by the strongest considerations to seek that supply from those who will receive her manufactures in return. If this system bo rendered permanent, and pushed to tne prohibitory extent, to which it Seems inevita bly to tend, tho fate of tho cotton planter is there fore irrevocably sealed. Nor is he alone affected by this system of protection. Tho farmer of tho middle states will feel its influence in the increase of the prico of labor as well as of every article which lie buys; and if thoso in the manufacturing districts should find an improved market for the produce of their farms, tho consideration* just statod will operate to diminish their profits—aud tho benefits which they enjoy from the increassed investment of capital in their vicinity, will be purchased at tho expense of thoso interests from which that capital lias been transferred. When wo direct onr attention to the influence of the protecting system on the navigation of the country, we might give to the subject a peculiar interest by dwelling on tho fact, that a ship is the proudest aud most successful of our manufactures. From an fcarly period of onr history down to the present hour, wo have been conspicuous for our skill in ship building. Adverting to it as an art, wo havo by the elegance of our models, aud the .minuteness of our finish, raised it from a mechan ical to ou'o of tho fino arts. We have applied the principles of a correct taste to nova? architecture, and havo therefore produced the same masterly result in this, os the application of the same prin ciples had produced in the other arts. We might then with perfect fairness aud propriety press the inconsistency of that policy, which seeks the pros perity of manufactures, by loading with burthens that branch of them which has flourished with but little aid, and is necessarily suhject to exclu sion from tho jealousy of foreign nations. We might connect this topic with our navy and our naval dory, and thus enlist in our behalf the sensibilities of patriotism. But wo waive .these advantages, and without entering into details, content, ourselves with adverting to the positive discouragements to ship building, occasioned by the tariff of 1828. By that tariff, iron, hemp, duck, aud cordage, are subjected to duties which would be iu effect prohibitory, if these articles were not of the first necessity, and their impor tation indispensible. The quantity of these ar ticles which enter into the construction of a ship, with tho labor bestowed on them, constitute ono half of its value, and the duties npon them impose upou a ucw ship of fivo hundred tous a dry direct tux little short of two thousand dollars, which is iaid in advance. We say a dry direct tax, for t is not, as iu cases of consumable articles, repaid by the consumer. Neither is repaid hy the freighter, for the rate of freight depends on foreign competition, aud the foreign ship, cheap, bccauso uiilmniitiied, settles the price. The effects of the protecting system upon commerce iu general, can only he satisfactorily illustrated by details. It is an iiuiiortant task, aud will be faithfully performed by those to whom it is confided. Tho diminution of imports—a total or partial scarcity of some articles—an increase of price to the consumer, a depression of the mercantile spirit which, under different circum stances, would lie animated to new enterprises, end the consequent check to our attainment of that height of prosperity to which the freedom of our institutions guides us, these are results which cannot be denied. That actual misery is not felt in a young and free country, where almost every citizen is, or easily can be, a proprietor, is not an argument to deter us from tne removal of those obstructions to that assured and unexampled case anil comfort of condition to which the American citizen aspires aud is entitled. If to the easy acquisition of good cheap land, he cau likewise add, not only the uecessaries, but also the blame less luxuries of life, why should ho be churlishly prevented by a sordid and monopolizing system, which finds enjoyment in restriction, and profusion in iirohiliitioii? Every class of manufactures which is not the object of the bouuty of this system, as well as tho mechanic arts generally,, are injuriously af fected by its operation—nay, even those manu facturers who experience this protection are them selves interested in tho removal of these restric tions—tho enormity of the profits, in man/ inst ances, combined with the uncertainty of the continuance of the system, give to this employ ment tlie character of a gambling speculation, rather than that of a regular pursuit of industry. The. high rate of. profits, would occasiou a rm.li of capital from other pursuits, and competition would speedily reduce them to tho general level, if the precarious tenure by which they are held did not restrain the movement—such of them os are adapted to the circumstances of the country, and conducted with the requisite skill and indus try would continue to flourish, although legisla tive protectiou were withdrawn. They would still give a fair return for the capital and labor which they employ. The rate of profits would iudeed be less, but they would he certain, or liable only to those changes which are common to the whole productive industry of the country. It is with this view of tlie subject, that the best iufonnod and most intelligent among tho manu facturers themselves, cannot resisyhe conviction that tho abandonment of the promoting system, and a return to moderate duties, would lie best calculated to promote tho steady growth, and tho safe aud permanent establishment of American manufactures. There is a remaining suggestion which we desire to present to your consideration—the na tional debt, which has annually absorbed from ten to twelve millions of revenue, is rapildy diminishing, and will ^speedily bo extinguished. Ou tlie first day of January, 1883, the available funds of the government will be adequate to its discharge. The existing tariff of duties will pro duce thereafter an immense annual revenue be yond the ordinary wants of the government, and the task of providing a system of measures which ' to this now and interesting condt- shall bo adapted tion of the fiscal concerns of the natiou, will then devolve upon the next Congress, llow propitious tho momeut for the establishment of the princi ples of free trade! An enterprising and iiiiciiigcu • people, possessing in abundance the sources oi national wealth, and perfectly unem umbered bj debt, many add to their claims upon the gratiut-f- of the world, for having successfully asserted th. principles of free government, by being tho firs! also to proclaim the principles of a free rind unrestricted commerce,—that genuine “A merican System," which will reniovo from our borders every vestige of discontent, will give more value to the freedom which was wrested from the grasp of oppression by the valor of our ancestors, mid perpetuate those restitutions which are destined, by tho blessing of God, to secure the happiness of unborn millions. We have received from Albany a No. of a paper which is published in that city, and has reached its Cth No. It is styled the African sentinel—Its principles and purposes are infa mous. They are. better suited to assassius and incendiaries, than to Christians and brethren. We arc happy to see the strong terms iu which the Albany Argus denouces it as an’“inccudiary publication.” Wo havo also before us a No. of Garrison’s “Boston Liberator.” It is worse than we had expected to see it—It i9 a congenial print to the Aliiany Sentinel.-tVe understand, that neither of these papers is taken at this Post Office. - There nre two copies occasionally recoived at this Post Office, of a similar paper published in the District of Columbia—It is a firebrand, which ought not to be permitted to be circulated—It ought to he known whether at any of tho Post Othces of Virginia, this “Genius,"fisc, is taken.— Richmond Compiler. Tho Corporation of Georgetown have passed an ordinance [on the 8th October] “concerniuig free black and mulatto persons." It requires all such :is then reside within the town, to exhibit satisfactory evidence of their title to freedom to tho Mayor, together with a list of the names, ages, and sex of all persons who belong to their families. Sic. and tho samo duty is required to be performed by the like description of persons com ing to reside within the corporate limits of Georgetown, within ten days after their arrival, undor the penalty of $10 for every month they shall continue to omit tho discharge of such duty. The Clerk of tho Corporation is to keep a register of such persons, and to furnish a permit, under the seal'of the Corporation, free of expense, to each head of a family, embracing ail under his care, authorizing them to resido in Georgetown. Every such person is, within throe days after they como to reside in Georgetown, to exhibit to the Mayor satisfactory evidence of their title to freedom—and they are to execute a bond with two freehold securities in the penalty of 500 dol lars, conditioned for his or her good and orderly conduct, under penalty of being committed to tho Penitentiary, &c. The following is the 5th section of this or dinance: for the si. slid Mars writing, to s servant, for a such time to be his conson as alt oal with the *01,21, ’ll Web free ■oy time not ex..! l or '"“'n ‘.wprwtedM’SfS ’resaitl.” A ne -"aiort a y° r hi TliLMiiUPH. xvrAC3i.vr. asoRexA, SATURDAY, CICT. 22. 18,1 "And be it ordained, That if any free negro or mulatto person living in this town shall boa subscriber to, or receive through the Post Office, or in any other mode, or shall, after the lapse of ten days after the passage of this ordinance, have in his possession, or circulate any newspaper or other publication, or any written or printed paper or book of u seditious and evil character, calcu lated to exeito insurrection or insubordination among tho slaves or coloured people, and par ticularly shall bo a subscriber to, aud receive through the Post Office or otherwise, a newspaper called “The Liberator," published in tho City of Boston, overy such free negro or mulatto person shall bo deemed and adjudged to bo a disorderly person aud a dangerous and unsafe citizen, and upon conviction before the Mayor, shall, for each and every offence, be fined a sum not exceeding twenty dollars, or bo imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding thirty days; and if any free General S i te tion. RETURNS l’OR THE l-l'GISLATM Camden.—Jlrowu Hull, Anidey. " £ou»ie?cs.—Folsom; Lflicl uliear. Ware.—Fulwood; fiiln.ird. H'ayne—Sheppard Wtggi ns. RETURNS FOR GOVERNOR . Lumpkin. Counties before reported, 26254 Camden, 91 ?rwiu, 215 M-lmosh, 93 Wayne, 4 Majority 1602 • 266',9 Lowndes, Montgomery, Thomas, anil -e still to he received. Strong reasotts exist for believing, tfotJ last few days, a caucus has been held ; lcdgeville with the view of expelling fa and power such leaders of the Troup 1 have dared to express dissatisfaction; cy of Governor Oijtuer and declined s to the new ultra principles. It is currently reported and commonlr 1 ed, that, in acuirdance with the Bat of tbail clave. Colonel Robert A. Beall, of TiriaiJ ty, is.a candidate for the vacancy in Co 1 caused by the election of Mr. Lurapldi Executive Chair; that Lott IVarren „ Twiggs county, offers for the judgeship; Southern Circuit in opposition to Jucii aud that Charles Doughrety Esq. has 1 as one of the representatives elect of Ha. ty, iu order to oppose Judge Claytoa I judgeship of the Western Circuit. Cl overt act of mutiny is understood to be li ing, on the first Monday of tho curreatE voted a blank ticket for governor, 1 called on some of bis {iplitieel nssi ness that he did not vote for Gilmer, said that Judge Harris,/of Walton«_ compete with Clayton and Dougherty. In addition to the foregoing, it is a what wo deem good authority, that 1 E. Ilayucs, of Hancock couoty, hi for the vacancy in Congress, and f C. Dawson Esq. of Greene county, t offer for tho same station. It is surmised, that Governor Gil brought forward in opiiositiun to the 1 W’illiam II. Crawford and Colonel! Sayre for the judgeship of the NonheruC Should tlie preceding intelligence bee C't, the eaudidates will be for Congress—Dr. Charles E. lla <{ A. IS- ill, ami WilliamC. 1 S ’uU'ern Circuit—Howell Cobb,’] Holt, nd Lott Wstrrca If'est-.rn Circidt—Augustin 8. Clay mas V* . Harris, and Charier !>oiightrl Snrthtm Circuit—Mon. Wiiii.no II.i Colonel Nathan C. Sayre, and iion. I Gilmer. w' . TAe Fire-King.—Monsieur Chabertti iirnted fire-eater, swallower of prussicr md w ho created so great a sensation b hits lately reached Nciv York. He hi in possession of an infallible remedy for a vegetable ami animat poisons, We sir fore advise him to visit Georgia sad P rolina, m both of which States he n» specific to good account, by reslurhg * many of our illustrious men who have b ten by tho snake nullification and are« tured by its virus, lie would be wril his trouble, aud might learn much uJ ngemeut of calorie from hi* patient*. r low ballot-boxen, jury-boxes, taitsr' muskets, bayonets, swords, cannon, b cabbage-trees, aud rattlesnakes by and yet, without apparent injury, «• . firo in nil sorts of weather. FerfuitwJ lors Monsieur Chabcrl will please editors of the Milledgeville Joints! bus Enquirer in Georgia or the ?JL Charleston and Governor Hamiltonw» rolina. The New York Journal ol Cominejjl following as the partizan character "T States’ Senate. J For Clay.—Holmes and _8prsgM« Bell of Now Hampshire; Webster 'i** MoAachusetts; Robbins and Knf™" Island; Foot and Tomlinson of C01 mour and Prentiss of Vermont; rie New Jersey; Clhytonaud Naudata Chamber-, of Maryland; Ruy*ln * ‘ Ohio; Johnston of Louisiana; na of Indiana.—SO, „ For Jackson.—Hill of New H*^ ley audfllarcy of New York; Ih» Jersey; Smith of Maryland; Hen**", of Pennsylvania; Mangum of b Forsyth and Troup of G corgis tucky; Grundy and White of l« Mississippi; Kano of Illinois; Ue nt ~For Calhoun.—'Tazewell aud’] ia; Ilayuo and Miller of South < dexter of Mississippi; King of Al Doubtful.—Brown of Norths* son of Illinois; Moore of Alab Missouri.—4. . , Tlw Journal add*, “it wdl be« will require a combination 01 , burnt and doubtful meu, to saw**, of tffo present administration. Matters are not quite »° o« nal believes them. Tho mur doubtful are decidedly J**¥°*L Poindexter ond King—wb"* tration twenty-two instead 01 » number may be added tho two giuia, who, however they " dent on a few points, are c pie nud the will of their the main sustain hint. „ rt , Carolina delegation, we « ciples and fccliug would arnj^gi too. wan they sat appr****?^ *11 sition would prostrate b0 TjzLwp] But however VWj,..^*1 Ch ’( the Ac, 1.1 C. 1 buil truo voi tion C mitt tent Priu «m . 0 mg, •he ( tion C. »b« •otni °r sel duai •o be four | Oci 1 the at home. . certain of ticenty-fiur iu' „g(fi and the Nullificrs untied c 11 two. '' to* •tion. !®or4 Si, mgi