Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA LIBRARY VOLUME Ii: ATHEN^EORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING. JULY 19, 1855. NUMBER 1C rUBLISUEO WEEKLY, J . BY JOHN II. CHRISTY, ,J ' IDIT9B AND morRlETO*. Terms of Subscription. , i TWO DOLLARS por annum, if paid strictly in tut* ance; otherwise,THREE DOLLARS will lie charged , J (tCT In order that the price of the papei may nut be in the way of a larse circulation, Clpbe will be.ifioolidd at the followlnglow rates. COPIES for - - - 910 )<= s>jw »JSr'«i» •• for . . gi». «E5v M tktitlow ratrm,lk*>C l uJiaiul accompany Ufordcj-. . Rates of Advertising. ^ Transient advertisements will be inserted, at On? Dollar persqnare for tile flrst.aud Fifty&euts persquare for e icli subsequent insertion. ~ r Lesral and yearlYutdrcrtisements at the osnal rates Candidates will bo.charged $5 for announcements, and obituary noticesntceeaingsix lines in length will be charged ai advertisement*. When the nuratajof insertions Isnotmarkednn and advertisement, it.(rill be published till forbid charged accordingly. 3&U5M nni ^rnfosMimalJaSs? ff r^HRTSTYT^ PLAIX AMD FANCY Book and Job Printer, “Franklin Job Office,” Athens, Ga. *% All work entrusted to his care faithfully, correctly and punctually executed, at prices correspond- . . From the N. Y.. Observer. PROF. MQRSETO BISHOP SPALD- ». .. : . . ING.-. r e ..... _ We piiBtished, a few wpeks since, the letter'of f’roP. Mdrse ’in - answer to the L en tacky. “ be re- riginat- ti paper, t, of the ited saying ver the li- .j&.destroyed, s-.” A. wri- nirer. styling janlS ing with the hardness of the times. C. B. LOMBARD, DENTIST, ATIIEA’S, GEORGIA. Ruomsover the Store of Wilson & Veal. Jan3 PITNER & ENGLAND, Wholesale & Retail Dealersin Groceries, Dry Goods, E, SHOES AND BOOTS, April 6 Athens, Ga. MOORE & CARLTON, DEALERS IV SILK, FANCY AND STAPLE GOODS, HAliD WARE AND CROCKERY. April No. 3, Granite Row, Athens, Ga. LUCAS & BILLUPS, WHOLESALE AMD RETAIL DEALERS IX DRY GOODS, GROCERIES, HARDWARE, Ac. Ac. No. 2, Broad Street, Athens. WILLIAM G. DELONY, ATTORNEY AT DAW, Office over the store ol Wm M. Morton &. Son Will attend promptly to all business entrust ed to his care. Athens, Apiil 6 T. C. LANGSTON, Attorney at Law, CARNES VILLE, HA, Ekfebotes.—C. Peeples, Esq. ) . W. L. Mitchell, Esq. \ AtbcDf Col. B.F.IIardcman, Lexington '* - *T Samuel Freeman, Esq. Newnan, Gabriel Nash, Esq. Daniels ville Col. H. Holsey, Americus. P. A. SUMMEY & BROTHER, Wholesale and Retail Dealers in Staple Goods, Hardware, Crockery, AND ALL KINDS OF GROCERIES, Corner of Wall and Broad streets, Athens. attack of Bishop Spalding The Bishop ^ ftollecii ‘ ed ii durifl^Hn-’cm.llofBEXc Igenuthmess of/tliettafte jfttribuijRl toA^fe-Mlte, berty of the jUnit;eaJ3ta it will'he-'by* Rdmi*iT| ter in the Ci'nctrijihti ’ imsdf“ OM-Lint*,.” goeA .further than mere .denial of .-its-gcuqineness. he arges on those whoquotc.it, not only [cry of the motto, but, a .“-fidsifica- iod” of jt, and to sbatarK* jii'm«elf, -he affects to quote a work which he says he obtained “ from the library of a French gentleman in the vicinity ol Cincinnati,” in which work he alleges that he finds a letter of Lafayette con tradicting the rnofto. Prof. Morse shows ample reason for believing that in this matter a most glaring attempt at forge ry, and on an extensive scale, has been made. Bishop Spalding is implicated in the matter by having quoted this pretended letter, and adopting it with out hesitation as authority, persisting in upholding it notwithstanding the more than suspicious circumstances at tending its appearance. His reply to Prof Morse is an artful attempt to escape from his unenviable position, by charging that “ Old Line” and the Edi tors of the Cincinnati Inquirer are Pro testants, and therefore, he has nothing to do with sifting out the trnth ef their allegations; but in so doing he has shift ed the basis of the main issue, and now puts it on the ground that Lafayette, being a Catholic, he, therefore, could never havz denounced Catholic priests in the manner indicated by the motto. Prof. Morse meets him boldly on his new ground. We give his letter from the Louisville Courier. [From the Louisville Courier] “ If ever the liberty of the United States is destroyed it will be by Romish priests.”—Lafayette. Poughkeepsie, June 8,1855. Bishop M. J. Spalding—Sir: The Courier, wilh your remarks of the 28th of May, is before me. I was arrested for a moment in admiring the apposite selection you have made of a text from Moliere : “ Si je defends, ce nestqu'en reculant.” Although literally translat ed, *‘ If I defend myself it is only in backing out,” the sentiment of it is sig nificantly expressed in the well known ancient lines— WILLIAM N. WHITE, WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BOOKSELLER AND STATIONER, And Newspaper and Magazine Agent. DEALER IN MUSIC and MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS LAMPS, FINE CUTLERY, FANCY GOODS, AC. No. 2, College Avenue, Newton House. Athens, Ga sign of “ While’s University Book Store.” Orders promptly filled at Augusta rates. T. BISHOP & SON, Wholesale and Retail Grocers, April 6 No. 1, Broad street, Athens. JAMES M. ROYAL, HARNESS MAKER, U AS removed his shop to Mitchell’s old Tavcru, one door east of Grady Jt Nich olson’s—where he keeps always on hand a* geueral assortment of articles in his line, and is always ready to fillordersinthe best style. Jan 26 tf LOOK HERE! T IIE undersigned have on hand a general assortment of STAPLE DRY GOODS, GROCERIES AND HARDWARE. which they will sell low for cash or barter Cull and examine. April 13 P. A. SUMMEY & BEO. Coach-Making and Repairing. .JAMES bTbURPEE A T the old stnnd recently occupied by R. S' Schovenell, offers for salon lot of super! or articles of his own manufacture, at redo ced ^r’ e, ;!~-vonsisting of Carriages, Buggies, &c. Orders for anything in hislinethankfully ^received and promptly executed. ^S^Rcpairing done at shortnottceand on reasonable terms. “fflbthat fights and runs away MayBiv NOTICE. T HE subscribers are prepared to fill orders for all kinds of Spokes for Carriages and Wagons, Also, at the same establishment we manufac turc all kinds of BOBBINS, commonly used in our cotton factories. All done as good mil cheap as can be had from the North. Address, P. A. SUMMEY & BRO. Athens, Ga who will attend to ull orders, and the ship ping of the same. March, 1864. SLOAN & OATMAN, DEALERS Itr Italian, Egyptian dk American AND EAST TENNESSEE MARBLE. Monuments, Tombs, Urns and Vases; Murbl Mantels and Fuinisliuig Marbl-a erAH orders promptly filled. ATLANTA, GA. •Refer to Mr, Ross Crane. jnneld 30 Sacks Flour for *tle by April 2'itli Grady AN'icholson live to fight another day.” And so, sir, you think you have cleverly backed out of the controversy, by doubting it “ a very pretty quarrel as it stands,” between Protestant out side barbariaus, with which you have now nothing to do but to stand by as a spectator, to rub your hands and watch the vicissitudes of the contest. This ruse might perhaps have 'Lad some chance of success (so far merely as re lieving yourself from responsibility in the forgery part of the controversy is concerned), but that you have, unfor tunately for yourself, put the main issue on another and distinct basis—a basis on which I meet you with pleasure. Whether it be necessary or not for me to have any controversy with the editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer, is a question in this new aspect of the case altogether premature, and indeed irre levant. That question, moreover, is obviously to be settled between you and your.accomplices on the one side con cocting a tissue of invisible and intangi ble authorities of most suspicious seem ing, and the public on the other—its credulity imposed upon by means of these same pretended authorities. It is a question, so far as I am concerned, sir, which may be better answered when you and I have settled accounts. It is for you and your authority, “ Old Line,” not for me, sir, to clear up the hourly increasing conviction, strengthen ed by the delay to produce that book, thqt z great fraud and forgery have been perpetrated by your side of the house ; and for you, not for me, to show, if you can, how many, if any, of his alleged facts are true. You denied, and still deny, that La fayette could ever have entertained such disparaging opinions of Romish priests as are indicated in the sentiments of the motto in question. I have already met and defeated you on the question of fact, whether he uttered or not the words of that motto. You challenged me to produce the testimony of even one American as to having expressed such a sentiment. Have you forgotten, sir, this challege, twice repeated by you in staring capitals, to draw to it a special attention ? I met your challen- ? e promptly. 1 produced the witness; gave his name (not a man in a mask, with cnly my assurance that his state ment might be relied on)—a veritable name subscribed to his testimony—a name venerated, honored for all that is upright and honest; well known, long known; the name of one so highly re spected for his prpbity and piety as to be offered by President Madison the chief chaplaincy of the army of the ;United States—a map whose word would no more be doubted in this com munity than other men’s oaths. I gave you the time when Lafayette uttered these words, and ’he circumstances upder which he uttered them. And what, sic, is your rqply ? You have not made even the slightest attempt to in validate this testimony.^ The motto stands proved on my part, uncontradict ed on yours. But you are loth to lose the benefit of Mr. Old Line’s ‘diggings,’ and so yon would still cling to the hope of making the public believe that if Lafayette said, he also unsaid it. Well, sir, I have proved that he said it, it is for you, not for me, to prove that he un said it. There are facts enough already be fore the public for them to determine whether the evidence of a forgery on an extended scale, by your side of the house, justifies or not- the suspicions that your maneuvering has raised; whether the fraud includes the forgery of a book alleged to be published in Paris in 1835, and yet neither to be found there by the most eminent biblio- polists, Hector Bosange at their head, nor its name in the authentic catalogues that professedly included all|works pub lished not only in Paris but in any part cf France; or whether the forgery ex tends only to the alleged letter of Lafay ette. The public can put their own construction upon those epithetical manifestations of anguish from your au thority, “ Old Line,” when a sight of that book is reqaested. They can judge whether that book is of public existence in the “ library of the French gentleman near Cincinnati,” or whether, under the suspicious circumstances surround ing the matter, ‘the library,’ or even the •‘ French gentleman” may not also be but fictions of Old Line’s imagination. The public can draw their own conclu sions from the non-production of the work after eight months call for it They can estimate at their value the the various shifts to avoid its exhibition and to esespe from responsibility. They can determine whether all this shuffling is, or is not, a trick to gain time for fur ther experiments on their credulity. They can estimate the character of the betting proposal - ‘ for the good of the orphans !” They can estimate the re liability of your anonymous voucher far the existence of a book and letter, (not to say that authority if in existence,) which can be produced only at the risk, on the part of him who asks it, of a thousand dollars, and “ the acknowledg ment of being a base falsifier 1” Serious ly, sir, is this the kind of authority on which you rely for your historical data! If so, there are those of your own faith, high-minded, honorable men (at least among the laity,) whose sense of honor and justice will class your miscellanea where they belong, in the index of re pudiated and worthless works. I wait with patience the consummation of these suspicious manoeuverings, and hasten now to meet you upon the basis you propose. You have requested plain and explicit answers to eight questions, which, as they contain, in your view, " the j^gist of this discussion,” I have examined with attention. Your main argument then, against the motto, as containing the sentiments of Lafayette, which I gather from your questions, is clearly this : You maintain that Lafay ette, being a Catholic, passing for a Catholic in France, praising the Ca tholic piety of his wife, and having a Catholic chapel in his chateau at La grange, therefore he could not say any thing so derogatory to the character of the Catholic priests as the motto sets forth ; for if he had, the priests would not have officiated in his chapel nor have assisted in such a large timber at his funeral. This is your argument, I waive for the present any inquiry as to the sense in which you use the word “ Catholic," (for you are not ignorant that it is used in various senses ;) your conclusion, from your premises, is non-sequtur, in whatever sense you use that term, if 1 can but show you that Lafayette, in his public and published speeches, did denounce Catholic priests in terms as strong as any contained in the motto. If but this one fact is es tablished, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion, according to your own showing, that Lafayette was not a Ca tholic in any such sense, that he was not also a Protestant in the genuine sense of the term. I have no difficulty, sir, in reconciling his hostility to Ro man Catholic priests, and his uniform antagonism to your whole system, with all the incidents which constitute your premises, without charging upon him as you seem prepared to do, either in consistency or hypocrisy. This is not now the point in issue. All the side issues, sir, which you have proposed, on none of which is there any difficulty in answering you, may be safely kept to be engulphed in the over throw of your cencentrated and dis tinctly proposed argument. Whether my name is or is not mentioned in the printed Memoirs of Lafayette; whether 1 was or was not remiss in complying with his injunctions: whether the motto in so many words is or is not recorded in bis writings; whether I shall or shall not have any dispute with the editor of the Cincinnati Inquirer, are all ques tions which may at present be waived. I shall gather from the acknowledg ed published writings of Lafayette the sentiments he was known to entertain towards the Papal system, towards Protestantism, and especially towards Romish priests. If he exulttJ in the. temporary over, throw of your clerical corporation, be. cause of its disastrous influence on al the best interests of society, because of its insatiable avarice and extorion ; be cause of its outrageous intolerance; be cause of its brutal disregard of all the natural and benevolent instincts of hu manity, and so perseveringly labored for the destruction of your corporation; if against this bitter and sanguinary intolerance of Romanism, he urged, and with success, in a' country where your corporation for centuries had uncon trolled sway, the rights of Protestants to a civil equality with Catholic priests ; if it can be shown that he commended to France the superiority ol the Protes tant religion, as displayed in its benign influence in the United States, and as in contrast with the Romish religionif, And whatsit, was the Christianity he here commends to France? Was it that misnamed Christianity which knows not the name of equality; a Christianity monopolized in a close cor poration and despotically organized in the interest of the most insatiable ava rice and worldly ambition of the few against the many ? Or was it the ex pansive Protestant Christianity of the United States, founded truly on the primitive basis of solid equality, and of whose benevolent effects he had such recent experiencein his intercourse with Washington, an experience which, as he said to the venerable Dr. Vanpelt, •‘ opened his eyes,” not only to the in herent bigotry of that system of religion in short, he denounced Romish priests in which he was educated, but to the in terms as severe as those contained in the motto; then, sir, will the conclu sion which you have drawn against the ge^uinness of the motto, because you have chosen to call Lafayette a Catho lic, be proved utterly fallacious. Turn then, sir, to the volumes of the Memoirs of Lafayette, and (if your edi tion is the same with that which I con sulted in the Astor Library,) you will find the original of the following trans lation in vol. 2, p. 536. In a speech delivered in 1821 in the chambers, ani madverting on the conduct of the old government, whose overthrow some members had affected to regret, Lafay ette says, in answering the self-proposed question, What have wo to regret? “Then disappeared that clerical cor poration, which, while it exercised every species of influence, and refused to pay any share of public contribu tions, was incessantly increased. No part of its imqgense wealth was ever alienated, but all was distributed in its own class, in an inverse ratio to labor. The law was a party, in the exaction of vows too often compulsory, and France was covered with monastic orders devo ted to foreign chiefs.* The clergy levied at once contributions from the rich and the poor, and in its secular or ganization was so wholly given over to worldly indolence that the laboring ministers were but an insignificant portion of what was called the first order of the' State. * * * * * * What, then, are we to regret? Have we to regret the religious intoler ance which doomed a great portion of the population to a state of legal con cubinage, tobastardism and 'disinherit ance : or that violation of all the laws contrasted tolerance and humanizing influences of that which prevailed here ? It appeared then that from 1788 to 1828. a period of forty years, to within a few months at farthest, be it remark ed) of the general date, 1829, (the date of that pretended letter of Lafayette which you have quoted from Mr. Old Line,) General Lafayette maintained, uniformly and consistently, sentiments of opposition and a course of ’action in accord with them, against the Romish priesthood, as a class dangerous to the peace and welfare of society. And you, sir, seriously contend that in 1829 he wrote a letter in direct and marked con trast to the sentiments and action he had till then maintained ; that he then changed his views of determined opposi tion to the Papacy, and all of a sudden became its defender and apologist! “ Well, sir, let us see then hoiv long he remained a convert to the harmless and beneficent influence of Romish priests. Only two years after 1829, that is to say on the 20th of September. 1831, in a speech before the Chambers, he says, “ Italy aspires to its regenera tion in full integrity. This is the object our armies sought to accomplish, and they successfully accomplished it. The formation of the Cisalpine republic, and subsequently of the kingdom of Italy was its result * * * * * * “ Behold the success with which we abolished the system of robbery, which has since been resumed with more auda city, than ever. Robbery in fact will al ways subsist in a country governed by priests aNd aristocrats, enemies of every liberal sentiment.” But lest you may charge that I have given a translation stronger than is of nature atld morality,t which Louis j warranted by the text, I subjoin his own XIY. established, and which the illus- language in the original French: trious prelate Bossuet styled the work worthy of his reign, the most assured sign as well as the finest enactment of his authority ? The Bishops in 1751 and 1752 demanded its execution by the judgment of the Commandant, or In- tendunt, without the form or semblance of a trial. Such was the legal doctrine from the period of the decree of the Council of 1684, which debarred all private persons from receiving into their houses any sick person of the Protestant religion, under the pretext of charity, down to the decision of the Council ol Louis XVI, when in opposition to the advice of Turgot and Malesherbes, the oath was taken to exterminate the here tics. The condition'of the Protestants was ameliorated by the edict of the King in 1788. I remember it the more distinctly, because, in the preceding year, I had the honor of seeing adopted in the committee, at which the brother of the King presided, the first official admission of their civil rights; but even this half tolerance was considered a re volutionary innovation. 1 Thus, sir, as early as 1783, Lafayette incurred the enmity of your corpora tion, while obtaining the prouff distinc tion of striking the first blow for reli gious liberty in France. For him was reserved the noble gratification of con coding the measures for rescuing Pro testant Christianity from the bloody pro scription and brum rule of an overbear ing and corrupt priesthood. In resist ing the “ intolerant spirit of the times, sir, do you find Lafayette in league with your corporation, or in open hostility to it? Was he Catholic (in your applica tion of the term) or Protestant in the best sense of that term ? Let us pass over a period of forty years, and see if the illustrious man had become less Protestant in his feelings and views in that time. You will find, sir, at page 409, vol. 2 ; of his Memoirs, his speech delivered June 23d, 1828, from which l make the following extract: “ Amidst the attacks of pretended defenders of the altar, I am sorry to observe that fanaticism which represents as hostile to the rights and sentiments of nations the Christianity of which social equality is the principal thus provoking a sort of reprisal of ani madversion against opinions and prac tices which, in themselves, havenothing in common with worldly ambition. If 1 seek a solution of this most perplex ing combination of the duties of the priest, speaking both in the name heaven and as the paid officer of the State, I shall find it (at least in my own opinion) only in a country where religi ous sentiment is more general than in France; where the ministers of the gospel receive more respect; where sects live in peace ; where their rites and ceremonies inspire no alarm, but where they are total strangers to the civil government, and where religious societies freely funned have ministers of their own choice.” Voyezile success avec lequel on ctait parvenue ay detruieeleprigandage qui- s’y tst relevce plus audaeious que lamais. brigandage, en effet, subsistera toujours dans unpays gouverne par des pretres et des aristocrates, enemis de toute idee generruse.” Now, sir, we find that up to 1829, Lafayette w. s an avowed, persevering, active opponent of the Romish priest hood. Somewhere in 1829 you con tend he suddenly and entirely changed his views; and your only authority is that pretended letter of “ Old Line dug up nobody knows whence but imme diately after, in 1831, we find him again the opponent of the Romish priests, and in terms which make those of the uiotto tame and spiritless, in the comparison, denouncing the influence of these same priests as necessarily pro ductive of one of the most grievous evils that can befall society. The organ of credulity, sir, must have an unusual development in the head of that man who, with these facts before him, can believe in the genuinenesss of that let ter ! But pray, sir, how long is it since your clerical corporation have become the eulogists of Lafayette ? When did he become exalted as “ a patriot” in your eyes, and admired as “ the refined and accomplished French Marquis,” and lauded as the Catholic hero ?” Why have you delayed so long in quoting him as one of your adherents? “ Did you prudently wait until the Catholic hero had been dead twenty years, that you might incur the less risk of contradiction ? Is it that the prestige of his name on American minds might just now be of advantage in the schemes for aggrandizement now so rife with your corporation, if it could be shown that he was a Catholic in your contract ed sense of that term ? Did you hope to blot out from our remembrance your former vilifications of bis good name your expressions of deep hatred and abhorrence of his character; and your invocations upon him of a bloody expia tion of the crime of opposition to you ' How has he been esteemed by your cor poration for more than sixty years The Archbishop of Sens, who bitterly opposed Lafayette and his efforts in favor of religious tolerance, as was per feclly natural, deelaied as far back as 1788, in the King’s council, that “ La fayette was their most dangerous anta gonist, because his logic consisted in action The New York Catholic Diary,,of January 25th, 1834, under the superin tendance and with the approval ot your corporation, copies from an English paper, The Age,” the following article, endorsing and approving its sentiments by the following heading : “ Truth told in Tory Style:' “ Louis Pbillippe was declared by that old ass, Lafayette, the best of all possi ble republicans, and all liberal Europe uttered a dissonant bray ot applause. * * * But, badinage, apart, it is inipbssi- ble to think of those wretches without in finite scorn. It is, however, pleasant to reflect that they will not last long. We wait with impatience for the crowning of Henry V. in Rheims, and we hope that he will come back with a full recol lection of all that was done in his ab sence, and a steady determination to inflict adequate and unsparing punish ment on all the guilty. If he returns with an amnesty in bis hands, he per ishes, and deserves to perish.” The Boston Roman Catholic paper, the Pilot, of April 16th, 1835, also un der the direction of another of your cor poration, condemns an article in the North American Review, as “too it- Bated, wi»h the undeserved and hyper bolical encomiums on the negative vir tues of Lafayette, on the imputed qua lities of a man whose memory is abhor red by all good and patriotic French men 1 What sort of a Catholic sir, was La fayette, in the estimation of your cor poration, when they dared to put forth, and endorse, before the American peo ple too, such infamously scurrilous and malevolent language as this, toward the venerated and illustrious compeer of Washington ? And now, sir, how stands the case between us? I have in previous letters proved that Lafayette uttered that mot to in the very words usually quoted, which you denied and challenged me to prove. I have also given substantial, and as yet wholly unrefuted reasons for believ ing that the letter attributed to Lafay ette contradicting that motto, the letter quoted by you as genuine, and which you still persist in considering genuine, is a forgery, and that even the book, from which it is pretended to be quoted, is also a forgery. I have also shown that, on the new basis assumed by you, sir, to argue the main issue, to-wit: that Lafayette was a Catholic, (in some narrow sense of your own,) and, therefore, could not have held or expressed the sentiments of that mi»tto, your conclusion is utter ly fallacious. lie was not a Catholic in any such sen-e as not to be openly and uniformly opposed to Romish priests I have shown, not only that he was thus opposed to your corporation, but, as might in such case be expected, your corporation was bitterly opposed to him. With these facts substantiated, I leave the public to judge whether the motto in question is not completely proved to to be Lafayette’s and if so, whether it is wise to disregard the warning of it as of no weight nor significance. Respectfully, sir, your obedient ser vant, Sam’l F. B. Morse There are now two distinct issues, to wit : First, Has there been a forgery or series of forgeries at Cincinnati, for the purpose if invalidating the warning given by Lafayette in the motto in ques- tu n ? And second, Do the motto and its sentiments proved to have been uttered by Lafayette, accord with his openly avowed principles and action in regard to the Romish priesthood ? The second issue is the one argued by Prof. Morse in the present letter, and it is independent of the question of for gery in the first issue. The first issui is only important as showing clearly the depths of deception to which wicked men will descend to accomplish their selfi--h ends. 1844, and all the conservative elements- of the country rallied upon it. That portion of the platform on the lavery issues was constructed by him self and a few others— the embodiment, however, of the common thoughts of the Southern delegations, and the national conservatives. With the exception of the threatening features of what is known as the “Georgia Platform,” adopted by a constitutional Convention of that State a few years since, it is substantially the same. For our part we regard our selves standing upon both as one. Up on them the South must concur, and the only common party into which all the old factions, Democrats, Whigs, and States Rights men can come and unite without jealousy or shame or inconsis tency, and with pride and patriotism, is the American party. Political demago- gueism may kick against it, a petty factious vanity may deter superficial men. and local prejudices may for a lime mislead, but the double urgency of good sense and necessity will consummate tbit proper fusion. MR * Lafayette seemed to entertain a Utile of the Know Nothing feeling of the present day. fThe famous decree for the revocation ol the edict of Nantes. JSarran.N. Y. edition, 1833 ; vol, ixp, 110. JUDGE CONE. The following notice of Judge Cone, complimenting his course in the Phila delphia Convention, we find in the Charleston Evening News, the Editor of which was also a member of the Con vention : Judge Cone of Georgia.—This thorough man, of ripe experience, power ful mind and honest heart, was the Chair man oF the Platform Committee at Phil adelphia, reported it to the Conven tion, and both withini and without, sus tained it with great ability. His speech was the master effort in the body, calm, searching, decided and complete, and delivered with the earnest animation of deep conviction. He is no ordinary man either in mind, will or tone. It was his privilege to close the debate, and eager attention waited on every word, the “words of wisdom and of truth.” By that time the leakage of what transpired in the body had been stopped; and the interest of the speech became absorbed in the intenser interest of the vote and its important results. Hence little or no mention had been made in the press of his high services, and powerful argu ment. Judge Cone is one of Georgia’s noblest sons, one of the leaders of her oldDoraoc racy, and now one of the head and front of the American Party. He also was the statesman who reported in the De mocratic Convention the platform on which Polk was elected President; and to which, if there had been adherence the country would not now be in its distracted condition. He would . have this new platform engrafted on that ol CALIIOUN A KNOW NOTH ING. The following is an extract from tiie speech of Mr, Calhoun, deliv ered on the occasion of admitting Michigan into ilie Union. It is a full endorsement of the principles of the American party, touch ing Foreigners, and our Naturalization laws.—Will any one say that John Calhoun was not si reliable Southern man1 Let it be read, and handed round, by every friend to the Union. In conferring the power to pass uni form laws of naturalization, says Mr. Calhoun, the frameisof the Constitution must ltuve had two objects in view; one toprevmj|corapelition.between the Stales in hc^j^^But inducement for the emigra tion oNW:igners, and the other to pre vent their improper influence over the General Government, through such States as might naturalize foreigners, and could confer on them the right of exer cising the elective franchise, before they could be sufficiently informed of the nature of our institutions, or were in terested in their preservation. Both- of these objects would be defeated, if the States may confer on aliens the right of voting and the other privileges belonging to citizens. On that supposition, it would be almost impossible to conceive what good could be obtained, or evil prevented by conferring the power on Congress. The powei would be perfect 'll nugatory. A State might hold out every improper inducement to emigra tion, as freely as if the power did not exist, and might confer on the alien all the political privileges belonging to a native bprti cicizen ;—not only to the great injury of the government of the State, but to an improper control ovir the Government of the Union. To. illustrate what I have said,—suppose the dominant party in New York, finding political power about to depart front, them, should, to maintain their ascendan cy, extend the right of suffrage to the thousands of aliens of every language and from every, portion of the word that annually pour into her emporium—hour deeply might the destiny of the whule Union be affected by such a measure.. It might, in fact, pla e the control over the General Corcrn nmt in the hands of those who Know Nothing of our instill- tssue t( ons an( i are indifferini as to the interests of our country. New York gives about one-sixth of the electoral votes in tho : choice of President and Vice President; and it is well known that her polli'cil institutions keep the State nearly Equally divided into two great political patties. The addition of a few thousand volts either way might turn the Scale,, and. the electors might, in /act, owe their election, on the supposition, to the votes of unnaturalized foreigners.— The Pre sidential election might depend on the- electoral vote of the Stale and a President be chosen in reality by them; THAT IS, THEY MIGHT GIVE US A KING-—for, under the usurpations of the present Chief Magistrate, £Gen. Jackson,*] the President is in fact a king.’ ECCENTRICITIES OF COSTUMK. There is no part of our costumo.enht-p- male or female, which has no: already passed from one extreme of absurdity ro another, and been west admired at i's highest point. Coats, have been worn with volumninous skirts dangling aln-s-rr tho wearer’s heels, a id with s -am v lappels descending six inches below the ■ waist.—Coat sleeves at one time fi led skin-tight; and mode than ome have been so widens to sweep the ground. Flapped waistcoats which in the time of Georgia It reached nerrly to the stock-.- ing, were soon cut so short ns to nearer ' the armpits than the thigh. The close- fitting, tightly strapped trouser con trasts ludicrusly enough with the taunk- hose of the sixteenth century, Staffed, out with five or six pounds of bran to ‘ such an extent that as a Uarleian manu- scaipt tells us. alterations had to be made in the Parliament House, so as to afford additional accommodation for the mem bers, seats. It is related that a fast man of the time, on rising to conclude i\ visit of ceremony, had the misfortune io damage his neither integument.- by a protruding nail In bis chair ; so * by the time he gained the door the escape of bran was so rapid as to cause a col lapse. It may have been that similar mishaps caused the substitution of wool or hair for bran, which afterward be came common.