Newspaper Page Text
4
LATEST FROM. ENGLAND.
ARRIVAL OF THE
STEAMER HIBERNIA. #
From the New York Herald.
NINETEEN DAYS LATER.
The steam ship Hibernia arrived at Boston
early Monday morning, with papers from Liver
pool to the 4th inst. and London to the 3d inst.
1 Ina commercial point ot view, the news is of
the highest importance. Cotton had gone up
full jd since our last accounts, with tremendous
sales.
The State Trials had gone through seventeen
days, and each day was a perfect farce.
Parliament had met. We give the Queen’s
Speech. Nothing done.
THE STATE TRIALS.
The absorbing topic of the day is the State
trials, which are now taking place in Dublin.
The preliminary steps have been marked by all
the excitement and bad feeling between the op
posing parties, for which unhappj' Ireland is
distinguished. The striking of the special jury
which is to try the issue, has ranged against the
Government all the Roman Catholic party who
were not previously Repealers. From some
hundreds ot names on the panel, forty-eight
were drawn by ballot, the traversers possessing
the same right as the Crown of peremptorily
challenging twelve—twelve on each side.
It happened that out of the forty-eight drawn,
eleven were Roman Catholics; these the Gov
ernment challenged, and the whole were struck
oft’, the representative of the traversers during
this process, “there goes a Catholic! another
Papist struck off!” &c. This affair has set
the country in a blaze, so to speak, and un
popular as were the proceedings before, it has
made them worse. That proceeding, as may
be imagined, gave great umbrage to the Repeal
party, and the Government has been attacked
with great bitterness tor adopting a line of con
duct which looks verj - like a foregone contu
sion topack a jury to ensure a conviction, oo
great was the indignation experienced in Ire
land at the striking off all the Roman Catholics
from the jury list, that a requisition for calling
an aggregate meeting of the Catholics oi Ire
land was signed in three hours by sixty-five
barristers, only three of whom are Repealers.
The three first names appended to the requisi
tion were Richard Lalor Shiel, M. P.; Thos.
Wyse M. P.; and N. Ball, son of the Right
Hon. Judge Ball. The briefs for the Crown
Counsel (13 in number) are printed and partly
lithographed, and each contains between 310
and 350 pages. The letter-press printing alone
in each brief occupies 170 pages. All persons
concerned were called upon by the Crown to be
present in Dublin by Sunday, the 14th, at the
latest; and on Monday the battle of the lawyers
began in good earnest.
Monday, the first day of the trials, was marked
by more than usual excitement in Dublin. The
Lord Mayor’s state carriage bore O’Connell to
the Court, and was accompanied by a proces
sion which formed at the learned gentleman’s
house, in Merion square. Arrived at the Court,
the doors of which were besieged from an early
hour, they were taken leave of by their ad
mirers with hearty plaudits.
Repeal Association —Dublin, January 22.
—The weekly meeting was held to-day in Con
ciliation Hall, which was crowded to excess.
The Chair was occupied by W. S. O’Brien, Esq.,
M.P., whose reception was most enthusiastic.
There were also present, M.’O’Connell, Esq.,
M. P.,and C. Powell, Esq., M. P., and, during
Che dav, five of the “conspirators,” namely, Mr.
D. O’Connell, Mr. J. O’Connell, Dr. Gray, Mr.
Steele, and Mr. Ray, contrived to attend, not
wilhstandinglhejeaiousanddignified watchful
ness ot the Attorney General. They were re
ceived with deafening applause.
The Chairman, in opening the business of the
meeting, expressed his conviction that the nation
had arrived at a crisis, and that posterity would
tender its gratitude to the men who conducted,
with wisdom and integrity, the affairs ot the
country at the present moment. It was tWie that
their leaders were under persecution, but the
spirit of liberty was indomitable. Os the mil
lions confederated together in that association,
every individual was ready to go to prison to
morrow'in defence ot his country’s rights, but
where would the government build prisons
enough for the Irish people 2 Adverting to the
meeting at Lord Charlemont’s, he said the day'
was not far distant when the Cauldfields, the
Geraldines, and the De Burghs, would occupy
theirnatural positional the head of the Irish peo
ple.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. O’Connell entered the room and delivered
a brief address, saying that he could not stay
long. He expressed the highest gratification at
seeing Mr. O’Brien at thehead ofthe Irish people,
And said that whatever became of him, (Mr.
O’Connell,) Ireland was not without friends and
leaders, and that his own influence would not be
the less powerful with his countrymen when in
prison than when at large. (“ It will be twice
as great.”) He then after earnest exortations to
peace, law, and order, proceeded to recommend
the formation of Catholic societies throughout
Ireland, to agitate for the protection of trial by
jury and . < equality of equal rights and civil
privileges, vainly promised by the Emancipation
Act; contended that, during the ensuing session,
the proper place for Irish members would be not
in Parliament, where they would only be ridi
culed and out-voted, but in Ireland and the asso
ciation.
Mr. Steele afterwards spoke, and described she
trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench as a piece of
the purest Irish fun.
After giving three cheers for the Queen, Repeal,
Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. O’Connell, the meeting
separated.
Dec. 29.—The w’eekly meeting took place to
day, and the hall was densely crowded.
Mr. O’Connell observed that the Attorney-
General had adjourned to accommodate the as
sociation, (renewed acclamations.) He was only
joking.—He was delighted, however, that the
Attorney General had come to his good humor
at last in adjourning the Court for the conve
nience of a true representative of Ireland.
In a lew moments, order being perfectly re
stored, Mr. O’Connell rose and said—my jokes
must not be taken for facts. The Attorney
General rather opposed the adjournment; but it
did take place, and here I am—(Cheers)
Mr. O’Connell begged leave to hand in one
pound as the subscription of a lady, observing
that in this as well as everything else, they must
give place to the fair sex. The lady was Miss
Ellen Dodd, of Brownstown inthe county ot Dub
lin and he moved that she should be elected a
member by acclamation. He then handed in
one pound, the subscription of Mr. Power, supe
rior of the college of Navan; and a donation of
the Rev. Patrick Gannan, ol Madras, in the East
Indies, who he moved should be enrolled as
member.
This motion having been carried, Mr. O’Con
nell read a letter which he had received Irom E.
Francis Murray, a young gentleman of collegi
ateeminence, and a son to his friend Sir James
Murray, ot Men ion square. On the motion of
Mr. O’Connell, Mr. Murray was admitted a
member of tne association.
Mr. O’Connell then rose and addressed the
meeting at considerable length. He dwelt
much upon the patriotism of his talented friend,
the member from Limerick, and spoke of the
debt which was due to that gentleman by his
country. In concluding, he expressed his de
light at the perfect tranquility that prevailed all
over Ireland. The value the people of Ireland
would receive for that quietude, would be the
Repeal of the Union. He only disapproved of
the diminution of the repeal rent—it was the
idlest thing imaginable lor men to be keeping
back their donations, and waiting to see who
would send in most after the trials. However,
peace and perseverance was his motto, and it
was peace and perseverance that would bring
back the Parliament of College Green.
Prussia.—A letter irom Berlin states that
Prussia is about to conclude a treaty with the
United States of North America, for the extra
dition of some classes of criminals. It seems
that a civil suit respecting the sale of a large
tract of Louisiana, the documents concerning
which sale have been sent from Louisiana to
the American Ambassador at Berlin, has giv
en him occasion to ask for legal measures
against a German family formerly residing in
Louisiana, but now settled in Berlin. The re
port ofthe Ambassador has been accorded to on
condition of reciprocity. It is to be hoped that
the treaty will extend to al! the States of the
Union.
The Queen’s Speech, as is usual with such
productions, is a document made up merely of
what might be termed general headings. We
give the most interesting items.
After stating that the relations of Great Bri
tain with all other powers remained on a f riend
ly footing—the Queen continues :
I have directed that the treaty which I have
concluded with the Emperor of China shall be
laid before you, and I rejoice to think to
that it will, in its results, prove highly advan
tageous to the trade of this country.
Througho t the whole course of my negotia
tions with the Government of China, I have
uniformly disclaimed the wish for any exclu
sive advantages.
It has been my desire that equal favor should
be shown to the industry and commercial enter
prise of all nations.
The state ot India is there briefly alluded to;
also, the condition of trade and manufactures,
the revenue, the Bank of England, &c.
The state of Ireland ,s thus briefly touched
upon:
At the close of the last session ot Parliament,
I declared to you my firm determination to main
tain inviolate the legislative union between
Great Britain and Ireland.
I expressed, at the same time, my earnest de
aire to co-operate with Parliament in the adop
tion of all such measures as might tend to im
prove the social condition of Ireland, and to de
velope the natural resources of that part of the
United Kingdom.
I am resolved to act in strict conformity with
this declaration. I forbear from observations >
on events in Ireland, in respect to which proceed
ings are pending before the proper legal tribu
nal.
My attention has been directed to the state ci
the law and practice with regard to the occupa
tion of land m Ireland.
1 have deemed it advisable to institute exten-
sive local inquiries into a subject of so much
importance, and have appointed a Commission
with ample authority to conduct the requisite
investigation.
I recommend to your early consideration the
enactments at present in force in Ireland con
cerning the registration of voters for Members
of Parliament.
>ou will probably find that a revision of the
Law of Registration, taken in conjunction with
other causes at present in operation, would pro
duce a material diminution of the number of
county voters and that it may be advisable on
that account to consider the state of the law,with
a view to an extension of the county franchise
in Ireland.
The whole affairs of the kingdom are then,
in tew words, commended to the wise keeping of
parliament.
Manchester, Feb. 3.
The Cotton Market.-The “ Guardian,” the
organ of the spinners says The present state
ol the Liverpool cotton market is one, we tear,
boding the most serious consequences to the
trade of this large manufacturing district. So
far from the excitement in that market having
subsided, it seemed Io become higher, and, we
may add, more feverish. We have heard, on
authority deserving of consideration, that a large
capitalist was known to be in the market with
cash to the extent of .£BOO,OOO for investment
(it it can be called so) m cotton; and the im
pulse to speculation which such a circumstance
must give, in a greatly excited market, may be
easily conceived. Much, we are told, was said
of making the “ Manchester bears" (as our spin
ners and manufacturers were called, because of
their buying no more than their immedi
ate necessities require) suffer in pocket by the
operations now in progress; and we are appre
hensive, from what we have heard in various
quarters, that by these speculations on both
sides the Atlantic, another check is again about
to be applied to arrest that trade, which has so
recently manifested tokens of a gradual return
to a more healthy and prosperous state. With
out being understood as adopting the views or
the suggestions of the writer, we may refer our
readers to the letter, in another column, of “ A
Spinner and Manufacturer,” as exhibiting a
striking proof, at least, of his estimate of the
serious extent of the impending mischief. That
evil must, indeed, be enormous, which could in
du. ea gentleman largely engaged in manufac
tures, and in the situation in other respects which
he describes, to propound the proposition,—'hat
in the event of the present reported shortness of
the crop being verified, all the spinners and
manufacturers of the district should work short
time far the next ten months, and during five of
these months, from May to September only five
days a week!
This state of things, much as it is to be re
gretted, has by no means come upon us by sur
prise. In an article on the state and prospects
of the cotton market, in our publication of tne
17th ult. W’e expressed a decided impression that
the aspect of the cotton market, at that time,
both at Liverpool and at the principal ports of
the United States, was calculated to inspire
serious apprehensions for the continuance of
the reertit improvement in the cotton manufac
ture of this country. On that occasion we stated
that our intention was to guard the spinnersand
manufacturers against the tendency to wild and
extravagant speculation, then beginning to man
ifest itself. Referring to the prudence with
which, in 1825, in 1839, and on other occasions,
they had chosen rather to diminish their hours
of working, or even to close their mills entirely,
than run the risk of heavy loss, by purchasing
cotton at prices forced up by gambling specula
tions, we expressed the conviction that a time
was rapidly approaching when they would have
to protect themselves against a repittionof the
same dangers; and that protection should be
found only in the exercise of the prudence and
eflution which they have displayed on former
occasions. That timehasnow arrived. Hither
to thetrade has generally evinced much firm
ness in resisting the advance, by declining to
purchase: and we are glad to see, by an adver
tisementin our first page, convening a meeting
oi spinners and man ufacturers for Tuesday next,
at three o’clock, that an early opportunity is to
be afforded for a conference on this important
subject. We trust that it will be numerously at
tended by gentlemen of various branches of
manufactures, from all parts of the district; and
that that unanimity which can alone carry them
safely through this peril, will prevail throughout
theircounsels and determin tions. Much, very
much, depends, at this juncture, upon the course
generally adopted by the trade in a matter vital
ly affecting, not only their own interest, but. also
the well-being of that large and industrious
class which ts wholly dependent on the manu
factures of this great and populous district.
Report upon the District Law.
Relative to the right of members to their scats in the
House of Representatives.
House or Representatives, Jan. 24,1844.
Mr. Garrett Davis, from the minority of the
Committee on Elections, made the following
report:
The Committee of Elections, having been
ordered by the House “to examine and report
upon the certificates of election, or other cre
dentials ot the members returned to serve in
this House; and to inquire and report whether
the several members of this House, have been
elected in conformity with the constitution and
law,” have examined and considered the mat
ter with which they were charged. The under
signed, as a minority of said Committee, ask
leave to report lor themselves: That they
concur in so much of the report ot the ma
jority as represents the elections and returns
of members of the House from the States of
Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connec
ticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Penn
sylvania, Delaware, Virginia, (except two con
tested seats,) North Carolina, South Carolina,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Illi
nois, Alabama and Arkansas, to be constitu
tional and legal; but the elections in the States
of New Hampshire, Georgia, Mississippi and
Missouri, in the judgment of the undersigned,
are illegal and "void, and the members of the
House of Representatives returned from those
States are not entitled to hold their seats. We
will proceed to give some ot the reasons which
have brought us to this conclusion.
The 3d section of “An act for the apportion
ment of Representatives among the several States
according to the sixth census,” provides “ that
in every case where a State is entitled to more
than one Representative the number to which
each State shall be entitled under this appor
tionment shall be elected by districts composed
of contiguous territory, equal in number to the
number of Representatives to which said State
may be entitled: no one district electing more
than one Representative.” The authority under
which Congress made this provision is "the 4th
section of article 1 of the Constitution, in these
words: “ The times, places, and manner of
holding elections for Senators and Representa
tives shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at
any time, by law, make or alter such regulations,
except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
The second clause of article 6 reads: “Tills
Constitution, and the laws of the United Stales
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and
all treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the authority of the United States, shallj be the
supreme law ofthe land; and the judges in eve
ry State shall be bounc thereby, any thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contra
ry notwithstanding.” When the law of Con
gress passed, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Al
abama, Georgia, and Missouri had election
laws requiring their Representatives respective
ively to be elected by general ticket. New Jer
sey and Alabama comormed to the law of Con
gress by modifying their laws, and electing
their Representatives by single districts; but
the other States have adhered to the general
ticket, and held their elections in opposition to
the law of Congress. The elections of New
Hampshire; Georgia, Mississippi, and Missou
ri. must consequently be void, unless the law ol
Congress is unconstitutional, or from some oth
er cause is inoperative.
The Constitution of the United States forms
a Government complete in itself. It derives
none ot its powers from the State Governments,
but it emanates - wholly from a higher source—
the people ofthe United States acting by States;
and to conduct its operations, its founders insti
tuted its own agents. The Legislatures and
Governors of the States are invested with a lew
of its powers; but, in the execution ot such
powers, those State functii naries arc as much
the agents ot the General Government, as the
Congress and she President are in the fulfilment
of their appropriate duties. No branch or offi
cer of the State Governments can perform any
act whatever in the administration ofthe Gov
ernment of the United States but by virtue 01,
and in strict conformity to, some express pro
vision of its Constitution. 'Hie power of State
Legislatures to pass laws to regulate the elec
tion ot Senators and Representatives in Con
gress, and ofthe Governors ot the States to fill
pro tempore vacancies in the Senate, is derived
primarily, wholly, and exclusively Irom the
Federal Constitution ; and, considered simply
in the performance of those acts, they are no:
agents of the State Governments, but are organs
ofthe Governments ofthe United States. In
depositing these powers, they ate referred to as
Legislatures and Governors of the States, not
toobtainany necessary or additional authority
to the acts which the Constitution requires them
to perform, but only to verity the persons with
whom it entrusts certain powers, which could
as well have been conferred upon any other of
ficers, State or Federal, with precisely the same
sanctions in their execution. In testing the va
lidity ot any laws of the States relating to the
election of Representatives in Congress, and
those elections also, we are to look only to the
Constitution of-.he United States.
Among the fundamental provisions of that
instrument are: “The House of Representa
tives shall be composed of members elected
every second year by the people of the several
States,” &c.; and “The Senate of the United
States shall be composed of two Senators from
each State, chosen by the Legislatures thereof
for six years,” &e. It has been lately assumed
that the clause relating to the House' of Repre
sentatives establishes the general ticket as the ,
mode by which its members are to be elected;
and this strange position it has been attempted
to enforce by a more strange argument, deduced
from the one concerning Senators. The plain
object of these two provisionsis to establish the
body of electors of the twe Houses, and not to
prescribe the manner of choosing their mem-
bers. But the argument is this: that the mem
bers of the State Legislatures cannot be divided ,
into two classes, and the election of a Senator
be assigned to each ; and as the people of the
States are to elect their Representatives, they
cannot be divided into districts, and those re
siding in a district be restricted to vote for a
single Representative, but all have the right to
vote for all the Representatives of the State. Il
such reasoning be entitled to a serious answer,
it may be said that Senators are not to be chosen
by the members ot the State Legislatures, but by
the Legislatures; and the body of the two Houses
must be convened and organized in General
Assembly to constitute a Legislature. On the
other hand, Representatives are to be elected,
not by the States, but by the people of the Stakes;
and these phrases are to be received as they
were univeisally understood when the Consti
tution was formed; and the right created by
them may be exercised in the form in which,
ever since, until the present time, it has been
recognised to exist by all. The people of the
States, respectively, then elected, as they now
do, the most numerous branch of their Legisla
tures; yet the whole people never voted for all
the members of which it consisted, nor indeed
for as many candidates. The position that the
House of Representatives must be chosen by all the
people ot the several States, would prove too
much for the purposes of. its advocates. If the
mode ot electing Representatives is to be de
duced from this clause ofthe Constitution, it
establishes one much beyond the general ticket
—it results, inevitably, that all the people ol a
State must not only vote for as many persons as
it may be entitled to have Representatives, but
each Representative must be chosen by the whole
people. A majority, barely, more numerous
than the minority, voting by general ticket for
as many persons as the number of Representa
tives ct a State, would not be all the people of
such State voting for, much less choosing all her
Represenlalives. The absurdity ofthe aigument
would not stop here. AU the people of every
Slate would have the right—yea, W’ould be
bound—to “ choose the House of Representatives;"
that is, the entire aggregate of Representatives
from all the States; and a constitutional House
could not be differently formed. There would
yet be other difficulties, some ol which could not
Ibe surmounted. Every voter would be required
to distribute his suffrage among the States to as
many individuals of each as they would be en
titled severally to Representatives. That every
man voting in any State would be bound to vote
for every Stale, is the necessary sequence of this
argument, notwithstanding the same clause of
the Constitution provides further: “ the electors
in each State shall have the qualifications re
quisite for electors of the most numerous branch
of the State Legislature;” and these qualifica
tions, by the different State Constitutions, are
made various and conflicting. But the single
office of this provision ofthe Constitution is to
ordain and to describe the body of electors by
which the House ot Representatives is to be
chosen; and a law distributing representation
among the people ofthe States, by single dis
tricts, would not infringe their constitutional
right of suffrage. This position is made im
movably by precedent and authority. Six of
the original States established single districts
for the election of their Representatives to the
first Congress; a few years after, we see the
same equitable rule governing the elections of
three-fourths; and about the same proportion
have ever since adhered to it. No member of
the Convention which formed the Constitution,
no contemporary exposition of it, ever even in
timated an opinion that the general ticket was
the only constitutional mode of electing Repre
sentatives. That is one of the newborn dogmas
of the day, which cannot abide the test of either
reason or authority.
The 4th section, before quoted, in these words:
“ The times, places, and manner of holding
elections for Senators and Representatives shall
be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
thereof; but the Congress may at any lime, by
law, make or alter such regulations, except as
Io the place of choosing Senators,,” is the only
provision in the Constitution which expressly
establishes and invests any authority to legislate
upon the subject of the election of Representa
tives and Senators; and if it do not confer the
power to determine whether the members of this
House shall be elected by districts or by general
ticket, then the State Legislatures have no juris
diction over that part of the matter; and they
have continuously,from the origin of the Govern
ment, but without question, usurped it. But the
language employed is comprehensive, and does
give, as was intended, both to the State Legis
latures and to Congress, ample authority over
this subject. If it were true, as has been con
tended, that the | owerto regulate “the manner
of holding elections” does not comprehend that
of establishing that they shall take place by dis
tricts or general ticket, how have the State Le
gislatures, at their pleasure, set up the one mode
or the other 1 The Constitution will be search
ed in vain for any other warrant to them. It
will not be seriously contended that the States
have an implied power to conduct this, or any
other operation of the General Government.
The implied powers result from the express;
and the State Legislatures are invested with no
express power, from which this important im
plied one will enure to them. It is strictly of a
legislative character. The Constitution pro
vides that Congress shall have power to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into execution” the powers express
ly enumerated and conferred upon it, “and all
other powers.vested by it in the Government of
the United States, or in any officer or depart
ment thereof.” If this Ist clause of the 4th s ac
tion of article I does not give, sub rnodo, both to
the State Legislatures and to Congress the au
thority to direct that the members ot this House
shall be elected by districts or by general ticket,
then that regulatioh belongs to Congress exclu
sively as an implied power.
In giving this construct ionol the Constitution,
we but conform to that from which there was no
dissent when it was formed and adopted by the
States. Mr. Madison, in his speech in conven
tion, when this clause was under consideration,
says: “ This view of the question seems to de
cide that the Legislatures ofthe States ought not
to have the uncontrolled right of regulating the
times, places, and manner of holding elections.
These were words of great latitude. It was im
possible to foresee all the abuse that might be
made of the discretionary power. Whether the
elections should be ty ballot or viva voce-,
whether the electors should assemble at this
place or at that place; should be divided into
districts or all meet at one place ; should aZZ vole
for all the Representatives, or all in a district vote
for a member allotted to that district— these, and
many other points, would depend upon the Legis
lature, and might materially affect the appoint
ments.” “It seemed to be as improper in prin
ciple, though it might be less inconvenient in
practice, to give to the State Legislatures this
great authority over the elections of the people
in the General Legislature, as it would be to
give to the latter a like power over the election
oftheir Representatives in the State Legisla
tures.”
Mr. Hamilton devoted three numbers of the
Federalist to this provision of the Constitution;
and in his luminous exposition of it are found
these passages: “ They have submitted these
regulations of elections of the Federal Govern
ment, in the first instance, to the local adminis
trations; w hich, in ordinary cases, and when no
improper views prevail, may be both more con
venient and more satisfactory. But they have
reserved to the national authority a right to in
terpose whenever extraordinary circumstances
might reflder that interposition necessary to
its safety.” “If the State Legislatures were to
be invested with an exclusive power of regulat
ing these elections, every period of making them
would be in a delicate crisis in the national situ
ation ; which might issue in dissolution of the
Union, if the leaders of a few of the most impor
tant States should have entered into a previous
conspiracy to prevent an election.” “ But there
remains a positive advantage which will accrue
from this disposition, and which could not as
well have been obialneiHrom any other; I allude
tothc circumstance of uniformity in the time
ofelections for the Federal House of Represent
atives.”
Mr. Hamilton, in the cor,vention of the State
of New York, also, which adopted the Consti
tution, held this strong and precise language:
“ The natural and proper mode of holding elec
tions will be to divide the Stales into districts, in
proportion to the number to be elected. This
State will, consequently, at first be divided into
six; one man from each district, will probably
possess all the knowledge gentlemen can de
sire.”
Patrick Henry had the same understanding
of the nature and scope of this power. In a
speech in the convention of V irginia he said:
“ Ci ngress is to have a discretionary control over
the time, place and manner of holding elections.
I he Representatives are to be elected, conse
quently, when and where they please. As to
ime and place, gentlemen have attempted to
obviate the objection by saying that the time
is to happen once in two years, and that the
place is to be within a particular district or in
the respective counties. But how will they obvi
ate the danger ot referring the manner of election
to Congress?” “ The power over the manner
admits the most dangerous latitude; they may
mollify it as they please.”
This clause attracted much attention and re
ceived deliberate consideration in most of the
conventions ot the States; and the matured and
collective action of a majority of them, embrac
ing then all the largest members of the Confed
eracy, resulted in their severally recommending
a modification of the power with which it in
vested Congress to be adopted as part ofthe Con
stitution. That proposed by Rhode Island is in
these words: “That Congress shall not alter,
modify, or interfere in the times, places, and
manner of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives, or either ot them, except when
the Legislature of any State shall neglect, re
refuse, or be disabled, by invasion or rebellion,
to prescribe the same; or in case when the pro
vision made by the State is so imperfect as that
no consequent election is bad, and then only un
til the Legislature ot such State shall make pro
vision irj the premises.”
Massachusetts recommended an amendment
in these words: “ That Congress do not exer
cise the powers vested in liyem by the fourth
section of the first article but m eases when a
State ehall neglect or refuse to make the regula
tions subversive of the rights of the people to a I
free and cynaZ representation in Congress, agree-:
ably to the Constitution."
Pennsylvania presented her modification of
this provision thus: “ That Congress shall no: I
have power to make or alter regulations con
cerning the time, place and manner" of electing
Senators and Representatives, except in case of
neglect or refusal by the S ales to make regula
tions for the purpose, and then only for such
time as such neglect or refusal shall continue.”
The States ol Virginia and North Carolina
each proposed to modify. this clause, as follows:
“ That Congress shall not alter, modify, or in
terfere in the times, places, or manner of hold
ing elections lor Senators and Representatives,
or either of them, except when the Legislatures
of any Stale shall neglect, retuse, or be disabled,
by invasion or rebellion, to prescribe the same.”
The amendment proposed by New Hamp
shire reads: “That Congress do not exeicisc
the powers vested in them by the luruthsecuon
of the first article but in cases when a State
shall neglect or refuse to make Ute regulations
subversive of Ihe rights of the people to a free
and equal representa.ionto Congress; nor shall
Congress in any case make regulations contrary
to a free anil equal representation.”
South Carolina, also, presented a modifica
tion in these terms: “And whereas it is essen
tial to the preservation of the rights reserved to
the several States and the freedom of the people
under the operations of a General Government,
that the right of prescribing the manner, lime,
and places of holding the elections to the Fede
ral Legislature should be forever inseparably
annexed to the sovereignty ofthe several States:
this convention doth declarethat the same ought
to remain to all posterity a perpetual and funda
mental right in the local, exclusive ol the inter
ference of the General Government, except in
cases where the Legislatures of the States shall
refuse or neglect to perform and f ulfil the same
according to the tenor of the the said Constitu
tion.”
None of these proposed amendments were in
corporated into the Constitution; and this 4th
section was permitted to continue just as |he
members of the Convention formed it, and as
Madison, Hamilton, and Henry expounded it.
All the power which is bestowed upon Congress
remains; the jealous apprehensions with which
the State Conventions regarded it, are gone with
the other illusions of the day. But ihe unam
biguous language in which it is expressed; the
concurring understanding of its nature and ex
tent, by all the great men who composed the
Conventions which framed and adopted the
Constitution, and the restrictions to whichseven
of those Conventions proposed to subject it, give
a key lor its clear and full analysis. It corners
all necessary authority over the subject, by the
terms “to regulate the times,.places, and man
ner of holding elections of Senatots and Repre
sentatives.” It gives to the Legislatures of the
States and to Congress both the power to make
these regulations; and to Congress, also, the
further distinct and important power to alter al
anytime such regulations aslhe States may
make. It commands the Legislatures ot the
States to execute the power with which they are
invested; but it confides to Congress the discre
tion to exercise or not either of the powers en
trusted to it, at all times. No legislation of the
States can prevent Congress from acting on this
subject, either in the form of making these regu
lations or altering those ofthe State Legislatures;
nor can the States qualify or circumscribe that
action in the one mode or the other, whatever it
may be. But Congress, by executing its power
to make these regulations, may exclude and
wholly put an end to the j urisdiction of the State
Legislatures; or, in exercising its other power,
to alter the State regulations to any extent, it
may allow that jurisdiction to operate within as
large or small limits as it may adjudge to be pro
per ; or it may leave to these Legislatures the
exercise of all power over the subject, by itself
abstaining Irom all legislation relating to it.
But when Congress does legislate, either to
make these regulations or to alter such as the
State Legislatures may have prescribed, just
so far as it does act its authority is absolute,
paramount and exclusive. Thio character
would be imparled to its action by the second
clause of the sixth article before introduced:—
“This Constitution, andalllawsof the United
States which shall be made in pursuance there
of, shall be the supreme lawot the land,” &c.
In addition, the discretionary powerwith which
Congress is invested to make these regulations,
or to supervise and alter those of the Slate Legis
latures at all limes, stamps its legislation inthe
premises with an overruling supremacy.
But, the main question in deciding the right
of the Representatives from New Hampshire,
Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri, results
from the power of Congress to alter these elec
tion regulations of the State Legislatures, and
that question is, Does the law under considera
tion alter those regulations? “To alter” is a
term of large meaning, and in its application to
this subject will include any variation in. sub
stance whatever. It impoits a greater power
than any other term, except “to make,” or its
synonyme. WhateveY tl e change—w hether by
adding to, striking from, or modifying—it is an
alteration. The State Legislatures have an im
plied power to alter their election regulations,
but the Constitution gives to Congress the ex
press power to alter those same State regulations;
and as the express power of Congress is as ex
tensive as the implied power ofthe State Legis
latures, any alterations which they can make in
their regulations, whether ol time, or place, or
manner, Congress way al any lime make with
precisely the same effect. For it would be pre
posterous to assume that an alteration ipade liy
the State Legislatures would be valid and oper
ative, but being made by Congress, though in
the same terms, is futile and void.
Some ol the States have passed laws regula
ting their election of Senators, others have not,
and yet the constitutionality ol the latter States
for holding their election of representatives has
not been, and cannot be, questioned. Such
States as have-no regulations by law for their
Senatorial elections may make them also: so
Congress could pass a law regulating the elec
tion of Senators generally ; for that would be an
alteration ofthe election regulations of some of
the States, by adding to them. Congress could
thus establish uniformity in the mode of elect
ing Senators, by enacting a law requiring both
branches of the State Legislatures to choose by
their aggregate vote, and might confine its ac
tion to that, or any other particular regulation
for the election of Senators. That principle has
generally prevailed in Senatorial elections; and,
in consequence of different parties haring fre
quently the ascendancy in the two houses of
many ofthe State Legislatures, andthe difficul
ty and delay in choosing Senators, it may be
come necessary for Congress to embody this
principle into the election regulations, insecure
the uninterrupted representation of the States in
the Senate.
The State Legislatures might alter their ex
isting regulations relating to time, or place, or
manner, confining their action to either one,
and leaving in tact, and in full force and
effect, all relating to the other two; and a
similar a Iteration made by a law of Con
gress would have the identical same operation.
The State of Kentucky elects her representatives
on the first Monday in every August before the
first session of each Congress, as now fixed by
law; and she has all needful regulations of
place and manner. If her Legislature, now in
session, were to pass a law with the single pro
vision that, hereafter, her elections should take
place the first Monday in October next before
the beginning of each tern) of Congress, it
would surely make art alteration in her election
regulations in point of time; and her subse
quent elections, as ofcourse, would be held ac -
cordingly. All the States have their complete
regulations of time, place and manner; but in
many ot the Slates tiie time is variant. If Con
gress -were now to pass a law providing merely
that the election ol representatives in all the
States should be held on the first Monday in
every August before thebeginning ol each Con
gressional term, it would alter the laws of every
State whose time was in conflict, and elections
would take place on the day named bj- Con
gress, but in all other respects in pursuance of
the regulations made by the State Legislatures.
In the ease put, it is true every State would
have all needful the residue of
which, alter changing time wlieie turnfght
clash, orany other feature whatever for which
it might provide, the law of Congress would le
incorporated, and make a harmonious and op
erativesystem. But the t.ret th.a the election
regulations of the States had t een so construct
ed that such a law of Congress could produce a
corresponding change, and then amalgamate
with them and form a complete and practicable
system, could neither give nor add to the valid
ity ot the law; nor would the absence ol such a'
state of case render it less constitutional, or its
obligation less perfect. If the converse propo
sition were true, the obligator}' force < f the laws
of Congress upon this subject would not only
depend upon the nature oftheir own provisions,
but upon the contingency of the particular forms
of the State regulations. This argument may'
be further enforced by’ illustration. Suppose
lowa should be admitted into the Union as a
State during this Congress, previous to which
Congress should pass a law establishing uni
formity -in the time of holding the election ofthe
members of this House: she, not then existing
as a State, could have no regulations of time,
or place, or manner, with which the law of
Congress could commingle; but who can doubt
its potential force, and that it would operate up
on her when she should come into being ? Who
will not admit that, ifher Legislature were to
prescribe a different time, this particular regu
lation would be void, because ol its conflict
with the law of Congress? But the young
State, loyal to the constitution, would, doubt
less, respect the la w of Congress, by omitting
any regulation of time, and would prescribe, all
of place and manner that might be necessary,
and then quietly eiect her representative on the
same day with every other State ofthe Union.
The constitutionality of all laws depends up
on their own provisions and their own intrinsic
effect; and to decide that point, it is only neces
sary to compare the law with the constitution.
A law not in opposition to the constitution it
is difficult to conceive to be an unconstitutional
law; and yet the act of Congress requiring
elections of representatives to be made by sin
gle districtsis resisted as an unconstitutional
law, though admitted, at the same time, that it is
not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the con
stitution. On the contrary, it fa expressly con
ceded that Congress has the undoubted power to
provide for the whole manner of holding such
elections; and that, if it had proceeded to ar
range all the States' into districts, and to make
all other necessary regulations of manner, the
entire law to that exxer.: would have been con
stitutional, binding, and oneialive. The objec
tion is, not that Congress has exercised an un-
coiilUutioyal power, but that it has defectively
executed a constitutional power, by not having
done enough. The law cannot be disregarded,
therefore, as unconstitutional; but whether it
can be.considered as a nullity, and therefore
having no obligation upon the State Legisla
tures, is a difletent, but the true an.l only ques
tion. .
The opponents ofthe law prove that of itself
it is inoperative, unavailable, cannot be execut
ed without auxiliary State Legislation, which
Congress has no power to command their Le
gislatures to furnish; and argue, therefore, that
the law is unconstitutional, is a nullity. This
conclusion by no means follows from the prem
ises; and the assailants of the law artfully seek
to try it by a spurious test— its own capability of
being executed. Whether propria vigon: it can
be put iyi.j practical operation, is not the princi
ple by which its obligation upon thcState Legis
tures is to be determined; it may want that pro
perty and yetbyro means oca nullity. The only
touchstone by which this law of Congress can be
tried is, whether it amounts to an alteration ofthe
regulations of the manner of holding elections of
Representatives that have been prescribed by
the State Legislatures; and the affirmative of
this proposition is so plainly true that any denial
“I it would almost seem to be a subterfuge.
This secund section of the last apportionment
act is to be considered precisely as though it had
been passed by all the State Legislatures them
selves; as any alteration of their own laws on
this subject which they can make, Congress
may at all times make. The State of Missis
sippi elects by general ticket. Were her Legis
lature at its next session to pass a law with the
single provision that, for the future, herelections
of Representatives should be by districts, each
district electing but one Representative, such a
law would unquestionably alter, repeal her gen
eral ticketsystem, although it omitted, whether
from wilfulness or inadvertence, to constitute
the proper districts. An election by general
ticket would be against her existing law, and
she would continue without Representatives in
Congress until her Legislature should again
convene and remedy its defective legislation.
Suppose after passing this law, the House of
Representatives of Mississippi should pass a
law dividing the State into Congressional dis
tricts, in which the Senate should not concur,
to fail by disagreement of the two
state of things would not abstract
from the effect ot the first law, and
the sifegation ofthe general ticket would still
be complete. The law of Congress has just
the same effect in all the States where the gen
eral ticket prevailed as the law of Mississippi
would have in that State. But let us present
the argument that this secondsection, providing
for districts, not being in a form to be executed, is
therefore a nullity, and of no effect in another
point of view. The 4th section of the Constitu
tion—“ The times, places, and manner of hold
ing elections lor Senators and Representatives
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legisla
ture thereof; but the Congress may, at anytime,
by law make or alter such regulations, except
as to the places of choosing Senators”—cannot
be executed or put into practical operation with
out extensive legislation, State or National, and
nobody will contend that it is a nullity. Suppose
the Convention had extended the provision of
the Constitution by adding these words: “ but,
for the election of Representatives each State,
entitled to more than one Representative, sha ll
be divided into districts, and each district sh'ail
elect but one Representative;” would suc’a a
clause be a nullity and not be obligatory on the
State Legislatures? As a part ofthe Constitu
tion this second section would have to be con
formed to by the State Legislatures, all will ad
mit; and yet there it could of itsrjf be no more
executed than as a provision tn a law of Con
gress. In both positions it v/ould require legis
lation either on the part of (he States or of Con
gress to give it practical effect. Because such
a regulation standing alone could not be exe
cuted, does net then p’.ove it to be a nullity.
Why would the State Legislatures be bound by
it and observe it as 'a clause in the Constitution ?
Because it would \.e a part of the supreme law
ot the land, and have a paramount obligation.
But it is a law of Congress, admitted by every
body to be me.de in pursuance oi the Constitution,
which declares that such laws shall be the su
preme la r .» of the land; and its obligation is p’a
ramoun'i to all state authority and all state laws,
and their Legislatures are therefore bound to
eonffjrm to it.
"ihe first section ofthe last apportionment act
Provides, “That, from and after the 3d day of
March, 1843, the House of Representatives sWZ
be composed of members elected agreeably to a
ratio of one Representative for every seventy
thousand six hundred and eighty persons in ev
ery State, and one additional Representative for
each having a fraction greater than one moiety
of the said ratio, computed according to the rule
prescribed by- the Constitution pt the United
States;” and the same section then proceeds to
declare, by names and numbers, how many Rep
resentatives each State shall elect. No person
hasimpugned the constitutionality, validity-, or
obligation of this part of the law; and yet of it
self it is equally incapable of being executed as
the second section. Both were framed with a
view to, and both require auxiliary State legis
lation to give them effect; and the one is justas
mandatory upon the Slate Legislatures as the
other. Both are equally restrictive upon the
discretion of those Legislatures; and they are
under the same constitutional obligation to con
form their legislation to the terms and provis
ions of each. Similar laws of Congress in re
lation to the House of Representatives, and also
to Electors ofthe President, have been respect
ed by the Stales for more than fifty years, and
were never demurred to as being either a nulli
ty, or in the nature of a mandamus upon their
Legislatures. All the State Legislatures have
•eo-operated in making effective the first section
ot the law. by exactly squaring their legislation
with it, even to the sanction of its novel princi
ple ot giving a Representative to the fraction of
a ratio.
But the force of this analogy is attempted to
be evaded, by assuming that all the authority ol
Congress over the ratio of representation is ex
hausted by this first section, and that it is a case
ot complete execution ot constitutional power.
The constitutionality of the previous laws of
Congress apportioning representation, lias never
been doubted : but, bethatas it may,the wildest
opponent of this law will not contend that it was
competent for the State Legislatures to refuse to
passlaws necessary to carry into execution those
apportionment acts, on the ground of their un
constitutionality. Nevertheless, when each of
these laws passed, there were several States
which had a fraction of population greater than
one-half of the ratio; and yet, until the last ap
portionment, no Stale was ever allowed a Rep
resentative for sueh fraction. " The power of
Congress, then, over the ratio and representa
tion in the House, was never before fully exe
cuted. The State Legislatures cannot, there
fore, take the ground that Congress has but par
tially executed its power in the passage of a
law, to justify them in their refusal to perform
a constitutional duty.
But, besides, the argument of a partial or de
fective execution of power has no application to
the present case. The Constitution gives to
Congress alternative powers, and it is not requir
ed to execute citherot them; but whether it will
exercise either, and the extent of its exercise of
its power to alter the regulations of the States,
and the time when it will exercise the one or the
other, are all confided by the Constitution to its
sound discretion. At one session, Congress
might alter the State laws as totlje times ot hold
ingelections ; at another, it might in the same
way regulate the places; and another, the man
ner; and *ll would be constitutional and obli
gatory. So Congress might now pass a law
that, in a l elections ol Representatives, the can
didates receiving a plurality of the votes cast
should be duly elected ; the next Congress might
declare that votes should be given by secret bal
lot, or viva voce ; and a succeeding Congress
might regulate all the remaining particulars of
manner; and these laws would each be consti
tutional and valid, it is not necessary, then, to
a law eon-iiiv-onal. that the power ot
Ctrngress be exhausted. The argument against
this law, that it is :: : ndamns upon the State
Legisk. tmes. v.liiei. ' ■ : are not bound to obev,
and therelme it is : ■ rathe, ar.d consequent
ly a nullity, would seem to result Irom an indis
tinct and confused perception both ofthe nature
of the power of Congress and the duty of the
State Legislatures in connexion with this sub
ject. It is said with emphasis, but most untru
ly, that Congress cannot limit the discretion of
the State Legislatures, or prescribe the form of
their legislation. Congress may, at any time,
make all these regulations of time, place, and
manner, and thus exclude the Slate Legislatures
from all authority over the subject. It may, al
any time, regulate place, and in that way limit
the discretion of the Legislatures, and prescribe
the forms of their legislation to time and man
ner. it may regulatetime,ormanner only ; or,
under the head of manner, it may declare the
way in which votes shall be given; or it may
change, where it prevails, the majority princi
ple to that of the plurality. In these and other
modes, Congress might restrict the discretion of
the State Legislatures, and hedge in the forms
of their legislation, and its enactments would be
constitutional and binding; they would not be
in the nature of mandamus, and the obligation
of the State Legislatures to prescribe all other
necessary regulations, would be imperative.
This power of Congress to alter the laws of
the States is isolated. It is confined to their re
gulations of the times, places, and manner of
holding Congressional elections, and extends to
no other class of their legislation; but the au
thority of the States over this complex matter,
the Constitution makes subject at all times to
the freest exercise on the part of Congress of its
power to alter these State laws. When Con
gress acts, there are not two distinct and inde
pendent systems of legislation ; but, by the force
of the Constitution, it becomes one both of
blended jurisdiction and legislation; and any
alteration it may make of the S'ate law’s, has
the identical effect it would have if made by the
State Legislature. The State Legislatures,
then, holding their power subordinate to this
untrammelled authority to alter on the part ot
Congress, they must submit not only to the liter
al naked alteration itself, but to ail legitimate
consequences. When Congress makes any
alteration whatever, the duty to be peplormed by
each State Legislature is the same it would
have been had the alteration been made by it
self. The system is simple and harmonious.
If Congress pass a law which, either in terms
or effect, amounts to an alteration of the State
regulations, to its full extent, the latter, by
operation of tne Cpnstitvtion, gives place, and
the law ofCongress is substituted. If this pro
cess leaves the mixed regulations complete and
practicable, they go into operation and control
future elections; but if others be necessary, it is
Ihe constitutional duty of the State Legislatures
to prescribe them. Tfc law ofCongress abolish
es the general ticket wherever it had existence.
The States, in the fu Ifilment ofthe general and
absolute injunction of the Constitution upon
them to prescribe all these regulations, subject
to any and every alteration Congress may f rom
time to time make, are bound to make such
other regulations as they would if the act of
Congress were the first section of their own law.
The Constitution of the United States, (which
every meuaber ofthe Stale Legislatures .swears
to support before he enters upon his duties,) and
not the law of Congress, is the mandamus
whieh, in silent but impressive language, per
petually holds all to the performance ofthis
important duty. It is true, the State Legisla
tures may fold their arms and refuse to pass
laws in aid of this provision ot the law ofCon
gress—as they may refuse to establish any re
gid alions of lime, or place, or manner; but be
cause they jnay determine thus to disregard the
Constitution, it surely forms no justification for
their greater outrage ol attempting to nullify a
law of Congress.
Another objection to this law, and one much
relied upon, is its vagueness. It is a principle
of sound sense and universal application, that
a law so vague as to have no meaning, or to
leave its meaning altogether doubtful, willliave
no obligatory force; and if this law ofCongress
be of that character, it certainly is a nullity.
We concede it must be so precise and intelligi
ble as to inform the State Legislatures w hat is
its meaning, and thus enable them, by looking
to the law alone, to perforin their duty under it.
This is all that reason would require; and to
demand any more would be to qualify and to
limit the power ofCongress to alter the regula
tions of the States, when it is conferred in its
utmost latitude; and if.the Legislatures have
the right to shackle it with this qualification,
they may with any others. The only, and the
very plain duty of the Legislatures under this
law, is to divide their States into single districts.
The purpose of Congress to exclude the general
ticket system, and to introduce in its stead the
single district principle, is spoken in distinct
language. If this section were a clause in the
Constitution it would be intelligent enough ; is
it b.ss comprehensible because it is a provision
ofthe law of Congress? Were Congress to
pass a law merely declaring that all elections of
Representatives should be held on the same day,
it wfould want the requisite certainty; because
the State Legislatu res, looking to the law only,
would not know' w’bat way to designate, and in
what form to pass their law's. The same ob
jection, would exist to a law of Congress at
tempting to fix places, without naming them.
The vagueness and uncertainty m these laws,
instead of producing uniformity, would cause
onlj’ c ontusion and discrepancj' in the legislation
of twenty-six States of independent Legisla
tures. But this much-mooted section is invul
ne rable to all such objections.
It is further objected to the exercise of this
pow'er, that it has never before been attempted.
’ Fractions of population, below the ratio, were
never allowed a Representative until last Con
gress. Time nor place of holding elections has
never been regulated bj’ Congress; but all con
cede that they may be. The party opposed to
this law has presented to the consideration ol
this Congress a bill to regulate the time of
electing both Representatives and electors of
President; and yet this argument ol forfeiture
for non user would deprive Congress ot all pow er
over the time, place, and manner of Congres
sional elections, and the time of choos’mg elec
tors, as it has heretofore left the whole to exclu
sive State legislation. This argument is not
entitled to be reasoned.
Among the great variety of grounds upon
which this law has been resisted, it is urged that
in some of the States there was no session of
the Legislatures intervening its passage and the
times of holding their elections, at which the
State could be districted We cannot conceive
how’that matter can be brought to bear on the
validity of the law. Its constitutionality and
obligation are in no way connected with State
laws on the subject, much less with the time-.s of
holding their elections; and the law is to ha ve
its effect independent of all such considerations
during the year preceding the beginning of the
Congressional term; the other States during the
previous year. Congress could not at any time
pass such a law, without causing some inconve
nience to some of the States; but the least
amount would be produced by passing it at the
first session. This law was enacted during the
first session of the last Congress; and between
its passage and the commencement of the pre
sent session, it is believed there was not a State
Legislature which did not hold a session, it
w'ould then in truth, have caused no inconve
nience or additional expense to any ot the States
to have formed the proper districts; the only
consequence would have been, throwing their
election of Representatives from one year to the
succeeding one. But it an extra session ofthe
Legislatures of two or three States had been
rendered necessary, it is no more than what has
often occurred in giving effect to the laws for ap
portioning representation.
It is true that this section does not name the
laws of any ofthe States, or in terms alter any
ot their provisions; nor is it necessary for any
effect that it should. Besides, this form is more
respectful to the State authorities. The Legis
latures of some ol the States incorporate into
their laws regulating the election of Representa
tives a general principle. Congress, possess
ing the same power as the Legislatures to alter
such laws, enacts that a different and incompati
ble principle shall prevail; and the Constitu
al provision immediately applies, and gives the
latter an exclusive, overruling, and paramount
authority. The alteration of the State law is as
completely effected as if Congress had provided
for it in express and precise terms—as if the
State Legislatures itself bad made the alteration.
This Is a common form of legislation. A law
is in existence, and another is passed with con
flicting provisions; it is a maxim of universal
law, that, so far as they arc repugnant, the latter
supersedes, repeals the former. A large pro
portion of the laws of all the United States are
modified, amended, and repealed in this manner;
the American people are taught it every day,
both by legislative example and judicial recog
nition.
The pending bill, before advened to, to estab
lish uniformityof time in the election ot repre
sentatives and presidential electors, is proper
ly enough in this same form; but, it cannot be ex
ecuted of itself, it it should become a law, with
out auxiliary State Legislation; yet it would
not be a nullity. It restricts the discretion ofthe
State Legislatures, and prescribes the form of
their laws, by excluding time; and still it would
not be in the nature ot a mandamus. It, like
the law providing for single districts, would be
constitutional; andthe force of the Constitution,
aided by the virtue and patriotism of the Ame
rican people, would compel the requisite State
legislation to make both effective.
The wisdom and practical good sense with
which the Constitution is so replete, stand forth
conspicuously from this section. The power to
make these election regulations was confcrre.l
upon Congress, to provide forthee.rigenceolanv
ofthe States refusing, ot being unable, from any
cause, to prescribe them; and thus a security
was established against the Government com
ing to an end for the want of a Congress con
stitutionally elected. Butthe State Legislatures
might (as many of them have) abuse this pow
er. The general ticket has often been resorted
to : districts to elect two, three, and four mem
bers, have been frequently formed ; and even'the
constituent partsof a single district have been
changed—and ail to give an undue advantage
to the dominant faction in the different Legisla
tures. The regulations ol the States have ever
been discordant, and some ot them operating
with flagrant injustice. This will be strongly
exemplified by an existing case. Pennsylvania
has elected by single district; New Hampshire
by general ticket. Pennsylvania, being the sec
ond largest State in the Union, has twentj'-four
lb j resi.nt.iti 'es; Nev Hampshire, being one
ol tlie sn:."l| State-. I.t.t four. Therulethat
prevails m I' -ansj, 0.-ania lias divided, or neatlv
divided, her representation politically; whilst
that of New Hampshire has elected her entire
delegation of the same party. The consequence
is, that on neatly alkthe great political questions
which divide the opinion of this nation, New
Hampshire probably has four times, certainly
two-fold, as much power in the present House,
as Pennsylvania. Such contrariety of State
legislation upon this subject (disturbing the
fundamental principle of equal representation)
has existed from the adoption ot the Constitu
tion. Many States of diversified and antagon
ist interests and politics, and each having an in
dependent Legislature, would have always, in a ,
greater or less degree, discrepant and unjus' e- ,
lection regulations. The establishment ot im- .
portant principles (just, wise, amt applicable to i
all of them, and securing the rights of all) is
the character of the supervision which Congress :
ought to exercise over this State legislation. 1
The minor features andthe details should be i
left to the more accurate 1 cal information of the 1
State Legislatures. This complex power, thus
to be distributed, would, doubtless, secure ils
more convenient and acceptable, as well as its '
more just and proper execution, than if it were |
given up wholly ei. her to the State Legislatures
or to Congress. That the Convention expected ‘
it to be thus exercised, is proved by the author- 1
ity ot Mr. Madison. When the Constitution
was before the Convention of Virginia for its ’
adoption, Mr. Monroe interogated him concern
ing this clause thus: “He wished to know why
Congress had ultimate control over the time,
place, and manner of the election of Represen
tatives,” &c. Mr. Madison responded upon -
this point: “It was thought that the regulations
of time, place, and manner of electing Repre
sentatives should be uniform throughout the ,
continent. Some States might regulate the elee- e
tions upon principles ot equality, and others a
might regulate them otherwise.” “Itwas found c
impossible to fix lime, place, and mannerof the t
election of Representatives in the Constitution. i ;
It was found necessary to leave the regulations
of these, in the first place, to the State Govern
ments, as being the best acquainted with the
situation of th<’people, subject io the control ot
the General Government, in order to enable it
to produce uniformity, and to prevent its dissolu- |
tion. And, considering the State Governments I
and the General Government as distinct bodies, s p
acting in different and independent capacities 5 I
for the people, it was thought that particular | (.
regulations should be submitted to the former,
and the general regulations to the latter, &c.
The undersigned think that the following
propositions are clearly made out: That this
law is not unconstitutional, because there is
nothing in it in opposition to the Constitution ;
that it is nut void, in consequence of not being a
full execution ol the power of Congress, be
cause the Constitution permits Congress to ex
ercise so much ol this power at all times as it
may think proper; that it is not a nullity, be
cause it is a clear, intelligible, and substantive
alteration of the State laws, which Congress
' had the right to make; and it plainly and dis
tinctly, by its provisions, informs the State Le
gislatures what they are to do to give it practi
cal effect; that the State Legislatures are com
manded by the Constitution, and bound by their
oats to support it, to divide their States respec
tively into districts, or to prescribe any other
needful regulations to give this law its effect;
and that the general ticket regulation of New
Hampshire, Georgia, Mississippi, and Mis
souri, and the election of their Representatives,
being in opposition to this law of Congress,
which is a part ofthe supreme law of the land,
is void and of no effect.
This law received the sanction of both Houses
ol Congress and been approved by the Execu
tive. In the forms of its enactment, as well as
i in its provisions, the Constitution has been
strictly regarded. The question now is, not
whether it should have passed, but being a part
, of “ the supreme law of the land,” whether a
■ branch ofthe power which made it will uphold
i it, or lend itself to aid certain Slates in its sum
mary and unconstitutional overthrow. If the
law were unwise—nay, mischievous—it would
i still be the stem duty of the House to do its
part to enforce it; and the only remedy would
be its repeal. But, were its policy now in is-
> sue, it could be triumphantly maintained—yea,
> that the passage of such a law has been too
long delayed. It is obvious that it is about as
; much as Congress should do in relation to man-
■ ner, and that the formation ot districts, the ap
, pointment of officers, and other particular regu
: lations of maimer, were properly left to the
; State Legislatures, ft could be demonstrated
that the election of Representatives by single
I districts would secure a larger and more diffu
: sive representation of the people than is attaina
t ble in any other mode; that, by the general
: ticket, six of the largest States would elect 119
t members, and seven ot the free States, 113 rnern
i bers ofthe present House—and thus but little
> more than one half their voters, forming about
1 one-fourth of the freemen oi the United States,
, would wield the popular branch of the Govern-
■ ment; that the general ticket would give the
, selection of candidates, and thus the election in
i fact, into the hands of a few active, forward, and
- bold spirits, and the people would only have the
- privilege of ratifying their caucus decrees; that
this mode in truth does not give a representation
, ofthe people, but only of State majorities, and
■ silences wholly the voice of all minorities,
i though in numbers barely distinguishable from
- the dominant majority; that it'would practical-
- ly change the Government, though its form and
theory might continue, by making the popular
s branch, like the Senate, a representation of the
. States —unlike the Senate too, as the States
: would not here have equal power, but in propor-
- tion to numbers, whereby a mere majority of
s the people ol the State ol'Nnw York would have
- more positive power than Delaware, Rhode Is-
> land, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Michigan,
1 Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missou
f ri, though in the last House her representation
f was so divided as to give her no more than
; Rhode Island on all political questions; that un
r der the next ratio, six ofthe free Slates—Massa-
- chusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, In-
- diana, and Illinois—forming a perfect cordon,
- in perpetual and increasing conflict with some
t ofthe institutions ofthe Southern States, would
unquestionably have a majority ofthe House of
i Representatives; and they might at any time
t dissolve the Government by seceding from the’
f House: that the safety of the small and slavc-
■ holding States is in the prevalence ofthe single
j district principle, which would so distribute the
: representation ot the large States among con
? tending parties as practically and materially to
1 reduce their strength; and that the example of
; one or two of the larger States, in adopting the
f general ticket, would certainly and speedily al
-5 lure all the others from the division and weak
s nessof districts to the adoption of a system
; which would preserve their indivisibility and
: strength—such a change having already taken
s place in the election of Presidential electors.
These great, manifold, and dangerous abu
t ses are not merely ideal. Some of them have
3 occurred; the others are in the course of events,
3 without measures of vigorous precaution. This
i law of Congress, inflexibly executed, would be
-a measure of decided, if not complete efficien
: cy. It is wiser, too, and inconceivably less dis
t ficult to prevent, than it is to correct great polit-
- ical.evils.
s There has been seldom presented for the de
r cision of any branch of the Government a ques
r tion ot equal magnitude or more abiding and
» permanent interest; and it may be be said,
>' without exaggeration, that the nation is anx
i iotisly awaiting the decision.
s We could not contemplate the House of
• Representatives assaulting, and declaring a law
of Congress to be void and of no effect, without
the most gloomy forebodings. The case which
would authorize such an interposition must be
flagitious indeed; but the American people
: might readily believe that'the nullification of
this law by the present House may be porten
i tous of many such assumed cases. If thisgreat,
• wise, just and sanitory measure is thus to be
- struck down, what power can stay the same
• arm, when, in the course of the successive rise
and fall of parties, it may aim blows at other
laws equally obnoxious to a daring, dominant,
and unscrupulous faction of a day 1 It is true
the House is not the tribunal which is to pass
on the validity of many laws; but, with all the
elements of opposition and resistance that per
petually exist to those the most wholesome, none
can have their proper moral force, and all may
be defied, when the popular branch of the law
making power desecrates itself by joining a
league lor their subversion. What a fearful
opening would such a state of things make for
able and reckless demagogues—for profligate
■ and desperate factions ! How distinctly would
it mark the corruptions of politics, the decay of
national morals, and the impending dissolution
of our institutions! Our abiding trust is, that
the people will arouse, throw their betrayers
from them as “the lion shakes the dew-drops
from his mane,”anl snatch the Government and
country from this hopeless abvss.
The minority ofthe Committee offer the fol
lowing resolutions as a substitute for that re
commended by the majority of the committee:
Resolved, That Messrs. Edmund Burke, John
P. Hale, Moses Norris, Jr. and John R. Reding,
sitting members of the House of Representatives
from the state of New-Hampshire ; Messrs. Ed
ward.!. Black, Absalom H. Chappell, Hugh A.
Haralson, Howell Cobb, John H. Lumpkin, Alex
ander H. Stephens, and William 11. Stiles, sitting
members from the state of Georgia; Messrs. Wil
liam H. Hammett, Robert W. Roberts, Jacob
Thompson, and Tilghnian M. Tucker, sitting
members from the state of Mississippi; and
Messrs. Gustavus M. Bower, James M. Hughes,
John Jameson, and James H. Relfe, sitting mem
bers from the state of Missouri, in the present
Congress, not having been elected in pursuance
of the Constitution and law, their seats, several
ly, are hereby declared to be vacant.
Resolved, That the Speaker of this House trans
mit to the chief Executive officer of the States of
New-Hampshire. Georgia, Mississippi and Mis
souri, respectively, a copy of the preceding reso
lution.
GARRETT DAVIS,
WILLOUGHBY NEWTON,’,
ROBERT C. SCHENCK.
G "GEORGIA, Columbia County:
f Whereas, Mary M Gibson, guardian of
Thos W Bealle, applies to me for Letters Dis
missory :
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and sigular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
GABEIEE JONES, Cl’k.
December2Bth, IS 13.
KICHAiOND County, Georgia:
Whereas, Isaac L Tuttle and George M
Newton, administrators on the estate of Amos
Bullard, deceased, applies to me for Letters Dis
mfasory:
These are therefore to eite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office,
LEON P. DUGAS, Clerk.
December 28th, 1843.
JEFFERSON County, Georgia:
Whereas Ashley Philips, guardian of Ly
dia E Philips, minor of Solomon Philips, deceas
ed, applies for letters of dismission from said :
guardianship:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de- I
ceased, to be and 'appear at my office within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under mv hand nt office.
January 23, 1344. E BOTHWELL, Cl’k.
i
GEORGIA, Columbit County: 1
Whereas, Mary M 'Jibson, administratrix
on the estate of Thomas Bealle, deceased, applies !
to me for Letters Dismissory:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all and !
singular, the kindred and creditors oi said deceas
ed, to be and appear at. my office, within the time
prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
rave, whv said letters should not be granted
GAB.tIEL JONES, Cl’k.
December 28 th, 1843.
BURKE County, Georgia: ,
Whereas Benjamin Boyd applies to mefo
letters dismissory on the estate of Abraham Boyd <
deceased: <
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all t
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de- 1
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office,
T. H. BLOUNT, Clerk.
November 30, 1343. * c
" -- - - - t
JOHN R. STANFORD,
Attorney at La\v, a
Clarkesville, Ga. c
Will practice in the counties of Clarke, Frank- t
lin, Habersham, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Gilmer b
Union, Murray and Gwinnett, and in the Federal
Circuit Court for Georgia. jy 17
, CITATIONS.
I I j dAb ERRO County, Georgia ■ I
’ ,A. .' Vher, -; as .’ Alexander H Stephens and Aaron
. W Grn r, administrators on the estate of Owen
[ Holliday, deceased, apply for letters disnifasorv:
These ary therefore to cite and admonish all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said
' deceased, to be andappearat my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why mid letters should not be gra’nted.
! Given mTOer my hand, at office, in Crawford
’ ville. QUINEA O’NEAL, Clerk
’ J “ly 20 ' 18*3.
J EFFERSON County, Georgia:
Whereas, Thomas Matthews and Charles
. Matthews, jr., administrators on the estate of
Aquilla Matthews, deceased, apply for letters dis
mlssory on said estate:
These are therefore to cite and admonish all
> and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
- time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Louisville.
, July 13. 1843. JE. BOTHWELL, Clerk. ,
JEFFERSON County, Georgia:
’ ez Whereas Noah Smith and Elbert Hudson,
executors of the last will and testament of Nancy
’ Wright, deceased, apply to me for letters dismis
’ sory :
t These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
t and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
t ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
I time prescribed by law, to show cause, If any they
- have, why said letters should not be granted.
. Given under my hand at office, .
j December 21, 1843. F.. BOTHWELL, Cl’k.
’ 3 IN COLN County, Georgia:
I LJ Whereas William Jones applies to me for
■ letters dismissory, as guardian for Fanny Walton,
, deceased:
) These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
i and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
. ceased, to be and appear at my office within the
. time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
, Given under my hand at office,
H. HENDERSON, Clerk.
’ Lincolnton, November 23, 1843.
LINCOLN County, Georgia:
Whereas, William Stokes, administrator on
‘ the estate of John Moss deceased, applies for let
' ters dismissory :
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
- and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
t ceased, to be and appear at my office, witliin the
, time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
- have, why said letters should not be granted,
e Given under my hand, at office, in Lincolnton.
HUGH HENDERSON, Clerk.
I Sepfeffiber 12, 1843.
3 /COLUMBIA County, Georgia:
t Whereas William Boroum, and Joseph A.
) Collier, executors of the will of Martha Collier,
1 deceased, apply to me for letters dismissory:
, These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
1 and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
_ ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
j time prescribed by law to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
, ■ Given under my hand at office,
GABRIEL JONES, Clerk.
3 —October 14, 1843.
f a INCOLN County, Georgia:
- «LJ Whereas, Seaborn Mosly applies for letters
. dismissory as administrator on the estate of Pey
ton Hawes, junior, deceased:
’ These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
, and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause,
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Lincolnton.
HUGH HENDERSON, Clerk.
> September 12, 1843. .
1 EORGIA, Richmond County :
t Whereas, Augustus N Verdery and Leon
i P Dugas, executors on the estate of Mathurin
; Verdery, deceased, applies for letters dismissory:
* These are therefore to cite and admonish all
i and singular the kindred and creditors of said de
> ceased, to be and appear at my office within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
j have, why said letters should not be granted.
f Given undermy hand at office in Augusta.
January 4th, 1844. L. P. DUGAS, CPk. _
ICHMOND Co mty, Georgia:
Whereas James B. Bishop, executor on
i the estate of Israel Gilbert, deceased, applies to
i me for letters dismissory :
j These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said
deceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to ahew cause, if any they
' have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Augusta.
5 Jan. 25, 1844. L P DUGAS, Clerk.
RICHMOND County, Georgia:
Whereas, James Gardner, jr., administra
" tor on the estate of James Spann, deceased, ap
plies for letters dismissory :
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
- and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
l ceased, to be and appear at my office, Within the
, time prescribed by law, to show cause if any they
- have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Augusta.
[ July 17, 1843. LEON P DUGAS, Clerk.
J EFFERSON County, Geo gia:
Whereas John W. Alexander, administrator
de bonis non, on the estate of John Stevenson, de
ceased, applies for letters dismissory :
These arc therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased,. to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any
they have, why said letters should not be granted.
: • Given under my hand at office,
; January 19, 1844. E BOTH WELL, Cl’k.
JEFFERSON County, Georgia:
Whereas John W. Alexander, executor of
the last will and testament of Sarah Alexander,
deceased, applies for letters dismissory:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appoar at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given ander my hand at office.
January 18, 1844. E. BOTHWELL, Cl’k.
GEORGIA, Richmond County:
Whereas, Amory Sibley, executor on the
estate of Lewis F Barefield, deceased, applies lor
letters dismissory:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all and
singular, the kindred and creditors of said deceas
ed, to be and appear at my office, within the time
prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand, at office, in Augusta.
Jan 4th, 1843. LEON P. DUGAS, Cl’k.
J"EFFEKSON County, Georgia:
Whereas James T. Bothwell, administra
tor on the estate of John Crooks, deceased, ap
plies to me for letters dismissory:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office.
EBENEZER BOTHWELL, Clerk.
January 4,1844.
1 INCOLN County, Georgia:
-J Whereas, John H. Little applies for letters
dismissory, as guardian for the minor children of
Allen Ramsay, deceased : •
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Lincolnton.
HUGH HENDERSON, Clerk.
September 12, 1843,
V4JARREN County, Georgia:
I V Whereas Bell Thompson administrator of
Benjamin Adams, sen. deceased, applies for lot
ters dismissory.
These are therefore to cite andadmonish all and
singular, the kindred and creditors of said deceas
ed, to be and appear at my office, within the time
prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at Warrenton, this 7th
September, 1343.
PATRICK N. MADDUX, Clerk.
BU riivL Couiiiv, Ge. rgia:
Whereas James M. Reynolds, executor on
the estate of Atton Pemberton, applies for letters
dismissory.
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said
deceased, to be and appear at my office within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Waynesboro.
T. H. BLOUOT, Clerk.
September 9, 1843. *
BURKE County, Georgia:
Whereas, John A. Rosier, administrator
on the estate of Lurintha Archer, deceased,applies
for letters dismissory:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Waynesboro.
Jan. 22, 1844.* T H BLOUNT,’ Clerk. 1
.
BURKE County, Georgia : ’
Whereas, Henry Chance, administrator on 1
the estate of Reuben Chance, deceased, applies
for letters dismissory:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said
deceased, to be and appear at my office within the -J
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Waynesboro.
Jan 23, 1844/ T II BLOUNT, Clerk.
BURKE County, Georgia:
Whereas Eli McCroan, administrator on J
tha estate of John T. Forth, deceased, applies to j
me for letters dismissory: . . ~ a
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all ~
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said
deceased, to be and appear at my office, within
the time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any
they have, why said letters should not be granted. "1
Given under my hand, at office in Waynesboro.
Jan. 23, 1844.* T H BLOUNT, Clerk.
BURKE County, Georgia;
Whereas William Laster, administrator
on the estate of Ami H Dunn, deceased, applies “
to me for letters dismissory: u
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred andcreditors of said de- "
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the _
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why saidletters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Waynesboro.
Jan. 23, 1344.' T H BLOUNT, Clerk.
CITATIONS.
WARREN County Georgia. :
Whereas Amoe Walden, William G.
Walden and Henry Walden, executors of she
estate of Richard Walden, deceased, apply to me
I for letters dismissory :
I These are therefore t > cite and admonish, all
; and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
' ceased, to bo and appear at my office within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office.
1...,. a P-N-MADDUX, Clerk.
January 4, 1844.
,f 44 t-CHMOND County, Georgia:
■ tor on thT h °y eas Andrew McLean, administra
annlies m t? ta r L ' o . f Willia,n Thompson, deceased,
»
’• and sintrul»r t m re i t ? r j cite and ®<itnoniah, al!
e ceased "to be /a * t * n< * rcd 81ul creditors of said de
y 7 i,hin ‘ he
have, why said leUers khenkt’* C .“k ” e ’ ‘ f “"X they
Bran,ed -
• ’ P Dl’G AS, Clurk.
L3URKE County, Georgia:
v v y h( .‘ r V aß James Hampton and John War
/ nock, administrators on the
- Hampton, apply to me for letters dlsmfasoi^- 80 "
~ These are therefor" to cite and ' ■■
I and “ingular, the kindred and reditors of said d"e
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
e time prescribed by law, to show cause, if anv thlv
y have, why said letters should not be granted ”
Given under my hand at office in Waynesboro
Jan. 23, 1844.* TH BLOUNI, m
JEFFERSON County,
Whereas Henry B. Todd, administrator on
" the estate of William A. Lewis, late of said coun
•> ty, deceased, applies for letters dismissory : ’
. These are therefore to cite and admonish all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said’de
' ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
» time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
y have, why said letters should not be granted
Given under my hand at office
January 23,1844. EBOTHWELL,CI’k.
TEFFERSON County, Georgia
ra ,'y her 1 “ a ? ? cury .?.£ on * ;a > admlrll ’<™far On
thcestate of Andrew E Wells, deceased, applies
n to me for letters dismissory:
t- These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ll ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
- time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
0 have, why said letters should not be granted
y Given under my hand at office
January 23, 1844, E BOTHWELL. Cl’k.
BU RKE County, Georgia :
Whereas Andrew Carson, administrator on
tne estate of Joseph Cates, deceased, applies to
me for letters dismissory:
r ; These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ll ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
.. time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
e have, why said letters should not be granted.
V Given under my hand at office in Wavnesbom
Jan. 23, 1844.* T. H. BLOUNT, Clerk
BU RKE County, Georgia:
Whereas John H Tomlin, administrator
- on the estate of William Rogers, deceased, applies
to me for letters dismissory :
s These are therefore to cite and admonish all
. and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
11 time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any thev
have, why said letters should not be granted.
e Given under my hand at officein Waynesboro
Y Jan - 23 ' 1844 '* TH BLOUNT, Clerk.
BURKE County, Georgia :
Whereas, Alexander Murphy, administra
tor on the estate of Charles Scott, deceased, ap
- plies for letters dismissory :
These arc therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditor., of said de
-8 ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
8 time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
': have, why said letters should not be granted.
11 Given under my hand at office in Waynesboro.
Jan. 23, 1844.* T H BLOUNT, Clerk
e —.— ’
y T INCOLN County, Georgia:
JLU Whereas Aaron Hardv and William K
Turner, apply to me for letters of administration
- on the estate of Shadelick Turner, late of said
county, deceased:
a These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
o and singular, the kindred and creditors ol said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office within the
11 time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
d have, why said letters should not be granted,
e Given under my hand at office,
y H. HENDERSON, Clers.
Lincolnton, February 13,1844.
JEFFERSON County, Georgia:
Whereas Henry B. Todd, applies to me for
letters of administration on the estate of Matilda
Lewis, late of said county, deceased :
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
■ and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
11 time prescribed by law, to show catfse, if any they
■ have, why said letters should not be granted.
e Given under my hand at office,
f January 23, 1544. E BOTHWELL, Cl’k.
LINCOLN County, Georgia :
Whereas, Lewis C Parks applies for letters
of administration, de bonis non, with the will an
nexed, on the estate of Wm Parke, deceased:
. These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said
deceased, to be and appear at my office, within
I the time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any
:hey have, why said letters should not be grant
. ed.
i Given under my hand at office.
H HENDERSON, Cl’k.
January 23, 1844.
JEFFERSON County, Georgia:
Whereas William Clements applies for.
. letters of a iministration on the estate and effects
of John Boyd, late of said county, deceased:
These are therefore to eite and admonish, all
. and singular, the kindred and creditors es said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
’ time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
' have, why said letters should not be grtmted.
Given under my hand at office.
January 23, 1841. E BOTHWELL, Cl’k.
BURKE County, Georgia:
Whereas Elisha A. Alien, applies to me
for letters of administration de bonis non, on the
. estate of Daniel J. Evans, deceased:
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
| ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letter iiould not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Waynesboro.
Jan. 23, 1844,* T H BLOUNT, Clerk.
COLUMBIA County, Georgia:
Whereas Greene J. Dozier applies to mo
for letters of administration on the estate of W!i
Ham W. Hardwick, deceased :
These arc therefore to cite and admonish all and
singular, the kindred and creditors of said deceas
ed, to be and appear at my office, within the time
prescribed by law, to ahow cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Appling.
February 6, 1844. G.
RICHMOND County, Georgia:
Whereas John A. Bolder applies for letters
of adniinis'ration, de bonis non, with the will an
flexed, on the estate of William Bohler, late of
said county, deceased :
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at my office, within the
time prescribed by law, to show cause, if any they
have, why said letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office in Augusta
LEON P. DUGAS, Clerk. "
February 7, 1843.
County, Georgia .
▼ y Whereas, Crosby 8 6’kidniore, applies to.
me for letters ol administration de bonis non t on
the estate of John Stith, late of Warren coimty,
deceased: (
These are therefore to cite and admonish, all
and singular, the kindred and creditors of said de
ceased, to be and appear at rny office, within the
time prescribed bylaw, to show cause,if any they
have, why saidletters should not be granted.
Given under my hand at office.
PATRICK N MADDUX, Cl’k.
February 1, 1944.
DI: In’ () (> Ks.
NOTICE. —All persons indebted to
the estate of the late William Buxton, de
ceased, late of Burke county, are hereby re
quested to make immediate payment; and all per
sons having demands against said deceased, will
present the same according to law, to
SAMUEL H. BUXTON, Adm’r.
January 30, 1844.
NOTICE. —All persws indebted to
the estate of Andrew MeElmurray, late of
Barnwell District, South Carolina, deceased, are
requested to make immediate payment, and those
having demands against said Estate will present
them according to law.
LAWRENCE T. SHOPP, Administrator
de bonis non, with the will annexed.
-February 8, 1844.
NOTICE. —All persons having de
mands against the estate of Gilbert Gatlin,
late of Taliaferro county, deceased, are hereby
notified to present them in terms ofthe law ; and
those indebted to said estate are requested to
make immediate payment.
JOHN L. BIRD, Administrator
January 18, 1844. with the will annexed.
NOTICE. --All persons having de
mands pgainst Elizabeth Beal, deceased
will present them, properly authenticated, with
in the time prescribed by law; and those indebted
will make payment immediately to
T 1 bo, STICK, Executrix.
January 11, 1944.
NOTICE,— -All persons ind "bted To
the estate of Dr. Bennet Harris, late of
Jefferson county, deceased, are requested to call
and make immediate payment, and those who
have claims to present them according to law
r ANN HARRIS, Ex’ri.
January 11, 1944.
NOTICE.— The Heirs and Distribu
tees of Isaiah Burton, deceased, late of
Augusta, Georgia, are hereby notified that a por
tion of said estate remains in rny hands undistri
buted. lam prepared to settle wilh those enti
tled to the same, when duly and properly calleri
w JOHN CARTEft, Adm’r
O-The Nashville (Tenn.) Banner will copy
weekly six months, and forward account
n 25 w6m
S. W. HORTON,
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
aug29-ly Ruckerevlle,