Newspaper Page Text
business Cards.
””W. B- VAIL.
WITH
KEAN & CASSEES,
Wholesale and retail dealers in
Fweigi and Domestic Dry Goods
909 Bread at., lat stand of H. F. Russel ft Cos.
AUGUSTA, GA.
J. MURPHY & CO.
Wholesale and retail dealers in
English White Granite & C. C. Ware
ALSO,
Soni-Cluna, French China, Olaasware, ftc.
No. 244 Broad Street,
AUGUSTA, GA.
T. MARKWALTER,
MARBLE WORKS,
BBOAD STREET,
Bear Lower Market,
AUGUSTA, GA
THE AUGUSTA
Gilding, Lookingglass,Pictnre Frame
factory.
Old Picture Frames Reyilt to look Equal to
Eero. Old Paintings Carefully Cleaned ,
Lined and Varnished.
J. J. BROWSE; Agent,
346 Broad st., Augusta, Ga.
E. H. ROGERS,
Importer and dealer in
RIM. GOSS PISTOLS
And Pocket Cutlery,
Ammunition of all Kinds,
•46 BROAD BTREET, AUGUSTA, GA.
REPAIRING EXECUTED PROMPTLY
Has received a
STOCK OP FURNITURE
and is constantly adding thereto, which he will
sell at the
LOWEST CASH PRICES
UPHOLSTERING AND REPAIRING
and all work in his line done in a neat and
workmanlike manner. Satisfaction guarantied.
Orders filled for Sash, Doors and Blinds.
L!GHTCAiS|PI^^B
J. F. ATJLD,
(JaßßiageMamfact’R
ELBERTON, CrEORGIA.
BEST WORKMEN!
BEST WORK!
LOWEST PRICES!
Good Baggies, warranted, - $125 to $l6O
Common Buggies - - - SIOO.
REPAIRING AND BLACKSMITHING.
Work done in this line in the very best style.
The Best Harness
SHy22-l v
T. M. SWIFT. MACK ARNOLD
SWIFT & ARNOLD,
(Successors to T. M. Swift,)
dealers ik
DRY GOODS,
GROCERIES, CROCKERY, BOOTS AND
SHOES, HARDWARE, &c.,
Publie Square, ELBERTONf GA,
H. K. CAIRDIMER,
ELBERTON, GA.,
DEALER IN
11Y Mil (locum
HARDWARE, CROCKERY,
BOOTS, SHOSS, HATS
Notions, &c*
ELBERTON FEMALE
(Megiatefttstitatt
THE exercises of this institute will be resum
ed on Monday, January 21th, 1873.
Spring term, six months. Tuition, $2.50,
$3 .50, and $5 per month, according to class—
payable half in advance.
Mrs. Hester will continue in charge of the
Musical Department.
Board in the best families can be obtained at
from $lO to sls per month,
For further information address the Principal,
H. P. SIMS.
O. ROACH,
MERCHANT
ELBEBTO 3ST a OA-
T? AGS wanted, at tliis office.
XV The highest prises paid ia sash.
rpuT? C A 7PTTP
1 I 1 Vi uA/iE 1 1 Vj.
New Series.
SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES—DE
CEMBER TERM, 1872.
John McK. Gunn, plaintiff in error, vs.
Charles F. Barry. In error to the
Supreme Court, of the State of Georgia.
Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opin
of the Court.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme
Court of the State of Georgia.
On the 12th of May, 1866, the plaintiff
in error recovered in the Superior Court
of Randolph county a judgemnt against
Wm. R. Hart for the sum of $402 30 prin
cipal, and $129 60 interest up to the date
ot the judgment, and costs. An execution
was issued upon the judgment, and placed
in the hands of the defendant in error as
sheriff of that county. He was thereby
commanded to make the sums above men
tioned and further interest upon the princi
pal from the 12th of May, 1866, and the
costs. The plaintiff in error requested him
to levy upon a tract of land of 272 J acres,
belonging to Hart, the defendant in judg
ment. Barry refused. He assigned as the
only reason for his refusal that the premises
had been set off to Hart under the provis
ions of the act passed by the General As
sembly of the State, and approved October,
3d, 1869, entitled “An act to provide for
setting apart a homestead of reality and
personalty, and for the valuation of said
property, and for the full and complete pro
tection and security of the same to the sole
use aud benefit of families, as re
quired by section first of article seventh
ot the Constitution, and for other purpos
es.”
Gunn thereupon petitioned the Supe
rior Court of the county for a writ of
mandamus to compel the Sheriff to make
the levy.
The petition set forth that the land in
question was the ouly property known to
him subjec.t it of his judgment.
61' ufe value df
w 9, situated in the county of Stewart,
which was included in the homestead to set
apart; that the premises in question were
worth the sum of $1,300, and that they eru
biaced a much larger number of acres than
the real estate exempt from levy and sale by
the laws in force when the judgment was
recovered and when the debt on which it
was fouuded was contracted.
It does not appear that these allegations
were denied, and we do nss understand
that there is any controversy upon the sub
ject.
After a full hearing the Court affirmed
the validity of the act iu its retrospective
aspect, end gave judgment against the peti
tioner. The Supreme Court of the State af
firmed this judgment.
The first section of seventh article of the
Constitution of Georgia cf 1868 provides
that “each head of a family,” or guardian
ortrustoe of a family minor of children, shall
be entitled to a homestead of reality to the
value of $2,000 in specie, and personal
property to the value of SI,OOO in specie,
to be valued at the time they are set apart,
and no Court or ministerial officer in this State
shall ever have jurisdiction or authority to
enforce any judgment, decree, or execution
against said property so set apart, including
such improvement as may be made thereon
from time to time, except for taxes, money
borrowed or expended in the improvement
of the homestead, or for the purchase mon
ey of the same, and for labor done thereon,
or material furnished therefor, or removal of
incumbrances thereon.”
The first section of the act of the 3d Oc
tober, 1868, is in the same terms.
It may well be doubtsd whether both
these provisions were not intended to be
wholly prospective iu their effect.
But as we understand the Supreme
Court of the State has come to a different
canclusion, we shall not consider the ques
tion.
The statute in force when the judgment
was rendered declared that the following
property belonging to a debtor who was the
head of a family should be exempt from
levy and sale (to-wit) : “Fifty acres of land
and five additional ones for each of his chil
dren under the age of sixteen years, the
land to include the dwelling house, if the
same improvements do not exceed two hun
dred dollors; one farm horse or mule, one
cow and calf, ten head of hogs, and fifty
dollars worth of provisions, and five dollars
worth additional for each child; beds, bed
ding, and common bedsteads sufficient for
the family ; one loom, one spinning wheel,
and two pairs of cards, and one hundred
pounds of lint cotton; common tools of
trade for himself and his wife; equipments
and arms of a militia soldier and troopet’s
horse; ordinary cooking utensils and table
TAILOR,
ELBERTON, GEORGIA, MAY 7, 1873.
crockery j wearing apparel for himsell and
family; family Bible, religious works and
schoolbooks; family portraits; the libra
ry of a professional man in actual pactice
or business, not exceeding three hun
dred dollars in value, to be selected by him
self.”
Nc one can cast his eyes over the former
and latter exemptions, without being struck
by the greatly increased magnitude of the
latter.
Section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution
of the United States declares thal “no State
shall pass any law impairing the obligation
ot contracts.”
It the remedy is a part of the obligation
of the contract, a clearer case of impairment
can hardly occur than is presented in tne
record before us.
The effect of the act in question, under
the circumstances of this judgment, doesnot
indeed merely impair, it annihilates the
remedy. There is none left. But the act
reaches still further. It withdraws the
land from the lien of ths judgment, and
thus destroys a vested right ot property
which the creditor had acquired in the
pursuit of the remedy to which he is entitled
by the law as it stood when the judgment
was recovered. It is in effect taking one
person’s property and giving it to another
without compensation. This is contrary to
reason and justice, and to the fundamental
principles of the social compact.—Calder vs.
Bull, 3 Dull., 388. But we must confine
ourselves to the constitutional aspect of the
case. A few further remarks will be suffi
cient to dispose of it.
It involves no question which has not
been more than once fully considered by
this Court.
Georgia, since she came into the Union
as one of the original thirteen States, has
never been a State out of the Union. Her
constitutional rights were, for a time, neces
sarily put in abeyance, but her constitution
al disabilities and obligations were
view is to be taken of the provision inuiW"
organic law and of the statute in question,
as if she had been in tull communion with
her sister States when she gave them be
ing.
Though her Constitution was sanctioned
by Congress, this provision can in no sense
be considered an aet of that body. The
sanction was only permissive as a part of the
process of her rehabilitation, and involved
nothing affirmative or negative beyond that
event. If it were express and unequivocal,
the result would be the same. Congress
cannot, by authorization or ratification,
give the slightest effect to a State law or
constitution in conflict with the Constitution
of the United States. That instrument is
above and beyond the power of Congress
and the States, and is alike obligatory updn
both.
A State ean no more impair an ex
isting contract by a constitutional pro
vision than by a legislative act; both are
within the prohibition of the national Con
stitution.
The legal remedies for the enforcement
of a contrast, which belong to it at the time
and place where it is made, are a part of its
obligation. A State may change them, pro
vided the change involve no impairment at
a substantial right.
If the provision of the Constitution, or
the legislative act of a State, fall within
the category last mentioned, they are
to that extent utterly void. They are,
for all the purposes of the contract which
they impair, as if they had never exist
ed.
The constitutional provision and statute
here in question are clearly within that cat
egory, and are, therefore, void.
The jurisdictional prohibition which they
contaiu with respect to the Courts of the
State, can therefore, form no impediment to
the plaintiff in error in the enforcement
of his rights touching this judgment, as
those rights are recognized by this
Court.—White vs. Hart, 13 Wall., 464;
Yon Hoffman vs. The City of Quincy,
535.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of
Georgia is reversed, and the cause will be
remanded to that Court with directions to
enter a judgment of reversal, to reverse the
judgment of the Superior Court of Randolph
county, aud thereafter to proceed in con
formity to this opinion.
James B. Walker, plaintiff in error, vs.
William H. Whitehead. In error to
the Supreme Court of the State of Geor
gia.
Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion
of the Court.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme
Coort of the State of Georgia.
The case, as it appears in the record, is
as follows: On the Ist of January, 1870,
the plaintiff in error instituted this suit
against the defendant in error upon a prom
issory note, made by the latter to the form
er, dated March 28th, 1864, for $7,219 47,
payable on the 19th of March then ensuing.
The defendant interposed two picas; (1)
That after the maturity of the note he had
tendered payment in Confederate Treasury
notes; (2) that he was a loser by the result
of the late war against the United States of
one hundred negroes worth $50,000, and of
Confederate securities of the value of
$20,000; that he was a citizen of the Confed
erate States who waged and caried on that tvar
and that he pleads those loses as an offset
to the plaintiff to the amount of the princi
pal and interest of that demand.
When the case was called on the calendar
the defendant moved the Court to dismiss
it, because the plaintiff had not filed an affi
davit of the payment of the taxes upon the
note, as required by the act of the Legisla
ture of Georgia of the 13th of October,
1870. The plaintiff objected upon several
grounds. The Court overruled his objec
tion and dismissed the case. The plaintiff
thereupon removed it to the Supreme Court
of the State. The Court affirmed the judg
ment of the Court beiow.
The first and seoond sections of the act re
ferred to are ns follows:
“Section 1. That in all suits pending,
or hereafter brought, in or before any Court
of the State, founded upon any debt or con
tract or cause of action made or implied be.
fore the first of June, 1865, or upon any
other debt or contract in renewal thereof, it
shall not be lawful for the plaintiff to have
a verdict or judgment in his favor, unless
he has made it clearly to appear before the
tribunal trying the same that all legal taxes
chargeable by law upon the same have
been duly paid for each year since the
making or implying of said debt or con
tract
“Sec. 2. In any suit now pending, or
M'-j ■****■*“*> 0 j the dmw
the plaintiff, within six months after the
passage of this act, if the suit be pending,
and at the filing ot the writ if the suit be
hereafter brought, to file with the Clerk of
the Court ot Justice an affidavit, if the suit
was founded on any debt or contract as as
cribed in section one, that all legal charges
chargeable bylaw upon such debt or contract
have been duly paid, or the income thereon
for each year, since the makiug of the same>
and that he expects to prove the same up
on the trial; and upon failure to file such
affidavit as herein required, said suit shall,
on motion be dismissed.”
The 4th section decares tt to be a condi
tion precedent to a recovery that “the said
debt has been regularly given in lor taxes,
and the taxes paid.”
The sth section provides, in respect ot
judgments already rendered, that no levy
or sale shall be made uuless an affidavit be
made that all taxes “have been duly
paid from the time of making said
contract to the time of attaching the affi
davit.”
The 6th section provides that in all cases
ot indebtedness of this class the defendant
may offseet “any losses he may have suffered
by, or inconsequence of, the late war against
the United States,” whether the said losses
“be from the destruction or deprecation of
property.”
The 7th section declares that these dama
ges shall not be considerate as “ too remote
or speculative, if it appekr that they were
fairly and legitimately produced, directly
or indirectly, by said war or the results
thereof.”
The 9th section provides, that these losses
by tha war may be offset against judgments
already rendered.
The 14th section provides that, as to
such debts due to widows and minors, they
are to be settled “upon the principles of
equity, taking into consideration the rela
tive loss of property by the plaintiff and de
fendant.”
The 15th section provides that the pro
visions of the 14th are not to apply where
the defendant is in possession of the prop
erty, for the purchase of which the said
contract was entered into with this proviso:
that “the defendant may elect to give up
the property in his possession for which
such contract was entered into, and such
election shall be the full discharge of such
indebtedness.”
The contract here in question is within
the predicate of this act. It was\nade more
than six years before the act was passed.—
The act was retrospective— a pen
alty not before prescribed lor the non-pay
ment of taxes—and, if such delinquency
had existed for a single year, confi eated
the debt by making any remedy to enforce
payment impossible. The denunciation and
the penalty came together. There was no
Vol. IX.—No. 2.
warning and there could be no escape.—
The purpose of the act was plainly not to
collect back taxes—that was neither ask
ed nor permitted as a means of purgation—
but to bar the debt and discharge the
debtor.
The act is not an ex post facto law
only, because that phrase in it3 legal sense
is confined to crimes and their pun
ishment.
The Constitution of the United States
declares that no State shall pas3 any
“law impairing the obligation of con
tracts.”
These propositions may be consider
ed consequent axioms in our jurispru
dence :
The laws which exist at the time and
place of the making of a contract, and where
it is to be performed, enter into and form a
part of it. This embraces alike those which
affect its validity, construction, discharge,
aLd enforcement.
Nothing is mo're material to the obligation
of a contract than the means of its enforce
ment. The ideas of validity ond remedy are
inseparable, and both are parts of the obli
gation which is guaranteed by the Constitu
tion by impairment; •
The obligations of a contract “is the law
which binds the parties to perform their
agreement;”
Any impairment of the obligation of a
contract—the degree of impairment is im
material—is within the prohibition ot the
Constitution ;
The Staets may change the remedy, pro
vided no substantial right secured by the
contract is impaired. Whenever such a re
sult produced by the act in question, to
that extent is void. The States are no
more permitted to impair the efficacy of a
contract in this way than to attack its vital
ity in any other manner. Againsts all
assaults coming from that quarter, whatever
guise it may assume, the contract is shield-
anrl c^ect > lauding the
substfmtialmeans of enforcement which ex
isted when it was made. The guaranty of
the Constitution gives it protection to that
extent. Von Hoffman vs. The City of
Quincy, 4 Wall., 525.
The effect of these propositions upon the
jud ment before us requires but a single re
mark A clearer case of impairing the
obligation of a contract, within the meaning
of the Constitution, can hardly occur.
The judgment ot the Supreme Court of
Georgia is reversed, and the cause will be
remanded to that Court with directions to
enter a judgment of reversal, and then to
proceed in conformity to his opinion.
A SHORT SERMON,
BY A. C.
And unto the angel of the church at Smyrna
write, These things, saith the first and the last,
which wss dead and is alive. I know thy works
and tribnlation and poverty (but thou art rich);
I know the blasphemy of them which say they
are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of
Satan. Fear none of those things which thou
shalt suffer; behold the devil shall cast some of
you iuto prison, that ye may be tried, and ye
shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faith
ful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of
life. Rev., ii., 8,9, 10.
Smyrna was another city ot lonia, in
Asia, said to be forty-miles from Ephesus,
and is now called by the Turks Esmir. Dr.
Gill thinks it is probable that this city took
its name from the wife of Theseus, its buil
der, or from an amazon of the same name,
the relics of whose marble bust are to b e
seen there at this day.
The church of Christ here was no doubt
founded by the apostle Paul, by wh< m all
Asia heard the gospel. (See Acts, xix.,
10.)
At the time John wrote this book of Rev
elation, it is supposed (and history seems to
confirm this supposition) that Pollycarp was
pastor or bishop of this church. IreDius
says he knew him, and he was appointed
bishop of Smyrna by the apostles. Here
he suffered martyrdom, and his sepulchre
is yet to be seen. May not this church and
its pastor well represent the state of the
church amid the persecuiions which pre
vailed under the power of the Roman em
pire ? Jesus made do complaint against
this church, as he did against the "church
at Ephesus and others of the seven churches,
though doubtless she was not faultless; but
he seems to deal tenderly with her in her
suffering condition. Jesus had suffered and
died for them in his human nature, and was
risen again for them, and was ready, by his
spiritual presence and his precious promises,
to console and encourage them under their
bitter trials; and though they might be put
to death for his name’s sake, he promisee to
them a crown of everlasting life as the gra
cious reward of their faithful devotioo to
him and to his cause aud kingdom.
Verse 9—“ l know thy works and tribu-
lation and poverty (hut thou ait rich).”
He knew their good works (as acknowl
edged in verse 2) and tribulation, which is
a part of the legacy of God’s ohildren iu
this life—it lies in their way to the good,
the heavenly land. Never was the way to
the heavenly canaan, to any travelers, more
thickly strewed with it than to the poor
saints of this period. But it did not escape
the notice of Jesus; the Good Shepherd’s
ever sleepless eye was upon them iu their
troubles. He sympathised with them in theii
soul troubles in adversity; took notice of
their patience and constancy amd strict ad
herence to him! he noticed their poverty;
recognized them as his children—poor in
this world’s goods, having for his sake suf
fered the spoiling of their goods. Poverty
is contemptible among men of this world,
butChrist respects it in all who expose them
selves to it for his sake. He says, “but thou
art rich.” They were rich in faith and
heirs of a kingdom; the uuscarchable riches
of the covenant of grace was theirs; heirs
of God and joint heirs with Jesus, their el
der brother. They suffered with him, they
were surely destined to share in his glory.
Jesus had noticed the blasphemy of some
which claimed to be Jews and were not.
They claimed to be the true Israel of God,
Jews “inwardly,” regenerate persons—for
the Chystians who were baptised were by
the heathens called Jews.
But these were not truly Christian men;
they professed Christianity in words, but in
works denied it; they were men of bad prin
ciples and practices, blasphemed the ways
and doctrine of Christ, and were the causo
ot others doing so. They were false profes
sessors; were nominal Christians, who would
shun persecution for the sake of the gospel;
who were not in reality what they would ho
thought to be. They brought in heresies in
these times, and paved the way of the man
of sin. Hence they are called “the syna
gogue of Satan.” Satan has always used,
as the most effectual engines of his power,
false Jews or lalse professors, professing to
be the ohildren of God, but they were the
children ot the devil, and did his works.
In verse 10, Christ tells the members of
this church at Smyrna to “fear none of
these things.” The devil should cast some
of them into prison to try them, but their
tribulation would be comparatively brief,
only ten days ; admonishes them to be faith
ful unto death, and he would give them a
crown of life.
God’s people all undergo suffering of va
rious sorts. The Christians ot this period
endured scourgiogs, imprisonment, confisca-
They were Tried ;'their*graces were tried;
their faith, love and zeal, their courage md
constancy. Suffering times are trying times,
to prove whether men are real Christians,
whether they have the true grace of God
or not, whether their principles are good
and true, worth bearing persecution for.
“And yc shall have tribulation ten days.”
The literal meaning is supposed to be the
ten persecutions under the Roman em
perors. The first under Nero in the year
66, second under Domitian about the year
93, third under Trojan in the year 104,
fourth under Hadrian in the year 125, fifth
under Marcus Antonius in 151, sixth under
Septimus Severus in 197, seventh under
Maximinus in 235, eighth under Decius in
250, ninth under Valcrianus in 257, tenth
under Dioclesian in the year 303.
It is said the Dioclesian persecution last
ed ten years. Some have supposed that al
lusion is had only to this ten years’ persecu
tion, counting a year for a day, as this is
usual iu these prophetic writings, to put a
day for a year. At any rate, the sense is
that the period and duration of their perse
cution was to be short compared with the
length of their enjoyments after their deliv
erance.
Let us, in conclusion, notice the solemn
charge, “Be ihou faithful untodoath.” This
applies to the ministers of that period to bo
faithful in preaching the pure and unmixed
gospel of Jesus, and in a regular and con
stant observance of the pure ordinances of
the gospel as delivered by the head of the
church and only lawgiver in Zion; to be
faithful in watching over the souls commit
ted to their charge; calling upon men in the
name of the Lord tMfrepent of their sins and
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, continu
ing to discharge all these duties faithfully,
though in danger of imprisonment and
death. It is also to apply to the private
members of the church, to continue in their
faith, hope and love, abounding in the work
of the Lord, continuing in prayer, and dis
tributing to the necessities of saints, and
laboring to extend the knowledge of Jesus
and his grace to the end of their pilgrim
age- ~
Train’s Opinion op Grant and Cod
fax. —In a lecture delivered at St. Paul,
George Francis Train said that he never
met Grant that he did not feel an impulse
to run up to him and say : “My dear Gener
al, I have only a minute and a half to spare,
but I want you to tell me all you know.”
Of the discredited Mobilier he said that
he turned more machinery and made more
noise with a small engine than any man in
the wojld had done; and that he was the
onlv grown up male citizen of the United
States who could divide a lump of dough
with perfect easiness between a hundred
chickens,
A blushing maiden of forty summers en
tered the town clerk’s in Wheeling, We-t
Virginia, recently and asked, in a voice
trembling with agitation, for a license. The
clerk took down the name and address of
the visitor, ‘-{iame aud address of the
other party,” asked the clerk. “Faithful,
and he lives with me,” rcp'ied the fair one.
The clerk looked at her tor a moment, end
blushingly completed the filling in of the
document, which he handed to the lady.
He was astonished at her conduct; she gave
one glance at the license, hoarsely whisper
ed “Monster!” and swept majestically out
|of the office. The clerk had presented her
I with a marriage license, when it was a dog
license she wanted.
I