Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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