Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THIi TIMES. ■: •• * ‘ ‘sj The union of ihestatcs arui thesoverrugntyof die states COLUMBUS, AUGUST 19, 1841 FOR GOVERNOR, ciiarles j. McDonald. Report of Deaths in tho City of Colum bus, for the week ending the 16th inst. I—Teething - - - chiM ]—Fever - • Adult It may be proper to observe that the case of fever occurred in tne person ol ja gentle man from Florida, where fever is now, and has been for some time past, prevailing in some of its most aggravated forms. No fe vers. except of the lightest form, have origin ated in the city during the pr cscnt season— none have proved fatal. WILLIAM S. CIIIPI.EY, President of the Board of Heatih. THE ENQUIRER AND THE ‘IIMES. The ebullitions of temper which recently have been exhibited towards us by the En quirer, with its display of passion in a manner distinguished neither by good breeding nor wit, may very properly suggest the inquiry what conduct on the part of the Times, what pretexts, authorize this violation of the laws of decorum, this lamentable prostitution of the eminent intellectual powers with which the Editors of the Enquirer arc endowed. With the facts before us, separated from extraneous matter —from the circumstances by which they are surrounded—vve do not fear to in vestigate the all-important causes which have aroused the indignation of the Enquirer ; and we invite it to accompany us in the explanation and elucidation of those facts. By reference to our files we perceive that* on the 4th of March last, in regard to the re mark of the Enquirer that “Mr. Granger, the Post Master General, is well known as the candidate for Vice President on the ticket with General Harrison in 1830,” we asked the Enquirer to “be kind enough to state what that ticket was called —and whether Mr- Granger was not placed on it. to conciliate a double interest ? Why make this enquiry it may be asked ? For the reason that, as the Enquirer had alluded to the Presidential elec tion of 1830, and the position Mr. Granger oc cupied, or the part he bore in it—by way of distinction or commendation as we inferred, we wished to remind the Enquirer of the his tory of that contest, and particularly of the view then taken by the party to which the En quirer is attached—and indeed by the whole South—of the peculiar political tenets of Mr- Granger, and of their extremely offensive character. Was there any thing wrong in this—any invasion of professional courtesy ? In the same paper, in reference to the re mark of the Enquirer that “ some of the early political positions of Mr. Webster had never met its approbation”—we asked if the En quirer meant “to say that. Mr. Webster had changed or repudiated any of bis Jormer polit ical opinions.” We inferred from the ancient ard long-standing host ility of the whole South to the political doctrines of Mr. Webster—and from the peculiar phraseology employed by the Enquirer in speaking of him—as well as from its present support of him—that his for mer political positions had been changed. If this were the case, we desired to know the book and page where this change of opin ion could be found—especially as we had sup posed and understood that consistency of po litical opinion and action were two things in which Mr Webster expressed peculiar delight and satisfaction. Was there any thing unprofessional in this; any desire evinced to have “ a regular built war” with the Enquirer ! In the same paper again, in allusion to a re mark of the Enquirer that “our political inst i tutions are, for the next four years, safe from the covert attacks of Federalists and Consoli dationists in disguise”—we could not repress the comment, in view of the elevated positions in the Government of Messrs. Webster and Badger—two of the most steadfast and distin guished Federalists this Union ever held — that the Enquirer would seem to intimate that the disguise is to be removed, and that the at tack will not hereafter be covert." 1 It this were not the intention oi the Enquirer, it cer tainly would have subjected it to no trouble to correct our misapprehension. Os what other interpretation, however, was the remark in the Enquirer susceptible ? Or did it de sign it merely as an observation to fill up so ranch space, without much attention to the meaning it conveyed ? We found it, how ever, in print ; and was there any .thing un professional in directing public attention to it! In connection with this subject, and before we lose sight of it, may wo be permitted very respectfully to ask the Enquirer if it noted the reply of Mr. Clay to the observa tion of Mr. Calhoun that he would not vote for the Loan Bill, until he had something of a showing that the wants of the Government demanded the money? Mr. Clay said that he had heard before ol a refusal to vote sup plies, and that too, in a critical emergency— that, during the last war, such things were done ; and that he considered it moral if not actual treason. Well, for whom was tins re mark intended ? To whom did it apply with awful force ! It is pretty well understood, we believe, that Mr. Clay and Mr. Tyler are not exactly hand and glove with each other, and that Mr. Webster adheres to the latter. This being the case, who doubts the applica tion of the remark, and that, in due time , it will be brought to bear upon the intended victim in all its force — the Enquirer lending a helping hand! Let Mr. Clay and Mr. Web ster once come in competit ion with each other, I and see how the men and presses friendly to the former will assail Mr. Webster, and assail him successfully, for his treasonable course during the war, and the Enquirer, we venture the prediction, will not be the hindmost in b.t terness of invective. As an additional evi dence of the vials of wrath which are prepar ing for Mr. Webster by Mr. Clay and his friends, we observe that the Albany Evening Journal, the Organ of tlie State Atbnhrstra tion, and of leading Whigs in New York, in deprecating some of the acts, or some of the omissions to act, of the Admiuistraiion at Washington—seems to apprehend that the latter may get, or has got.en, into a Hartford Convention Rut. Who is intended to be knocked down by this broadside ? Can the Enquirer tell! But to resume our narrative. In the same paper—lth of March—we di rected public attention to some most extraor dinary statements of the Columbus Enquirer respecting Mr. Granger, then just appointed Post Master General. What were these statements! The Enquirer, in justification of the selection of Mr. Granger for an important station, most until ushingly remarked tiius— “die fact is, if there had ever existed against Mr. Granger the least suspicion of even a lean ing towards that abominable heresy, (aboli tion) he would be far from holding any place in the new Administration. lie has not only denied the charge, and hurled it back with scorn, but has always condemned with great j severity the wretched designs of these people,” j (the'abolitionists.) Who, with the slightest j knowledge of the opinions of public men, could I venture such a declaration! And if present-1 j ed to the public eye—so directly at variance ; with what had been the public impression on j the subject—omitting altogether the facts ap- j pertaining to it—how could it escape the at tention, or fail to elicit the surprise of the most casual observer! Mr. Granger had nev er been suspected of even a leaning towards abolition! ! ! Why, even conceding that pub lic opinion and public reports had been,to a great extent, incorrect respecting the views of this gentleman on abolition, the above re mark of the Enquirer was wholly unauthor ised, and in direct opposition to the notorious facts of the case.* Well—what did we do? What offence did we commit in this particu-*! lar instance ? We chided the Enquirer, to be i sure. We . fated that the “terms” employed by it did not “tally with the fads of the case,” and that, in using them, the Enquirer was “running counter to various of its own state ments, in times past, respecting the peculiar opinions of Mr. Granger on the subject of slavery.’J What farther did we say? And how far vve were justified in the use of the expressions, we leave it to the public to de termine in view of the most incorrect repre sentations respecting a particular matter, ever inserted in a public journal—evincing a de termination to adhere to its party right or wrong. We said that the Enquirer “true to its party instincts as the needle to the pole,” “distended its elastic throat, Anaconda-like &.swallowed any Minister whom the President elect bid it receive, be he Abolitionist, Fed eralist or not. Like the obsequious French man, tell him to go to h —ll—to h—ll he goes.” S’rong, very strong language we admit, but yet sanctioned, we think, by the circumstances of the case. llow could other than surprise and astonishment be felt and expressed at a declaration so directly contravening every known fact connected with the opinions of Mr. Granger on the subject of abolition—and what other inference was deducible from the use of it, than that the Enquirer was resolved to ad here, in any event, regardless of mental in dependence, to the fortunes of its party! On examination it appears also, that in the succeeding week, in the Times of the 11th March, the Columbus Enquirer was again mentioned. And what was then said ? The Enquirer of the preceding day having ob served the most deathlike silence respecting our article of the week previous, to which we have just alluded, we simply observed that vve “certainly expected the Columbus En quirer to say something on the subject, espe cially as it had lauded Mr. Granger in the most unmeasured terms,” that it furnished “no evidence to sustain its statements respec ting Mr. Granger, but it had very prudently refrained from reiterating those statements.” Were not these precisely the facts as they transpired, and were there any indications of “a regular-built war,” by a simple assertion of the truth ! Farther examination shows that “no banters were thrown out” nor any “ declaration of war” threatened or made, until the 27th of May. On that day we published an extract from the Boston Evening Gazette, a literary and neutral paper, whose Editor said he could from personal inspection and observation, pro nounce the whole of Ogle’s celebrated speech about the President’s Mansion and its appur tenances, to be the sheerest fabrication from beginning to end. Our remark, in which the Enquirer was introduced, was in the words and figures following, to-vvit: “vve are certain the remarks of the Gazette will be readily re cognized as just by every high minded and honorable man of whatever party, not excep ting the Editors of the Columbus Enquirer who, if we mistake not, gars Ogle’s speech a place in their columns.” What is here to be found invading the sanctuary of the Enquirer’s honor , or detracting, in the slightest degree, from its very elevated sense of propriety, and what is due to professional courtesy ? Tracing this very important controversy to a later period, vve find that, on the 10th of June, vve had the presumption again to intro duce the Enquirer into our columns, unac companied, however, so far as vve can discov er, by any indications on our part of a hostile character. The Enquirer had published a vindication of Mr. Webster from the charge of Federalism, or rather of opposition to the ! war of 1812, a paper prepared for the New ! York Express, and then in course of rapid j publication in all the Whig Journals. The i Enquirer sent it forth to its readers without one I word of comment, a significant indication we I thought of the conviction of the Enquirer that, I on that particular head, the Secretary of State i was, to say the least, somewhat vulnerable.— j If our conjectures were correct, how did it j comport with that purity and honor which the; Enquirer never hesitates to appropriate to it’ j self, to even indirectly convey to its readers; erroneous impressions of men or things ? In order, however, to elicit the real opinion of the Enquirer respecting the merits of the pa per in question, vve had the audacity to make, on the aforesaid lOtli of June, the subjoined remarks, and if any brimstone be concealed in them, we cannot penetrate the mine. “The vindication in question (Mr. Web ster’eXwill be found in the Whig paper of this city, of the 26th of May, ult., unaccompanied, however, by a single editorial comment. Was this omission intentional or accidental ? If the latter, we hope the editors of that print will and sscct the vindication, and show wherein it • exculpates Mr. Webster from even one of the charges of Federalism, which have been so constantly urged agaiiyt him, and never until recently denied. We ask this much of the ! Enquirer in no invidious spirit. We have ex amined the vindication, without prejudice or partiality, and it strikes us as &me and impo tent to the last degree.” Where is the treason against the Enquirer j in this article ? Is it disrespectful in its tone, or does it say any thing unreasonable ? Are ! there any “banters thrown out,” or any evi- j dences of “a regular built war!” To progress in the inquiry, the 17th of June arrives, and finds the Columbus Enquirer oc- j cupyinga conspicuous position in our columns, j What led to this act of transgression by us— this continued interference with its vested rights ? The Enquirer had, on the 16th of June, in an article respecting the Hanks, tak en a somewhat singular view oftheir condition i and conduct—indeed it was difficult to de i (ermine from the phraseology of the article ! whether the Enquirer really had any opinion j respecting the Banks, and the course they | were pursuing. We stated tire succeeding j day that vve were not certainAhat vve coinpre j bended the meaning of tire Enquirer; and ! proceeded to interpret what vve considered its | true beating, in which interpretation nine | tenths of the community joined. We said that the Enquirer ought to keep on its own side, and not invade our premises—that it was hardly fair to be both Bank and Anti-Bank, thus monopolizing what belonged to itself, and what properly and justly belonged to others. We also submitted some queries to En quirer touching true and outward morality, which were general in their character, and in no-wise invaded personal fe; lings or individu al rights. Was there any thing unprofession ial in this? Did this course on our part indt ’ cate a determination to have “a regular built [war?” On the 24th cf June, vve referred to the publication in the Enquirer of the previous day, of the letters of Messrs. Bolts and Stu art, members cf Congress from Virginia, sane, tioning the reception of Abolition memorials, as the best means of quieting the anti-slavery excitement. These letters, like the defence of Mr. Webster, were unaccompanied by any editorial comments. The idea at once sug gest itself why give currency to such views* unless the Enquirer was inclined to sustain them, and wished to feel the public pulse be fore it committed itself? We, therefore, ask ed the Enquirer, at once and very respectful ly, if it seconded the views of those gentle men, as we wished to reason the matter with it in order that truth might be elicited, and a correct decision made. We were so confi dent that the plan proposed by Messrs. Bolts and Stuart would so utterly fail to accomplish the proposed object, and would result in the very thing which the abolitionists so ardently desired, as the successful commencement of their nefarious designs, the establishment of the right of petition, that we were extremely solicitous to run the proposition out ; observe its progress; and ascertain where and in what it would end. Was there any thing incorrect in this, any violation of professional courtesy? In the discussion which hadoccurred between the Enquirer and ourself respecting the opin ions of Mr. Granger, to which vve have re ferred, the Enquirer mentioned as evidence of the orthodoxy of Mr. Granger on the subject of slavery that he and Gen. Glascock, of this State, had voted for the same resolution ap pertaining to that subject. We thought the difference of views of these gentlemen, in vo ting for that resolution, was very percepti ble, and vve so stated. The Enquirer could not, or pretended not to see how two gentle . men could vote for the same resolution, and not entertain similar views respecting the subject-matter of such resolution. A case in point, however, transpired soon afterwards* jn which the Enquirer was obliged to admit the ground assumed by us in the instance of Messrs. Granger and Glascock, or compromU one of its political friends. Mr. Adams and Mr. Alford, at the beginning of the present extra session, had both voted against the same resolution] respecting the reception of Aboli tion memorials, the former for the reason that he wished the question of reception to be then settled for the right —and the latter that it might be as quickly settled against, the right Where was the violation of professional cour tesy in this instance ! To enumerate the remaining instance of want of professional courtesy, for which only vve have room to-day—on the 15th of July, in an article respecting the Chattahoochee R. R. & Banking Company, vve submitted to our readers the comments of two Journals of this City, respecting that Institution, observing of the Enquirer article that it was “as indecisive and unintelligible as the Bank exhibii itself, equally balancing between its hopes and its fears—up one side and down the other.” If vve had room we would publish to-day the ar ticle in question, to show that it is precisely what vve stated it to be, wholly without point or meaning, conveying no distinct idea of the actual situation of the Bank, nor of the condi tion in which its creditors were placed. Well, where was the sin in this ? What rule of professional courtesy was here violated ? Or what evidences are afforded of our intention to wage “a regular-built war ?” Yv r e shall, in our next, bring up the account with the Enquirer to the present date, and see what other improprieties have been commit ted—what other violations of courtesy have been perpetrated—what other declarations of “a regular built war” are extant—and talk somewhat of that peculiar honor and justice which distinguish the columns of the En quirer. I'lie Enquirer of last week observed ‘ the weapon vve fight with is truth.” In the same paper, are published the follow ing remarks of the Philadelphia U. S. Gazette respecting the opinions of Mr. Everett, (re cently nominated to the Senate as Minister to England, on the subject of abolition : “ As nothing but Mr. Everett’s views on the subject of slavery is assailed, we wonder that the editor dui not pause to inquire what those views were. At present it would ap pear that because he is a Massachusetts man, he is altogether an abolitionist. If no New England man is to be considered free from the charge until so proved in a court of law, we marvel that President Tyler, a south ern man and slaveholder, should have made the nomination, But without knowing what are Mr. Everett’s views on the subject of sla very now, we recollect, when be was a mem ber of Congress, that he gave some opinions which were considered any tiling but fa vora hie to the general views of abolitionists ; and . if vve mistake not. a portion of one of hb speeches was extensively quoted at the Soulh as an argument, strengthened even by scrip-! tural exposition, if not in favor of slavery, at least in tavor oftbe slaveholder. —U. S. Ga-| zette. We desire to ask the Enquirer one or two questions, and very simple ones. Was not j Mr. Everett, subsequent to his service in Congress, a candidate for Governor of Mas isechusetts? In the progress of that canvass, j did not the anti-slavery society of that State, aik the views of Mr. Everett on the slavery question ? In his answer, did not Mr. E, ; repudiate the opinions on this subject previous i!y advanced by him in Congress, and referred ! to by the U. S. Gazette, and openly avow anti-slavery doctrines to an alarming extent ’ 1 Docs not the Enauirer know, or lias it not ! heard, that the nomination of Mr. Everett is ! suspended its the Senate in eonseq ence of his objectionable abolition opinions—and that his r. jection, for this cause, is by no means improb able ? And yet the Enquirer although palm ing upon its readers the above statement with out contradiction, or even explanation, fights with the weapons of truth 111! THE BANKS OF COLUMBUS. The Argus and the Enquirer have both condemned the legal proceedings adopted respecting the Banks of this ei:y. In this pa per will be found a communication, which, after reciting the act lor the resumption of specie payments, passed by the last Legisla ture, embraces also tlie order of the Executive to the Solicitor General ol the Chattahoochee Circuit, to institute legal proceedings, which order, it will be perceived, contemplates the immediate appointment “of Receivers to take charge of the assets. Without pretending to discuss the legal questions involved —or that we understand them fully—vve submit the following state ment of facts which has beet*’ handed to us by a gentleman fully acquaints* 1 with them 1 “It will be seen from the Legislative act and toe Executive order, that it was designed that tlie counsel employed by the State, immedi ately on the institution of proceedings against the Banks, should make application to the presiding Judge (and it*absent, to a Judge of the adjoining circuit,) for the appointment of a Receiver to take charge of the assets of the Bank for the benefit of the creditors thereof. The Argus and Enquirer will not attempt to shew any legal reason against the course of either counsel moving, or Judge granting the order, but look to tlie consequences and effect of Us operation. That the Executive order is in pursuance of the law, to any rational mind seems clear; and that the Judges are bound upon application to so administer it is equally clear. And that this course was intended by the Legislature we are informed that a pro minent Representative from this county has so stated. As to the “clique ” spoken of by the En quirer, who desire to put down the Banks right or wrong, the remark cannot be made to apply to the action had against them, as t in one instance the name of the Receiver ap pointed was suggested by the President of the Bank itself; and in the case of the other Re ceiver to have been appointed, the President ofthe Bank joined in a written request with the State’s Counsel asking the appointment of a certain individual to be made by any Judge to whom the same should be presented.— Hence there could no “ speculation ” grow out of any of these appointments prejudicial to the banks.” THE REVENUE BILL. If it would noi be an invasion of profession al courtesy, we should like to have the opinion of the Columbus Enquirer respecting Ihe revenue or lariff bill which has just passed the House of Representatives, and has been reported in the Senate, with some immaterial amendments, by Mr. Clay'—whether it ap proves of the tax on tea and coffee, and like wise on sugar, molasses and salt, in prefer ence to the imposition of duties on articles of far less importance and general use, which are exempted from the operations of the law —and* what it thinks of the statements (in another part of this paper) of the correspond ent of the Richmond Whig, that the Whigs in caucus determined to exempt tea and cof fee from duty; but were prevented (with a majority of forty) from accomplishing this praiseworthy design by an inconsiderable mi nority of Democrats —every one of whom voted agaiitst the bill ? The New Tariff.— We have transferred to our columns all the matter relating to this oppressive law which has met our eye’ We hope our readers will peruse it attentively as it discloses some of the operations of this law —and especially to what extent it excludes ne cessaries from taxation. From the Columbus Enquirer of yesterday. Without saying one word in favor of a Na tional Bank during the whole campaign, (tlie Enquirer) now endorses the statement em braced in the preamble, introduced into the list Le Llature, by the Hon. Senator from Talbot, that the issue was Bank or no Bank. —'Himes. We have neither endorsed that statement, nor does the.p'eamb'e set to.tli that the issue was “ bank or no bank.” Try again. From the Columbus Times of July 29*h. In a subsequent part ol the same article the preamble of Mr. Smead is quoted, and a por tion of it reads thus — In the great political contest through which we have r j ist passed, the important question at issue before the people, was Bank, or Sub- Treasury. This issue was forced upon them | by the advocates of the Sub Treasury la>v, and \ being compellt and to choose between the two. they : have, by their voice at the ballot box, decided in favor of the first, and against the latter. Ho this preamble what says the Enquirer? “This alone (tlie preamble) is sufficient to settle all cavil as to the issue made before the people in the last campaign.'’ Will the Enquirer be pleased to state the difference between the teims, in a political sense, “ the important question and “ the issue”? Did not the Honorable Senator from Talbot, consider them, in this instance, identical—from his use of them in the Pre amble, in the same connection? “ The im portant question at issue before the people was Bunk, or Sub-Treasurv.” “This is sue,” &c. But the Enquirer did not endorse the state ment in the Preamble. “This alone (says tlie Enquirer,) is sufficient to settle all cavil as to the issue made before the people in the last campaign,” Is the Enquirer afflicted with a temporary derangement of intellect? tV ABIIINGrTON—CONGRESS. t As late as the 12th inst. (last Thursday) j nothing was known respecting the action of the Executive on the Bank Bill. The Sub- Treasury had been repealed by Congress and the President had approved the Bill. The correspondent of the Charleston Courier, un der date of the 12ih inst. entertains no doubt of the disapproval of the President to the Bank BH, in which event he apprehends certainly the resignation of Mr. Crittenden’ j the Attorney General, and the probable retire ment of Mr. Clay from the Senate. The 1 latter, we shoulJ suppose to be, altogether : improhabie. The Distribution Bill in the Senate —and the Bankrupt Bill in the House, were in an uncertain condition. Do not the friends of the Columbus En quirer feel peculiar pride in the ability with which the Enquirer manages important politi cal subjects to which we have called its at tention—and the dexterity with which it dis poses of prominent questions on which we have very respectfully invited discussion ! If they do not, they must certainly be grossly in sensible to the extraordinary merits of their organ. From the Ouimnbus Enquirer ot yesterday. w e cannot imagine, however,for a moment, that the Banks now in operation, will pursue so suicidal a course, and be guilty of such egregious folly as to deliver up their assets to any receiver who may be appointed by Judge King, until after a trial lias been had, and judgment of forfeiture has been entered lip against them, which we hardly regard as a possible contingency. Are the Banks wholly irresponsible 1 The Enquirer, in the first instance, deprecates the appointment of Receivers before the charters are forfeited by judgment of court —and, in the second place, regards the forfeiture of the charters for a suspension of specie payments, as an impossible contingency. Without now questioning either of the positions of the En quirer, we beg to know what remedy can be effectual against the Banks for a violation of their privileges 7 Are they above and beyond a Ji law, wholly above the reach of the peo ple 7 TUG bankrupt bill. This bill as it passed the Senate, and as ij will, probably, pass tnS House of Representa tives, if it pass at all, may be found in a con densed form on the first page of this paper. This synopsis is taken from the Baltimore American, by which paper it has keen pre pared at considerable trouble, and with a view to present accurately all the material features of the bill. Mr. Henderson, of Mississippi, is the framer of the Law. THE CENTRAL BANK. We have copied into to-day’s poper, from the Federal Union of last week, much matter connected with this Institution. We are hap py to perceive that the debt due to the Phoe nix Bank—about which so much has been said, and that has, doubtless, given rise to ag gravated misrepresentations—has been hon ciwbly and satisfactorily discharged. THE COURT HOUSE.’ Is it a fact that the Inferior Court and the City Council have accepted this building from the persons who contracted to complete it, when the roof is so admirably constructed as to permit the water to run into every room of the second story whenever a heavy rain fails 7 MORE OF THE TARIFF BILL. The following letter from the lion. Mr. Proffit, a Whig member of Congress from Indiana—and the comments of the New York Times and (lie correspondent of the Richmond Whig—both Whig Journals—exhibit to some extent the defective and oppressive character of the new revenue bill. These, it will be noticed, are Whig authorities, and among the most orthodox of that school—and if they are so well convinced of the odious operation of one of their own enactments as to attempt its defence in advance—it must surely be bad enough. The tax on tea and coffee (says the corres pondent of the Whig,) “ was particularly ob jectionable to the Whigs.” Why then tax them 7 The Whigs have a majority in Con gress, and the control of its legislation—and could they not extricate themselves from the “awkward predicament” into which, it is pretended, ail insignificant minority placed them 7 Tea and coffee could not be exemp ted because thereby, sugar, molasses and salt would have been also excluded, as the wicked Democrats had so perplexed the majority. Well—suppose they had been exempted like wise! Would any injury have accrued to the people : Are not these latter articles necessaries, and of as general use as tea and coffee 7 Why not suffer them to pass free, if the bill could only be adopted in that shape— and levy contributions on railroad iron—jew elry statuary —and various articles admitted duty free by the provisions of this bill 7 The article from the Richmond Whig is worthy of notice, and is really one of the cool est pieces of impudence in the way of excuse for an unrighteous act, that we recollect to have seen in many a day. The Whigs were desirous, and attempted to exclude tea and coffee from the operation of the law, but were unable to do so in consequence of the trickery and smartness ot the Democrats ! A perusal of the letter of Mr. Proffit will show precisely how much the Democrats have had to do in adopting the extraordinary course of proceed ing referred to in the letter —and whicn led to the passage of the revenue bill, with all its manifest imperfections, as acknowledged by the Whigs themselves. From the National Intel 1 fencer. House of Repkesestatives, Aug. 1,1841. Messrs. Gales & Seaton i 1 ask a small space in your columns to explain a vote given by me on the passage of the bill “relative to duties and drawbac ks,” and which vote is lia ble to misrepresentation. 1 voted tor the passage of the bill mere]}’ to have an opportu nity to move a reconsideration and on that motion to express my dissent trom many of its provisions, having been cut off from saying a word or offering an amendment in the House bv the operation of the previous question. 1 was disappointed even in that, auother gen tleman obtaining the floor, moving a reconsid eration, and again calling the previous ques tion. I was in favor of imposing duties on the luxuries, but not on the necessaries of life. The bill was hurried through the House with haste unprecedented in the annals of Ameri can legislation, and by a tyrannical exercise o. power grossly violative of the oft-asserted principles of the Whig party. Not a sing.e amendment of importance was allowed to be voted on by yeas and nays, and thus individual responsibility was avoided. I thought that, it the majority were favorable to all the provi sions of the bill, the minority ought to have been permitted to say a few words on Import iant amendments, or allowed the still more humble privilege of recording their votes. I will not trespass on your columns by giving l in detail my objections to the bill, or by des canting on the dangerous consequences of such hasty and inconsiderate action. Neither j will I express my abhorrence of the introduc ition of this system of “Mexican legislation” i in a country boasting of its scrupulous regard ; for equity and justice. These are matters for discussion before the people. GEORGE R. PROFFIT. From the New York Times, August 9. The tax on Tea and Coffee. —The Madisonian says : the Revenue bill passed the House by a majority ot 15. It was not free j from objections. But as it was deemed indis-, pensable for the purpose of revenue to meet! the wants of the Government, it was thought j advisable to adopt it although the prepondera-; ling good was not unmixed with evil. A cor- I respondent of the Richmond Whig explains] in the following letter, very fairly, we believe, lire manner in which tea and coffee were sub jected to duty; “There is one feature in which the bill was particularly objectionable to most of the whigs, viz: the tax on tea and coffee. The whig ] members held a caucus on this subject at I which a large majority determined that tea and cofiee should be exempt from taxation. Accordingly, when the bill was under consid eration in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Lawrence of Pa , a prominent Whig member, moved to amend the bill by adding-tea and coffee to the list oi’ free articles. Before the question could be taken on tlie propos ton, Air. Clifford, of Maine, a leading Locofoco and a ready parliamentary tactician, (having been Speaker of one branch of the Legislature of Maine,) immediately moved to amend the a rnendinant of Mr. Lawrence by adding to tea and cofiee, “sugar, molasses and salt.” The whole Locofoco party then united with Air. C. in voting for the amendment to the ameiid i merit, and in conjunction with such of the ultra anti-tariff Whigs as wished tea and cof fee to be taxed, carried the amendment. “The Whigs were thus placed in a very awkward predicament, from which they, in J vain, attempted to extricate themselves.—; Winthrop, of Boston, called for a division of! the question on the amendment as amended j so as to presentthe question separately, but the chair very promptly decided that the vote of the committee having joined them together the chair could not put them asunder. The Whig party were thus compelled either to vote tor tiie entire proposition or to vote the whole down. Under these circumstances they could not hesitate to reject it entirely. And thus it comes to pass that by a dexterous mancevre of the Locos, tea and coffee are to be taxed ! And yet with these facts staring them in the face, I should not be surprised if the Locos had the hardihood to attempt, to raise an outcry against the Whigs for taxing articles which entered into the consumption of the poor ! 1 hope you will keep these facts prominently before the public, and let the peo ple .see the measures which are to be resorted to, to make political capital.” For tiie Times. Mr. Editor: Permit us to suggest the fol lowing names as suitable persons ip represent ihe county of Muscogee in the next General Assembly : For Senator, Col. ALEXANDER McDOUGALD. For Representatives, Hon. WALTER T. COLQUITT, Col. JOHN H. HOWARD, THOMAS LIVINGSTON, and JOHN L. HARP, Esqs. MANY VOTERS. For the Times. Mr. Ed tor: There has been so much said in relation to the law of the last session under which Judge King made the appontment of Receivers lor our banks, 1 send you a correct copy of the act, together with the Executive order, hoping you will publish it and then let the people judge lor themselves. Justice. AN ACT ‘o compel the several Banks of iln.s State to redeem th< tr liabilities in spece, and to provide for the forfei uro of the charter or charters of such as refuse. Sect. 1. Be it enacted, That on the first day of January, 1841, his Excellency the Govern or shall issue his proclamation requiring the several banks of this Slate, their branches or agencies which have heretofore tailed to re deem their liabilities in gold and silver, and ail other banks in this State, shailon the first day of February, 1841, pay to any person or persons (banks and brokers excepted) in spe cie, every bill, note, draft, check, receipt or money on deposit, except in cases where such deposits are by terms of existing contracts j payable otherwise than in specie, issued or] received, or which may hereafter he issued or received by them respectively upon de-. maud or presentation. And in case any oil said banks, branches or agencies shall then or thereafter tailor refuse to comply with and perform ibe requirement aforesaid promptly, ; then his Excellency the Governor, on due j proof thereof, is hereby authorized and re-] quired to cause judicial proceedings to be in stituted forthwith against such defaulting! bank, in the Superior Court of the county] where the same is located, to the end that the j charter of such bank may he declared as for- j leited and annulled— and that the assets of the j same be immediately placed into the hands of\ a receiver under adequate security far the ben- ] efit of the creditors thereof. Provided the I defaulting bank shall not, within five days 1 afier such demand and refusal to redeem its] bill or hills produce satisfactory evidence to j his Excellency the Governor, that there was; an indebtedness then due to sad bank by the) person or persons demanding sp cie, and] equal to the amount then demanded. Copy of the Executive order. It is ordered that John H. Watson, F.srj., Solicitor General of the Chattahoochee Cir cuit, institute Judicial proceedings forthwith in the Superior Court of the county of Mus cogee, against'the said The Bank of Colum bus, being the county in which the same is located, to the end i’hat the charter of the said Bank of Columbus be declared as forfeit ed and annulled, and that the said John 11. Watson, E-q. proceed to have a Receiver appointed under the act of the last General Assembly, intake charge of the assets of said corporation. A similar order has been given relative to the Planters and Mechanics Bank, and the Chattahoochee Rail Road and Banking Com pany. For the f tines. Mr. Editor: What I told you a week or two since has come to pass. 1 said to you, as you may recollect, that if you expected to ;et the Editors of the Enquirer into argument, you would tail, as they were not going to run such risk. I said when you cornered them they would make some dirty personal attack, bv way of drawing attention off from their discomfiture. Verily mv words have come true. What a pitiful subterfuge to resort to the amount of lax you paid, as an argument for or against the principle involved—whether the tax law was oppressive and unjust or not. Pursue the course you have commenced, ex posing the constant misrepresentations of the Enquirer, and its miserable quibbling, and you will see ultimately who will be the gainer in public estimation—and if the Enquirer wants a personal war perhaps you can he fur nished with a fact or two which may be used to some purpose in a war of that sort. L. Punning. —A person named Owen Moore once left his tradesman somewhat unceremo niously, on which occasion a wag wrote — “Owen Moore has run away. Owin’ wore than he can pay.” CENTRAL CIRCUIT CONVENTTCtf. Agreeably to notice previously given, * Democratic Convention was held at Georgia, on the sth inst. John R . *O - was appointed Pres.dent of the Con vention, which was addressed by the Hon. Hiram Warner, of Meriwether ; Gen. H c h A Haralson, of Troup; and William I* Pryor, Esq. of Harris. A committee was appointed to prepare a Report and Resolu tions, which, after consultation, submitted the following REPORT. Whereas a crisis has arrived in the affairs’ of the people of Georgia, when it Becomes i necessary for them not only to proclaim their i principles but to carry them into practice— I when misrepresentation and duplicity i* the ! order of the day —when politicians by their ; professions of friendship for the interests ot the people acquire power, and rei use to grant ! iothem such relief as their immediate neces sities require, but tell them boldly that they would not relieve them if they could, and in crease their burdens by way of taxation it is time to rally at the ballot box, and maintain their rights and privileges as freemen. *1 he contest is now between the wealth cf* a pam pered aristocracy, on the one hand, and an oppressed people on the other. He it therefore Resolved, That the recom mendation ol’ Gov. McDonald to the last Leg islature, for the relief of the people of Geor g.a, entitles him to their gratitude and sup- I port on the first Monday in October next — j and that he will use all honorable means to effect his re-election, lor the reason that he has shown himself the lriend ol the people— not. in profession only, but in practice, i Resolved. That we have entire confidence Hi the Central Bank of Georgia, and lecmn i mend it to be placed upon a looting with the I other Banks in the State, in regard to its is ! sues, and that we look upon those who seek hts destruction, as enemies to the best inter- est of tiie people ot this State. Resolved, That we view the acts of the Whig part y now in power, both in the State and General Government, as calculated to> i oppress the people with increased burdens and. ! taxations, and that we will use every honor a - pie exertion to restore the Government into i the hands of democracy. Resolved. That as the people of the Cow eta Circuit were the first to raise the standard of Relief, they will be the last to abandon it r and call upon every real Log Cabin man in ; lire country to rally to its support. Resolved, That we have entire confidence in the people to redress their own grievances and when the bona fide tenants of the real Log Cabins in Georgia take the business of relief into their own hands, the result will not ! be doubtful. The foregoing report was read and unani mously adopted. On Motion of Col. Boggess of Carroll, Resolved; That the thanks of the Conven tion be tendered to Judge Warner, Gen, Har ralson ad W. B. Pryor, Eq. f r the alfieand patriotic addresses nolivereu by them to this meeting. On niotton of Maj. Long of Coweta,- Resolved, That a committee of three he‘ appointed to wait on those gentleman who ad dressed the meeting, and request of them copy of their speeches delivered this day for publication. The committee named are, A'. J. Long, Wm. A. Spear and Thomas M.Gnlfin, Esqra. On motion of Col. Stell of Fayette, Resolved, That the proceedings of the meeting be signed by the President and Sec retaries and published in the Southern Tran script, and all other papers in the State friendly to the Convention be requested tun publish the same. On motion of Maj. Thomasson of Heard, Resolved, That the thanks of the Conven tion be tendered to the President and Secre- tary for the faithful discharge of their duty. A motion being made and carried to ad journ, the President rose and returned hi* thanks to the Convention and citizens gener ally, tor the order and decorum so strictly ob served by them on the present occasion, and after ex! orting them in a very warm and feel ing manner to kindness and brotherly affec tion toward one another, he adjourned the. Convention without a day. JOHN RAY. President. Wm. A. Speak, T. M. Gkiffin, BY REQUEST. Fiom the Southern Recorder, Aug, TO. We cannot but express the it'most aston ishment at the announcement below, which we t ike from the Columbus Argus. ‘The appointment of Receivers authorized to take possession of that which has not yet been decided by the courts to he subject to be taken possession of, and which, judging from the late decisions on the same points, by the courts of South Carolina, Alabama, and Pennsylvania, never will be decided liable to such custody, presents a case which passes all that we have ever beard in the way of legal procedure. The law is plain in its ver biage, evidently directing the immediate ap pointment of Jleceivers, to follow the decision of the lyrieiture of charter decared by the judgment of the courts, when by that act there would be legally no coiporation in ex istence, or officers created under it, and in volving in it imperiously as a necessary duty the legal appointment of Receivers of the property, or assignees to take charge ot it for the bent fit of its creditors and all concerned- But the Legislature, in directing the Govern or, upon the suspension of bar ks, to test in ihe courts of law their charters, never dreamed” of deciding the matter first, and going to trial afterwards. We cannot imagine how the Judge could have issued such a process, and become the inflictor of the penalty, before he had tried the case. It must have been done without reflection and without ihe usualcon-- sideration given to such ordeis. The hanks we presume, will resist in every way, the intrusion of Receivers so appointed i as they would any other unauthorized intru ders upon their rights under the protection of. the constitution and laws of the State. The Judge has unquesiiona My no a uihnrity to give to others, the right at present to invade the property of the banks, nor will such Receiv ers he shielded from most serious legal conse quences, under sanction of sucli unauthorized power,should they attempt under it to invade the rights of property in this case in accor dance with such a process. A VALUABLE Chattahoochee River Plantation for sale, with* Crist and Saw Mill attached. AVERY desirable plantation, containing fifteen - hundred and fifty acres—lying on the Chatta hoochee River, in the county of’ btewart, 15 miles f oiri Lumpkin, Id from Florence, and 21 from Co lumbus, is offered for sale. On it, are 500 acres of. cleared land, well fenced, and in a high state of culti vauon. The greater part of the uncleared land is oak and hickory, the remainder pine. The Hitcha ehee Cre-k, a never failing stream —passes through the plantation, and on it, has been recently erected a. substantial Grist and Saw Mill, now m successful operation. There is on the place an excellent gin •> house,with screw and running gear complete. The r landin'’ belonging to the plantation is one of the best. o ,i the river, and a wood yard.established at it. to sup- - r,!v s earn boats, can be rendered extremely profitable*, idiia hi®'i pine ridge, one mile and a half from tile’ river, are a small, but comfortable dwelling house and cabins sufficient to accommodate sixty negroes.— This plantation has been settled eight years, and it is said bv those who have resided on the place, that a single case offever has otiginaled on it during fliat period. The Chattahoochee River Plantations are highly valued, and justly considered among, tlye best in the South. A bargain is now offered —aad anv ode de-'” sirotis of purchasing, will do well to examine this place, as a like opportunity may not again soon offer—and a*’ in the event of its suiting, the terms cannot fail to be satisfactory. Richard Ivl. Pitts resides on the plan tation, and will furnish all the information desired, - respecting it. DANIEL McDO¥GAyj. Cohtmbus. June 17 sq rf 1 • • ■ \