Newspaper Page Text
Souttieru WUifi JSvtra.
Athens, Ga. Saturday, September 20. IS3T.
As several Union presses, and especially the
Standard of Union, has attempted grossly to
mislead the public mind, upon the subject of
Mr. Gilmer’s vote in the Board of Trusteesof
Franklin College, in relation to exempting the
students of College from military duty, we
deem it but an act of justice to that gentleman
to set the matter right before the people;—
which is easily done by' a simple and very short
statement of facts, which, when known, will
be satisfactory to every candid mind, that the
Standard of Union has basely attempted to
torture the transaction into a proof that Mr.
Gilmer entertains opinions as untrue as they
are anti-republican.
The charge made, is this—that Mr. Gilmer,
in the Board of Trustees, voted for a motion
to exempt from militia duty the students of
Franklin College; and thereby evinced a de
sire to create a distinction in society between
the rich and the poor —bet ween the sons of the
wealthy and the laboring classes of the com
munity, and intending to favor the former, by
exempting them from the performance of the
duties required of- every citizen —in bearing
arms and defending his country. Now noth
ing is farther from the truth, as a plain state
ment of facts will shew.
Since the publicity given to this slander,
we have taken the pains to enquire into the
matter from those who were present on the
occasion alluded to, and vouch for the correct
ness of the statement. It is as follows :
In his communication to the Board, the Pre
sident of the University, from an experience
of the evils resulting to the students from the
use of fire-arms, and the performance of mili
tary duty in their volunteer company as well
as general musters six or seven miles from
Athens, recommended that an application be
\ made to the Senatus Acadcmicus to ask the
’ Legislature to remedy the evil, by exempting
the students from militia duty. In accordance
with the recommendation of the President, a
Committee of the Board reported an applica
tion to exempt from militia duty the students of
the College ; which, on Mr. Gilmer’s motion,
was so amended as to extend the exemption to
the scholars in every school in the Stale, and
that the exemption should only extend to said
studentsand scholars in time of peace. Now
from this statement, it will be seen that the
opinions of Mr. Gilmer are directly the reverse
of what is sought to be impressed upon the
public mind as his opinions—that instead ot
endeavoring to draw any line of distinction,
or make a difference between the students of
College and the sons of other citizens, or any
•attempt to favor the former, —the direct tendon
cv and object of his amendment was to place
all classes of the community on the same footing.
The public will be able, herefrom, to judge
with how much correctness this attempt to in
jure the candidate of the State Rights Party
has been made.
Sx- And just as groundless is the charge rela
tive to his recommendations and opinions about.
J Indian testimony, &c. In regard to this mat
' ter, we would earnestly' call the attention of
S the public to the following facts: In 1825,
the party now opposed to Mr. Gilmer (having
then a large majority in the Legislature ) pass
ed a law securing to the State all the valuable
ores, mines, and minerals in the lands belong
ing to the State, and making it punishable with
confinement’in the Penetentiary to secrete or
carry any away —(see Dawson, 286.) In the
Senate, the vote for the law was 43 to 10. I n
the House, it passed without any vote record,
cd ngainst it— (see Journal, 1825.) Among
those who voted for it in the feenate, were
Col. Tennelle, Col. Liddell, Gen. Coffee, Gen.
Walker, and Gen. Wooten, &c. This law,
which secured to the use of the State not only
the gold, but the silver, iron, copper, and all
other valuable minerals in the lands of the
State, was repealed in 1829, whilst Mr. Gil
mer was Governor ot the State, and in accor
dance with his opinion expressed freely to the
members of the Legislature.
The papers opposed to Mr. Gilmer, have
abused him without cessation for what he said
in his message to the Legislature, in 1830, up
on the subject of Indian testimony. What he
did say in that message, was to recommend
the repeal of the following section in the law
of 1829 : “No Indian, or descendant of any
Indian, residing within the Creek or Cherokee
Nations of Indians, shall bo deemed a compe
tent witness in any Court ot this State to
which a white person may be a party, except
such white person resides within the said Na
tions.'’—(See Dawson, 199.) By that law,
Indians were made competent witnesses
against all white persons who resided in the
Nations, and incompetent as to white persons
residing out of the Nations. The effect of
this law,theu, was to make Indians witnesses
against those white persons most liable to be
injured by their testimony (if their testimony
was dangerous,) and to enable bad white men,
who resided out of the Nation, or on tho fron
tier, to go among the Indians and steal irom
and murder them wifhumpunity.