Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.