Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2 l;, r as actual discovery could give it, "as prior to the of every other nation ; upon the entrance of the Columbia river, an.l the name given to it, by Captain Cray, an American citizen ; upon the exploration of the c amo river, over land, by Captain* Lewis and Clarke ; upon the settle ment of Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia river, under the protection of the United Slates ; and upon the restoration of that establishment, a> an American possession, in lb It!, by Great Britain. According to the letter of Air. Rush to \ir. Adams, the llritish Plenipotentiaries opposed the claim of the United States upon grounds extremely vague, and entirely unsat isfactory. They adverted to the navigation of Drake anti Cook in that direction, to trading posts said to have been formed in several pla ces with the consent of the Indians, ami insisted that the: unoccupied parts of the North West Coast were as open as they bail ever be> n fi>r the formation of new settlements. The leading object of each partx lia* been to gain tlit* sovereignty <>i the country through which the Co lumbia river and its tributary stream pass. The pretensions of Great Britain, from the feeble manner at which her negotiators were enabled to support them, amount, in reality, to nothing more than the occasional excursions of In i traders among the Indians, and such transient fixtures as were necessary to their comfort for (lie moment. These cannot be ultimately sustained against the right of the United States, founded, as it i-, upon the .- urv ; sos the shore, opto a veiy high northern latitude, bv the fust European discoverrcs ot America ; upon the examination of the mouth of tin C durnhia !iy Capt Gray, and the nation,,; expedition ot Lewis and Cl.nke, tiom the Missis sippi River to < i • Piiciftc. Ocean. It Great Britain had • considered As toria, on the Colin ora, which had been taken by her agents during the late war, ns ;> part of tbe territory <>! the United States, sh would hardly have restored it in 1818, in fulfil mi nt of the stipulation in tbe first article of the treaty ot Ghent, To comprelie and the subject more fully, the reader will understand, that, by the third article of the con vention between tin* United States and Great Britain, of the -Oth of « *<> toher, 1818, the country and waters in dispute w< re, for '.he space ot ten years,to be free&op-. nto the vessels, citizens, and subjects, of the two powers. .Mr. Adams, in his instruc tions to Mr. Rush, laid it down as a basis of negotiation, that the applica tion of colonial principles of exclu sion could not ho admitted by the U. States as lawful, upon any part ot the Northwest (’oast of America, or as belonging to any European na tion. This basis is assumed upon the fact of the independence of the American nations, the rights of ter ritory surviving to them, and the ne cessity there will he for room for the accommodation of their future popu lation. Mr. Adams viewed it as a necessary consequence of the exist ing slate of things, that, henceforth, the American continents would no longer be subject to colonization. He instructed .Mr. Rush to propose to the third article of the convention of the 20th of October, 1818 ; and. with a view to draw a definite line ot demarkajion for the future, to stip ulate that no settlement should liere aiter be made on the North-west coast, or on ary of the islands there to adjoining, by citizens of the Uni ted States north of latitude 51, nor by British subjects cither south of 51 or north of 55. Latitude 51 is the degree at which the U. States are willing to limit their future settle ment, it being understood that the Columbia river branches that far north. As, however, Mr. Adams observed, the boundary line already ran in latitude 18 to the Stony Moun tains, Mr. Rush was authorized, should it be earnestly insisted on by Great Britain, to consent to carry it, m continuance, on ihe same parallel, to the sea. Mr Rush, eventually, submitted to the British plenipoten tiaries a paper proposing the contin uance of the third artie'e of the con vention of the 20th of October, 1518, for a lurther term of ten years, and limiting Brit: h settb meats with in the latitudes of 51 and 55 north The British plenipotentiaries also submitted a paper, proposing to an nul the stipulation of the third article of the convention in question, and to substitute, as a boundary line, front the Rocky Mountains, tire 4tHh de gree of latitude, to the point where that parellol strikes the great iiortii casternmost branch of the Oregon, or Columbia river ; tlicncc, dowi along the middle of t'ae Oregon or Columbia,to its junction withthePaci lic ocean; the navigation of the whole clrannel to he perpetually free to the citizens and subjects of both parties; no settlements to be made by either party within the limits as signed to the other ; settlements al ready formed tqf*ontir.jie to he occu pied, at the ofhe proprie tors, for ten years ; and. for the sam< p> riod, citizens and subjects to pass and repass, as her tol’orc, hr land and water, to trade as formerly, with out duty or impo<t, subject only t tl*’ local regulation* which, in other respect tlu-partic- mov find it ne- ' te-sary to enforce within their re spective pirisdii lions. From this exposition of the Amer ican riiiiin and the fJritish pretension, it will he seen that the main point ot difference h< tween the I : iti (! States and Great Britain, on this subject, tliat the former arc v. filing to con tinue the boundary line along the 49th degree of northern latitude to the Pacific Ocean, while the latter wishes to pursue that parallel no farther than where it will strike the great 'brav h of the Oregon or Columbia, and then to follow that river to the sea, re taining for British subjects, in com mon with American citizens, the free navigation of the whole channel of the stream At this stage"of the ne gotiation the further prosecution ot it appears to have been suspended. In tlie correspondence between Mr. Adams and Air. Rush.it is gra tifying to perceive that the territori al rights of the country were main tained with a full knowledge of par ticulars, and with great ability in argument. Asa proof of the advantages at tending the Napier press lately im ported from England for use of this paper and the Daily Advertiser, our edtf ion of country papers, consisting of 1! J 2'> copies, has been struck off without unusual exertion in an hour and five minutes : with an ordinary press by great exertion, the same could not have been accomplished in less than six hours and a half. [.V. I’. .Inter. FOR THE STATESMAN. Editors. It is an old saying that actions speak louder than words ; And as some of the whining sycophants of the day, who in the year 1824, to blast the hard earned fame of the “Hero of Orleans” were day and night engaged in the unholy cause of calumny, slander, and detraction, since it is notorious that Gen .Tack son is “ the man of the People,” and that Mr. Adams lias become some what unpopular in Georgia ; have now tho unblushing effrontery to come out and say, that they are the friends and supporters of the General , and are. basely attempting to impose on the credulous, and less informed part ofthe community, hv saying that though the friends of Gen. Clark did support a Jackson ticket, they were privately aiding Mr. Adams, in whose cause they arc still engaged, though under false colours. A cs, those same pliant tools of king cau cus, wore then crying out that (Jen. Jackson was a cut throat, an assas sin, a Military chieftain, a despot, a Tyrant, a Federalist, an enemy to free suffrage, and opposed to the best interest of Georgia. Witness the hundreds of publications, that w'ent the rounds in all the venal presses in this and other States. Now that the people of Gergia, may know who they were, and yet are, tho true friends of Gen. Jack son, and of Mr. Adams, you wili please publish the following extract from the Journals of the House ol Representatives of 1024. “ Friday, Dec. 3d. 1821. Mr. Fort ol Baldwin laid on the table a resolution relative to the en suing presidential election. Monday, Dec. 13. The house took up the following resolution as offered a few days since hy Mr. Fort of Baldwin, to wit ; Whereas it is important that the will of the people should prevail in all important elections, and in none is it more so than in that of President ofthe United States, —and it being manifest that general Andrew Jack son, if not the first is decidedly the second choice of the people of this state, and that his popularity in a large portion of the United States and especially in that section in which we are placed is far greater than that of any other individual, and believing as we do that on this subject we act in conformity with the wishes of our constituents, lie it therefore resolved by the legis lature of Georgia, That in the event of the election of President of the United States coming before the H. Representatives, and it appearing that Mr. Crawford who has received the electorial vote of this state, can not succeed to the Presidency, our Representatives in Congress he and they are hereby requested to give the vote of this state to Gen. Andrew Jackson, he being the second choice of Georgia. And the same being read, Mr. Foster of Greene offered the following as a substitute, to wit ; The General Assembly of this tat having already expressed by the election of electors of Preside!: 4 and Y r ice President its decided pre ference for William 11. Crawford foi Die Presidency ofthe United States Resolved, That it is inexpedient ir the legislature at this time |< •vc any further opinion on the si; 1 . ' 4 —and that should the c!?ctior ‘resident come into the Housr Representatives of (lie United tafes w e have full confidence in the 1 (J K ()R GIA ST ATE SM AN. wi'dc m and integrity of our Repre sentatives to whom it belong- to give the vote of this state on tbi important question. And tbe same being also read, Mr. Lumpkin moved that the original & substitute (lie) on the ta-j hie for the remainder ofthe session, j When Mr. Fort of Baldwin railed j for the previous qur*tion. And on the question. 4 shall the main question he now put V The veas and nays were required to he recorded—and are yeas 88, nays 63. Those who ' oted in the affirma tive, are Messr*. Adams; Anderson, Ash, Bates, Blackburn, Burnside Cpllins.l Cull ins, Day, Denmark, Echolls, Fort, of Baldw in, Foster of Columbia, j Fleming. Gholson Gilder, Hazzard. Hendrick, Hutching*, Ingersoil, Ken-j •in, King, Martin, Mattox, McClen don, Murray, Pool. Primrose. Ren-! der, Robinson, Saffold, Scarborough. Watkins, Watson, Wiggins, Wilkin son. Wood of Fayette, Watford. Those who voted in the nega tive, are Messrs. Baxter, Henning, Bled soe Brailsford, Branham, Brockman, Barton, Clarke, Clayton, Clopton, Cochran, Cone, Copp. Crocker Da venport, Dillard, Dougherty, Feath erston, Foster of Greene, Freeman, Gilmore, Graves, Hagan. Holt,ll )rnc, Hudson, Hull,, Kelly, Kolb, Lane Law, Lawson, Leonard, Lumpkin. .Mays. Meroncv, Morriwcthor, Mitch ell of Wilkinson, Mitchell, of Pulas ki, Moreland, Myers, Oliver, Pooler, Pope, Quarterman, Randolph, Rea,| Rembert Reynolds, Roberts, Sco vell, Smith of llryan. Smith of] Scriven, Stapleton, Stewart, Thom as of Mclntosh, Thomas of Warren, Turner, 'Untie Walthour, Warren, Welch, Witt. So the House refused to put the main qu stjon, and the original and substitute ordered to lie on the ta ble for the present. Tuesd.iv, Dec. 14. On motion of Air. Lumpkin to take up the original resolution and substitute on the Presidential ques tion, as entered on tbe journals of yesterday, and ordered to lie on the table— ’ The yeas and nays were required to be recorded and are—yeas 50, nays 42. Those who voted in the affirma tive, are Messrs. Baxter,Bledsoe,Brailsford Branham, Brockman, Burton, Clarke Clopt on,Cochran, Cone,Copp,Croc le er,Cullins,Davenport .Dillard, Dough erty.Feathersfon, Foster of Greene, Freeman, Gilmore, Graves, Hadley Hagan,Harden, Holt, Horne, Hudson Hull, Kelly, Kolb,Law, Lawson, Leo nard, Lumpkin, Mays, Meriwether, M itchell of Pulaski, Moreland,Mvre-, Oliver, Pooler, Pope, Quarterman. Randolph, Rea, Rembert, Reynolds, Roberts, Scovell, Smith of Bryan, Stapleton, Thomas of Mclntosh, Thomas of Warren, Tutlc, Walthour, Warren, Welch, Witt, Those who voted in the negative, are Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Ash, Bates, Benning, Blackburn, Burnside, Clayton, Collins, Day, Denmark,Ech ols, Foster of Columbia, Fleming, Gho’ on, Glider, Hazzard, Hendrick. Hicks, Hutchings, Ingersoil, King. Martin, Mattox, McClendon, Mero nnv, Murray, Pool, Primrose, Bor der, Robinson, Saffold, Scarborough, Smith of Scriven, Stewart, Turner, Watkins, Wiggins, Wilkinson, Will cox, Wood of Early, Wood of Fay ette. The original resolution and the substitute were then taken up and read—when Mr. Hendrick, moved that they lie on the tabic for further consider ation, Upon which motion, The yeas and nays were required to he recorded, and are—yeas 38, nays 00. Those who voted in the affirma tive, arc Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Ash, Bates, Benning, Blackburn, Burnside, Clayton, Collins, Day, Denmark, Echols, Foster of Columbia, Flem ing, Gholson, Gilder, Hazzard, Hen drick, Hicks, Hutchings, Ingersoil, Kelly, King, Martin, McClendon, Murray, Pool, Primrose, Render, Robinson, Saffold, Stewart. Turner, W iggins, Wilkinson, Willcox, Wood of Early, Wood of Fayette. Those who voted in the nega tive, arc Messrs. Baxter, Bledsoe, Brail-* ford, Branham, Brockman, Burton, Clarke, Clopton, Cochran, Cone, Crocker, Cullins, Davenport, Dil lard, Dougherty, Featherstou. Foster ol (ireene,Freeman,Gilmore, Graves, Hadley, Hagan, Hardin, Holt. Horne, Hudson, Hull, Kolb, Law , Lawson, Leonard, Lumpkin, Mays, Mattox, Meroney, Meriwether, Mitchell of Pulaski. Moreland, Myers, Oliver Pooler, Pope, Quarterman,!’andolph, Rea, Rembert, Reynolds, Roberts. Scarborough, Scovell, Sini ! h of Brv an, Smith of Scriven, Stapleton. Thomas of Mclntosh, Thomas o Warren, Tutle, Walthour, Warren Welch, V\ It. So the House r. fused to lav th • the original resolution and su! stitute on the table for further consider;.- t ion. The question then recurred on tin motion offered hy Mr. Lumpkin < Yesterday, to lay the ori; ‘aal aud substitute on the table for the re mainder of the session. Upon which motion, ’fhc yens and nays were required be recorded, and are—yeas 63, nnvs 43. Those who voted in the affirma tive, are Messrs. Baxter, Benning. Bledsoe, Brailsford, Branham. Brockman, Bur ton, C larke, Clopton, Cochran.(done. Copp. Crocker, Davenport, Dillard. Dougherty, Feathorston, Foster ‘of Greene, Freeman, Gilmore, Graves, Hadb v, Hagan, Harden, Holt,Horne, Hudson, Hull, Kelly, Kolb, Law, Lawson, Leonard, Lumpkin, Mays, Meroimv. Merriwether. Mitchell of Pulaski, Mitchell of Wilkinson,More land. Mvers, Oliver, Pooler, Pope, Quarterman. Randolph, Rea, Rem hert .Reynolds. Roberts, Scarborough. Scovell, Smith of Bryan, Smith of Scriven. Stapleton, Thomas of Mc- Intosh, Thomas of Warren, Turner. Tutle, Walthour, Warren, Welch, Witt. Those who voted in the nega tive, are Messrs. Adams. Anderson, Ash, Bates, Blackburn. Burnside, Ciavton, C-illins, Cnllins. Dav, Denmark,Ech ols, Fort of Baldwin. Foster of Cc-I lntnbia, Fleming, Ghol on. Gilder,! Hazzard, Hendrick, Hicks, Hutch-; ; ings. liurer.-011, Kenan, King. Lane, I Martin,Mattox, Met Hendon. Murray, Pool, Primrose, Render, Robinson, Saffold, Stewart, Watkins, Watson, W iggins, Wilkinson, Will cox. Wood] of Early, Wood of Fayette. Wofford, So the original resolution and the : substitute as entered on the journals | of yesterday, were ordered to lie on j the table for the remainder of the I session. Wednesday, Dec. 15. i On motion of Mr. Fort of Baldwin, j To reconsider so much of the jour ; an! of yesterday as relates to the i resolutions on the presidential ques j t ion. j Tho yeas and nays wore required Ito be recorded, and are—yeas 38, j nnvs Cl. Those who voted in the affirma ■ live, arc i Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Is!:, [Bates, Blackburn, Claylori, Collins, Day,Denmark. Echols, Fort of Bald win, Foster of Columbia, Fleming, Gholson. Gilder, Hazzard, Hendrick, Tlicks, Hutchings, Ingersoil, King, Martin, Mattox, McClendon, Pool, Primrose, Render, Robinson, Saffold, Stewart, Watson, Wiggins, Wilkin son, W lcox, M ood of Fayette, Wof ford. Those who voted in the negative, are Messrs. Baxter, Benning, Bledsoe, Brailsford, Branham, Brockman, Bur ton, Clarke, Clopton, Cochran,Cone, Copp, Crocker. Davenport, Dilliard, i Feathorston,Foster of Greene, Free man, Gilmore, Graves, Hadley, Ha gan, Hardin, Holt, Horne, Hudson, Hull, Kcliv, Kolb, Law, Law son, Leonard, Lumpkin, Mays, Mer onev, Meriwether, Mitchell of Wil kinson, Moreland, Moncrief, Myers, Oliver, Pooler, Pope, Quarterman, Randolph, Rea, Rembert, Reynolds, Robert “.Scarborough,Scovell, Smith of Scriven, Stapleton, Thomas of Mclntosh, Thomas of Warren, Tur ner, Walthour, Watkins, Warren. Welch, Witt. So the House refused to reconsid er. AN OBSERVER. FOR TITE STATESMAN. TO TIIE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA. In the Georgia Journal of the 31st January last, you were presented with an extract from the Avgusta Constitutionalist, in the nature of a commentary upon an Act, passed at the last session of your Legislature, “to lay off tho State into se% r en Con gressional Districts.” Whatever may have been the feelings or emotions excited in the bosoms of others, at any attempt, either organized or sin gle. to defeat the object of this law, it is certainly calculated to impress upon the mind of every sober, moral, and impartial citizen, sensations of deep and melancholy regret. For where is the man of tbe least pre tensions to candor or liberality of sentiment, I mean that degree which pervades the breast of every one who glows with a genuine love for his country, that would consent to see the will ot her Legislature de fied, the majesty of her laws tramp led upon, and in tlieir stead substi tuted (he quibbles of those who are misnamed jurists, and the machina tions of partizans restless in defeat, and ambitious of ascendency.- 1 speak here, upon tho supposition that the fundamental law has not been viola ted hy the Legislative provision— that shall he reserved for subsequent inquiry. This ground conceded for the present, upon what principle, ofj either moral, or political philosophy can those he justified, who endeavor i to defeat the known will of the body i politic, of which they are members ? I Is not the intention of the plain to flic most common under standing ? Does any one doubt it, except those who stickle for “the grammatical structure of our lan : uage, and the principles of legal ,construction 7 ” Are these 4 princi ples of legal construction,” in reality, rtj thing more than the rules of anmon sense ? Does not cm- glance i this useful faculty discover to the mhm-a! mind !hu olficct of the law ? And is it not demonstrably the duty of every citizen to promote that object ? Is this not more especially the case in relation to all remedial statutes, the rule being restricted ip penal cases, in favor of life, liberty, and personal security ? Beware then, my countrymen, how you confeder ate to paralize a law, which, not be ing in violation of any of your natural rights, has been declared for your benefit bv the supreme authority of the government which you acknowl edge. Its policy cannot regularly be questioned by any political proce dure of your own, prior to the ses sion of ilic next Legislature. It is not a subject for a revolution ; —it is not taxation without representation. If it be oppression, your sister States have long groaned under the yoke, and many of you, who have lived under the system, had happily found an asylum here, until this “ last felt swoop" of usurpation! For this the presses teem with portentous warn ings, and even venture to propose plans & arrangements for the security of the people’s rights! God of Free dom! shall the mighty engines that confounded George and his legions in their march to tyranny, be perverted (to such unhallowed purposes ? And | •hall tho gorgnn head, which Democ ; racy so lately execrated as treason on jibe Hartford Convention, be now es teemed Lor “ fairest best gift” from Heaven ? No, there is a redeeming power in the tranquility and good sense of rural life, that curbs the rage of the riding whirlwind and rebukes the restless-spirits of those who would ride on its wings, and directs its ter rors. How often lias it bound in chains the genii who meditate the tempest, and even stilled the agita ted wave while chafed under their commands? How many a despot masking Lis designs and revolving in bis Ivreast schemes of dominion, has sickened and trembled at the sim plicity and %’iituc ofthe husband men, that make his empire a mocke ry, and the thought of it a malady of 1 the brain, or a canker of the heart ? j And this power will surely prevent a j solemn act of your Legislature from j being disregarded and defeated hy the stratagems of the few. But we ! are not content to rest here, though it might be boldly confided to the people to carry the law into opera tion without diving into “the gram matical structure of our language, and tbe principles of legal construc tion.” The article contained in the Con stitutionalist, embraces three princi pal propositions which it will be ne cessary to examine, viz : That the Act is contrary to the Constitution of the United States—that it is in eff ctual as to its end—and finally, that it is contrary to good policy. It is not intended at present, to extend our research into the last proposi- 1 lion, any further, than it may he re garded as incidental to the one im m diately preceding. Under the first head, to w it. that the Act is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, it is hardly necessary to ob serve that, the fundamental law is paramount to all others, and should be regarded as a sacred law of our nature that cannot he infringed with out serious danger to our happiness. The clause of the Constitution sup posed to he violated is, the Ith un der the 2d sec. of the Ist art. of that ! instrument.—“ No person shall he a Representative who shall not have | attained the age of twenty -fit e years, ! and been seven years a citizen ofthe United Slates ; and who shall not, when elected, he an inhabitant, of that State in which he shall he chos en.” To prevent misapprehension, it may he proper to remark that, there is a variance of four years in our recital and that of the Constitu tionalist. Tiic error was probably the result of accident, and seems no way material to the subject, except by illustration. The language of the Constitution is negative and not posi tive. It provides for its own safety, that none shall be Representatives who have not those qualifications— yet it is not said that all who possess them, shall be eligible as Represen ! tatives. Neither can this latter he implied from the former; for there is no necessary dependence of the one proposition on the oilier. ‘All that can i;e required of (lie General Government is, that it shall not ex clude Representatives possessing these qualifications, when chosen pursuant to the laws of the States. They seem not to he inhibited by this clause from imposing additional restrictions at their discretion; nor is there any express prohibition of this right. The rule of construc tion is, that w hen a power is delega ted that is not exclusive in its na ture, it must be expressly prohibited to the States, in order to deprive them of it. For instance; Congress has power “ to lay and collect taxes vet it not being exclusive or prohib ited, the States have a concurrent power. Thus much may suffice in answer to objections arising under this clause, especially when we should not be concluded, even hy admiting the construction contended for, rois sidnring that particular clause as seperate and distinct from the other parts of the same instrument. But it is a rule of interpretation that the w ilow instrument shall be (ake.i to gether. for the purpose of expound ing it s different parts; they mutually' qualify and explain each other. The [March 21, 4th sec. of the Ist art. of the s*ne instrument, provides that, 4 the time*, places, and manner of holding elec tions, for Senators and Representa tives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regula tions, except as to the [daces of choosing Senators ” The manner of holding elections, is the particular characteristic mode in w hich a choice is made, and w ill be admitted to em brace at least, the vote by ballot, or viva voce, by the general or the dis trict plan. But it will be said this latter may still be adopted hy tho States, without restricting the resi dence of the Representative to a particular district. It is admitted to be so in some of the States, particu larly in Virginia. But the reverse is believed to be true in a large majori ty of the States of the Union.—lt is presumable that those varying plans w ere all taken into view by the con vention, and the manner of holding elections confided primarily to the prescription of the State Legisla tures. The general controlling pow has not yet been exercised by the Congress. In conformation of this view, may be adduced the practice long since established of admitting members to their scats whose resi dence has been restricted to tlieir districts. It is believed that the point is settled beyond dispute in the Federal Councils. We have now passed the giants cause way, and approach the second proposition, viz; That the Act is ineffectual as to its end, or in other words, is void, upon the grounds of its non-confor mity to the “ grammatical structure of our language, and the principles of legal’ construction.” And here you will! permit me to reply to this scholar, in your behalf; —“ though it is our mi sfortune to 1m- rude in speech and unacquainted with your rules of legal construction, though wc have not the c legant polish of your style', the hartnonious modulations of your voice, at id the profound knowledge of laws and government which you hare had leisure to acquire; yet our father’s 1 ave taught us a common language., by which “ we are mutual ly Understood in conveving our ideas, or our w ants ; and when our inten tions are signified, the end of lan guage beii ig; answered, we have been accustom* and to hold it unkind to re mind us ol .any error in the form in which it was conveyed.” Yes, mv countrymen, it is one of the first blessings arising out of the institu tions under which we live, that the making of our laws is generally en trusted to tii'isc of the same habits and pursuits with ourselves; and though they may not be drafted with the fastidious precision of a Coke, or the perspicuity of a Mansfield, are yet sufficiently plain for the direction of those, who are not disposed to throw obstacles in the way of the Government. But, we must even meet this champion, upon at least, one of his grounds; and that is, le gal construction ; —and from this po sition we shall make one effort to close his avenue of approach to the other, and if that prove unsuccessful i disdain to make a second attempt. It is a fundamental maxim of in terpretation, that 41 false grammar does not vitiate a deed.” A fortiori it cannot vitiate a lave. Such is the barbarous protection which common consent lias thrown around the illit erate man, and such will be Ins safe guard, until the hardy strength of the fields shall again he charmed in to submission hy the arts and devices of the cloister"! Until then, italics mny in vain point to prepositions misapplied, or used in an obsolete sense. But the philological contest now comes on in w hich each must contend with each, “ Then comes the tug of warand shall there bo no mediator between these puissant words? Is there nothing of concilia tion in the subject matter?- The title of the Act is, “to lay off the Stale into seven Congressional Dis tricts. I he districts arc then form ed, and the manner of holding eh c tions for Representatives prescribed as follows—“ It shall, and may be lawful for the qualified voters, (for brevity s sake) resident in each of the aforesaid districts, to elect owe Re presentative in Congress in each of the aforesaid Congressional Districts. 1° T ,rov « the fallacy of literal inter pretations, it would seem according to that test, to adopt the reasoning w Inch has been used, that on the day ol general elections the voters of each district should perform the act ol choice, or elect, Representatives, in every one of the districts. That is to say—tlie voter in one rs the districts shall give his vote in every district on the same day . This would be enduing him with a kind of elec toral übiquity, which would he im possible in tlie nature ol things, and the idea preposterous in point of policy. As it is an absurdity, it must therefore be discarded as foreign ironi the intention ol the Legislature. I hose, then who would claim a right ot voting for seven Representatives by choosing one out of rarli district cannot demand it from the letter of the law, as will he discovered by a strict attention to its verbal construc tion; and cannot take refuge with any kind ot consistency under tho reason and spirit of the Act. AGRICOLA •To !>r ronrludril in mir nrxf.)