Newspaper Page Text
■■■J.'JM I l * iMf.. I
CHRONICLE AND SENTINEL.
AUGUSTA.
SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL 11.
No Mail North of Charleston last night.
C. J. Jenkins.
The false positions in which this gentleman
had been placed by the Constitutionalist, and the
Hon Edward J. Black in hi* letter to Governor
McDonald, demanded at ,th(; Hands of Mr. J. a
▼indication, which will be foiin|! in this days pa
per. It is due to’Mr. J. to atkv that his article
has been prepared some days; and was unavoid
ably deferred by us, in conscience of our ina
bility to procure compositors, j
Concert.;
The lovers oi Song, we an* quite sure, will be
particularly delighted to leajrn, that a Concert
will be given this evening, at {VTr. Parsons’ Music
Saloon, which will unite the jeombined talents of
those masters, Messrs. Seu j’ilK, Houncastle
and Latham, aided by the enchanting and me
lodious warblings of the acctjr-iphshed Mrs. Se
ouin. It is the last opportunity that will he af
forded our citizens to witness-the powers of these
distinguished vocalists, and rve trust will
embrace it not oniy as a sourcte of inefable delight
to themselves, but as a just ui jute to merit and
high attainments. f \
Theatre. | \
To-night the ever comic, and eccen
tric Lapsing, and his amiabljj Lady take their
benefit, in a bill of rare attraction. They have
high claims upon the of the drama in
this city, which we are confideiij. will be acknow
ledged this evening by a crowded audience.
New IfbHK, April 5.
Three days later fronj England*
The Columbus, Capt. Gr»i|ipi>r, arrived this
morning early, with dates to tb# 7th ult. from
Liverpool, and the 6th from ; London—having
made the passage in twenty-eigliit days. Anoth
er vessel, the Brooklyn, is below probably two
days still later.
The papers on China are laid before Parlia
ment, but ne debate has yet taken place. It is
now nearly certain that England will make war
in China. The London Tory papers are furious
against Capt. Elliott and the American merchants
in China.
The repeal of the Corn Laws are agitated ter
ribly throughout England. Some descriptions of
their effects are horrible.
Loxnoir, March 6.
Monet Market. —The following is an ex
tract of the chief part of the preamble, sent down
to the Stock Exchange, by the Exchequer Bill
office, this morning:
Exchequer Bill Office, 7
White hall-yard, March 6, 5
“The Lord Commissioners of her Majesty’s
Treasury, have determined that the Exchequer
Bills, dated the month of lane, 1839, February
and March, 1840, charged in aids, and supplies
now outstanding, or about to be issued, and also
the Exchequer iJills, carrying out public works
and fisheries, shall on and after the 16th of
March, 1840, bear interest of 2Jd per diem.
On the above being published at (he Stock
Exchange, in the early part of the morning, it
was considered unfavorable to the funded inter
est; but the financiers looked upon it in a differ
ent light, as it established an undeniable confi
dence.
The raising of the Exchequer Bills to 2sd per
day, is calculated at the rate of interest per an
num £3 Gs sj:d, and the difference between
Three per Cent Consols at the present price is
is. 9d. interest less than the former.
In the Consol Market scarce any business of
consequence has been done during the merning ;
but in the Foreign Market there was a strong
disposition to sell Spanish in the early part of
the morning; expecting they would have come
lower-from Paris. A good deal of dallying still
ciMUinues in the Spanish market. We still re
main in the dark respecting future operations of
the Chancellor of the Eqchequer to raise the
wind, either by funding Exchequer Bills, or by a
loan.
Money in the early part of the day was rather
wanted in the house. Consols have improved
since the morning, and may be quoted 81$ to $
for account; Money 965; Exchequer Bills [new]
12 to 16; Bank Stock shut; India Stock shut;
in India bonds nothing done.
In the Foreign Market Spanish Active reached
295; at present 295; Portuguese a§ ; three
per Cent s 23$ ; Brazilian 78. In Spanish De
ferred and Passive, nothing dine.
STATE OF TRADE.
Masthesteh, March 6.
Cotton Trade.— -No person's judgment as
to the future prospects of parties engaged in the
spinning and manufacturing of cotton would seem
to be, worth any thing, for prices still keep com
ing down in away that has become quite alarm
ing, for since this day se’-nnight, hand loom cloth
has declined fully lsd and power loom fabrics 3d
per piece, which on die former is about 3s, and
in the latter 5 per cent. Twist, for export has
been sold this week quite as low as it was ever
known to lie in 1837, whilst weft, from some
cause not very intelligible, sella from 5 to 7$ per
cent, above its supposed value, when compared to
the present prices of yarn. There is, however,
a very considerable business doing for the east—
Calcutta, Bombay and Madras; in grey and blea
ched calicoes, and shirtings; but still owing to
many other important markets being closed to our
trade at the present moment, that, until re-open
ed, to expect any decided improvement would
seem to be visionary.
Hlmidirsfield.— We have nothing new to
state in reference to this market; at any rale no
thing more favorable Every week seems to add
to the gloom and perplexity: and for the most,
part, the goods that find a market are sold at a ru
inous loss. In some styles of i*ew fancy wool
lens, a small profit may with difficulty be obtain
ed; but in plain cloths, and ia all other fancy
goods, the trade is altogether unprofitable and,
withont a speedy change, the most disastrous re
sults will be experienced amongst merchants,
manufacturers, and shopkeepers. The operatives
also suffer much, and we fear their severe trials
are not even near at end.
Brandford. —The market to-da[y was, if any
thing worse in all respects than the preceding one.
Almost literally no demand, and vrith prices, as
low astbey are, with a downward tendency ; al
tbings are most gloomy. Itarna: There is no
thing new in this trade to report. The prudent
course which the spinners have for a long time
pursued in reducing their productions the real
demand has kept prices for a long while past, very
steady, and to-day there is Wood;
There is a decided giving way on life part of sta
plers as with the anxiety to quit stacks. Prices
rather lower.
Halifax. —The demand continues pretty good
for those descriptions of goods to vffiich reference
was made in our last, and of such [he market is,
in consequence, much bearer ot s ; .ock than for
some time past. There was no li: r e in any other
department of trade, and on the wl c le things are
still dull. Wool is fully as easy 4 buy.
I
~ Tax New ‘Transatlantic Steam Saie
U.vitei) States. —This vessel, the largest steam
er ever built at this part, and intended for the N.
York Line, will be launched this day, at half past
12, at the yard of Messrs. Thomas Wilson & Co.,
the builders, near the battery. North Shore.—
During the last few weeks she has been visited
by a great number of respectable persons of both
sexes. The following are her dimensions :
Length from stem to stern, over all, 235 ft.
Length of keel, 215 “
Breadlh, including paddle boxes. 60 “
Breadth of the deck between the pad
dle boxes. 38 “
Depth-of hold from the upper deck, 3S “ 6 in.
Height between the decks respectively, 7 “ 6 “
Length of the principal Saloon, about, 70 “
Breadth of Saloon, including the ad
joining bed rooms, 42 “
Second, or fore Saloon, nearly of equal size.
Capacity for stowage, beyond her coals, 800 tons.
Total admeasurement, 1400 “
Mr. Editor, — Public attention has recently been
directed to the Resolutions of the Legislature of
Georgia, introduced by me, proposing an amend
ment of the act of Congress, which provides for the
delivery of fugitives from the justice of any one
State jf the Union, when found in another. Enter
taining no desires, whose fulfilment depends upon
popular opinion of my political orthodoxy, and con
tent that my own conscience and judgment ap
prove my course as a Representative of the County
of Richmond, I should not thus have troubled you
and the public, but for certain allusions to me,
more pointed than just, more specious than true. —
In a late number of the Constitutionalist, (which
appeared during my absence from the city, and
was therefoie not sooner noticed,) the editors re
mark that after having introduced, I voted against,
those resolutions, for what reason they know not;
thus substantially charging me with inconsistency.
It appears that the senior Editor of that print, al
ways at his post in Milledgeville, during the ses
sion of the Legislature, and usually quite conver
sant with the movements of parties and individuals
in both houses, was cognisant of ray vote, but un
luckily for me, failed to hear, or hear of, the rea -
Isons assigned in my place for that vote. Again,
whilst other Representatives of Georgia in Con
gress, when communicating to the Executive their
reasons for declining to present the resolutions,
have contented themselves with a discussion of
their merits, it has pleased ihe Honorable Edw’d
J. Black, in a passing notice of ray connection
with them, to place me in a false position, and
then in a self-sufficient, Sir Oracle tone, to read
me a lecture for indulging in “ hallucinations ”
In the first paragraph of his letter to Governor
M’Donald, he speaks of “ resolutions relative to
the controversy with Maine, introduced into the
last Legislature by Mr. Jenkins, and ultimately
passed by that body in lieu o f more decided and
appropriate measures,” &c. In a subsequent para
graph, be enquires, “ What fond hallucination
could have influenced the author of these resolu
tions, to hope, or to ask, at the hands of abolition
ists, justice, by the enactment of a Law, to the
penalties of which, Philbrook and Kelleran would
be submitted, when these individuals were but en
gaged in accomplishing the very object to which
the law makers themselves have been so long and
so entirely devoted ?” The writer assumes, Ist,
that I am the author of those resolutions, which is
true. 2ndly, that 1 had introduced them in lieu of
more appropriate measures, proposed by my col
league, which is untrue, inasmuch as they were
not introduced until after I, in common with one
hundred and forty others, had voted for the mea
sure es my colleague. 3rdly. That in proposing
them, I had in view' a remedy for the case of Phil
brook and Kelleran, which is also untrue —Ist, be
cause the whole scope of the preamble and resolu
tions, indicates that the amendment they propose
was intended for general operation in future cases ;
“ two recent occurrencts” (not the Philbrook and
Kelleran case,) being only alluded to as evidence,
demonstrating the insufficiency of the existing law.
2ndly. Because I voted against the resolutions for
the simple reason,assigned at the time, that by the
action of the Senate, they had been adopted in lieu
of a measure more decided and appropriate to the
controversy between Georgia and Maine.
Previous to the introduction of those resolutions,
a bill (receiving my cordial support) had passed the
House of Representatives, by a majority exceeding
one hundred, and had been sent to the Senate,
which, in my opinion, renewed the pledges of the
General Assembly in 1837, and provided a remedy
for the wrong done by Maine to Georgia. That it
would pass the Senate by a majority equally deci
ded and triumphant, was the prevailing opinion.—
Knowing that the close of the session was near at
hand, fully assured that by the passage of the Bill,
above mentioned, the honor of my State would be
maintained, and the controversy with Maine provi
ded for, I felt at liberty to propose such an amend
ment, of the vary defective act of 1793, as would
give effect to the Constitution of the U. States, and
prevent future collisions of like disgraceful and
dangerous character. When,however, the Senate,
by yeas and nays, laid the bill of the House upon
their table, and immediately took up and passed
resolutions similar, in most respects, to those in
troduced by myself, evidently substituting the one
measure for the other, I felt that Georgia was about
to descend from the high ground’assumed in 1837. I
remembered a passage in her history, when her
destiny were in other hands—when her favorite
son, holding the reigns of executive authority, de
clared that he would maintain her sovereign rights,
despite the loud menaces, and the strong arm of
Federal power. I remembered, how, when the
storm lowered, the minions of power execrated,
and the timid trembled at, his noble daring ; and,
how, when the cloud had passed away, and disco
vered —the Patriot-Governor erect —triumphant, in
his position of peril, execrations gave place to pan
egyrics, and timorous doubts, to proud exultations.
I felt that the Glory was Troup’s, and Georgia’s,
and I perceived thal the latter was about to be des
poiled of it, bj the cringing policy of another Dy
nasty. Thus impressed, I was the first to suggest
to my colleague, the necessity of opposing, and, if
possible, defeating the resolutions introduced by
myself, rather than see them prostituted to the
ignoble purpose indicated by the action of the Se
nate. This I did by argument, by protestation
and by vote. In one word, (considering, per se,
the proposed amendment to the act of 1793, the
resolutions had, and have ray entire appioval; but
as the ultimate redemption of Georgia’s pledge, to
“ provide” (against the State of Maine) “ protec
tion for her own people, in her own way,” I did
and do regard their adoption, as her deep and last
ing humiliation.
Having now explained the relation I bear to
that measure, I must crave your indulgence, while
I present succinctly my view of the constitutional
question involved in this discussion, and briefly no
tice the argument of the honorable gentleman.
It wlil be borne in mind, that the resolutions under
consideration, propose to amend the act of 1793, by
authorising the demand, contemplated in the 2nd
sec. Ih Article Const. U. S., to be made upon the
■ of the U. S., having jurisdiction in
the Wwherein the fugitive may have taken re
’ fuge, of the Governor of that State, as new
j authorised. This legislation, it is said, would be
, unconstitutional, because the Constitution confers
upon the Federal Legislature no such power. —
Such grant, it is conceded, must be sought for
among the powers vested in Congress, and specially
enumerated in the B*h sec. Ist Article, or it must
be proven to be necessary to the exercise of some
one of those, or of a power “ vested by the Consti
tution in the Government of the United States, or
some department thereof .” I derive it under the
latter branch, and point for the grant to the 2nd
clause 2nd sec. 4th Article, which is in these
words: —“ A person charged in any State with
treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from
justice, and be found in another State, shall, on de
, mand of the executive authority of the State, from
f which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the
State having jurisdiction of the crime.”
, It was perfectly apparent to the framers of the
, Constitution, that the facility of escaping from ®ne
State to another, and the great reluctance, which
must be felt, in numerous instances, to surrender a
citizen of one State, to the jurisdiction of another,
would lead to frequent collisions among the States,
and jeopard the peace of the Union. To prevent a
result so deplorable, this clause was insert* d, which,
it will be perceived, designates the source whence
’ the demand shall emanate, but is silent as to the
modus operandi, and the functionary upon whom
-1 the requisition shall be made. Nor was this silence
1 the result of accident or want of foresight. It is
■ not the province of constitutional law to regulate
, details These, requiring such occasional changes
; as experience may suggest, are the appropriate
subjects of ordinary' legislation. Argument is un
necessary to prove that unless these omissions be
supplied, the clause must be inoperative. Demand,
and delivery there might be, but by national comi
i ty, not constitutional compulsion. How then shall
they be supplied ? By separate State legislation ?
Certainly not, because any State might impair, or
evade, the obligation by imperfect legislation, or
by omitting to legislate ; and because want of uni
formity in those important particulars, (an inevita
ble lesult from separate ligislation) would produce
inequality in the benefits to be derived under that
provision of the constitution. Shall they be sup
plied by conventional arrangements among the
States ? Certainly not, for by the tenth section of
the first article, each state is prohibited from en
tering “ into any agreement or compact with any
other state.” The only re naming mode of sup
plying the omission is by the legislation of Con
gress. Either then the states intended by the
adoption of this clause, to “ vest a power in the
government of the United States,” or they intend
ed to insert a dead letter in the supreme law of
the land, or they did not know what they were
about. Had they intended that the state authori
ties alone should be competent to make the sur
render, how easy, how natural, to have said so;
especially in connection with the declaration that
the demand should be made by the executive au
thority of the offended state.
The Constitution emphatically declares that the
thing shall be done , and there can be no security
that it will be done, in any case, save by the ac
tion of the Federal Government. Hence, it is
abundantly clear, that this power was thus “ vest
ed in the government of the United States,” and
that by virtue thereof Congress has the power to
legislate on the subject.
The idea seems to have possessed the mind of
the honorable gentleman, and perhaps may have
occurred to others, that the passage of such an act
as is recommended by the resolutions, would in
volve the usurpation of a power, or right, reserved
to the states. If asked to define it, the answer
would probably be, the power or right of deliver
ing up fugitives upon demand. The inquiry would
then arise, to what extent has this prerogative
been reserved ? Will it be maintained that it has
been reserved in all the length and breadth in
which it was possessed, anterior to the adoption
of the Constitution ? We shall see. Then the au
thorities of a state had unqualified discretion in
Ihe matter ; they might comply, or refuse, with, or
without a reason. But did the constitution leave
them in this regard as it found them ? Does not its
emphatic language, “ shall be delivered up” sweep
from the states every vestige of discretion ?
It would be idle in the extreme to address argu
ment to a man who would deny this proposition.
Upon a careful analysis of this boasted prerogative,
the candid mind will perceive that the discretion
thus suirendered, is its essence, its very soul. —
Pursue this train of thought a little farther. The
entire proposition contained in the clause of the
constitution under consideration, presents to the
mind two opposite ideas ; the withholding, and the
surrendering of fugitives. The former is a power
or right, prohibited to, or taken from, the states ;
the latter a duty, enjoined for practical purposes.
Enjoined upon whom ? Necessarily upon that
agent in whom the federal constitution lives, and
moves, and through whom alone it acts. In these
United States, the delivery of fugitives from jus
tice, is now resolved into imperative duty, solemn
obligation, resting somewhere. All else apper
taining to the subject is gone. Where then is
that inestimable reserved right, whose threatened
usurpation has awakened in the honorable gentle
man’s breast such fearful forebodings of federal ag
gression ?
In the practical operation of the proposed plan,
how is it possible that State sovereignty can ever
be wounded ? Now any citizen of a state, who
violates a penal statute of the United States, on
the soil of his own state, may be arrested by a
ministerial officer, under a warrant issued by a
judicial officer of the Federal Government. Is the
state thereby degraded, or her sovereignty impair
ed ? Then wherefore, when another citizen is ar
rested by the same agency, for having transgressed,
the penal laws of another state, on her territory ?
The ren edy, on the proposed plan, is susceptible
of being made absolutely certain, so far as it de
pends on official action, and so it should ever be.
No case can be supposed wherein, the demand
being regularly made, any question can arise as to
the propriety of responding to it promptly? The
intimate relation existing among the states of this
, Union, cannot be preserved without a rigid enforce
ment of this salutary provision of the compact.
. Nay more, the South cannot otherwise be secure
i in the enjoyment el her peculiar institutions.
Should it ever become the settled policy of any
I other portion of the Union, to use it for the over
- throw of those institutions, as the gentleman sug
gests, why let our glorious Constitution be con
• signed to the archives of the past, to moulder with
: other records of fallen Republics—let history re
-1 cord that our Government, which sprung from per
secution, was destroyed by perfidy.
Passing over the rhetoric of the honorable gen
: tleman, I propose biiefly to examine his Constitu
' tional argument. His proposition is ** that the
power of the Stale of Georgia id act (a this matter ,
is expressly reserved to, and enjoined on, her by
the 2d sec. 4th art. of the Constitution. That sec
tion is in these words—“ A person charged in any
state with treason, fe’ony, or other crime, who
shall flee from justice, and be found in another
state, shall on demand of the Executive authority
of the state from which he fled, be delivered up,
to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of
the crime.”
“ Here then is positive written proof that the
right to demand a fugitive from justice, has not
been granted to the General Government, but has
been reserved to “ the state from which he fled,”
which state is clearly recognised in the same sec
tion as“ having jurisdiction of the crime.” If then
the Constitution which spoke into existence the
Federal Government, clearly yields up and reserves
to the states this important right not only to de
mand but to try the fugitives from justice, I ask
by what process of reasoning, do you arrive at the
conclusion, that Congress has the constitutional
power “ to prescribe the forms which would give
authenticity to ihe demand.” It appears then that
the gentleman’s constitutional scruples do not at
tach to the actual arrest and delivery of the fugi
tive by the federal government (which was dwelt
upon in his argument upon the impolicy of the
measure) but to its exercise of the very dangerous
“ power , to prescribe the forms which shall give au
thority to the demand He regards this latter
power, as an essential ingredient in the right to
demand. He would claim for each slate, the right
to prescribe the form in which she will make all
such demands, and of course to designate the func
tionary upon whom she will make them, not allow
ing to the state, upon whom the demand shall be
made, nor to any common arbiter, any voice in set
tling these preliminaries, nor any discretion to re
fuse the demand. This proposition is even more
absurd than the converse, that the settlement of
all these preliminaries rests with the state upon
whom the demand may be made.
But is the form an essential ingredient in the de
mand, which, being prescribed by another power,
destroys the right ? Does not the discretion, ihe
sovreign volition to demand, or not, still remain ?
If the form be reasonable, and not difficult of ob
servance on the one hand, and guard against ca
pricious, causeless action, on the other, neither
party can complain. The framers of the Constitu
tion, well knowing that the federal government
was the only competent authority to do this, wise
ly imposed the whole duty upon it. In support of
this view, we have, in the act of 1793, passed only
six years after the adoption of the Constitution, a
contemporaneous exposition.
The ground assumed in the preamble and resolu
tions is this, that in the event of an offender
against the penal laws of a sovreign state, escap
ing to another, the former has the right under the
Constitution, to require of the common agent of
them both, the arrest and delivery to her of the
offender, that she may in the exercise of her sov
reignty, bring him to trial, and if found guilty, to
condign punishment. Throughout, the part as
signed to her is becoming the dignity of a sovreign,
and that to the federal government, is but auxilia
ry to the exercise of her sovreignty—it is not a
privilege, but a duty—and a subordinate one.
The doctrine of the state rights party (as under
stood by me,) has always been that, that govern
ment, was the agent of the states, and the federal
constitution its power of attorney. The principal
has a right to exact of his attorney the discharge of
his w'hole duty. When the power of attorney de
clares that a certain thing, connected with his
agency, shall be done , failing to do it, shall the agent
be justified under the plea that he had no author
ity ? But if this analogy (again and again insisted
on by the founders of the state rights school, of
politics,) be apt, we have the precise case under
discussion. Yet the simple proposition that this
common agent of the 'states, is bound to perform
the humble office of arresting felons fleeing their
justice, presents to the terrified imagination of the
honorable gentleman, the spectacle of a collossal,
consolidated government, rising upon the ruins of
state sovreignty; whereupon he betakes himself
to the melancholly task of “ gathering up the frag
ments of a shattered Constitution,” which bestrew
the pedestal. Strange confusion of ideas ! Unpar
alleled “ hallucination ”// Lamentable political
mono-mania !! ! In conclusion I wish the gentle
man all the consolation that a blind devotee may de
rive from the pious work of collecting and pre
serving sound relics.
CHARLES J. JENKINS.
From the New Orleans Bee\th inst.
Mexico.
The brig Kenhawa , which arrived yesterday,
brings information that on the 20th March the
federal army had surrounded the town of Cam
peachy, both by sea and by land. The federal
squadron consisted of three vessels, and they had
sent a messenger to obtain aid from the Texian
navy. It was supposed they would succeed in
capturing Campeachy.
Letter from Gen. Scott.
In the House of Representatives on Thursday,
the following letter from General Scott was sub
mitted :
Heap Quarters, Eastern Division,
Elizabethtown, N. J. March 23, 1840.
Sir — l have the honour to acknowledge your
letter of the 6th inst. covering a resolution of the
House of Representatives of the 9th, referred
from the Department of State to the Department
of War, inquiring “whether the Government of
Great Britain [has] expressed to the Govern
ment of the United States a desire to annul the
arrangement entered into between the two Go
vernments in the month of April, 1837 respec
ting the naval force to be maintained upon the
American lakes ; and that, if said arrangement
be not annulled, whether there has been any Vio
lation of the same by the authorities of Great
Britain
Confining myself to the latter clause of the re
solution, which I have underscored, and which
you have referred to me, I report the facts with
in my knowledge connected with that inquiry,
presuming that I have not had time to verity my
own impressions by those of more than one offi
cer [Col. Worth] who has recently held a com
mand under me on the frontiers of the British
North American Provinces.
I do not know, nor do I believe, that the Bri
tish authorities have had a single armed vessel of
any description on the lakes, above Detroit, in
many years. But in the summer and autumn of
1838, whilst I was absent to the South, I under
stood from our officers on my return, that the au
thorities in Upper Canada had employed one or
mare armed steamers, hired for the purpose, and
manned wih a certain number of troops, to cruise
on Lake Erie against apprehended invasions from
our side on the part of the people called Canadi
an patriots.
The season of 1839 having been a tranquil
one, I did not here of a single armed British ves
sel on that lake.
In the month of January, 1838, at the time
there was a considerable number of those patriots
in possession of Navy Island, in the Niagara riv
er, seeking to make a descent on the opposite
Canadian shore, the British authorities hired two
or three lake craft, [schooners,] and armed and
manned them for tire purpose of frustrating that
threatened invasion, bat it is believed that those
vessels were never on Lake Eric whilst so armed
and manned, and that they were discharged as
soon as that particular danger had passed away.
Down to the burning of the British merchant
, steamer, the Sir Robert Peel, on the St. Lawrence,
• in 1833,1 cannot learn that the authorities of the
Canadas had any armed vessel of any sort, in ac
tivity, whatever they might have had laid up in
port.) either on Lake Ontario or on the river St.
Lawrence ; but up to that event, and up to the
1 close of navigation in 1838, I learn from Col.
’ Worth, who returned from the Cherokee country
. to the Canadian frontier several months before my
1 return, that those authorities had employed sev
eral hired steamers, besides barges, all armed and
manned, cruising against parties of the same pat
' riots, principally on the St. Lawrence and confin
ed to their own waters.
During the past season (of 1839,) and up to
i the close of navigation, two steamers, (owned or
hired by the British authorities.) one schooner
and a number of barges, were in like manner em
ployed on the same lake and river, as a security
against an apprehended renewal of the troubles
of the proceeding year.
I have the honor to remain, sir.
With high respect,
Your most obd’t. serv’t.,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
Hon. i. R. Poinsett, Secretary of War.
From the Albany Evening Journal.
Will the re-election of Martin Van Buren bring
back prosperity to the country or advantage to
the citizen? Will the rich be made poor or the
poor rich by it 1 This was promised four years
ago. On the contrary have not “ the rich been
made richer and the poorer?” Who has gained
by the revulsions in business—the derangement
and depreciation of the currency and the general
prostration of enterprise and honest industry du
. ring his ascendancy ? Houses and lands—farms
and produce have diminished in value—but so
has the price of labor—so have the calls for labor.
The debtor owes as much —the creditor receives
more than he did before. Is it the poor or the
rich that hold in their hands the balance of credit?
Labor is the source of wealth to communities as
to individuals. Can a nation prosper that drives
its people into indolence and vice, hy withhold
ing the natural stimulants of adequate reward to
virtuous industry ?
Sin is the legitimate offspring of wretchedness.
1 Fas not Van Buren brought misery enough upon
the country already ? The People wronged
themselves when they suffered him to become
■ their ruler. But they were promised unnumber
ed benefits for the transgression. The benefits
have not come—but retribution instead. The
blighted hopes and gloomy homes of thousands
attest its seventy. Will they wrong themselves
still further by repeating the transgression ? The
signs of repentance every where abroad tell us
that they will not. The spectacle of impover
ished classes and injured interests every where
presented tells us that they will not. The indig
nant spirit of an intelligent people every where
aroused assures us that they will not.
A case of som to merchants was de
cided last week in one of the Courts of Phil
adelphia. It is thus reported in the U. 9.
Gazette:
This was an action of replevin to recover certain
goods and merchandize, enumerated in the Writ
of Declaration, valued at $919 36. The plain
tiffs were merchants of New York, and the de
fendants were common earners between the cities
of New York and Philadelphia.
The facts of the case, as detailed in the evidence,
• were briefly as follows: In the month of Septem
ber, 1835, Isaac Campbell, of Alton, Illinois, went
to the city of New York with the view of purchas
ing goods. He represented to the plaintiffs that
he was a member of Isaac Campbell & Co., which
firm, he said, consisted of his father, brother, and
himself—that the firm was free from debt—that
his father was in affluent circumstances, and that
the capital of the firm was about SIO,OOO.
Upon the faith of these representations, the
plaintiffs sold him the goods in question. It was
in proof that he brought goods of many other
persons in New York, by means of similar repre
sentations. The goods sold by the plaintiffs, as
, well as ot hers, were packed up in cases and hales,
• marked “Isaac Campbell & Co. Alton, Illinois,”
p and delivered to the defendants, for conveyance to
Philadelphia, thence to he forwarded to Illinois.
On the arrival of the goods in Philadelphia,
they were seized under processes offoreign attach
ment ; by pire-existig creditors of Isaac Camp
i bell, whose debts amounted to several thousand
dollars. Campbell absconded upon the laying of
the attachments. It was afterwards ascertained
that he was largely in debt in Philadelphia—lhat
he was wholly insolvent, and that no such firm
existed as Isaac Campbell & Co. Campbell after
wards fled to Texas.
This replevin was issued to take the goods out
of the hands of the defendants, who were stake
holders for the parties entitled, either the plaintiffs
or the attaching creditors.
. The plaintiffs’ council contended, Ist, That they
had a right to stop the goods in transitu, between
[ New York and Illinois, in consequence of the
I insolvency of the pretended purchaser, James
i Campbell.
! 2d. That the contract of sale was anullcd and
rescinded by the fraud and falsehood which were
practised to obtain the goods, and that no property
passes where a purchase is brought about by mis
representation.
’ His Honu*, Judge Strouds charged the Jury,
that if believed the evidence they must find
for the plaintiff—lhat the contract was violated by
the fraud, and no could pass under such
circumstances. Verdict for plaintiffs.
a
I From the New York Mirror,
t Female Courage,
f A striking trait of courage in a lady forms the
- subject of conversation at present in the French
3 metropolis. Madame Aubry lives in a solitary
- chateau, not far from the town of . The
- family consisted only of M. Aubry, his wife, and
b a child about a year old, and one maid servant,
t In the little town, every light is out by ten o’clock,
- and of course the most perfect softude reigns at
t that hour in their house, which lies off the road,
and is completely hidden by trees. One night
- last winter, Madame Aubry was sitting alone,
i reading. Her husband had left her in the morn
- ing to visit a friend some six or eight miles off,
, and, as he expected to bring home a consid
j erable sum of money, he had taken the unusual
- precaution of arming himself with a pair of pis
- tols. At about six o’clock, the lady went up to
i her room to put her child to bed. Her apart
ment was a large room on the first floor, filled
- up on one side by an old-fashioned chimney, and
f on the other by a deep and spacious alcove, near
i which stood her infant’s cradle. The night was
f a gloomy one, cold and dark, and every now and
- then a dash of rain beat against the gothic
- windows. The trees in the garden bowed to the
r wind, and their branches came sweeping against
1 the casement; in short, it was a night in which
> the solitude of Jhe mansion was more complete
i and melancholy than usual. Madame Aubry sat
- down on a low chair near the fire, which by its
sudden flashes, cast an uncertain light over the
I vast apartment, throwing its antique carvings and
- mouldings by turns into brighter relief or deeper
shade. She had her child on her lap, and had
j just finished preparing it lor the cradle. She
i cast her eyes towards the alcove, to see if the
• cradle was ready to receive its UMe occupant,
• whose eyes were already closed. Ju*| then, the
fire flashed op brightly, and threw a strong Ijaht
on the alcove, by which the lady distinguished a
pair of feet, cased in heavy nailed shoes, peeping
out under the curtain in front of the bed. \
thousand thougths passed through her mind i
an instant. The person hidden there was a
perhaps an assassin—that was clear. She had
no protection, no aid at hand. Her husband wag
not to return till eight at soonest, and it Wa *
now only half past six. What was to be done*
She did not utter a single, cry. nor oven start on
her seat. The servant girl probably would not
have had such presence of mind. The robber
probably meant to remain quiet where he was till
midnight, and then seize the money her husband
was to bring with him ; but if he should find he
was discovered, and lhat there was no one in the
house but two women, he would not fail to leave
his hiding place, and secure thtir silence by mur
dering them. Besides, might not the girl be the
robber’s accomplice ? Several slight causes of
suspicion occured to her at once, and all these re
flections passed through her mind in less time
than we take to write them. She decided at once
what she should do, which was, to send the girl
out of the room.
“ You know that dish my husband like*,” said
she, without betraying her alarm by the least
change in the tones of her voice, “ I ought to
have remembered to have'it got ready for his sup
per. Go down stairs, and see about it at once.”
“ Does not madame require my help, as she
generally does?”
No no, I will attend to eveivtlilng myself. I
know my husband would not he pleased, if he
was to come home after his ride in such bad
weather, and not find a good supper ready.”
After some delays, which increased in the ladys
mind that suspicion she was forced to conceal,
the girl left the room. The noise of her steps
on the stairs died away gradually, and Madame
Aubry was left alone with her child, with those
two feet peeping out under the curtain. She
kept hy the tire, her child in her lap, continuing
to caress it and sing to it, almost mechanically.
The child cried ; it wanted to be put to bed, but
its cradle was near the alcove—near those dread
ful feet, how could she find courage to go near
them ! At last, she made a violent effort. “Come,
my child,” said she, and got up. Hardly able
to stand erect, she walked towards the alcove •
close to the robber. She put the child in the'
cradle, singing it to sleep as usual. We may
imagine how much inclination she had to sing.
When the child feel asleep, she left it, and re
sumed her seat by the fire. She did not dare to
leave the room ; it would arouse the suspicions of
the robber, and of the girl, probably his accom
plice. Besides, she could not bear the thought
of leaving her child, even if it was to purchase
her own safely. The clock pointed to seven.
An hour yet, a whole hour, before her husband
would come ! Her eyes were fixed on those feet,
which threatened her with death at any moment,
with a sort of fascination. The deepest silence
reigned in the room. The infant slept quietly.
We do not know whether even an Amazion, in
her place, would have been bold enough to try a
struggle with the robber. Madame d’Aubry had
no arms; beside, she made no claims to valour,
but only to that passive courage founded on re
flection, which is far the rarer of the two. Every
few minutes, she would hear a noise in the gar
den. In that noise, a ray of hope shone on her
for a moment—it was her husband, it was deliver
ance! But no—it was only the wind and rain,
or the shutters creaking. What an age every
minute seemed to be. Oh, heavens! the feet
moved ! Does the thief mean to lea' e his hiding
place? No. It was only a slight, probably in
voluntarly movement, to ease himself by changing
his position. The clock strikes—only once, it is
the half hour only—and the clock is too fast, be
sides ! How much anguish, how many silent
prayers in these trying minutes ! She took up a
book of devotion and tried to read, but her eyes
would wander from the page to fix on those hea
vy shoes. All at once a thought arose that chil
led her to the very heart. Suppose her husband
should not come! The weather is stormy, and
he has relatives in the village he went to. Per
haps they have persuaded him it was unsafe to
travel at night with so large a sum of money about
him : herhaps they have forced him, with friend
ly violence, to yield to their urgent invitations to
wait till morning.—It is srtiking eight—and no
body comes. The idea we have alluded to, ap
pears to her more and more probable. After two
hours of such agony, the unhappy lady, whose
courage had been kept up by the hope of final
rescue, feels her strength and hope fail her.
Soon she hears a noise under the window, and
listens, doubtfully. This time she was not mis
taken. The heavy outer-door cracks on its hin
ges, and shuts with clamour; a well-known step
is heard on the stairs, and a man enters, a tall
stout man. It is he, it i» he 1 At that moment
if he had been the worst of all husbands, he would
have seen perfection in his wife’s eyes. He had
only taken off his wet cloak and put away his
pistols, and delighted at again seeing what he
loves most on earth, opens his arms to embrace
his wife. She clasps him convulsively, but in a
moment recovering her self-possession, puls her
finger on his lips, and points to the two feet
peeping out under the curtain.
If M. Auhiy had been wanting in presence of
mind, he would not have deserved to be the hus
band of such a woman. He made a slight ges
ture to show he understood her, and said aloud,
“Excuse me, my dear, I left the money down
stairs. I’ll he back in two minutes.” Within
that time he returned pistol in hand. He looks
at the priming as he walks to the alcove, stoops,
and while the fore-finger of his right hand is on
the trigger, with the other hand, he seizes one of
the feet, and cries in a voice of thunder, “ Sur
render, or you’re a dead man !” He drags by
the feet into the middle of the room a man of
most ill-favoured aspect, crouching low to avoid
the pistol which is held in an inch of his head.
He is searched and a sharp dagger found on him.
He confesses lhat the girl was his accomplice, and
had told him M. Aubry would bring a large sura of
money home that night. Nothing remains now,
but to give them over to the authorities. Madame
Aubry asked her husband to pardon them, hut the
voice of duty is louder than that of pity- W hen
M. Aubry heard from his wife all she had gone
through, he could only say, “ Who could
thought you so courageous!” but in spile of her
courage, she was attacked that night with a vio
lent nervous fever, and did not get over her iero
ism for several days.
An Improvisitor.
Edward Merlin was charged with being drunk
and noisy in a house in Cross street; and it was
also intimated by the complainant that Ned was
in all probability, a little cracked. Mr. Merlin
was considerably out of the knees and elbows,
and his shirt seemed as if it might be the identi
cal two napkins, sewn together, which belon?e
to the second most fortunate of Sir John
staff’s country troopers. In short, Ed. Mer in
appeared to be a regular loafer from bis p.mp le
cover, to his shanks mares, with this sole excep
tion, that his tongue went like a perpetual motion,
whereas it is one of the peculiarities of the fra
ternity that they are too lazy to talk. The roost
interesting feature, however, of Mr. Merlin 0 c
racter is lhat he’s a poet and that too of so
dulterated a complexion, that whatever he
runs into rhyme, as naturally as if it was be»po
and paid for at a penny a line. j r|g f,
Mrs. Donovan, the complainant is a wa n”
woman who keeps one of those “hole
shanties, where they purport to sen
good liquors at three cents a glass, eV .
pcared in evidence that Mr. M er j‘ n a „ but had
ery justice to her “best of good hquoro
ventured no farther in her favor, i
began to remind him of the “thieo cen