Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

©range Heportcr. C. H. C. WILLINGHAM, EDITOR. £a Grange, Georgia. Thursday Morning, January 1,1857. Cnu yon goo This 1 Tho*e Indebted to Ibla nfflcc for SIBSCRIPTIOX, OVERUSING or JOB WORK, sre reqaested lo roll and lellle, ai we are compelled to bare money. Eureka I—iAd verdict want to buy a farm, Adcert'uel want to sell a farm, Advertise! want employment. Advertise i want to buy or fell cattle, Advertise! want to sell good., Adre.tisr I want to buy or eell grain, Advertise! want to buy or sell a house, Advertise! want to buy or sell a lot, Adcrrlise ! want to ndraneu your interest* generally, in the Ln Orange Reporter ! If yon If you If you If you If you If you If you If you If you Ad cert in Tlio card of Mr. Stephens, nnd the roply of Mr. IIii.l thereto, together with the correspondence between theso gentlemen, oc cupy so much of our space that wo are unable to givo our usual variety. Iha?" Mr.-T. A. He nKr; has retired from the Madison Family Visitor nnd will be associated with S. A. Atkinson in the publication of the Augusta Evening Dispatch Tito Visitor pass es into the hands of Mr. N. C. Guernsey. Godey’s Lady’s Hook.—Wo will send Godly nnd tho Reporter ono year fur $ I in advnnco. Thoso desiring to subscribe will find the pres ent n good timo to do so as each publication is just entering into a now yonr nnd a new vol ume. Send in the uioncy nnd wo will forward tho '‘Hook” nnd tho Reporter. Cutting Scrape. — A man by the name of W«, McGee was severely cut by Wesi.ey Smith at Harrisonvillo iu this county, Inst Sat urday. McGee is partially deranged, and Smith being drunk, ns we lenrn, took offense at him nnd .slabbed him with a knife on the back part of the neck. It is thought McGee will recover. Volume Thirteen.—This number commen ces the thirteenth year of tho publication of our paper. We are determined, as far as we have tho ability, to enter the now year with n spi rit caloulatod to make tho Reporter an interest ing and useful journal ; and hope our patrons nnd the public will givo us all possible encour agement. Tho usefulness of tho Reporter might bo moro extended if our friends would exert thorn- behalf which they might do with Iegroes—On Clirist- nvero thronged with i as happy, ns merry fo have kind masters hher, nnd his crcif of “nigger worshipers” hdientions of hnppincss Ion here, nnd compnr- thn t of tho^iniserablo lie could not failed to of tho folly of the dam- Tne which lie endeavors to inculcate ho minds of his credulous and unsuspecting pcoplo. In fact, the negroes here behaved them selves very well, notwithstanding they were allowod all possible liberty and freedom during the holidays. New Year.—Wo greet our patrons nnd wisli them a happy NEW TEAK,—and hope our communon for tho novt twelve months will bo quite as pleasant as the past. We like to boo every body enter tho New Year with hearts lieaviug with joyous hopes of the future—to press forward in whatever vocation in which wo may bo ODgnged. Another year is numbered witli tho things that were, und Timo is still speeding on with rapid wing. Old thiugs are growing older and fading iu the dim vista of the past; another year has faded away and a bright New Yenr has dawned upon us—inspiring us with now hopes and gladdening our hearts witli newer joys. Another year has dawned in which we may accomplish much good or much evil; and it is our duty to do that good which lies iu our power. Let us welcome in tho glorious Now Year ; let our hearts swell with gratitude nnd thanks giving to tho Ailwiso Providence for the mani fold blessing Ho lias bestwowed upon us, and humbly nsk for a continuance c his divino fa vors during the preseut yoar. Let a spirit of happiness and joyousnesj pervade every heart. Let brother meet brother ns brother and neigh bors salute each other with kindness and affec- tion. In conclusion, wo greet our patrons with the ■compliments of the season and trust that an other year will pass plonsantly, with all, and that all may still move on prospering and to prosper. A happy New Year to ail. Muscogee Superiob Court —This Court ad journed on Saturday last, having accomplished that Herculean labor for a Superior Court of this county—a clearanoo of the Docket. Hut Judge Worrill is a working niau, and is indeed a model judicial oOiccr Muscogee couuty has seldom been so ciear of the law for many years, and has never bad a more popular or efficient judicial officer ou her bench than Judgo VVor ill.— Enquirer. [Advertisement.] It is our firm belief, that in nine eases out of ten, coughs, colds, and all bronchial irrita tions, however severe, may bo cured by tho use of Wistar’s Halsatn of Wild Cherry. A tin gle trial only is needed to prove this. Plcasrs. Illll’ii nud Stephens’ Dimculty. From the' Constitutionalist. A CARD. The latter ot H. II. Hill, Esq., published in the Constitutionalist of tho 26th ult , (cop ied front the Savannah Republican,) abound ing, as it docs, with the grossest perversion of truth upon matters relating to myaeif, though not of great weight in themselves, should have been noticed at an earlier date, but for the pendency of a correspondence between him and mo upon another subject of a tnucli higher grade, in importance, which required prior ad justment—that wns a report which had reach ed mo of bia speeches at Thomson nnd Au gusta near the close of the late canvass, in hich, os was communicated to me, he bad said, in substance, at both of theso places, in alluding to the discussion at Lexington with mo, nnd tho discussion at Washington with Mr. Toombs, '* that lie lmd charged them (Messrs. Toombs nnd Stephens) with having betrayed tho Whig party, and having neted towards it worse than Judas Iscariot • For though he betrayed his master, yet ho did not abnso them afterwards—that ho bnd thundered this in their cars and they cowered under it.” An expla nation of this language took precedence over nil minor issues. And I nm now compelled by a sense of duty to myself nnd tho publio, to make known that tho correspondence referred to nnd just terminnted, in relation to it, Mr. Hill has proved himself to mo to be not only nn impudent braggart nnd an unscrupulous liar, hut a despioahlo poltroon besides. All these I proclaim him to be, holding myself, notwithstanding what has passed, and this de nunciation, still responsible, even to him, for what I say, if ho be not insensible to slianio nnd degradation, however lie may ho as to “ fear.” The public, tboreforo, will cxeuso mo for not saying nny tiling further upon this version of the facts relating to tho very immaterial ques tion, so fur ns l wns concerned, ns to whether he did or not hack out from a discussion in Elbert. I will niso, I trust, bo excused even by the most fastidious, fur the language now used to wards him, which my own self-respect, on or dinary occasions, would forbid. Hut when a mendacious gasconade sets up wantonly to nsporse private character nnd malign individu al reputation, nnd then rcfuscB that redress which a gentleman knows how to nsk ns well as how to grant, no course is left for the most courteous and decorous, nnd tho most upright nnd honorable, but to put the brand of infamy upon him — there to remain until a radical change in his clinractcr, nnd especially in his conduct, cither in giving personal insults, or making proper amends for them when given, shall rctnovo it. Alexander II. SrErnENS. Washington, D C., Dec. 12, 1860. From the Chronicle and Sentiwl. LETTER FROM MU. HILL. La Orange, Go, Dec 18, 1856. Mr Editor:—I have this morning read tho “card” of lion. Alexander II Stephens, dated at Washington Oily, Deo. 12th, ami published in the Constitutionalist of yestorday It shall ho answered ns its merits demand. The cor respondenco between Mr Stephens and myself, so far as any purpose of mine wns concerned, was not intended for publication ; but ns Mr. 5. lias ailmlcd to it in his card, nnd, as nn in npoction will show, has given it a fnlfc version* it is proper that the public should see the whole of it, and then “enter judgement.” I scud it to you with this Mr Stephens first made nn issuo of veracity in his letter of October 31, about going to Elbert. I stated the facts on this subject in my letter of 5th November, and gavo it ns my opinion that Mr. 8. would not deny the facts there stated. Ho does not do it—As dare not tin it—hut lie goes on to say that the letter abounds “with the grossest per version of truth upon matters relating to him self,” and then, without a single specification, dismisses this branch of tho controversy, by saying tiiey are of “no great weight in them selves,” Ao., and was a very “immaterial ques tion,” &c. It is well fur him that he abandoned this is sue. he made it, hut soon found it was a ri diculous retreat from a mortifying defeat, and every position assumed by him in relation to it, false either in letter or the impression which lie sought to make, nnd known to him to be false; because bo is compelled to know my statement is correct, arid can now bo proven by disinter csted gentlemen, if ho dared to deny it, nnd specify what he denied.* Now, I will prove, that with more of wound ed pride than honesty, nnd prompted more from mad mortifiontion than a Renso of truth and propriety, ho bns made another issue, and in doing so has only increased the ridiculousness of his position, nnd made more palpabio the meanness of his nature nnd disposition In his letter of tho 12th inst., ho alludes to wknt ho calls “a subject of a milch higher grade,” and that was tho following language which he soys was communicated to him ns used by me at Thomson and Augusta : “That I had charged them (Messrs. Toombs nnd Stephens,) with having betrayed tho Whig party, nnd hav ing acted towards it worsc*tlinn Judas Iscuriot —for though he betrayed his mauler, yet he did not abuse him afterwards—that ho had thundered this iD their years and they hnd cow orod under it ” Hy his own showing, this is tho language lie desired explained, and it is the correspondence in relation to it (this language) by which lie justifies his challenge, nnd when it was declined, proceeds to utter his denuncia tion against mo with characteristic impotence and imperiousness. Now, I will prove tlmt this is not only a d.sercditablo evasion but an unmitigated falsehood. My witness, I admit, is discredited, nud lias been often proven to be guilty- of false statements, but as bo testifies in this instance against himself, probably some slight crcdcuoc may be given to his statements. Look at liis letter dated the 22d of November, and you will find that he quotes this very lan guage, and says my explanation on “that point is satisfactory," and then proceeds to nsk other questions -‘rendered necessary,” ns lie snys, by the character of my letter of 18th November —the very lottcr which on that point eomplaiucd of is admitted to bo satislactory. The man is so given to falsehoods that lie disputes himself Tho truth is, the language which I did use, arid which hurts so badly, lie knows was justifiable, bcoausc provoked hy him, and lienee his com plaint could not he based on that foundutio r Hut his sore would not if t him rest—ho ui •Since writing this portion of this article, I have received another letter from a highly respectable gen- tti-mao, (whose name with many others, can be given if desired) in which he says: "1 read your published letter to Mr. Stephens, (Nov. 6. ) stating the (acts in (lie case relative to your gulng to Klbcrt, or to Washington ; every item of which I think you could substantiate, if necessary, by at IcuHt twonty witnesses—myself umong the number.” * mm have an issno—tho only effect of wh] know would bo to prevent tho pos»i“ another “Lexington blister,” and if not get up this issue in nny other way, follow his natural proclivities and lie This ho could do easily—without effort gentleman baa thus made two issues g out of this Lexington disoussion. The fin abandons as “immaterial,” and the scco proves by himself to be a falsehood Yi says my correspondence proves to him Ih am a “braggart, a liar, nnd a poltrobtl? Tho public can judge from the corres] ence itself whether this is not like all e has said on this subjeot. His atntemcn evidence. But let us see by facts hotr he stands on ench of these points. I am informed that somo time sinoe In a speech ot Lexington, ho compared himself.to Moses, nnd I know in the discussion with me-tfc bragged disgustingly "I nnd Toombs” and a few others, (underlings, he at tho top always,) passed and framed the Compromise measures of 1850—told Webster how to fix up the Whig platform of 1852, nnd did almost overy thing else of importance for many years in Congress a The records do not show it—very badly kcpttrqr- tliey ought tc bo corrected. At Mt Moriah, in Jefferson county, when asked publioly Jiy somo of his friends whore ho should go in tho then disruption .if parties, ho drew himself ijp', assuming the air of a Jupiter Tonans, and stretching forth his “red right arm,” * "come to me j come to me. Alexander Ifll Stephens, Ac. Wonderful Saviour I Ho compared himself to an eagle and other peonlo to owls, and talked about how he soared! ajd so he did soar beyond all location! I could nil columns with evidence on this subject, hut I should say tho foregoing is enough for the pre sent to prove him a "braggart Now let us sec how this imperious nrbitrer ot character stands the test of the second charac teristic which ho attributes to mo. During ih®‘ discussion at Lexington I referred lo, nnd quo ted a passngo in Mr Brook’s speech at Ninety six, nnd asked Mr Stephens if lie endorsed it. In his reply he said lie did not know that. Mr. Brooks had used such language—it had not been read. I immediately handed it to him, point ing to the portion quoted, nnd asking him, (Steplicns) to read it. lie commenced roading- and, when lie reached the portion I hnd quoted he skipped, nnd commenced reading below I quietly stopped him, and nsked him to go hack, and ns I was sitting under nnd beliiud hini^J gently took hold of his arm to point him to lhc omitted part, and lie absolutely pulled against mo. Tho thing was so palpable, that a little hoy fivo years old detcc ted it, nnd exclaimed “lie skips.” After he was thus compelled to go back, ho read it, and found it precisely as I had quoted it. He then told the people tint I had misrepresented Mr. Brocks; ilmt .hf Mr. Brooks, had not advised us “to tenr up the already tattered Constitution”—that these were not Mr Brook’s words, ns I had said, but that Mr. Brooks said these are the Abolitionist’s words, that they would tear up the Constitu tion, Ao. This lie said with the balance of the sentence before bis eyes, and which I then rend. “Tear up tho already tattered Constitution, scatter its fragments to the winds, and hutjd-a lates to what was ssid in tho discussion.— did not take it as offensive at the time — tod ino to discussion afterwards—saw me days before his first letter was written— os with me—had a long bnsinoss transaction >nd social conversation, and not a word of dis- tisfaction was whispered. He forged bis lovanoo — manufactured his excuse — noted a pretender in his challenge, and is tbere- a poltroon. Mr. Stephens speaks of my asporsing “ pri- ato character,” and “maligning individual rm^ elation.” This is false—unconditionally, aoW lately false, in fact, in conooption and in pur ose. J never said anything against his privato __ r, nor do I deal, in publio discussion or at dinner tables, with privato characters. Bat even on this point 1 cannot release Ijim without a stripe. At the dinnor table in Lexington, on tlio very day before tho disoussion, at tho house of a distinguished gentleman, and when most of tho listeners were personally strangers to mo, tliis very man, A. II. Stephens, did ob perse my “privato character,” and malign my “individual reputation.” This bo did falsely and maliciously. My privato character is the jcwol I prizo above all others. I was bore, raised and edu cated in Georgia, and if tho man, woman or child enn be found whom I ever willfully de ceived, in privato or publie life—in politics, law, or social intercourse—I hereby unseal his and authorize him to speak. It is a real solution to know that on this subject, nt nst, I enn defy tho slanderer,Imock tho tra- duccr, and despise the venom of even Alexan der H. Stephens. I hope no one wilt suppose that cvcd now I entertain anything like a feel ing of hatred for Mr Stephens. Fur from it —I would not harm a hair of his head Up to the Lexington discussion, I entertained .something of respect for him, though the character of many of his statements prior to hat time shook my faith in him considerably >ineo I saw him, felt him, and weighed him, nd knew him, ns nt Lexington, all tho depths if unutterable contempt are exhausted in the dca I have of his utter want of fairness, and nndur, and truthfulness as a debater. In our iscussion at Lexington, 1 deemed it a duty, n reply to his slander of honest men, to draw S picture of his own course, nnd show it to lim. The very sight of his own picture run him mad It was truo to lifo, and therefore the more hideous. Henco his soro. He had hoen allowed to misrepresent until ho con cluded lie had a right to do so, by lapse of time and immemorial usage. His ndverso pos session of falsehood lie deemed furnished an absolute bar to the entry of truth by the stat ute of limitations. No man saw any ground for a ohnllonge in nny of my speeches—no man can find it in our .correspondence, and I bclievo every candid man will admit, that my letter of tho 1 Bill November ought to havo proven satisfactory to any gentleman. The truth is. Mr. Stephens lias discovered that I have found him out, and if you want a man to hate you, let him bo nwnro that you arc honest nnd that you know ho is mean. I say to Mr. S , that while I do know his faults, I nm willing to regard them twiili much nllownncc, nnd not talk about them ns much as he supposes; because I honestly bclievo the mnn lias perverted, distorted nnd It is Southern Confederacy.” Did the Abolitionists sny they would build a Southern Confederacy ? Here wero two falsehoods iu rending ono padL misrepresented until ho can’t help it. graph! frj* ‘necessary for his comfort. Ho is n Ho afterwards rend, or pretended ♦« reed, maniac on the subject of falsehood, what ho called the “Know Nothing oath.RUnd conumjnccd It wlthrtlio Words, "Tou^vili, appointed to office,” Ao., nnd then made nn aT- gumont to provo this oath ivas illegal, nnd went through a theatrical ceremony of holding up tlio Constitution, nnd closed hy depositing it in tho keeping of some little hoys. (I understand in Elbort he deposited it in tlio keeping of a good old woman.) I nsked him for the very body oven knowimi his opinion, nnd when “I nnd Toombs” killed tiio bear, Fillmore said, Nancy nin’t we bravo. In reply to all this- stuff, I produced and rend Mr Stephen's pub lislicd declarations in 1852, applauding Mr, Fillmoro for his advocacy of thoso measured,) and his firm adherence” to the policy which 1 sustained them lie told the This letter is long, hut my reliance is the jqnnd it require* Bpace-tq-stnlc them. The nngungo is severe, but not so wanton as that which lias called it out. I did not commence this controversy. Mr. Stephens was scarcely out of tho stand at Lexington, before, kooping time with tho new discovery in electricity, he lormod his throat into a wiro for the passage of counter currents—dinner going down and paper from which ho rend, nnd I took it and p nnllors .coming up-originating the version showed the people that this very sentence wide*- ' abo “ t f “ ,n B to ®. ll ; ort . f To general,t,cs I have lie sought to prove was illegal, commenced, “If it can bo done legally, you will, when tip- ””” * pointed to office,” Ac , ho (Stephens) leaving out tlie words, “if it can bo done legally,” Ac". Now, render, bow do you suppose this truthful impeacher of other men’s veracity justified this deceptive garbling. Witli nn effrontery nndj^ imperturble gravity which surpassed even Simon Suggs, when, after swindling his neighbor out of his horse, by n legerdemain, known only to jockeys, lie said, “integrity is the post I allers tie to.” Mr. Stephens told the peoplo lie rend ns much of the document as suited his purpose ” His purpose 1 amidst all His prevarications, this one truth slipped out by. accident, ho rend enough to suit his purpose,--* Ho next spoke of the passngo of the Corapro miso Measures of 1850, nnd the part Mr. Fill moro acted, which lie illustrated hy ono of thoso* classical nnccdotcs which so distinguish ltji* gentleman's oratory, about Nancy Ggliting tho! Bear, nnd her husband remaining in tlio loft until Nancy killed the bear, mid then coming down nnd saying “Nancy nin’t wo brave.”— So, said Mr S , when “I nnd Toombs,” and a few others, wore fighting the bonr, (passing tlio Compromise) Mr Fillmoro wns in the loft, vert, lie will hut confirm his title to the char acter given him There are many facts known to mo, not slated ; but I havo no disposition to prosocuto this controversy, oven against a mnn who originates falsehood to injure me, and ap peals to malice to sootho his self-provoked wounds. I regard duelling as no evidence of courage —no vindication of truth, nnd no test of tho cliaraoter of a truo gontlcman. I shall bo “braggart, liar and poltroon” enough, now and forever, to dcolnro that what the laws of God and my native Stato unite in denouncing ns murder, could givo me no satisfaction to do, to attempt, or to desire. This determination is but strongthoned, when tlio contrary oourso involves the violation of my consoienco and tho hazard of my family, as against a man who Jias neither conscience nor family. But I have hnd, and sbnll continue to havo courage enough to do my duty firmly and truthfully, •nd to defend myself nny where nnd everywhere, even in the Eighth Distriot; and if any gen tleman doubt it, tbero is n short and easy way to tost it. Very truly, Ac., B. H. Hill. [COPIES.] CORRESPONDENCE. Crawfordville, 11th Nov. 1856. Sir :—I havo been informed that in your speech at Thomson, and also in Augustn, iu ... alluding to a discussion you had with Mr. lem. lo get out of this dilemma,j Tootnbs at Washington, nnd myself nt Lexing- people ho wns not speaking of MiMkoti, you said in snbstnnoo that “you hnd ebarg- Fillmorc—he told tho Bear aneodote to rWiWH upon them (Mr. Toombs and myself,) Hint rest- Hipv I -tfeonceal anything I did say at any time, b«- cauao ray motives were right and my declara tions “from the bouso-tops.” Sl At Thomson, Augusta, and S%ir places, I did allude to the discussions nt Lesgton and Washington, espceialiy the first, butTaqsn say with entire oertainty, that I soid do the subjeot of your enquiry than I di { our presence at the time of the discuss): loxington. ■ During the disenssion at Lexington, x spoke of the “Know Nothings” (os you bn been pleased to term the members of the Ami icon party) very severely or contemptuously) and as I ondototoodjt; and among other things you read a portion of what yon oalled the ‘■onth,” and doc 1 ® 1 '®' 1 il illegal, nnd you spoko of Lane, “one of tho forty-four,” as a Judas, and said he was “our ally," Ac. At Washington, Mr. Toombs spoke of tho Americans, if possiblo, still more bitterly, and described them “ as snoaking at midnight around back lots,” and even ministers ns “tell ing lies and getting out of them by equivokes,’ Ac , Ao To both of you I mado reply, nnd a portion of the reply was the samo to both, and, in (be reply, alluded to the manner in which you hnd on former occasions treated theso men, when thoy wero alluded to as “mid night conspirotors,” “treason plotters,” and ns comparable to “French Jacobins,” Ac. I then spoko cf the characters of many of theso men who wero brought under this terrible denunci ation : referred to tho fuct that thoy were up right members of/tlio various IraucheB of the Christian churcir ; wero among the very host members of society ; hnd never violated any law; nnd wero men into whoso keeping wo would bo willing to trust our families, our rep utation nnd our property ; that among them wero to be found the greatest number of your early and best friends—men who had made you—hnd taken you by tho hand and given you their business and made you rich ; hnd placed you in tho National councils nnd kept you there, nnd thus made you great, nnd even if you differed from them now, that difference on such questions of propriety could not justify you iu using tho position they hnd given you thus to denounce them. I then spoko of your habitual nnd particulor reference to Judas, and I added : "that Judas did betray his Lord, but even Judns never abused his Lord after he betrayed him.” These are the facts on tlio “Judas” branch of the argument—the only ono to which you have addressed your enquiry. Now as to the manner in which “I intended it to be under stood.” I intended it to he understood ns sim ply in reply to tho charges mnde; neither more nor less. It was iu reply at Lexington and Washington, and on every occasion after wards when referred to, it was hy way of nar rative os in roply, nnd in no other manner.— Tlio samo charges seem to have been mado wherever I went in Eastern Georgia, and the same manner of treating the so-culled “Know- Nothing” onth, had been adopted by you du ring the canvass of Inst year So the people soid. I ncvei abused cither you or Mr. Toombs —saw no one who so construed my remarks I spoke of the reply ns a reply, nnd mado in your presence. May havo said “thundered it” —not certain ns to those words. Do not re member that I said in any speech, “you cow ered under it”—may liuvo said iu conversation that somo of your friends wero reported ns saying so, and that tlio people, as far ns I knew, deemed tlio reply not out of plnco, hut woll-timkd lyiibmoriled. Lkjow my main *b- jeet wns to report the facts as the best form in which I could present the nrgument. I never abuse nny-hody—never myself make personal issues in public-speeches, but gener ally reply to any thing which I consider merits a reply: and frequently, if not always (and I now bclievo always,)nlluded to your self and Mr. Toombs with a distinct disclaimer of un kind fcolings, because I never bad such feel ings for either of you. But I deemed it my duty to meet your argument to tho best of my humble ability, whorover I met it or heard it, nnd that, too, wether the argument nssumed tlicsbapo of lodgic, sarcasm or ridicule, nnd I never attempt the latter species of arguments, uni - s in reply to something of the kind first uscu by tlio adversary. I never make shots except at those who build batteries What I said nt Thomson, Augusta or else where, on the Judas allusion, you heard at Lexington. How I snid it you saw, nnd to what it was said in reply, nnd therefore why it was said, yon know; nnd whoever represents otherwise misleads you, either hy misrepresent ing mo, or by substituting their own applica tions for my statements. I had almost snid I was willing to submit to your own judgment, whether the whole wns not in strict accordance witli tlio rules of parliamentary retort Tho publio mittd has strangely had yourself and brother Linton and mysolf on several occa sions, lighting or quarrelling about something growing out of this Lexington disoussion, but hoping these tilings will bo in tlio future what they have been in tho past, entirely imaginary and without foundation in cither fact or fccliDg. I am, very truly yours, B. H. Hill. lion. A. II. Stephens. eule mo! which, ot course, made mo Presi dent in 1850, and the candidate for thut offici in 1856 ! ! He denied Hint ho lmd abused Stephen A. Douglas, especially on tlio slavery question, in 1852. I appealed to tlio audience beforo me to provo otherwise, and stated what I my self had hoard Mr S. say in La Grange, and voices responded from every part of the audience, “he did it hero—wo hoard him !” I could go on and state moro falsehoods equally ridicu lous—his Lnno charge — tho introduction of Judas—a favorite illustration with Mr. Ste phens—aud many other things, but it seems to mo unnoccssnry, and it is no pleasant task thus to exposo him, if I was able to count his false hoods ns fast as lie told thorn I have meu- tioued fivo, given as instances, at ono timo, in uuueu iivu, given us iiisiuuucs, ui. one iimo, in HEAR am : i reeoiveu yuur lunur oi ii one discussion, nnd before a largo audience of ’to day, nnd proceed to givo a prompt reply. intelligent people, and by whom every word can be proven, if iio.dcnioa them. It scorns to mo this makes tlio gentleman n perfect “Colt’s repealer," in tlio matter of telling falsehoods. Keep cgol, Nancy, this is worse than tlio bear- fight! To ths third point Tbo gentleman cannot specify a single sentence, word or syllable, in my letters to him, my spceob in his presence, or my remarks about him, that is not strictly true and confined to him as a publio man. The only grievanco which ho specifies in his card, ho admits in his letter is satisfactorily explain ed. Everything elso iu tho correspondence they had betrayed tho Whig party, and had acted towards it worso tliuu Judas Iscariot— for, though ho betrayed bis master, yet ho did not abuso him afterwards—that you had thun dered this in their (Toombs and Stephens) ears, and thoy cowered under it. Plonso lot rao know if it bo true, that you on tho occasion ailndcd to, used such language, or intondod yourself to bo understood as using such innguage, or any of like import; at least so fur as I am concerned. Your early attention to this will oblige, Yours, most respectfully, Alexander U. Stephens. To B. H. Ilill, Esq., LuGrango, Ga. La Grange, Ga , Nov. 18, 1856' Dear Sir: I recoived your letter of lltli I did not say at Thomson, or Augusta, or elsewhoro, that you nnd Mr Toombs “had be trayed the Whig party, and bad acted towards it worso than J udas Iscariot,” Ao. This, perhaps, is the application which your informant himself made of what I did say. It is not possible for me now to recall tho prcciso words used by mo at the time alluded to, nor at any other time ; but tho substance of what I snid about the disoussion at Lexing ton and Washington, I well romember, though I OQnuot designate preoiscly how much I said at any one placo, as I sometimes snid mors than at other times ; hut I havo no disposition Crawfordville, Ga,Nov. 22, 1856. Sir:—Your letter hearing dato tlio 18th instant, (mailed or post marked tlio 20th,) wns received by me to day. In reply to tho in quiry made in thine to you, of the 17th iust., you sny that you did not, nt Thomson, or Au gusta, oi* elsewhere, say that I and Mr Toombs “had betrayed tho Whig party, and hnd actod towards it worso than Judas Iscariot,” Ao. This is satisfactory on that point You, however, go on to say that nt Thompson, Au gusta, and other placos, you did allude to the discussion at Lexington; but that you said on those occasions no more on the subject of my inquiry (contained in my 'otter of tho 17th iust) than you did say id my presence at Lcx- iDgton. And you givo what yon intondod, I suppose, as tho substance of wbat you there said, Ac. Now, waiving all comments on this report of your remarks at Loxiugon, ns given in your letter, allow mo to ask you further, whether nt Loxington, in tho only allusion you made to Judas Iscariot, you did not expressly stato that you did not apply that to me? I wish, also, to bo informed whether, in your “nnrralive” nt Thompson, or clsowlicro, you in tended to bo understood as having imputed trcachoay in mo to tho Whig party, or any other body of mon? An early and distinct reply to these addi tional enquiries, rendered tiecossary by tho oharncter of your lottcr, is desired. Very respectfully, Alexander. H Stephens. To B. H. Hill, Esq , LaGrango, Ga. La Grange. Ga., Nov. 24th, 1866. Sir ; By tho mail of yostordny (Sunday) I received your letter of : yon m«de two enquiries, and ask plies: \ . 1st. Whether in the allusion to Judas Isca riot at Lexington, I did not expressly state that I did dvt apply that to jjm.” My re col lection is this i In yoar first spoeeb yon made your charges against the Americans, alluded to in my letter of the 18th, and introduced in the character oT Judas and " his allies." Id my first rejoinddr, I made the reply alluded to, and without qualification, expecting yon (if J0d wero dissatisfied or desired explanation) to % speak of it in your conclusion. Yon did not do so. In |my conclusion I again mentioned it, and added voluntarily—“ of coarse, my friends, I do not mean to say that Mr. Ste phens is a Judas.” This I added, because I did not wish tho audience to consider me personal, but as using a figure of your own id reply, and (as I must now tell the feeling that actuated mo) becouso I did fool somo com punctions for making thnt last speech at all f as it Bccmcd cruel to add anything after youv last speech. I always disclaimed personal un- kindness, for certainly I felt none. 2d. You nsk “ whother in my narrative at Thomson, or elsewhere, I intended to be un derstood ns imputing or having imputed treach ery in you to tho Whig party or any other body of men ?” In my letter of the 18th, I distinctly stated in reference to my meaning, that “I intended it to bo understood as simply in reply to tho chargo made, Dcithcr more Dor less.” By tho light of yonr owp moving, then, you can, learn my answer. \ < Yonr remarks were csrtarnly as offensive rb any thing said by me, nnd wero tho firnt made, nnd I might also havo been writing letters call ing on you for explanation, but as I entered that contest to use the sword of the tongno and tho shield of fact, I intended to bo satisfied with tho result, nnd so I am And what was said thcro wns said to the publio, I had and have no objections to its use in reply to similar points made any time to any peoplo. I never, in disenssion, first enter tho field of ridiculo or personal reproach, but if my adver sary takes thnt path, I generally follow, and if I get too close on his heels for his comfort, he must blame only himself. Instead of discussing tho principles advo cated hy the American party, have you not for the last eighteen months been abusing tho members of that party ns “midnight conspira tors,” ‘treason plotters,” "French Jneobins,” Ac.? Have you not compared them to every thing monstrous among men, beasts or insects? Have you not searched tho whole field of ridi cule, from “ Doodle holes” to “Bear-fights,” with which to engender prejudice against this parly ? Did you not at Lexington, call them the allies of the obolitionigt Lnuc, who has never actod witli them ror been of them, but who was one of - tho immneulnto “ forty-four?” And did you not pretend to read whatyou called tlio Know Nothing oath, (which you snid Mr Fillmore had taken,) nnd did you not rend a portion — leaving out tlio very quali fication which your argument wns designed to prove it did not contain ? Did you not in that very connection talk a good deal about Judas ? Were these charges just—wore they trust Bns it not abuse ? And who were tlio men thus denounced ? Can yon find better any where ? Will you ever find men who can or will do more for you than these men have dono ? Do you really believe they ore dangerous to their country f Vftfy, mit, 1 hat repeat whaV you know when I sny,J^"‘^^ - our country, o4F4feti fought, these men 'w and tlio last to leave it. W Romo has fallen, nnd the (fbths and' 1 may tako it Now then to the poinlf: ... discussion with mo you do so treat these men, must I say nothing in reply ? If I do reply, can your illustration returned bo out of placo ? If the arrow did pierce, it »ns|tnken from your own quiver. And if I mado you foel tlio ono shot, how do you suppose your old friends have felt, when you have mado thousands ? If you had not made tiio charge, I should not have made tho reply If you had only a political meaning, theu the reply goes no fur ther. If you _uicnnt nothing, so did the ro- ply. Your treatment of the Whigs is a matter between you and them: nor is it matorial to me to how many parties yon may have be longed, or how you left them: or they left you; but when you speak of my political associates whether whigs or dsmocrats, in tlio manner mentioned, then the hour for defence and retort has eomc, nDd will not be suffered to pass idly away. By your own words construe mine: by your own mcaniug judge me, nnd harshly or kindly as you may. Tho chargo was mnde, the reply followed—and thero thoy are—tako both or tako neither, If you wero in a glass house, you ought not to havo thrown stones: if you did not live in a glass honse, no stone, thrown by mo, has harmed you. Your right to refuse to join tho American party and to join the Democratic party, is unquestionable: and tho motive and the fact are both unquestioned by me. Tho right of your old friends to refuse to follow you is also unquestionable, and neither you nor they should bo compared to Judus nor charged with treachery to thus obeying tho dictates of your honest conviction. Nor havo I done so, or intended so to bo understood by nny body. But if you compare theso men to Judas,.or_ apply tlio other opprobrious terms mentioned, to them, their organization, tlioir principles, or their conduct, I shall call it by its right name —abuse; und in resorting to such abuse, leaving his treachery out of the question, I Bay you do what tlio record docs not show against Judns- ahuse tho men who for twelve years'fedyou with “five loavcB and two fishes,” indefinitely multi plied! I hope you now nnderstand mo. I never havo mado, and do not now make any charge of treachery against you. No man regrets moro than I do your opposition, and especially the character of your opposition to tho American party. It has boen unjust to tho party—gross ly unjust and untrue to the motives of the men and tlio principles thoy advocate. It has becD unjust to yourself, aud tho student of your early history will have no right to anticipate such a sequel. But in tho discharge of what I deemed my duty, I replied to your charge, and whilo tho chargo remains, the roply must keep its company. Yours, very truly, B. II. Hul. Hon. A. H. Stephens. Washington, D. C., Nov. 29, 1851) Sir:—Yonr lettor bearing date tb inst., (mailed or post marked not reaob Crawfordville, whqjjji , until after I left for this ]' It has just eomc to hand been forwarded, audJ8|'