2
THSS COUHIISR,.
BY J. G. M’WTIORTEIL
-rm'lLS—This Paper is published every MONDAY
r v*-EDNKSDAY and FRIDAY Afternoon, al JO per an
PAPKR— 1 ’ übllshcdcvn ry FRIDAY afternoon
C< .^ ! p , r ation or $1 at the nxptration of
’ G^’n' □'Subscriptions received for less time
than six months.
-r ADVERTISEMENTS not exceeding a square wih
be inserted the first lime at 75 cts. per square and 37 1-2
square, published Weekly, at 75
cents for the first insertion, and 50 cents, or cacti con
p •'r'oiis'advertising b the year will be charged 30 dollars
including subscription and will be entitled lo one square
Whe» a^X r ’have standing advertisements of several
sau'ircSs special contracts may be made.
tr l N) deductions will be made in future from these
charges , . number of insertions
« Utlfor.
e iVeIO kVs’ , public officers, will have
25 percent.deducted in their tavor.
STATE OF S. CAROLINA.
JUDGE'S CHAMBERS,
CHARLESTON DIST 25:h MARCH, IS3-1.
The State tx Relatione,} Motion for a Manda-
Edie. M' Grady, | mus to Col. Bcnj.r.
ps. } Hunt, Commanding
Col. B. F. Hunt, Com. | the 16th Regiment of
16h't T g- 8. C Mililia.) the S.Carolina Militia,
requiring him to issue a Commission to
Edward” M’Grady, as First Lieutenant
in the Washington Light Infantry, a
Company attached to the said Regiment,
di’C.
The suggestion filed in this case,states
that the Relator, Edw. M’Grady, was,on
tho 20th day of February, .1834, duly
elected First Lieutenant of the Washing
ton Light Infantry, a Volunteer Compa
ny attached to the above named Regi*
rinent, in the 4ih Brigade of the South
Carolina Militia. And, that after being
thus elected, he applied, on the Ist day
of March, 1834, to the above named
Benj. F. Hunt, Colonel of the said 16th
Regiment of Infantry, for his Commis
sion as First Lieutenant of tho said Com
pany; which the said Co). Hunt refused
to deliver to him without any just or law
ful cause. Wherefore, the Relator prays
tho Courtto grant him a Writ of Manda
mus, to be directed to tire said Col Hunt,
and al! others concerned, in refusing to
deliver to the Relator his said commission
—and commanding him and them to ac
knowledge your Relator, as rightfully en
titled to exercise tho said office of First
.Lieutenant of tho Washington Light In
fantry aforesaid; and, the Relator further
prays for such other and further relief in
the Premises, as to tho Court shall seem
meet,
To this suggestion, Col. Hunt, the Res
pondent, comes in and sheweth, that he
lias duly received the Return of the Of
ficers who held tho .Election for First
Lieutenant of the Washington Light In
fantry, by which, it appears that tho said
Edw. M’Grady was duly elected to that
office, and has been duly requested to
•Commission him accordingly.
That the said Edw. M’Grady at tho
-time of his demand for tha Commission,
tendered him an oath sworn to before a
Magistrate, in the form prescribed by the
Constitution of this State, which oath is
attached to the Respondent’s answer to
tho suggestion. And, for cause why he
refused to Commission the said Edw.
M’Grady, the Respondent shewoth, that
tho authority given to the Colonel of a
Regiment to issue Commissions, Respon
dent considers purely executive! and that
ho is bound to do what he presumes the
Governor would do, if he acted directly,
that by the 12th Section of the Act of
tho Legislature, entitled “An act to pro
vide for tho Military Organization of
this State,” the officer whose duty it shall
-be to issue a Commission to any person
elected or appoin ed to any office in the
Militia, is bound to require an oath pre
scribed by the 10th Section of said Act,
in addition to the oath tendered by the
said Edw. M’Grady. And he refusing
tc tender or take such oath, Respondent
does not consider himself at liberty to
exercise his own judgement on the legal
ity of tho Requisition, but on the contra
ry,that ho is bound to adhere to the letter
of the act; Respondent believing that the
power to Commission, which is entrusted
to the Colonels of Regiments, is for con
venience only, and that the proper Com
missioning Officer, is the Governor of
the Stale. Respondent, therefore, shews
for cause why he refuses to Commission
said Edw. M’Grady, that he, the said
Edw. M’Grady, refuses to take the oath
prescribed by the Militia, Act, entitled
“An Act io provide for the Military Or
ganization of this State.”
From the foregoing suggestion on the
part of the Relator, and the answer of the
Respondent, it would appear that the on
ly point in the case, was, Mr. M’Grady’s
refusal to take the oath required by the
late Militia Act. And whether finally,
his refused was such a good and valid
objection, as justified Col. Hunt, in re
fusing to give him his Commission. It is
true that Col. Hunt his stated in his an
swer, that Mr. M’Grady had tendered
him au oath, sworn to before a Magistrate,
in ihc form prescribed by the Constittt.
tint) of this State. Upon looking into
the State Constitution of 1790, the 4th
Article is in the following words:
“ All persons, who shall be chosen or
appointed to any Office of Profit or
Trust, before entering on the execution
thereof, shall take the following Oath :
“ I do swear or affirm, that I am quali
fied, according to the Constitution of this
State, to exercise the office to which 1
have been appointed, and will, to the
Ijest of my abilities, discharge tho duties
thereof; and preserve, protect and de.
fend the Constitution of this State and of
tho U. States.” This, then, is the oath
tendered by tho relator to Col. Hunt, to
justify him in demanding his Commission,
and is obviously the oath intended by the
Constitution, to bo administered to the
Judges, Chancellors, and all the Public
Officers of the State, upon enter iug into
and upon the duties of their Offices, and
has m relation whatever to tl.o Military
or Militia Officers of the State, for the
preceding article immediately before, to
wn, the 3d article, had just prescribed
the manner in which Public Officers
should bo chosen, and their tenure of
office, tec. and immediately following the
4th clause, prescribes the Oath of office
above mentioned.
It is obvious, therefore, that this was
not tho Oath, meant or intended by tho
Act of 1833, to be administered to the
Militia Officers, upon taking Commis
sions in the Military line—it is, therefore,
clear, that although tendered to Col.
Hunt, it did not entitle tho Relator to
his Commission, as First Lieutenant in
the Washington Light Infantry.
Tho R cspondent, in his answer, fur
ther states, that the said Edw. M’Grady
refused to take the Oath mentioned in
in the 10th section of tho late /Yet, pro
viding for the Military Organization of
this State, and therefore, for that cause,
he refused to give him his Commission.
But although the Respondent states in his
said answer, that the Relator refused to
take the said Oath, yet the latter has as
signed no reasons for his refusal to take
it—so that in common cases, wo might
well conclude, and stop here, upon lhe
Defendant’s refusal without cause to take
the Oath, and dismiss the present appli
cation.
But it has been alleged by the advo
cates of the Relator, that this Oath, pre
scribed by die Act of 1833, is a Nullity
because it conflicts with the Constitution
of the U. S. as the Supreme Law of the
Land—yet it has not been pointed out
how it contravenes the Constitution of
the U. States, or how and in what man
ner the Laws of South-Carolina are to
be regulated by the Acts of the U. States.
We are, therefore, left to the obvious
powers of our Slate Constitution, and ci
vil authorities, to justify the Oath pres
cribed by the Act of 1833.
It will not be denied, but that, by the
Dccla ation of Independence, on the 4th
July, 1776—1 he 13 Colonics of Great
Britain, from New-Hampshire to Geor
gia inclusive, became independent states;
the words of that celebrated instrument
ate too clear and forcible to be misunder
stood—they are lhe following: (after re.
citing the cause of the separation in tho
most animated and energetic language to
be found on the page of history,) “ wo,
therefore, tho representatives of the U.
States of America, in general Congress
assembled,appealing to lhe supremo judge
of the world for the rectitude of our in
tentions, do, in tho name, and by the au
thority of the good people of these Colo
nies, solemnly publish and declare, that
these United Colonics are, and of right
ought to be, free and independent Slates.
That they aie absolved from all allegi
ance to tho British Crown ; and that all
political connexion between them and the
State of Great Britain, is and ought to
be, totally dissolved. And, that as free
and independent States, they have full
power to levy war, conclude peace, con
tract alliances, establish Commerce, and
to do all other things which independent
States, may of right dr.” By this cele
brated Declaration, then,South. Carolina,
with the other Colonies, became a free,
sovereign and independent Slate—and
from this period all power and sovereign
authority, became vested in the people of
South-Carolina ; as a free and indepen
dent nation.
The people then, and from thence for
ward, had the right of establishing a Con
stitution and form of Government to suit
themselves and their posterity; of forming
alliances, and of doing all other things to
promote and advance their prosperity
happiness; and they soon after, in conse
quence of these powers, among other
things, formed the present State Govern
ment; consisting of Legislative, Judicial,
and Executive powers, which, from time
to time, have all been occasionally exer
cised and imposed, so as to promote the
happiness of the people of South Caroli
na. In the Government, the Legislative
power was divded into two branches, a
Senate and House of Representatives; to
these bodies, thus constituted, all power
of legislation, or the authority of making
laws, was particularly consigned and con
fided, and to the enactments of these two
Houses of the legislative bodies, framed
by lhe representatives of lhe people, (he
citizens, and all persons coming to and
residing wi/hin the limits ofSouth Car
olina, owe due submission and obedience.
It followed as a natural consequence, that
upon the dissolution of tho allegiance,
which the Colonists owed the Crown of
Great Britian, upon lhe Declaration of
Independence, it was transferred to tho
State of South-Carolina, and from that
moment the State took its citizens and
others under its protection,and was bound
to secure to them the blessings of peace
with the security of life, liberty and pro
perty. In return for which, tho citizens
and others became obligated to render
their aid and services to the State, for its
defence against aggression and domestic
insurrection, whenever required by the
Slate so for to do. z\nd th is tho duties
of allegiance and protection became reci
procal and permanent, between the State
and its citizens. It may well be assimila
ted to the parental power of a father over
his children, ’till they arrive at maturity,
and of the respectful duties of children to
a parent, while under his paternal care.
From these primary and fundamen
tal principles, resulting from the connex
ion between the citizens and the State,
the latter has called upon the former,to af
ford that aid and assistance which is due
for the common defence of all in the
mode and manner least of all exceptiona
ble to a people, bred up in the principles
of Civil Liberty, by the late Act of 1833,
entitled “an Act for the Millitary organi
zation of the State,’in which tho following
Oath is required to be taken by the free
men of South-Carolina, the defenders of
lhe Stale, viz:
.1. J), do solemnly swear or a/firm,
[as the case may Zat,] that I will be faith
ful, and true allegiance bear, to the State
of South Carolina. So help me God.'
This Oath was neither more nor less!
than to do tho duty which every individ- ,
ual was bound to perform from the day of
Independence, to support and defend the
State in that independent situation into
which it had been elevated among the na
tions of the world, and the man who can
flinch or refuse to perform such a duty
does not appear to be well entitled to the
blessings of liberty, ortho protection of
South Carolina.
Tho situation of the world had not rcn.
dered it necessary for the State to call up
on the Millitary men of South-Carolina
to take this Oath, till the present period;
when the idea of Consolidation had be
come so prevalent in many portionsof the
United States, and since the President’s
Proclamation, has he d out the doctrine
that the primary allegiance of the citizens
was transferred to the United States in
the first instance but although deferred
till tho present period, the obligation al
ways existed, & when called upon by law,
the duty of the citizen commenced; and
this duty appears so reasonable and just
that it appeas difficult for any man of
coo] and calm reflection to refuse his as
sent to it.
I have now given briefly my opinion
on the powers as well as the reasons and
causes which led the Legislature ofSouth
Carolina to require that the present Oath
should betaken. In seven or elghtStates
I am informed, this oath of allegiance has
been established and taken by (he citizens
for many years past, but it was reserved
for the present day for a portion of the
Militiao fficers of the State of S.Carolina,
to refuse to take the requisite Oath, pro
bably upon the unfounded assumption of
power contained in the above Proclama
tion of the President of the United
States.
I now turn to another branch of this
case to see, or endeavor to find out, how
it militates against the Constitution of lhe
United States as the supreme law of the
land.
Tho advocates for Consolidation, have
not, however, pointed it out, or shewn
how the principles of this Oath of Alle
giance or the Act of the Legislature re
quiring it, operates against the Consittu
lion of the United States, or by what au
thority the latter have a right to interfere
with the domestic regulations or internal
laws of an independent State in the gov
ernment of its citizens. It will be ad
mitted <>n all handi, I presume, that the
different States, after the Declaration of
Independence, had a right to form allian
ces and do all other acts which inde
pendent States ofright ought to do. In con
sequence of these rights in the great
charter of American independence, the
different States of America did form an
alliance, and confederated together
for the purposes of offence and defence
by what was called the old Confedera
tion which kept them united together for
several years. But this act of Confeder
ation proving defective in many important
particulars, the present Constitution of
tho United States was formed by the sev
eral States, for the more perfect Union
of the States, to establish justice, insure
domestic tranquillity, to provide for the
common defence, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to the citizens oflheUnion and their pos
terity. By this grand national compact,
the powers vested inCongress ere all spe
cifically defined, and all laws made or to
be made,must be regulated by the powers
thus delegated by the States to Congress,
before they can bo considered as the su
preme Laws of the land, and any Law,
not made in conformity to the powers
thus given by the States, arc ipso facto,
null and void.
But the Constitution leaves the respec
tive States in full procession of all the
powers of independent nations, except
those given by the States to Congress—
and this instrument may wcL be assimila
ted to a well drawn power of Attorney,
in which the principals making it, are em
powered to give authorities to perform
acts or exercise rights which the agents
are empowered to do or perform; but if
such agent travel out of his powers to
do acts not authorized in his power of
Attorney, such acts are not authorised,
but become null and void. Now I know
of no act of Congress or any article in
the Constitution which operates against
the late Act of 1833, or the Oa hos Al
legiance which it requires—certainly none
is expressly given.
The only express power which this
Constitution gives over tho Militia of
the Slates, is that contained in the 9ih
section of the first article of the Constitu
tion,which among other things therein
mentioned, declares that Congress may
provide foe the calling forth the Militia
to execute the Laws of the Union, sup
press insurrection, and repel invasions,
to provide for organizing, arming and
disciplining lhe Mtllitia, and for governing
such part of them as may be employed in
'he service of the United States, reser
ving to the States respectively the appoint
ment of tho officers, and, the authority of
training lhe Mlitia according to the dis
cipline prescribed by Congress.
This authority given to Congress, only
authorizes the calling out of the Militia
in times of peril and danger, and of arm
ing & exercising of such parts of them as
may be employed by the United States,
conformably to the rules of Congress, but
every thing else is reserved to, and left
with tiie States respectively, according to
(he Laws of the same.
Upon the whole of this case, therefore,
I am of opinion that Col. Hunt was well
warranted in refusing the relator his com
mission in tho Washington Light Infant
ry, as he had refused to take the Oath
prescribed in the 10tl» section of tho late
Militia Act.
The motion for the mandamus is there
fore dismissed,
E. II- BAY.
BLANK BILLS.
Neatly printed at this office, and for sale
[From the CharlesloTi Courier,']
JUDICIAL DECISION ON TIIE
TEST OATH.
We lay before our readers, this morn
ing, the decision delivered at Chambers
yesterday, by His Honor Judge Bay, af
firming the constitutionality of the Test
Oath. The question was submitted to
Judge Bay without argument, and an ap
peal from his decision will be made forth
with, before the Court of Appeals, now
sitting, in this place, and will probably
be argued in the course of the present
week. Titos. S. Grimke, and Jas. L.
Petigru, Esqrs. will represent the Appel
lant; and Messis. R. B. Smith, Attorney
General, and Wni, P. Finley, lhe Re*
spondent.
The decision of Judge Bay leaves (he
main question,whether the Oath demands
paramount Allegiance to the State, and
whether the exaction of such Allegiance
by lhe State, is consistent with the Fed
eral Constitution, wholly untouched; and
is, in this particular as ambiguous as the
Oathitself. The Ordinance of lhe Con
vention of March, 1833,declaring Allegi*
anceto be exclusively due to the State, &
which was,beyond all controversy,the au
thority,whether properly pmsued or not,
under which the Legislature enacted the
obnoxious Oath, is not even glanced at in
the opinion, and those who resort to it to
resolve the case of conscience, raised by
the Oath, will find themselves as much in
the dark as ever. We trust rhatwhen this
momentous question, on which may be
said to hang the issue of peace or war,
comes before tho high judicatory, which
is next to take cognizance of it, it will
receive an adjudication so plain, on one
side or the other, as to leave ‘no loop to
hang a doubt on’—no ambiguity, patent
or latent, to alarm the tender, or ensnare
the careless conscience. Such a course
is due to the country.
On one point the opinion of Judge Bay
is quite explicit. He decides unhesitat
ingly that the Oath of Office prescribed
by the Constitution of lhe State, does not
extend to Militia G fficers—in which, we
think, ho is refuted by the express lan
guage, and what may be termed the self
construction of the Constitution. The
4tli article of (hat instrument says—‘All
persons, who shall be chosen or appointed
to any office of profit or trust, before en
tering on the execution thereof, shall take
the following Oath—‘l do swear or af
firm, that I am duly qualified, according
to tho Constitution of this State, to exer
cise the office to which I have been ap
pointed, and will, to the best of my abil
ities, discharge the duties thereof, and
preserve, protect and defend the Consti
tution of this State, and of the United
States.” It is clear from the very terms
of this Oath, that it applies to ‘all per
sons, chosen or appointed to any office of
profit or trust’ under the State. It only
then remains to be ascertained whether a
Militia Office is an ‘Office of profit or
trust.’ That it is an ‘office of profit,’
may be argued from the fact that in
actual service, Militia Officers receive
their pay, and from the additional fact
that the Adjutant-General, who is only a
Militia Officer, is actually a salaried Of
ficer, even on our peace establishment.—
But we may yield the point, that it is not
an ‘office of profit,’ within the meaning of
the Constitution—it is sufficient for our
purpose, that it is an ‘office of trust,’ and
100 clearly so to admit of dispute. This
is proved by the very nature of the of
fice, which reposes a trust of high and of
ten delicate responsibility, involving too
judicial functions affecting property, lib
erty and even life—by the form of the
militia commission, which purports to re
pose ‘special trust and confidence” in lhe
Officers—and above all, by the following
self interpreting clause of the State Con
stitution—Art. 1. See. 21 ‘No per*-
son shall be eligible to a seat in the Leg
islature,whilst he holds any office of profit
or trust under this State, the United
States, or either of them,under any other
power— except Officers in lhe Militia,Ar
my or Navy of this State, justices of the
peace, or justices of the county courts,
while they receive no salaries.’ Thus,
then, (Offices in the Militia are expressly
recognized as Offices of trust, by being
excepted from those offices ‘of profit or
trust,’ which disqualify their incumbents
for eligibility to seats in the State Legis-
Irture. We gather too from this clause,
that Militia Offices, with salaries, are
offices of both profit and trust—and with
out salaries, are offices of trust only,with
in the meaning of the Constitution. A
Militia Officer having been thus proved
to hold an ‘office of trust”—it follows de
monstrably, th.it he must bo embraced in
the constitutional requisition of tin Oath
from all persons ‘chosen or appointed to
any office of profit or trust” under the
State. The Legislature then, having
added to, altered or amended the Oath
of Office preset ibed by the Constitution,
by exacting of Militia Officers, a new
Oath of Office, additional 10 the old one,
and having done this, by a simple Act of
Legislation,\\unc either violated that pro
vision of the State Constitution, which
forbids alterations, unless by two-thirds
of both branches of two successive Leg
islatures, or must justify themselves un
der lhe extraordina y power conferred
upon them by the ordinance of the Con
vention, which the minority in this State
allege to be against the Federal Consti
tution, because it demands exclusive and
therefore paramount Allegiance to the
State, but which the Judge has wholly
overlooked in his decision. The Judge
has evidently mistaken the position of the
relator, when he ascribes to him, by dir
ect implication, an indisposition to pay
all lawful Obedience or Allegiance to the
authority of the State. The proceedings
disclose that he tendered to the proper
Officer, his Oath, in due form, to ‘pre
serve, protect &, defend the Constitution
of this Stale and of the United States’—
and no republican State should ever de
mand any other, nor should any republi
can citizen ever take any other,unless
identical in meaning. For the course he |
has pursued in bringing his case before
the Courts of his country—he deserves
the applause of every friend of peace and
rood order —his honorable and patriotic
motive was to substitute, if possible, the
peaceful arbitremei.t of tho Judiciary, for
the terrible arbitrement of the sword, and
thereby save his native State from the
horrors of a civil convulsion.
The position too of Col. Hunt, the re
spondent in the case, may need explana
tion. He, as well as the relator, regatds
the Test Oath as a measure of unconsti
tutional and wanton oppression—and has
only devolved on the Judiciary their ap
propriate function of deciding on the
Constitutionality of Legislative Acts, in
stead of assuming it to himselfbya doubt
ful stretch of authority.
From the Rockingham Gazette.
To the memory of a young Lady, seen for lhe first
lime on a spring morning.
I love the memory of the hour.
When first in youth I found thee;
For infant beauty gently threw
A morning freshness round thee.
A single star was rising there,
With mild and lovelj motion;
And scarce the zeph ft’s gentlest breath,
Went o’er the sleeping ocean.
I love the memory of that hour—
It wakes a pensive feeling;
As when within the winding shell,
The playful winds are stealing.
It tells my heart of those bright years,
Ere hope went down in sorrow,
When all the joys of yesterday
Were painted on to-morrow.
Where art thou now? thy once-loved flowers
Their yellow leaves are twining;
And bright and beautiful again
That single star is shining.
But where art thou? tlie bended grass
A dewy stone discloses;
And love’s light footsteps print the ground,
Where all my peace reposes.
Farewell! my tears are not for thee,
’Twere weakness to deplore thee,
Or vainly mourn thine absence here;
While angels half adore thee.
Thy days were few, and quickly told 1
Thy short and mournful story
Hath ended like the morning star,
That melts in deeper glory. W.
I’ve lov’d to hear the war horn cry;
And panted at the drum’s deep roll:
And held my breath, when fl lining high
I’ve seen our starry banner fly,
As challenging the haughty sky,
They went, like battle, o’er my soul (
For I was so ambitious then,
I burned to be the slave of men.
I’ve stood and seen in mournful light—
A standard swaying far and free;
And loved it, like the conquering flight
Os angels, floating wide and bright
Above the storm, above the fight,
Where nations warred for liberty;
And thought I heard the battle cry
Os trumpets in the hollow sky:
I’ve sailed on the dull blue deep,
And shouted to the eagles, soaring;
And hung me from a rocky steep
When all but spirits were asleep;
And, O, my very soul would leap,
To hear the gallant waters roaring!
For every sound and shape of strife,
To me was but the breath of life :
But 1 am strangely altered now,
I love no more the bugle voice—
The rushing wave—the plunging prow,
The mountain, with his clouded brow.
The thunder, when the blue skies bow,
And all the sons of God rejoice— ■
I’ve learned to dream of tears and sighs,
And shadowy hair and timid eyes.
Mr. Webster's bill.— The new debate
introduced by the measnre, was continu
ed yesterday by Mr. Calhoun and Mr.
Benton.
Tho very best aspect was given to the
scheme of rechartering the Bank, by Mr.
Calhoun. With great art and adroitness,
bo endeavored to draw the President's
policy of restoring gold and silver, as the
ordinary currency instead of paper, into
the support of tho recharter of lhe Bank,
or ingrafting a new one upon it.— He ad
mitted, what all lhe party opposed to the
administration have heretofore denied,
that the currency was depraved by the
Bank issues— and in effect contradicted
all those eulogies upon the Bank of the
United States 1 which ascribe to it the
pjaise of creating a wholesome conditian
of the currency. He declared that great
mischief was lo be apprehended from the
almost tatal substitution of paper for the
metallic medium which has taken place in
tho country —and propossed to remedy
the evil upoirihe plan which has been re
peatedly alluded to by the President, in
reference to the proposed system, to the
introduction of which ho has taken the
first step.
But with the acknowledgment of the
evil, and that it aught to be remedied,
viz. that the paper system had increased
—was increasing, and ought to be dimin
ished — Mr. Calhoun’s concurence with
the view ;of the President ceased. His
remedy tor tho evil of banking, brought
about by the present system of banking,
is to continue it. He proposed to re
charter the present Bank, or superadd a
new one upon the old structure, for
tweive years, adopting Mr. Webster’s
modification of interdicting the issue of
of notes below the denomination of $10 —
and at the end of six years raising the in
terdict to S2O notes. — Globe.
The Debates in both Houses of Con
gress at the present moment are of deep
interest to lhe People at large, and attract
greatly the attention of all persons here.
The Debate which has arisen in the Sen
ate on the Bank Bill motion of Mr. Web
ster, if a little out of order, as rather an
ticipating the proper stage of the Bill for
debate, has yet been very interesting.—
The Speeches of Mr. Webster, Mr. Leigh,
and Mr. Wright,and of the two former in
reply to the latter, will be given as early
as practicable. If we now speak more
particularly of the Speech oflMr-Calhoun
who yesterday followed those gentlemen
in debate, it is because a curiosity has
expressed to know the course which his
Speech on the subject would indicate.—
We therefore venture to say biieflyof it
what follows! Mr. Calhoun is Opposed to
Mr. Webster’s plan, as embraced in his
bill, because, as he argues, it leaves the
currency unfixed, and refers only to the
Bank question. He said that the disease
which prevails, is the excess of the paper
currency over the specie; the remedy, to
diminish the paper currency, and the
means of perfecting the remedy, by using
the Banks to cure the disease which tho
Bauks have introduced,as youapply snow
to be frozen limb, and apply fire to ex
tract fire. He did not go into details. —
The United States Bank, he said could
be renewed for twelve years, prohibit
ted from issuing notes under 10 dollars
for the first six years, and under 20 for
the rest of the term: all dues o the Trea
sury undei 10 dollars to be paid in coin,
&c. The details he left to be settled
after. Mr. C. also declared himself in
favor of a reduction of interest on dis
counts by the Bank.
[lntelligencer.
There is a report in town that a vio
lent altercation took place in the House
yesterday, between Mr. Pinckney and
his colleague, Blair, occasioned by
the assertion of the former that nullifica
tion was completely triumphant through
out South Carolina. It is said that the
harshest epithets were used by Mr. Blair.
[Baltimore Gazette 21st inst.
On the subject of the above altercation,
the Correspondent of the Naw-York
Journal of Commerce furnishes the fol'
lowing account, under date of tho 20th in
stant:
“Tr-day, Mr, Pinckney, of South
Carolina, followed Mr. Wilde. In the
course of his remarks he said— Tho De
posites must be restored or a Revolution
will soon follow. The spirit that threw
the tea overboard is abroad among tho
people: I repeat, Sir, that a Revolution
sat hand, unless the Deposites are re
stored' Hero Mr. Pinckney was inter
rupted by an audible response by way of
comment, in these .emphatic words, — ‘It
is a lie.” Mr. Pinckney claimed the pro
tection of the House. The Chair called
to order. The offending individual (Mr.
Blair, of S. C.) retired from the Hall,
and Mr. Pinckney proceeded to treat the
question as having come to a crisis at
which the people would assert their rights,
with violence, unless they should soon be
relieved.”
A 1 ® tg s w
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2. '
There will be a meeting of the citizens of
Clark county who are favorable to the Union
an<l opposed to nullification, in the Baptist
Church in Athens, oh Saturday, the sth of April
next, at which meeting resolutions will be sub
mitted for discussion, and such measures taken
as may be thought proper to promote the great
interests of the-country.— Banner.
The following names arc attached to the above:
William Dearing, Stevens Thomas, Edward
Prine, James Tinsley, A. M. Nisbet, Jacob
Phinizy, John Morton, John H. Lowe, William
Jones, John Nisbet, Win. L. Mitchell, Isina W.
Wooldridge.
University of Gtorgia.— There are now 108
students in this institu’ion, distributed ns fol*
lows: Seniors 20, Juniors 22, Sophomores 47,
and F reshmen 19.
We have received three numbers of a new
paper, published in New York and Philadelphi ,
which we are sure the public will patronize, ns
it gives "All The Passing News" and teaches
the‘.4rZ Os Money Gelling' and what now Delays,
seems of moi e i npoitance, in relation to News
papers, the art of money keeping, ns the tub
scription is but 50 cents per year;
Gov. Marcy has sent to the Legislature of N.
York a special message on the subject of Banks.
The following extract may give an vmdeistand
ing of his views :
“ It has been suggested to me by several
practical and intelligent gentlemen from the
city of New York, for whom and for whose opin
ion I entertain tiie highest respect, and whom,
I am sure, were governed by no motives of in
dividual interest in the matter, that the estab
lishment of a large banking institution in that
city was called for at the present time.
A capital of eight or ten millions was men
tioned; and it was proposed that the State should
take one half, arid pay for it by a State stock,
bearing an interest of four or five per cent, re
deemable at the expiration of the charter; the
ballance of stock to be distributed by commis
sioners to be appointed by the Governor and
Senate, or in such other manner as should be
thought best; the Senate to appoint its share of
directors; the rate of discount to be fixed at six
per cent, and if deemed proper, the surplus pro
fits over six or seven per cent, per annum to be
paid into the State treasury; the institution to
issue no notes under twenty dollars, and in oth
er respects to be made subject to the general
laws of the State, reseiving to the Legislatuie
the usual right to modify or repeal the charier.
It was urged that the stock issued by the State
might readily be disposed of in Europe for
specie, and that such a charter would furnish a
suflicient inducement to insure the necessary
subscriptions for the residue of the capital; that
such an institution would be able to take the
debt now due the United States Bank in this
State, whenever it should be called in: to fur
nish the requisite facilities to the commercial
interests of the city of New York in the discount
and collection of domestic exchange; to acquire
a character in Euiope which would enable it to
sustain mercantile credit in times of revulsion
in trade; and, in short, to exercise a healthful
influence over all the diversified interests of that
great city, and consequently over every branch
of industry throughout the State.
Although many of the advantages anticipated
from an institution of such a character, might,
and probably would be realized, there are, nev
ertheless, objections to this proposition, of se
rious if not preponderating weight. It is deem
ed by many to be objectionable in prineiple for
any government to engage in the ordinaiy pur
suits of individual enterprize. Such an institu
tion, possessing ample powers over the currency
of the State, which, properly directed, might be
productive of salutary effects, might also, by a
misdirection of its efforts, be equally capable of
producing serious and extensive injury. It
might in its administration be subject to the
fluctuations of the political power, and thereby
be in danger of becoming an engine wielded to
subserve the interests of a party. It might, by
the acquisition of political influence, paralyze
the controlling power reserved to the Legisla
ture—it might for the purpose of acquiring
this influence, openly take the field of party pol
itics, and exhibit the disgusting spectacle, with
