About Georgia courier. (Augusta, Ga.) 1826-1837 | View Entire Issue (April 25, 1834)
2 THE COURIER. BY J. C, M’VVHORTER. V S'R MS—This Paper is published every MONDAY VVKDNF.SD iV and FRIDAY Afternoon, at $8 per an viiiin payable in advance. COUNTRY PAPER—Published every FRID AY afternoon at $3 per annum,i n advance, or $4 at the expiration of ft p' No' Subscriptions received for less time than six months. rr ADVERTISEMENTS net exceeding a square will be inserted the first time at 75 cts. per square and 37 1-2 for each continuance. Advertiroments of one square, published JPeeMy, at 75 cents for the first insertion, and 50 cents,t or each con tinu.ince. ~ - , __ _ .. Persons advertising bv the year will be charged 30 dollars including subscription and will be entitled to one square in each paper. .... . r -i When persons hove standing advertisements of several squares, special contracts may be made. tT N.» deductions will be made in future from these All advertisements must have the number of insertions marked on them; otherwise they will be inserted tillior. bid,and charged accordingly. _ .... • H ERIFFS,CLERKS, and other public officers, wi>l hat e 85 per cent, deducted in their favor. _____ THE STATE EX RELATIONE, 1 Edward M’Ckady vs, ( Colonel B. F. Huxt, Commanding! 15th Regiment, South-Carolina Militia. J Tho Members of lhe Legislature, who were elected on the 15ih of October, 1832, at on extrp session, on the twenty sixth day of October, passed an Act to provide for the calling of a Convention of the People of this State, lhe Premble and first Clause of which arj as follows: Whereas,/he Congress of the U. States hath, on divers occasions, enacted laws laving duties and imposts-for tho purpose of encouraging and protecting domes ic or American manufactures, and for other unwarrantable purposes; which laws, in the opinion of the u<iod people of this State, and the Legislature thereof, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and are an infringement of the rights reserved to the States res. pectively, an J operate to the grevious in jury and oppression of lhe citizens of South Carolina. And whereas, to the State assembled in Convention, it be longs to determine the character of such acts; as well as the nature and ex ent of the evil, and lhe mode and measure of redress: . Be it therefore enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Sou.h Carolina, now met and sitting in General assembly, and it is hereby ordained by the authority of the same, That a Convention of the people of the Said State, shall be assembled ai Columbia, on the third Monday in No vember next, then and there to take into caasideralion, the several Acts »<f the Congress of the United Stales, imposing duties on foreign imports for the protec tion of domestic manufactures, and for other unauthorized objects; to determine on the character thereof, and to devise the means of redress; and further, in like manner, to take into consideration such acts of the said Congress laying duties on imports, as may be passed in amendment of, or substitution for, the act or acts aforesaid, and also, all other laws and acts of the Government of the United States, which shall be passed or done, for the purpose of more effectually exe cuting and enforcing the same. The Convention at Columbia, on the 18th March, 1833, passed an Ordinance entitled An Ordinance to nullify an Act of the Congress of the United States, en titled “An Act further to provide for the collection of duties on impoits,” com monly called the Force Bill, containing a separate clause in the following words: —“We do further ordain and declare, that lhe allegiance of the citizens of this Slate, while they continue such, is due to lhe said State; and that obedience only, and not allegiance, is due by them to any other power or authority, to whom, a controul over them has been, or may be, delegated by the Stale; and that the Gen eral Assembly of the said State, is here, by empowered from time to time, when they may deem it proper, to provide for the administration of the citizens and of ficers of tho State, or such of lhesaid offi cers as they may think fit, of suitable oaths or affirmations, binding them to the observance of such allegiance, and ad. juring all other allegiance; and also to define what shall amount to a violation of their allegiance, and to provide the pro per punishment for such violation.” By an Act passed on the 19ih day of December, 1833, entitled “An Act to provide for the Military organization of this State,” it was enacted as follows.— “In addition to lhe oath now required by law, every officer of lhe Militia, hereaf ter elected, shall before he enters <»o the duties of his office, take and subscribe, before some person authorized by law to administer oaths, the following oath; “I, A. 8., do solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will be faith ful and true allegiance bear to the State of South-Carolina.” On lhe 28'h of Fcbruiry,lß34, Edward M’Crady was elected Lieutenant <»f the Washington Light Infantry, a military corps in the city of Charleston, aud ap" plied for his commission, which Colenel Hunt, the commanding officer of the Regiment, refused to grant, unless he would take the above oath: which he re fused and applied to Judge Bay, for a rule to show cause why a Writ of Mandamus should not issue, to require the said Col. Hunt to deliver to the plaintiff his com. mission. His Honor, upon hearing the case, dis missed lhe rule; and from his judgement the plantiff appeals, and moves the Court of Appeals to reverse the order made by Judge Bay, and to make the rule absolute and takes in support of his motion the following grounds: First. That it is a violation of the Constitution of the State, to require the appellant to take the oath contained in jhc Military Bill. Because the 4<h Ar ticle of tho Constitution declares, that “All persons who shall be chosen or ap pointed to any office] of profit or trust, before entering on execution thereof, shall take the following oath; —“I d<> swear or affirm, that I am duly qualified, according to the constitutioa of this State, to exorcise the office to which I have been appointed, and will, to the best ol my abilities, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the constitution of this State, and of the U. States.” And that so much of the Mili tary Bill as goes to add to or alter the foregoing oath, or to impose any other oath of office, is, therefore, uoconsiiitur tional and void. Secondly. That the authority of the Legislature, to enact the oath contained in the Military Bill, cannot be derived from the Ordinance of 1833, for the fol lowing reasons: 1. That the terms of the Ordinance arc not pursued,nor its authority referred to, in the enactment of lhe said oath; uor does it appear, with certainty, that the oath contained in the Military Bill, is an oath binding the citizen to the observance of such allegiance as the Ordinance de fines. 2. Because the convention did not Authorize, and in fact could not authorize the Legislature to over-rule the constitu* tion, by changing one of its articles,wi.h* out conforming to the Rule, by which ail amendments to the constitution must take place. And for this proposition, the appellant has the authority of the same Legislature, who,by bringing in and passing a Bill to change the constitution in this behalf, have confirmed and ratified this construction. 3. Because the convention, in under taking to define allegiance, and to estab, lisli a test oath, exceeded their powers, as those matters aie not within the ob jects for which they were called. 4. Because the Ordinance itself is clearly repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and, therefore, null and void. MONDAY, 3lsl March, 1834. Present, Justices Johnson and Harper. MR. PETIGRU’S ARGUMENT. A case that has excited so deeply the at tention of the community will no doubt re ceive the most serious consideration of the Court. To say that it is a Con stitutional Question is enough to make it understood that the subject is one of the highest concern and interest; for a ques tion of constitutional law exceeds in im portance the discussion of a private right, as much as a general rule is of more im portance than a particular decision. And if there is any thing of which we may be juuly proud as an improvement in lhe science of Government, it is that Ameri can innovation, by which the Judiciary is made co-ordinate with the Legislature, and the injured are authorized to appeal from the Law to the Constitution. Nor can any case be imagined more worthy of the exercise of this high and solemn duly of the Judiciary than this, in which the decision must affect, not merely the freedom of an individual but the right of many thousands of tho people of this country to be accounted free—in which not the inheritance of a few acres only, but the birthright and portion of every man who does not subscribe to the pre vailing creed, are at stake. The parties to the Record are Mr. M’Crady and Col. Hunt—and the office about which the dis pute arrises is one of minor importance, an office, not only of small account in it' self, but in the eyes of the parties per fectly insignificant, in comparison with the principles which are involved. Be tween the patties to lhe Record there is in fact no dispute. Col. Hunt consents to make the question for the sake of all who have an interest in common with the Plaintiff: and Mr. M’Crady pursues his right in behalf of thousands of his fellow citizens, for the purpose of testing the validity of a law, which incapacitates them from office.— This civil incapacity with which we are menaced extends not merely to offices in the militia but to all places of power and trust under the authority of tho State; and not to the right of holding office merely; but to every constitutional and civil pri vilege. For by the Ordinance of 1833, the principle ofdisfranchisoment is adopt ed in the broadest terms of tyranny: and though the disability in question applies in this instance to military office only, there is nothing to prevent too extension of the principle to all civil rights and im munities whatever. The Oath which Mr. M’Crady is re quired to take is in the following terms: “I swear that I will be faithful and true allegiance bear to he State of South-Car olina.”—and he refuses to take it, be cause he acknowledges allegiance to the United States, as well as to lhe State of S. Carolina, and the authors of this oath by their authorittve construction, have declared that allegiance to (he State is and shall be equivalent to abjuration of allegiance to the United States. The terms of the Oath itself may not suggest (he objection. The text may be ambigu ous, but the commentary removes all doubt. Behold then the alternative to disfranchisement, which is submitted to the citizen—to subscribe to a party test or to swallow an ambiguous oath. Allegiance is derived from the barbar** ous latin word ligeantia— it is peculiar to the English law and there we must look for its proper signification. Fortunately we are at no loss for the most ample in formation concerning tho character of allegiance in the monarchy which is its native soil. In Calvin's case 7 Co. lit forms the subject of one of the most cu rious and elaborate arguments among the judicial discussions of that period. It is called the Bond of Subjection between the Prince and his subject; the tie by which the monarch holds his vassal, and by which he draws him from the remotest corner to which he can retreat. A chain which none but the royal hand can hold, and which the subject can never shake off. It is lhe same in effect with liege homage, an abject ceremony which fur nishes a striking illustration of the feudal origin of allegiance, and the profound subjection which it implies. “For when the tenant sljaif ipake fiotnage to his Lord he shall be engirt and his head un covered, and his Lord shall sit, and ten ant shall kneel before him on both his knees, and hold his hands'jointly together between the hands of his Lord, and shall say thus “I become your man from this day forward of life and limb, and of earth |y worship, and unto you shall be true aud faithful.” And then lhe Lord so sit ting shall kiss him.” In simple homage, thetc is a reseivation; as thus, “saving the faith. I owe our sovereign lord the King.” But in liege homage, which differs only in this, that it is performed to none but the Sovereign, there is no such saving. (Co Lit. 64b—1 HH. 65 ) From Cal vin’s case and the common law authori ties, we learn that the qualities of allegi ance, are; that it is natural, universal and perpetual—and due exclusively to lhe King in his natural person. So intimate ly is the original idea of allegiance con nected with royalty, that it is said by Lord Coke to belong to lhe King as an attribute proprim quarto modo— that is— to the King, and to the King always; to every King, and to none but the King— omni solo semper— 7 Co. 12a. In strict propriety of language, alle giance to lhe State, like citizen King, is nothing more than a misnomer. No phrase can be less apt to express the duty of a citizen, whose obedience belongs to the law; than a word which implies most strongly and emphatically reverence and subjection to the person of the sovereign. We can easily conceive why our ances tors excluded from the Constitution of the United States as well as from that of South Carolina, a word connected with so many heterogeneous associations as allegiance; the wonder is that the noble example of plain dealing and simplicity! which they have left us, should be lost on their successors; and that we should see at the present day, suchlan anxiety on lhe part of some people to put on the cast off finery of the Royal Livery. There is no doubt however, that when terms which express the relation between King and Subject are adopted into the laws of a Republic; they must be received in a new sense, with a modification of meaning corresponding to the altered character of the Governmeut. And so in fact we find lhe term allegiance used in some of the States. Neither do we deny that the State may require an Oath of Allegiance from her citizens. At least there is as much propriety in speaking of ellegiance to the State, as ot allegiance to the United States. No one supposes that the government of the United States is supreme beyond the sphere plainly de fined by the constitution; Neither does any one deny that the State is surpreme within its proper sphere of action As to the boundaries of power between the Federal authorities and the State author ities, meu have disputed from (he dawn of the constitution tothe presentdayzandfrom the assumption of lhe State deb's,in 1790, tothelast deba'eon the incorporationof the Bank of the United States, the acts of the General Government have been assailed and defended on the same ground ; and troth requires us to add that South Caro lina has been on every side of the same question. But that the Siatos, in the language of Mr. Madison, retain a resi duary and inviolable sovereignty over all objects, not embraced within the powers of the General Government has never been denied, amidst all the changes and contentions of party, at least not by any men or set of men, considerable enough to obtain for their opinions any general attention. If the oath in question,there lore, stood alone, or upon the words of the Military Bill only, we should without hesitation construe the obligation which it imposes,as an oath of fidelity to lhe State, commensurate with its reserved sover eignty, and consistent with an equal fidel ity to the United States, within the sphere of the constitution. But if the State authorities have set their own defiui lion on this term ‘allegiance,’ we are not at liberty, in the oath under considera tion, to construe it in any other way: and no honest man can take the oath in any other sense than that,which it would bear, if this word were omitted, and lhe corres ponding terms of the definition inserted in its place. Now the fact is that the authors of this measure have set a defini tion on the word allegiance which makes it to all intents and purposes a term of art, to express certain controverted opin. ions concerning the nature of the consti tution of the United States, and renders the oath in question a complete criterion of party —in one word, a Test Oath.— There is I apprehend a mistake that some people are very liable to fall into, in speaking on this subject by confound ing test oaths with religous persecution; for many persons seem to imagine that lhe new oath is not a test oath, because it does nut interfere with religious liberty. But in fact, all test oaths are political, not religious, in their objects; and if Test Acts do sometimes put the principle of exclusion on religious opinions, it is not against sech opinions as offensive to Hea ven, but as dangerous to the state that they are directed. In the age of perse cution, a sincere but misguided zeal for the honor of God, led to the. punishment of the heretic, whether he outwardly con formed or openly disented. But test oaths were the growth of a later age;they were not exacted pro salute animi— for the spiiitual welfare of people in office; but had their rise, as will as whatever justification was ever attempted of them, in considerations of public safety. The Union of Church and State, and the King’s supremacy sufficiently account for the connexion, real or supposed, between lhe secuiity of the State and the exclu sion from office of those whose religious opinions were at variance with the ma jority. The Dissenter and the Catholic wore against the Church, and the Church was part of tho Siate. It was in vain that they were willing to give any and every assurance of their fidelity Io the State as distinguished from the Church for their interests were inseparably con- nected, and the distinction could not be admitted. In like manner, the Union Party are willing to give any satisfaction of their devotion to tho State within its constitutional sphere, but the} difficulty lies in acknowledging an absolute fsupre macy—in subscribing to a declaration that Gov. Hay no is supreme head of the Church upon earth. In Mr. Locke’s Works, we find an ac count of the Test Oath of 1675, by a masterly hand. It runs in these words— ‘l do declare that it is not lawful, under any pretence whatever, to take up arms against the King—and that I do abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against his person, or against those who ate commissioned by him, in pursuance of such commission; and Ido swear that I wi’l not at any lime endeavor the alteration of lhe Government in Church or State.” This oath would suit the present times without any alteration besides that of putting States for King: And lhe authors vs our Test Uath only repeat, what the Courtiers of Chai les lhe Second said before them; that the public safety requires the Oath; and that no one should complain of being excluded by it; because no one is fit to be trusted, that is not willing to swear to truths so plain, and to principles so clear. Yet the ver dict of poster ity has stamped the age of Charles the Second with its lasting repro bation;and those who, upon a small scale, are uow making a similar use of power, may do well to bear in mind that they are copying an example from the worst of men, aud the worst of times. (To be Concluded.) THE MYSTERIOUS ROBBER OR THE STOLEN WATCH. The following was related to us a few days since by a gentleman of New York. A singular robbery recently took place, in our city, the circumstances conected with which have produced quite a sensa tion. One of the mostrespectable phys cians in New York, who resides in the upper part ofßroadway. was while atten. ding the Italion Opera one evening, a few weeks since, robbed of his watch.' It was a family piece, and had been handed down from father to son for several gen erations — hence it was prized far beyond i s real value. In order to regain it, if possible, the physician advertised for it in several of the public journals of the day, offering one hundred dollars for its recovery, and “no questions to be asked J the person who should return it.” A few days after the publication of the ad- , vertisemetit; he received a note through the post office, stating that if he would appear in lhe bar room at the Opera house at a certain hour on a designated evening, the watch would be returned. The physician laughed at the note, pro. nounced it a quiz, but, nevertheless, so anxious was he to gain his watch, thar he cherished the faintest hope open the sub ject,and determined to attend the opera. Accordingly, at lhe hour designated, he appeared in the bar room, and after look ing round upon the company for a few minutes, without observing any one who seemed desirous of an interview, return, ed into one of the boxes. Still anxious, however, he a few minutes after again passed into the bar room. It was com paratively vacant, but he had been there but a few seconds when fine, tall, a gen tee ly dressed young man came up to him, and witit a silvery voice and affable man. ner inquired (he hour. The physician hesitated a minute, cast an inquisitive glance upon tl e stranger, and observed, with somewhat of iritation, that some scoundrel had a short time before robbed him of his watch.—“lndeed!” cooly re. plied the stranger, and drawing an old fashioned gold watch from his pocket; he held it before tho physician, and with a smile observed, the true time, I believe •Sit!” The physician immediately recognized the stolen watch, and made an effort to grasp it. The stranger stepped back a few paces, and cooliy observed that “lie had attended the opera as a man of hon. or expecting to meet a man of honor. You advertised your watch,” he contin. ued, and pledged yonr honor as a gentle man to rewaid with one hundred dollars the individual who should return it to you. We meet, therefore, so far as the law is concerned, upon natural ground. Here is your watch, sir. My part of lhe con tract is fulfilled, and I appeal to you as a. gentleman to perform yours. The physician hesitated—was evidently confused and agitated. After a moment’s pause he took lhe watch, stated that he did not expect to meet the author of the note addressed to him—confessed that he had not provided himself with the money, but pledged bis word that if lhe stranger would accompany him to his residence, lhe reward should immediately be paid. “Without hesitation,” said the stranger, and putting his atm through that of lhe physician, the two walked out of the o pera house and up Broadway to the resi dence ofjthe latter,who promptly handed the supposed robber a hundred dollar note. He politely bowed and depart ed. It is further stated that the physician felt much curiosity to discover the stran ger—conversed freely upon the subject with his friends, and indeed endeavored to detect him in every way possible with out having recourse to the police office. About a fortnight after the recovery of his watch, and on one of the stormiest nights of the season, the bell at the phy sician’sdoor was rung with great violence. It was near midnight —the wind howled and the streets were flooded, the water running above the gutters, and rendering even the side walks almost impassable. The servant roused from his sleep, hur ried down stahs, opened the door, and ushered an old man into the hall, who, in the most pressing and startling manner demanded to be shewn to Dr. S. in pri vate. The Doctor was abruptly sum moned, and expecting soma urgent case demanded his immediate attention, hur ried down to his study, into which the old man had already been ushered. He immediately commenced stating a case ot extreme distress—said that his wife was subject to temporary fits of madness, and had just been seized with a paroxysm of the most violent character. He proceed ed to give an account of the history of the case, but before he had entered deeply in to the details, threw off the cloak in which he was inveloped, and the wig in which he was disguised, and stoed before the physician as the stranger of the oper a house—the fair faced, gentle voiced young man from whom be had received his watch. The physician started back with aston ishment—lhe stranger continued, “I have chosen a stormy night for this visit, sir, but however calm my demeanor,youthful n»y features, or composed n»y mind, my life is necessarily one of storm: ft is now a fortnight since we met , and have you redeemed your promise to receive your watch and ask no questions—im plying that you sought your property a lone and not the vengeance upon the wretch—lknow tke meaning of the phrase —whowas forced by the accursed destiny to seem a thief? Can yon, before God and your conscience,affirm that you have acted a generous part —honorable part? You cannot I tell you in this shadowy room—at this midnight hour—th it you cannot. You have described me—my person—my appearance—mv manner to a hundred of your particular friends; have done every thing but visit the office of the police with a detailed account of my person and the whole transaction: Yon have forfeited your honor, and even now through your confidential represen tions,the ministers of justice—the myrmi dons of the police—are eager for my ar rest, —are hunting me with the spirit of tigers seeking for a victim, Sir, beware! You provoke a desperate man when you make me your foe. lam no thief—l did not filch from you the watch that I res*- tored to you. Again I say beware. 1 know you thoroughly and wish you well. But villianas I may be, I may not be hunted down with impunity.” A minute more, and the doctor was a lone in his chamber. The young robber is yet at large.— Phil. Enq. From the Federal Union. THE CHEROKEE BILLS.—The Western Herald affirms, that ‘the state has no more interest in the final decision of these questions than it has in the final decision of any other cases arising undei grams in any other section o country.’ These bills sought to establish the po sition, that the Cherokees are the exclu sive ownersand sovereigns of all the ter ritory composing the ten Cherokee coun ties, and that Georgia has no right to dis pose of any portion of that soil, or to ex tend her laws over that country; they broadly intimate, that the Indians will hereafter deny the jurisdiction of the courts which have been organized in those ten counties; and relying on their sovereign rights,and suborning to the Ju risdiction of the state only in these parti cular cases, they pray that lhe state’s a gem, and citizens of Georgia holding grams from the state, may be enjoined, “from all disturbance of the peacelul, ex clusive, and uninterrupted possession” of ceitain lands occupied by the complain ants: and that thoy may be quieted in the peaceable enjoyment thereof,” —The In dian bills had been sanctioned by the judge; and therefore reason to appre hend, that the principles on which they weie framed, would be established by the decision of the court. These princi ples, when established, could not be res tricted to those cases; but would operate in all cases to which they are applicable. They would not only invalidate every, gram issued by the state, for land in the ten new counties but would utterly over* thow the administration of the laws ol Georgia, both in civil and in ctiminal ca ses, in all those counties. It well became an able, vigilant, and patriotic chief mag. istrale, to employ all lhe constitutional jneans in bis power, to prevent the es tablishment, by the judiciary, of princi ples so fatal to the peace and good order of ten counties, and so hostile to the sov ereigmy of the state over that portion of her territory. For this purpose it was proper aud necessary for him to employ counsel. T<» the erroneous position which we have exposed, the Western Herald adds “but we have been informed upon the best authony, that Messrs. Cuthbert and Kenan have been retained, each with the above-named fee,” of one thousand dol lars, “to be paid out of the 1 reas* *ury, and that the Governor expects to. get an appropriation by the next Lt-gis laiure to discharge lhe same.” This in formation of which the Herald speaks, is erroneous; and we ask for the authority, on which their statement is made. Be sides much larger fees given by t-he In dians to Messrs. Underwood and Harden, their original counsel, we have been in formed that the Indians gave a fee of a thousand dollars each, to Messrs. Rock well and Hansel, additional counsel em ployed by them; but no such fees have been paid or promised by the governor. He has employed counsel who will make no improper charge: and such fees as are just and reasonabe he feels authorized to pay out of the contingent fund, an appro priation made by the last legislature, and placed under the control of the executive, to be employed according to his best judgement, in defraying those expenses which the interest of lhe state might re quire to be incurred, but which could not be foreseen by the general assembly. Thus it is seen, that the opinion of the Western Herald, with regard tothe char acter and importance of these bills, is erroneous; and that the information on which it relies, is false. One thing The nullifiers have evinced a deep interest in /he suc cess of these Indian claims to the sover- eignty and soil of the ton counties; aod are grieved at the measures adopted by the governor to defeat those claims, and the success which has crowned his ef forts. In of Representatives, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, after Mr. McDuffii had concluded his speech, addressed the Chair as follows : • It will be remembered,sir, in the com. mencement of the brilliant and powerful effort, which has just received such fixed and merited attention, the honorable gen tleman from South Carolina alluded, with somewhat of reproach, to the only par liamentary measure by which a legisla tive assembly can restrain discussion, or compel a decision of a debated question, however essential to the public interest. He called it, sir, a “signal of retreat.” 1 am not a military man, as is that gen tleman: But if 1 may bepertnitted to use his martial figure, I would call it the stern order of “charge bayonet,” to which the most skilful general has sometimes to resor., to terminate a protracted conflict and bring a manoeuvring adversary to de cisive action. I feel assured that there can be no just ground of complaint, if, in the very presence of the blaze of his elo quence: if, having received the unanswer ed fire of that tremendous park of artille ry which that gentleman supplies and com mands, those who approve the resolutions of the committee are willing to abide this decisive charge. It cannot be necessary, sir, that I should remind the house, how long the subject of this debate has been under consideration; how injuriously the uncer tainty of its result effects the business of lhe whole community; how necessaryjt is, as far as may bo, by our decision, to allay the agitation and excitement which distract the country. Li my poor judge ment, the time has come, when our du ty requires a definitive disposition of this gieat aud absorbing question. Impelled by a sense of du y, 1 demand lhe Previ ous Question. Awews w FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1834. W« commence to day the publication of the Reports of the differ ent Bat.ks of this State.made tothe Governor, on the Ist inst. We shall fin ish them as early as possible. We expected something later from N. York By the David Brown, at Charleston; but she had not arrived there yesterday morning. Our only hope, therefore, of news for our readers to diy is extinct. '1 his is a sad predicament tor n printer. We are studying, whether it might not be as well for him to be without money, as with, out news. Heigho ! The Union Society” of Savannah, whose principal aim is the education of otj’han Loys* held its 84th anniversary meeting on the 23-1 inst The anniversary oration was delivered by Col. Howell Cobb, of Cherokee county, Ga. We are authorised to state that the Conven’ tion of Judges will meet al Milledgeville on the fourth Monday in June next. N. B. The papers throughout the State are desired ta insert the above, for the information* of the public generally.— Times The steampacket Virginia, Capt. Rollins, is advertised in the Baltimore papers, to leave Norfolk for Charleston, on 21th and on her re turn to leave Charleston Thursday, Ist May, con_ tinumg her trips regularly, starting every Thurs day alternately, from Norfolk and Charleston. Letters of the 15th inst. from New York, re ceived yesterday, state that Exchange on Lon-- don had experienced a decided advance, the Bank having fixed it at 4 per cent. prem.; pri vate Bills 3£. Dennis Prieur, Esq has been elected May or, and John Cui.bert4on, Esq. Recorder, of the city of New Orleans. Mr. Clay states that about $30,000 of the Government money, including §20,000 of the “ sacred” Pension Fund, are lost by the recent bank failures in the District. The venerable Alexander Brown, the head of the well known mercantile firm of Alex. Brown Sons, died at Baltimore, 14th inst. aged 70. After the sitting of the Coinm’ttee of the credit ors of the Bank of Maryland, Ist inst, says the American, Mr. B. in conversation on the money ed distress of the times with one of the members* remarked with much emphasis, that “ he would not permit one solvent merchant in Baltimore to, fail.” The same night he was attacked with, the illness which caused his death, but there i» no doubt th it had his valuable life been spared his ample wealth would have been freely em. ployed in the noble purpose which he then, avowed. FOR THE COURIER. Mr. Editor; When I was a lad, I used often to hear peo» v pie say, “ don’t do as I do, but do as I say.’»* Now, sir, the worthy Editor of the Chronicle. v has given cause to reverse the adage; for, not» withstanding his unkind remarks in the paper of Wednesday, he not only went to see the show, but actually oontributed of his substance to aid the object. CONSISTENCY. Extract of a letter received at New-York, by lhe Sheffield. LONDON MARCH 7 —We hear through Bar ings, that four millions of dollars have ere this arrived at New Orleans fioin Mexico on their account, designed for circulation in the United States, and two millions are going forward from, England. We understand the arrival of the specie at New Orleans is rather a confidential matter. There has been a re count of the votes in the If th ward, and the result is 345 for being i 8 less than was first stated. We have no information which leads us to suppose that any considerable number of votes, were thrown out in consequence of the name being printed Gulian G. Verplanck, instead of Gulian C. Most of the wards were visited per sonally from this office on Saturday.- Journal of Commerce.
