Newspaper Page Text
inolhr r»t*te wi’l extort s-vnelhing wore;
r t '» •> ill njipea! t» our fexr«, which may
be <Vcll or til foin.U'fl—each new slate
•tvil. 1 mic.xvor l i eiiv.l from us what she
thinks util mike for her own interest,
until at last they will not think ii worth
while to ask oiirltsave tndo as they < aase.
How much heller huiiUI it be for con
gress hi once to take its ground and re
fuse t" snuclioti the constitution of any
stale w hich i« in any respect repugnant
to that of the V. State# !
Suppose that this constitution of Mis
souri, instead of being taulty in a single
particular, were throughout, from begin-
n ,g to end, at variance with (he constt-
tiltion of the United States. \\ ould it
be pretended, in that rase, that Missouri
was entitled to be admitted into the U-
nion ? Certainly not—yet the only ar
gument in favor ol her admission, with
one clause of her constitution incompati
ble with that of the United States, w ent
the whole length, or necessarily in\ ulved
the consequence of yielding the whole;
because it was founded on the ground
that congress Imd parted w ith the w hole
power, and had no right to pass upon the
constitution—on the ground, in short,
that Missouri is now admitted into the
Union.
The gentleman himself, however, had
in another part of his speech given up
tills, which tins the essential pnrt of his
argument ; for he had conceded that, if
the constitution of Missouri w as repug
nant to the constitution of the U. States,
in particulars which could not lie submit
ted to the judicial authority for decision.
Congress ought to interfere. If, said
Mr. S. we ought in any case to interfere,
there must he n inode of interference.
What is the mode, and what should be
the time ? When certainly, she pre
sents herself for admission. And, ifne
have then a right to inquire whether
there i* not occasion for our interference,
is not the whole ground of the gentle
man’s argument abandoned ?
Pursuing his argument, Mr. S. said,
he held itto he perfectly true, that there
could be no violation of the constitution
of the Unitcil States which would nut
produce injurious civil and political ef
fects, as distinguished from individual
effects over which the judiciary have
control. How many men may lie injur
ed before one man appears with a spirit
to resist the injustice! What, Mr. S.
asked, did the history of all governments
exhibit to us, but a series of usurpations
o,u one hand, and sufferings on the oth
er, submitted to till they became too
grievous longer to be borne ? .Men suf
fer long; they suffer from necessity,
from poverty, from ignorance—from the
want of capacity to exert those rights
which belong to them, and which it ought
to be the care of a wise government to
preserve to them. Why is it that the
names ofmenwho, in all time past, have
resisted oppression, have been immorta
lized by the historian, the painter and
the poet ! Why have they been consid
ered as entitled to peculiar honors ? lie-
cause they took upon themselves the
burthen, and a heavy burthen it is, of
resisting by three the government which
had long oppressed aud persecuted them
and their fellow men, under the forma of
law. Now, said Mr. S. if we nlluw had
principles to be admitted into the consti
tutions of states formed under our eye,
or good principles to be excluded, w hat
will be the consequence ? You shift the
responsibility from yourselves and leave
itto individuals to fight the battle with
the states. Why do our constitutions
contain declarations of rights ? Why
have the people been so careful thus to
Jay down the principles which are to
guide the government in its operations ?
For the purpose of preserving political
and civil rights inviolate as well as indi
vidual rights, and to prevent individuals
from suffering under their violation.
Coming nearer to the particular ques
tion involved in the constitution now pre
sented by Missouri, Mr. S. said, suppose
that constitution had said that no free
to/ute citizen ofthe United States should
come to reside in Missouri—was there
any gentleman who would say, that,, with
such a provision in her constitution, Mis
souri ought to be admitted into the U-
niwn '? lie would not answer for others,
but tor himseli be believed such a provi
sion would produce such a shock as would
occasion but one feeling throughout the
country—that of resistance. This was
an extreme case, he knew, not likely to
happen, bat he h id put it for the purpose
ot illustration ; and he confessed that the
argument appeared to him irresistible,
that a power to examine the provisions
of the constitution must exist, and that
power to refuse admission, in certain ca
nes, must necessarily result.
■ffCongress, having the power to re
ject, should yet accept the constitution
of Missouri, Mr. S. contended it could
not with ant propriety be said that con
gress did not approve the constitution
of Missouri.
The trust of guarding (he constitution
of the United States from violation, said
he, in continuation, is peculiarly and em
phatically ours. We are sworn to sup
port the constitution before we enter on
the duties to which we arc called nndci
it; aud he believed the gentleman front
South Carolina himself, and every other
j»K , rp.l* , 'r ol this house, would go along
■with him in saying, (lint their support <4
the constitution ought to he active and
Kentons and not a cold and penurious sup
port. It ought to be no calculation, how
much they might give up ©f that ennati
tutiuu, hut a determination not to give up
an inch ol' it—a determination that, even
i' here be doubt, that doubt shall he de
termined in favor of the constitution. It
ah »nM he thus, said be, that, by a con
stant warm and cordial support ofil here,
we may invigorate aad quicken the rcs-
lecl uu«i veneration for that iuatiument
which, l trust is entertained by the
whale people ol the Unite*! Plate*.
With respe< t to tbe proposition to turn
over to the judiciary the decision of the
question involved in this constitution,
>lr. S. s-iid, lie must declare, that, with
the greatest respect possible for the ju
diciary, with the highest confidence in
their rectitude and wi-ilom, with the
greatest tvUhngness to submit to (heir de
cision in their proper sphere, he could
not consent, on a question which was pro
perly presented tor his own decision, to
say, let the question sleep till some hum
ble individual, some .poor citizen, shall
come forward nod r.lnitn a decision of it.
lie never would pass a duty by, by leav
ing it to some individual to do what con*
greii ought to have done. No, Mr. 8.
said, his idea of supporting (lie constitu
tion was, to give it such an active sup
port as should convince every body that
even the appearance ol' violation of it
would no* he permitted. And lie beg
ged gentlemen, before they consented to
take a course different from this, that
they tvobld consider, seriously consider,
what may be the effect, in » government
depending on public opinion far its sup
port, of a disrespect of its authority ex
hibited on this floor.
Mr. .3. then noticed the argument i
which Mr. Lowndes hud derived from I
the journal of this house of the l ist ses
sion, in the case of the motion of Mr.
Taylor, to amend the Missouri a t so a*
to require her constitution when formed,
to be approved by congress. &c. before
she became a state, which motion was
negatived by two to one. .Mr, S. admit
ted the fact, hut argued that it proved no
thing in favor id Mr. Lowndes’s argu
ment. Gentlemen had voted against il
on various grounds—some, lie knew, had
voted bgtiinst it because they believed it
superfluous holding the opinion which he
was now maintaining, that the constitu
tion must of course receive the sanction
of congress before it could be of any au
thority, ilj-c.
Mr. S. then referred for illustration
to the case of Louisiana, « ho was requir
ed to submit her Constitution to congress
and it was submitted and approved ac
cordingly before it went into operation.
If congress, according to the gentleman's
argument, had no right to do so, this pro
ceeding w as all unconstitutional and void.
And, it was worthy of remark tint, at
the same time that constitution was re
quired to be submitted to congress, it was
also required to be not repugnant to the
constitution of the United States. Yet
Louisiana was not intended to be admit
ted on different terms from other states,
but en the same, &<;.
Hut independently of the act of the
last session, it had been asserted that
Missouri is now a state ; that she i« a
state in fact. Mr. S. asked of gentlemen
seriously to consider this position. From
what time has she become a state ! From
the moment of the passage of our act,
from that of the adoption of her consti
tution, or from that of the organization
of her government ? Ho did not distinct
ly understand from what point of time
the gentleman from South Carolina dated
her independence—
[Mr. Lorcivlcs here explained what
point of time he referred to. It was at
the moment w hen, the question having
been formally proposed to the people of
Missouri, whether they chose to form
a constitution and state government, they
voted it expedient to do so—it was then
that he thought arose the right in thorn
ofself government.]
Mr. S. did not consider the point of
time in this respect material. The ques
tion was, is Missouri en'.itieJ to the rights
of a state until she be admitted into the
union by congress support ol
this opinion, he said, no reason had been
assigned that was founded in the consti
tution of the United States. Ileasont
had been assigned by the gentleman of
South Carolina, which appeared to him
to be founded in a convenience which n-
tuounted to a sou of necessity, but no
argument had been drawn from the con
stitution in support of this position. \Ve.
have the power to admit a state into the
Union, said Mr. S.—but was it ever sup
posed that a state was admitted by her
own act, before we admitted her ?—
Could it be pretended that, when con
gress authorised the people of Missouri
to form a constitution, and under the cir
cumstances of this case, they did admit
them into the Union ? It might be ar
gued, with some plausibility, that con
gress had by that act engaged that, at
some time, they should be admitted into
the Union. II the authority given had
been to erect themselves into a sovereign
and independent stale, Mr. S. would
have been able to understand the argu
ment that they are now a state. But
when congress gave them authority to
forma constitution to fit them for admis
sion, tn .say that congress did then admit
thorn pnto the union was an argument not
intelligible ; and, almost equally so was
that which made her out to he a state
whenever her people had formed a con
stitution.
The United States, w ith respect to her
territory, stood almost in the same rela
tion as one of the states to its territory.
Virginia, for example, gave authority to
thepeopleoftli.it par* ot her territory
which is now Kentucky, to form a con
stitution. Tbe territory called a conven
tion, made a stale government, fixed the
inode of her elections, elected her oili-
cer*. Was she Ihe.n a member of the
Union? Yes, when Congress agreed to
admit her into the Union. Was she a
state before that took place ? Certain
ly not. So with the territories of the U.
States. Congress gives them authority
to make a constitution, preparatory to
their adaiissiou ; and that being done,
Congress may admit them.
If, said Mr. S. further, representatives
from a territory which has thus formed
a constitution, present themselves at tbA mode prescribed in the constitution by
door of tills house* is not the house hound*wfii h they could do it.
to inquire whether they are piopciljfl jVitli regard to leaving it to chance tn
deputed, or must wo admit any body aud
every body who present* himseli and del.
clares that lie is the representative ot'4?
state ? H’e may know the tact out mi
doors, but it must also be known here :
to a-aertaiu it, we are obliged to cxauiiot-
the constitution. Mr. .S. entered into, a
train of reasoning to shew the inconveni
ence which would result from each
branch of the government being left to
determine for itsulf tne independence ot
a state, the chance of their not concur
ring in their views of the subject, and
the incongruity which would result from
such a disagreement.
The orderly, politic, and regular
course of proceeding in such a case as
this - , was so obi ions, lie said, that he was
only astonished, that, in any case, a dif
ferent course had been pursued, in the
main, he said, tbe constitution bad been
that lor which he contended. \\ tin fever
irregularities tucrc might have been in
oilier respects, with respect to the newly
formed states, tiie full extension to a
si,ite of the benefits of its admission into
the union had never taken place until,
by some eet, Congress had expressly or
impliedly recognised its admission.
Mr. 8. then proceeded to enquire
whether the practice of our government
sustained the doctrine which ; <e had en
deavored to shew was inconsistent with
his theory. With respect to precedents,
while lie disavowed a slavish subjection
to their authorities, yet lie acknowledged
that, if they were clear am! un leviatiug,
showing an uniform practice under the
constitution to the present time, he
should consider them of very high au
thority. lie recollected, in a case at
the last session, the gentleman from 8.’
Carolina had not considered them of so I
great weight ; b it Mr. 8. said he agreed
vv itli that gentleman now in allowing them
weight, provided they have the charac
ter of uniformity. fie was mistaken if,
upon examination, they did not turn out
differently from what the member from
3. Carolina had supposed. In examin
ing them, precedent might be made out
to warrant any course gentlemen chose,
they differed so much from each other ;
among them might he found one for 4
people m king a constitution without
previous authority from Congress, and
that too out of the territory of the United
Slates—for which nobody would con
tend. Mr. S. In re briefly run over Hie
cases of admission into the Union, com
menting on each. Kentucky, Vermont,
I'ennessee, Ohio, ami Lnoi*i mu w ere
admitted up to jail, in lu-ive, and in
every case some act of the government
had been thought necessary, precedent
or subsequent, to entitle them to admis
sion. From the year HIM, however,
every state adm.tc.l (five in number,
besides Maine, whose case w as peculiar)
bad been formed by previous authority,
and had coine into the Union by virtue
of an act or resolution expressly admit
ting her. Would gentlemen, then, take
the single precedent of Kentucky, of
Tennessee, of Vermont, with their pe
culiarities, and apply it to a stale formed
out of a new territory purchased by the
U. 8. or would they take the case of o-
ther states, which formed a series of pre
cedents, eacli'distiuctly recognizing the
power of Congress to give previous au
thority to a people to’f r,n a ennstitn-
tiou, and al*o the authority and right of
Congress to admit them into the Union,
anil the necessity of such an act of admis
sion ?
With respect to r lections by the in
choate states, lie considered them ns
provisional, and made valid by the rati
fication of the constitution. The rc-pre-
sentntivo from Indiana taking bis seat be
fore the passage ofthe act for her admis
sion he mnsi lercd an oversight. ’And
was not the fict ofthe representative
I rom Missouri remaining absent, asser
ting no right as a representative, and
not being admired us such, (and so of her
senators also,) a stronger evidence cl
the opinion, not only of the old states,
but ofthe new states too, than a single
precedent or irregularity, as that of In
diana ?
Having shown, in his opinion, that
Congress possessed the right and power
to examine this question, Mr. S. pro
ceeded to the remaining ponds in the
discussion.
In this particul ir case, the mode of
proceeding proposer!, -truck .him as the
most objectionable tint could be devised;
because il seemed to him that the report
land the observations ofthe chairman of
! the committee, did admit that there was
; something in the constitution formed bv
! the people ot Missouri, upon which, it
the house was called upon to speak, gen
tlemen would be obliged to say they are
of opinion it is unconstitutional ; for, in
the lir*t place, the committee are willing
to leave the decision on a particular
clause to the Judiciary ; in the next
place, they think il susceptible of an in
terpolation not inconsistent w itli the con
stitution of tiie United States, and, it is
lastly suggested, that Congress may u-
void the difficulty by a protr-t, or ex
planation, or interpretation ofthe clause,
as they desire it to he understood. Ali
this seemed to convey the impression
that there was something there, which
gentlemen wished to avoid voting and
deciding upon.
To refer the subject to the Jifdiciary
was one mode proposed for getting over
it. To this course, there were a great
many objections, which doubtless had
already occurred to the mind* of ihe
committee. Among these, Mr. S. dwelt
particularly on the following, that, if it
be the duty of this house to pronounce
on any question, they had no right to
shill tin: responsibility on the Judiciary ;
and that Congress raimot send the ques
tion to the Judiciary, there being no
bring it Indore the J a limary, that chance
might nevctcoino, Ac. It the Judiciary
wore indeed lit' 1 tiibuii.il to decide the
question, they ought to decide 11 Indore
^hb house li lted on it. Another ,• real
object! ui to the course proposed was,
that it would necessarily throw on the
Judiciary tlm performance of an odious
fluty, which he acknowledged tins to bo;
.nikl.fi seemed to him gentlemen showed
tool strongly, by their mode of procee
ding, mid tlieir endeavors to throw it
from thctmolve*, that they felt it to be
so. Hut tins house was much better able
to hear the odium of it that the Judiei.i
ry. Mr. 6. said he never would consent
that the congress of' the United Suites
should, f ir their own reli ;f, burthen the
Judiciary with that sort of question, the
decision of which makes it must obnox
ious, exposes it most to that excitement
which, of all departments of the govern
ment, it was least capable ot' cont'. uliug
against. The effects of unpopular de
cisions in the state courts .showed what
might possibly be the c“ocf, in similar
case*, on tiie U. 8. Judiciary. tie wish
ed Hie ivho|i* strength of the ledar.il Ju
diciary might lie maintained unimpaired
for cases wherein the exertion of it might
he necessary, which it was not in the
present case. Another objection to the
course proposed was, that, if tbe argu
ment in its I'.ivor proved any thing, it
proved too much. The more objectiona
ble a clause of the constitntinn i«, tbe
stronger is the re.as m against the refer
ence of it to the Judiciary, because it
would there more certainly be declared
so. A full consideration ot'nil the views
winch could he taken ofthe subject, Mr
S. sai l, would bring him hunk to tiie.
ground, that llii-hou*c ought to tic ide
itself upon the question.
If the judiciary had been the proper
tribunal to determine tins question, Mr
S. went on to argue, it ,\;is so a* 10 nil
questions which could arise respecting a
new constitution ; aud il'n gross and pal
pable series of infractions ofthe consti
tution of the United States were emit lin
ed in n constitution formed by the pc-opb
of a territory, congress '.yould he. jti.itifi
ed,«B much as in tiie present case, in re
ferring it to the Judiciary.
It had been suggested that the pres
ent was a case which it would bo difficult
fir congre*.* to decide, because tin-
clause oftho Missouri constitution was
said to have offended that clause of the
constitution ot'iue Unit.:.I States to which
it was most difficult to give .1 precise in
terpretation. Tnat clause, Mr. S. quo
ted, 10 the .folio a mg wnr. s • *• The citi
zens of each st.V sli d! be entitled to all
the privileges and iniminities of citizens
in the several state*.” .Mr. ,3. said lie
should be exceedingly sorry to believe
that this clause was so difficult of con
struction that (his house eoi.il.1 not decide
whether or not it had be. 1 violated io a
given case ; because in one of our stan
dard hooks, the Federalist, one of those
authorities to which we refer for light in
difficult cases oi c instruction of tiie con
stitution, it was s.iid t!i 1* this very clause
was the “ busts of the union.” Strange,
indeed tliut tins clause should have been
considered the basis of the uniot., and
vet so equivocal that a construction could
not he given to it !
If there was a difficulty in defining pre
cisely the scope of that clause ofthe
constitution, there could he none in the
deciding that it docs give the citizens of
each slate in the union the humblest and
lowest right enjoyed by a free man. Did
any one doubt, Mr. 8. asked, that this
clause gives the citizens of every state
the tree right to go into any other staie,
tn return, or to remain there? it'that
was denied, then he would agree tint
this clause of the constitution was all
words and no meaning.—Here, then, was
the very point ofthis question.— it" the
constitution of tbe -date of Missouri has,
either by its ow n positive provisions, or
by enjoining it on its legislature, exclu
ded altogether from the state of .Missou
ri any man who is a citizen of another
state in this unson, then it is impassible
to reconcile that constitution to the con
stitution ofthe United Status. It would
be a defiance, which was worse than re
sistance, to the constitution ofthe United
States, :l it bad been intentional ; but
Mr. S. acquitted Missouri ol’.my such in
tention.
Mr. S. declined going into the ques
tion how far a *t.ite had a right to to. ke
laws with regard to a certain class of per
sons referred to in tiie objected clause of
tbe Missouri constitution. He briefly
examined the suggestions of Mr. Lown
ties that that clause did not intend to ex
clude such person* as were citizens in
other states, but the clause itself, Mr. S.
saiJ, made no distinction of classes, but
extended equally to both cli-ses. Mis
souri might make the distinction if she
chose. Was it lor congress to make an
exception for her which she did no!
chose to make herself, and which the le
gislature ot Missouri might notcliuse to
consider as any part of that cruise of the
constitution ?—Congress had no light to
interpret for their • wn meaning. Mr. 8.
then went on to show in what state* free
persons of color were citizens, and men
tioned N. Carolina, New-Fork and Mas
sachusetts among them. To make them
citizens in anv state, it was not necessary
they should have a right to vote, its Mr.
S. showed, by various reference- , that
more than liajf the white men in sortie of
our stales did not vote, because they
were not freeholders ; yet no one wouhl
deny them to be citizens of those states,
&c. ‘ A
It was Ihe humble, simfi[e privilege of
locomotion only Ijmt, w^s now claimed
for those persons ;'(( wa* a right indis
pensable to citizenship, and it was nil that
was asked for if\ the present case, If
there was any way in which a citizen of
one stale can enjoy all the pri > ilegm- and
immunities of a citizen ol another state,
amt yet not tie permitted to set bis loot in
it, Mr. b. said lie should be glad to be
informed of it. With respect to the light
of .Missouri or of any state ofthe Union
to regulate its own citizens, or to pre
scribe laws for tiioir government, not in
consistent with the laws of thu United
States, Mr. S. s aid no one pretended 10
interfere. She must regulate her own
concerns, upon such policy as she thinks
best, Jcc. on what would be her true
policy. Mr.S. made a few remarks which
the reporter did not hear witti sufficient
distinctness to report thorn.
Upon the whole, Mr. S. said it was
dear Hint unless something was introduc
ed, by interpretation, into the clause of
the constitution of Missouri, respecting
free people of Color, which the framers
of it have not introduced, aud which it i.
not known that they would be wiilingto
introduce, it is a pi an and palpable in
fraction of the constitution ofthe Unite J
States.
Tho plain i • ursc, then, be believed,
was uotto receive the constitution form-
ad by the people of Ali**ouri. For him
self, he believed, and w ith In n many
members of tliis house believed, that it
v.is the. duty of this bouse to look into
tlie constitution, and, if they found it
contrary to the. constitution, that it was
the duty of this house !isrijscl it.
\Vlial tbe consequences of doing so
might be, it was not flu him to anti, ijciti;
but, whatever they might be. they could
not be worse than the rcro’cnilion ofrtw
constitution in tis present shape. Bui
w hy apprehend any Ji-rrgreeaMe conse
quences ! Mi/it not cur.gr.’** discuss «
question of this sort avrlhent rcfetftnce
to danger ? Might it not reject this con
stitution of .Missouri, without civing her
coy right to unqualified wdwpofidence ?
Or wits this house to eive way, right 01
wrong ? True, Mr. S. said, congress had
boon much divided in opinion on (be
question of the last session, Ami they
might be on this. Hut, 113 fhr n~ gcnt!:>-
m- 11 might think the consequences of
such division dangerous—the consequen
cos they dreaded were llic* conseq - i«*ncff»
of free and fair investigation—the con
sequence* of men doing vvh.it they be
lieve to bo right : and when men yield
to fears excited by *uch causes, they
give up the righi of free discussion—the
right of tn lintdining what in their ennxe-
s ie.nres tiny think to be right. Does it
follow, because there is a strong oppost
than to anv measure, because there i
great feeling and warmth on it, that there
fore principle is to be abandoned ? That
no one would maintain. Neither was it
consistent with the theory of our govern
ment ; because, at last, the will of the
majority must govern. And, whatever
f uirs might be entertained by others. Mr
S. said iie felt confident that tbe will of
l lie majority wptild lie submitted to.
With respect to wlint would be the
condition of ^ie territory 011 the rejection
of this constitution, Mr. 8. said it ap
peared to him it would be territorial.
What provision il might be nccws.iry to
make, in respect to it he did not pretend
to sav, nor whether it would be necessa
ry to make any. A rise of the sort had
never occurred in the history of our go
vornmciit, and if would, if it occurred
deserve a careful and deliberate examina
tion and decision. Here Mr, S. conclud
c.l his observations.
On motion of Mr. Storrs, who desired
an opportunity of slating the reason*
which would induce him t# vote again*!
the resolution lor the admission of Mis
souri—
The committee : j*e, and the House
adjourned.
Land IjolUn/from
Porhiantr rlrhurrs in Ih
f V ii'l
.Vj. ttt»
JITLLXC.
George Leigh, Cakoii lla*iin,
B.-ILWVLV.
Tharldeus (1. Holt, Charles Shepherd's
orps. Jacob Miller, Obud Bruit, Enoch Un
derwood,Hiram Moore,Myles Greene, John
II. Howard, Burtley I^ct’rury, j in. Jiuncs Wil
son, Richard J'ivv*ll, It .S. Jacob Miller, Ezeki
el Harris, Jcmcs Powell, Joint Liul-'-s orphans,
Goodwin Myrick, Spencer Thomas, sen. John
i’aiki.i’sorp. Mathew Clement.-, Henry Hunt,
Joshua Turner.
BULLOCH.
Samnrl Register, Samuel Stone, Cliesle
Onegar, Claudius Lord, Thomas Jones, Elijah
I’ndjet, David Pregen, Abrahniu Hobbs' Qrphs,
Henry Snpp, Nathaniel Hull’* orphans, IVuv
Joiimoa, WilHamShciHeld,juii. Joiui o'esniilli,
William Young's, sen. orps.
BURKE.
Elbert Crew*, John Fulcher, Jonas Skin
ner, A lira in Greene, Ezekiel Deal, Will Uiilch-
in*, Daniel Walton, William Perkins, Haywood
Alford, John Jones, Harden Brack, Uielinrd
Foster, Henry kie,William Robert*, John Bear-
field, John Murray, William Gilsirop, !*,unuel
Sneed.
BRYAN
John Coleman, William Jenkings, Ann
Dai is, Josiali Gondson, William Bennett,Hiram
Wuller, William Hill.
;.i CAMDE.V.
William Johns, David Crum, Jos. Pow
ers, Win. Swanson ?<. children, Francis Star
ling, Gabriel' Tfriest, William W.Seals, Anri
a. Manila Baird, orps.Nulhmi Stephens
A. .CHATHAM.
James S. JVond, Jane Irwin, widow, Geo.
W. M Way, David W ilsnn Jacoh Gmild, A nil
Stilibs, Jacob .Fulk, Mathew Dodson, Jlarv
Blog/* (Vrpluurs, John li Huhkirk, John Moro-
iiead. John J. Miller, Thomas Johnston, John
Hnwoil's orphans, Lbenezer Parkbr, Jinrio*
'l'odd, Amos Dow, J.ilin B. Gilhcri, Ann ftad-
dirk, WilliaiA 1.. Ryiin, Charles Marlin, Jacob
11. Rii|llft,-]mn and Margaret Met.mien, orplis,
Jesse A. \\ iisou, Maria Uartliulnies, widow,
CLARKE.
John Morri*, U. S. 1 home* Cousins, Joseph
Smfih, James Price, Jesse I’nullet, W111. Cald
well, John Adams, Barrel Lee, Win L. Mitch
ell, Mathew Stoker, George Meriwether,James
I aivkiord, Williams Johnston, Samuel Wier,
Alonzo Church, Samuel Utnney, John Pass,
David Holloway, Loyd .Maes,Russel Crawford,
I.eluce Duke, widow, Richard B Garret's orp*
VVai i'iiijto.i’Spillers, Win t'enn, Daniel Bourns,
Tilliffis TWfber, wid. Solomon Edward, ten.
COLUMBIA.
John I'.uhank, John Reynolds, *r.(sou id’
Peter) Stephen Lile-Jt diet I Wiseman, J< r-
dan George, Reuhin Eubanks' urns.Thom;!*
lei, ilobeit Wade, Andercon Crawford'*
■ups. Alford Dunu’a urplia. Alice S. Craw
ford, wid. Thomas Burnside, Joseph S. Mur
ris, John Jones (soil of Richard) Cincinnnllus
II,in ii>s, Nancy llinion, widow, Robert Wynne,
Thomas Hogan’s orplis. Arthur Foster, Joliu Ri
ven, Asher Pullen, William Dodson, Harriet
Coleman, widow, Green Dozier, P.radly Ga
rner, James Bullock,Julius C. Jones,John Tins
ley, tie u’ge Li ssiter, loniitlian .Stanford, Fuy-
elto Porter, John Winfrey, George WhIsoii,
John Tinsley,George \\ illiiighain, Joseph Tag.
art.
EARLY.
Peter Tatum, Rebecca Weaver, wid. Jolm
Ilayii
EFFINGHAM.
Clem Power*, Janie* Tisou, H. 3. John J. IR.
ley, Willis Blilcli, William Carry, George Heit,
Tannins Brown, Jonathan 3. Itliun, John R. Ir-
win, Christopher Bowlin, Huiinali Wcitnrau,
wid. David Zili'oncr, Jesse Dykes.
ELBERT.
William Harbin, Thomas Johnson, Jere
miah J. Warren, Dozier Falkner, Simon
Christler, John Thompson, jr. Joseph Vick
ery, Hubert M. Baird, Lindsay Johnson,
James Elliot's orps. G. IJazier Thornton,
[soil of.ler.] Iluunali Wallon, widow, William
tl. Alston, Jeremiah Horton, Elizabeth M. Sal
on, will. •■?.I< 1 s Toady, sen. Dionysius Oliver,
.*11011(01 White, Hamilton McGowan, Homing
ll'debi'ouk, tony Davis, Richard Colbert,Wil
liam 3. Spencer,/. Higginbotham's orp*. Lemu
el fainson, Edmund Elder,William B. Hudson.,
John S M. Gillie, John Skelton, John Bryan,
David Hudson, sen.J. Higgeubotliams,seu Noai
Pace, Isaac. Christian, Dcnott Slo.lgliill, Arche-
ios Jai’ivU, Richard C. Adams, Charles Rey-
1 d i, Daniel CnseT, R. S. Nelson Ridgeway,
W iIt 1 a 1 u Mason, sen.
EMANUEL.
Tho nas Denkle, D.uTing Johnston, Ivin*
. ben Jewel, Jordan Hutton, Saint Lewis
mini, TVilllnm Itowliuid, Moses Ilutcbin-oif,
Barrel Higdon, Jus KnklundtLeinuel Douglass,
1 ohn Steward, James F Curler, Bartley Wynn,
Peter Mason, John Kuklaml, Jesse Parker,
Henry Taylor, Jvs-e Parker, William Jordan,
Isaac Norris, Joliu L. B. Deakla, sen. Thomas
W urd.
FRANKLIN.
Win Jones, sr. James Hulsey, sr. Joseph I
Scott, Jns Williams, Win. Garrison, Adam
Smlili, James Siarret, Polly Let;, ivid.
Arps. Clement Carrol, Win. Dadd, sen. Eli
jah Dvar. A v. Bradly, Jesse Redwine, Brad-
joi i, Harris* r'amucl Bright,Absalom Holcomb,
c-.pt. Elias Baker, jr Sion Perry, R.9. Absalom
Ylfher, Joseph Wallers, John Redwine, Gabriel
Smith, jr. Henry Smith,Jacob Redvme, Martin
'While, Elijah Cr«ivford, Josiuh Piickett, An-
drew Yeurwood, Lurk in CaWthon, Jesse Hol
land, JHsrmon Baglcy, Mary White, widow,
James King, Robert Mellon's orphans, Arch'd
McDonald, Lewis Dorch, Benjamin Slurrelt,
Weary Ni-on, Abraham Adilcrhold, Joel il.
Dyar.
GLYNN.
Doctor Perry, R. 3. Phillip Graybill, John
Burnet, jrlsabella Miller, Catharine M. Berk,
Elijah Parrot, John Moze, John Parrot, Amu*
Latham, R. 3.
GREENE.
James Bawls, John Brown, John Veazy,
Geo. W. Foster, James Jackson, Elizabeth
Hubbard, Cuty B. I). Harison,wid. Ephraim
Pharr, John tfaleby,Bartholomew Johnston,
Robert M’Knigbt’c.orphans, Lewis Baldwin,
William Harris, Samuel Cockram's orps. Daniel
Perdue, D.ivid kjoorc, sen William Smith, John
Armstead, George Hull', Elizabeth Bishop, wid.;
Win. Rowland, Joseph Swain, John P. Snowy
John Horn, Thomas Hurford, Thomas Cheat
ham, Robert Jariuuny'i orps. John Clark, Joint
Lawrence, sen Robert Brooks, Lockett Peek,
Henry Rogers, Marv Grimes.
GWINNETT.
James Lee, George M. Grisnm, James R.
George.lDaniol Wester, William Beachaui.
HANCOCK.
Peyton Lundy,Jacob Tucker, Anu Jones,
wid. JameaCureton, Robert Andrews, Jona-
iluin Turner, Wm. Denis, Robert Wilson,
Charles VY. Calliur, John Latimer, Nanny
Warn,mack,wid. Luke Johnson, Robert McGin-
ty, Eibjrt Atkinson, John Carpenter, Thomas
Hudson, ItuubcuT. Battle, Benj Gildersleeve,
Henry Kindull, The nn» Loyd, son. K. S. John
Justice, Joel ltievcs, It. 3. Elijah Hutchinson,
John M. Jones, Alstou Loyd, John Maddox,
Thomas .Matthews, Thomas Brantley, Thomas.
,Cliee!y,JJu:ucs Rush, John Moore, W111 Lonrd's
orphans, Israel Johnston, Arnon Brunei, 9teph-
ci! Ftilghnin's orps. Beverly Drake, Ccliu Car-
ir.eon, widow, Joshua L. Aceo, William Li.
ingston.
IIALL.
Jesse Gasaway, Patsy Davis, orp.Samuel
P- iU to Me IJii nil. conlRntd tn s.’teet ’ A ' nits - J ,°. hn ^'beeca Coffee wid.
». ... George Harper, Gallant Floyd, J«s C lughorn,
•ios. Deaton, Alexander Cuveu.Jolm Derifinld,
Benjamin Wharton, Bennct Tankersley, Vin
cent Thomason, William Blackstook.
JACKSON.
John Ilohinson, Delicti Fulcher, Nicholas
Cambell, John .Miller, U.S. Hczekiah Truer,
Hiram Kolb, Solomon Struttrun, Slepen
'book*, U.S. Wm Whitehead, Preston Glo-
}vi’i', Elijah Oliver,BeujaininIiumpton'soips.
jEtinrles Klizie, John Betis, Thomas Smith, sen-
Cah’ton Wilier*, Jonathan Stanton,Jesse John
son, J.ik Wade, Aaron Combs,Elizabeth Thomp
son, wid. Solomon Wolford, Benj. Kirkland,
Joshua Denton, K. S. Mary Kifly, wid. James
3. Palmer, alter Ellis, R 3 Solomon Rridgcs,
Thoma* Ca.tlcborry, William H. Beacon, Jus
M'Conw l, John W; Greone, Henry fPadkius,
Henry 3tnneham's orps. Joseph Cowan, James
W all is, William Wardlow, Lewis Garrard, Tho
mas Hanson, R. 9. Thomas Barnett, Wm. Del-
port's orphans, John Callchon, Ambrose Yar-
jirough. John Dycliu, R. 9. William Dunston,,
(David Greene, Joseph Hevil, Preston Glover,
[Janies B. Langston, George Sway,R.3 William
Holds, John Robertson, It. S. Larkin Camp,
Roloinou Bridges. Wood Hinton, RobertTliur.
■non, .Samuel Clavton.
JASPER,
Warren Ahrmus, Claaliorn Hall,Wm.Ste-
ilien.Wm. Barday, Lucy. Freeman,Robert
-assitor, Isaac Strickland, John (I. Koud-
ick s orp. Miles Garret, Warren Ainbriis,
'olenion Weeks, Wynne W. Richmond,
U'ner Chapman, Sherrod Malone, Drury
Jrnen, Robert Power.Richard l’oathereton,
-benezer Wbalev,Henry WideniHii, Isaac Wglv
av'Cri, Amo* McClendon, 8hi ldriiko Kendrick's
irps John Callioon, John Lumpkin, Thomas
light's orphans, John Lasseler, Felix Stanley,
Immas Hinsley, R. 3 John G. Turner,
'under, James Leveret!, Daniel Freeipun, Jo-
epli Hicks, Frederick Itnglund, Samuel Fcr.
under,Henry Grabiil, jr. Norborn B. Powell,
antes Carden, Samuel Pennington, Airs Can.*
id, Joseph Carter, James Brawn's orphans,
ittiehury Smart, Jackson Fitzpatrick. James
fhatley, Elijah i’atey, Jacob Smith,John By-
1 on, Saniuej Gross, Francis B. Smart, Richard
< nrter, Archibald Standifer, Ho-ry Stewart's
i phan's Arthur Herring, David Wright,John
< (’Upton, sen. John Nichols, Garner Daggett,
I iiuiali Davis, Lony Ricks'orphans, Jeremiah
I udoipli, John A Carter, Abner Jones, Henry
5 tpbens, Robert Simonton.
JEFFERSON.
Mathew Brown,John Murphy, Jane Mi" .
v low,Hull Hudson,sen. Phillip M.Wnscb .
J nes Dupree, Hardin Sutton, William A
d ton, Roland Coles r ly C. Jones, Nat!
C fistic,W’m W.M'. • v. orp Jes»e 0*t
Jf>ni))s Penning . , j j,n I',ire, £•„ ... <