Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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, £•„ ... <