The Atlanta daily sun. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1870-1873, August 31, 1871, Image 2

Georgia Historic Newspapers

The Atlanta daily sun., August 31, 1871, Image 2

About The Atlanta daily sun. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1870-1873 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 31, 1871)

Page of 4

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (2.8 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 4

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page TextTHE DAILY SUN. Thumdat Morhimg Acous* 81. Office in the Sun Building, ires title qf Broad tfreef, Second Door South of Alabama. BNT - Neva Adverlucmenlx ahrnyt fount/ on Pint Page ;-Local and But,nets Notice* on Fourth Page. To Lawyers. We publish iu full, the decisions of the Supreme Conyt; also the daily “Pro- oeMiriks" of the Court, and keep tfci “Order of Business" standing in our columns. tf were elected and sustained by overwhel ming majorities of the true ciinidi.nrion- iil constituencies of tin States for irhicii they acted; they rested on the consent of the people, or constitutional constituen cies of the States, and wine tberefori truly “Legislature* of the States." This elu led from voting) for the pnr|tose of modifying Hie Constitution. TlieseCon- vontions repeat- .1 the opdinnuie of seces sion, abolished slavery, and made some other changes jin the several Constitu tions, but (in most of the. States) left thi institutional constituencies just as they Amendment was rat died by the Legis-j stood before. In conformity with th latures of the States iu good faith, and Constitutions, as last uiuditicd liy those in conformity with the almost unanimous' Convention i, each of the States ivoi wish of the constitutional “peoples." I speedily provided with a'complete gov- lifl'erent is the case of the 14th | eminent, consisting of a legislative, ex- lltert* Case be fare the Coarts Testing the Validity of flic Fraudulent Amendment. ' has been made, and how others very pro bably may be Wade. We give oar readers to-d»y the argu ment of Hoc. Linton Stephens in the m In which am referred in Tuesday’s bane, in our reply to the New York World, md which did actually go before ~ I Courts, involving Um valuing oi the This argument we now present to our readers, not only for the purpose of show ing low these fraudi may be tested be fore tbs Judicial tribunals of the country; bat for the purpose also of showing be yond the power of legal question, the Uttar invalidity of their claim to be re- —g—i—* as dt jut* at rightful parts of tbs Constitution; and hou, if the law be administered, they will be treated as “anilities” in thepeaeafal “ manner and by Ike authority Conttilulionully apj/oinled," without any resort to violence or "Revolu tion,'' in any sense of the word. This case might have gone to the 8a preme Ooart'of the United States; but, ss we before remarked, the prosecution thys sommsneed, was not sustainod by the evidence. The United States Commissioner, Swsyzet bofore whom this argument was mode, did, it is true, overrule the posi tions token, and bound the party aoensod over to the United States Circuit Court, in a bond ottH.000, to answer tbs charge. In that Coart the Grand Jury ignored,the Bill of Indiotment preferred, and so that cate there ended, without auy decision npon the merits of the grounds upon which the defense rested, touching the inrahJity of the 15th Amendment, to roll ed. Neither time nor space allows ns to say more upon the subject st present. A. H. 8. THE INVALIDITY OF THE "FRAUDULENT AMEND MENTS.” Speech of Hon. Linton Stevens, Dfllrmt In hi, awn Defense UrforeV.l CbMmlulOBrr Iwayir, at Jtlaron, On., Janaary 43, 1871 1 Mau it jtltaee the Court: I know full well that if your Honor is not superior to the average of poor human nature, you will find it diffiault, if not impossible, to give my defonso in this caso an im partial consideration, and on honest decision. The prosecution against me is founded on the oourse which I took in the reoent political election, whioh re sulted in s viotory for my parte, and a defeat for your*. It is also directly in the line of an assault which Was lately msdo against me in tha newspapers, by the official head party in tbs State. 1, therefore, recognise in this ease s jKtlitk.ll grotm utieu, just as distuiotly I reoognise in my judge a most zealous and determinedpolitical opponent. Yet, sir, there ore other considerations whiohsnoou rage rna to hope that I may ah tain, even from you, that decision which is deman ded ?>y justice and by the laws. From the personal knowlodgo of you, which I have acquired since the lieginniug of this triad, I have discovered that yon are a man of deehlod intelligence ; and I am told that vou are a man of oourage. I am also told that you, yourself, huve been, in some instances,* victim of politi cal persecution, and object of unjust oblo quy. Sorely, such a man, with suah au ex perience ought to give a fair hearing to one who*# only fsnlt is no any wrong which he has committed against the laws, but the damage whioh he has inflioteil upon a political party. My greatest encourage ment, however, is derived from my oou- fidonoe in the lawfulness of my oonduot, and the power of truth. To truth, bravely upheld, belongs a triumph which cannot be defeated, nor long delayed, not even by the inteusest prejudices of partisan strife, I am strengthened, too, in tha advocacy of truth ou this occasion by the ooiuoioinuere that, in defending myself, I shall be but defending princi pies which are dear to every American, beoawsa they lie at the foundation of the whole fabric of Amerfoan constitutional liberty. Nor, air, unices I am much mistaken in the estimate whioh I have formed of your character, will you listen to my defense any the leas favorably wsifiir£=,r I am aoouaod under the Enforcement Act of Congress. S first position is, that this whole set n law, bat a mere legal nullity. It was passed with tho professed ob- jeot at carrying into oSsstwhat are called the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and depends on thoir validity for its own. Thoas so-called Amendment! are, as I stalk now proceed to show, not true Amendments of the Constitution, and do not form any part of that sacred instru ment. They are nothing but uaurpteipus andaullities, having no validity Iham- •store, and than fore incapable affair parting aiy to the Enforcement Aotor to any other act whatsoever. flake occasion to aay, that I vagefiC tha 13th Amendment, oliolisbing slavery, as clearly distinguishable from the 14th and 15th to-cwlfod Amendments, la the manner both of its proposal and of its ratifioation. The contrast between it and asatpruhended in, the ouc proposition them will contribute to make their ia- jBwt these ten States have never lost their validity nil the more apporeni It it Mtncter os State*. true, that when the 18th Amendment Bach of tlieee ton States keiag a State ad, ten States of the Union at the dose of the war in 1865, stands aud 15thso-cullodamendments! If tluse uro parte of the Constitution, I ask, how did they become so? Were they pro posed by Congress in a constitutional manner? Tu framing .11111 proposing them every State iu tin) Union wu* entitled, by the express terms of the Constitution, to lie represented in speech and vote by “two Senators" and "at least one Representa tive.” But ten States of the Union were absent, .This time their absence was not voluntary, but compelled. When they were claiming a hearing through their constitutional representative* they were driven away, and denied all particiiiation in framing and proposing those so-called amendments! Was this a constitutional mode of proposal V I aay it was an un constitutional mode, ana that the pro posal was (tb initio, null and void. But how stands the ratification of these so-called amendments? 1 To say nothing about the duress of bayonets and Con gressional dictation, under wbieli the ratification was forced through the rati fying bodies in the ten Southern States, the great question is, who were these ratifying bodies? Were they Legisla tures of the States? They were not.— They were the oreaturea of notorious and avowed Congressional usurpation. They were elected not by the constitutional constituencies of the States, but by con stituencies created by Congress, not only outside of the Constitution, but in pal pable violation of one of its express pro visions. The suffrage or political power of the States is not delegated to tlie Gen eral Government by the Constitution; but, on tho contrary, its reservation by the States is rendered exceedingly ciu- pbstio by that provision of the Consti tntion which, instead of creutiDg a con stituency to eleot its own officers—Presi dent, Vice President und members of Congress—adopts tho constituencies of the States, as regulutod by the States themselves, for the election of the most numerous brauch of their own Legisla tures. Ten of the ratifications, which were falsely couutod iu favor of these mis calloil amendment* us ratifications by Legislatures of States, were only ratifi cations by bodies which had their origin in Congressional usurpations, were eleot- ed by illegal constituencies unknown to the Constitution of the United States or the Constitutions of the States, and were organized and manipulated under the control of military commanders who claimed and exereised the jurisdiction of passing upon the election and qualifica tion ol their members. t>n these joint products of usurpation, fraud und turoe be palmed ell ns Legislatures of States? Can ratifications by them be accepted ratifications by Legislatures of States?— Con falsehood thus be converted into truth by the thimble-rigging of Presi dential proclamations? These bodies were, indeed, set up by tlieir usurping creators, as Legislatures for aud orer States; but uutil the known truth of re oent history can ho blotted out by tiie more power of shameless assertion, they cannot be recognized as Legislatures of States. The Parliament of Great Britain is a Legislature for and orer poor down trodden Irelund; but what Irishman will ever recognize it ns tho Legislature of Ireland? The false, spurious and revolutionary character of these ratifying bodies ia ren dered still more irlai'iuu hv.tfio fact, that uuppuiieu uy lUiTDayoncf, they subverted or ratiior repressed tho true, legitimate Legislatures of nil tho States where re construction was applied. That such Legislatures existed in these States, and are indeed still exisiiug, is demunstrnble from the facta viewed iu the light of either o? the two theories of secession—that of its validity nr invalidity. On cither theory the seceding States remsiued Stales. On the one theory they were States out of tlie Union; on the other they hevw remained ail tbo while States in the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States, ia tho root*nt case of White v». Texas, speaking through Mr. Chief Justioo Chaso, held that secession was invalid, and that the States whioh had attempted it remained and still are Suites m Iks Union. A State is not a disorganized mass of people. It is an organized political IkhIv It must have a Constitution of homo sort, written or traditional. Being an organ ized body, it must have a law of organi zation or composition or Constitution, defining tho depositary of its political power. Whore there is no such constitu tional or constituting or org?vnizing or fundamental law, there can bt* no organi zation—no State. Those toil States then, which seceded or attempted to secede (as tho one theory or the other may lie held), have all the while had (bnstitutioHS. In point of fact, each of these has ever been a written (’(institution, giving tlie ballot to defined classes of citizens who are know’ll as tho constitutional constituency of the Stab 1 . This constitutional consti* tuency is entrusted by each of those Con stitutions with power over the Constitu tion itself, in modifying or changing it, and of course iu modifying or changing the organizations or compositions of the constitutional constituency. This is the depositary of the highest political power of the State. Any change made iu the Constitution or organization of the State, or in the composition of tlie constitution al constituency, as it may exist at any time, without the concurrent action of the constitutional constituency itself, is revo lution. It is disorganization. It is the subversion or suppression (as it may prove permanent or temporary) of one organi zation and the substitution of another. It is tho abolition (permanent or tempo rary) of the old State, and the introduc tion of a now one. Each of those ten Stab's, in 1865, at the dose of the war, being thou a State, had a Constitution and a constitutional constituency linked hack by unbroken succession to the Constitution and con stitutional constituency as they existed before secession. Secession mode no break in the chain. The provision which was put in tho Constitution at the time of secession, connecting the State with tho Confederate States instead of with tiie United Stab's os its Federal head, is wholly immaterial to the present i>uri>ose. On the one theory it was simply void, ‘ left the organization of the State, tlie ititution, and the constitutional con* eucv intact. On the other theory, valid, it modified bat did [not im- ic integrity of the State organist* All this follows from, or rather is mtive. aud judicial department, bv the Legislatures thus formed that the* 18th Amendment to tin* Constitution of the dnitcil States, nix >1 tailing slavery, was ratified. biuco that time no change has been made in the organization of auy of these States, with the co-operation or concur rence of the constitutional constituen cies. Only very small minorities of the constitutional constituencies have co-op erated in the work of reconstruction. It a notorious und unquestionable fact, that an overwhelming majority of them in each of the States have been steadily and unswervingly opposed to it, and have voted against it, whenever they vo ted at all Tho clear result, in my judgment, is that each of these States now stands de jure just ns she was left by tlie action of her Convention in 1805, with a com plete government, formed under the Constitution of that year, including a Legislature which still constitutionally exists, and is capable of assembling any day, if it were only allowed to do so by the withdrawal of the bayonet. But she stands de /ado suppressed, bv a govern ment originated and imposed on her by an external power, and supported alone by the bayonet. Such a government is the emlmdiment of anti-republicanism and despotism. Under just such a gov ernment Irelaud is writhing and Poland is crushed. Is it not now demonstrated that the bodies which ratified the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments, in the name of these ten States, were tlie revolutionary products of external force aud fraud, dis placing the true Legislatures which alone could have given a constitutional ratifi cation ? These so-called Amendments, then, have been neither constitutionally pro- si nor constitutionally ratified.— How cuu they form parts of the Consti tution V A successful answer to this question would long ago have brought thut peuce and harmony which can never come from might overhearing right. Instead of giving such an answer, the authors of these measures have sought to drown rea son aud argument in clamorous charges of violence and revolution against the victimn, not the perpetrators, of those crimes. But on answer has at last been attemp ted from an unexpected quarter. Strange ly enough, it comc9 from one who has greatly distinguished himself by tlie vig or and ability with which he lias de nounced the whole scheme of reconstruc tion us a revolutionary usurpation and nullity. And, still more strangely, lie adhere* to that denunciation, while now arguing that these so-called amendments, the creatures and culminating points of that reconstruction scheme, are valid parts of the Constitution. Nuoli a eon elusion from such a beginning ! Aud yet he is hailed by his new allies us a very Daniel come unto judgment They were iu a sore strait for au argument He says these so-called amendments have become parts of tho Constitution, because they have been proclaimed as such by the power which, under the Con stitution, has tho “jurisdiction” to pro claim amendments. There has been much said, sir, about issues that ore “dead;” surely hero is one that is not only alive hut very lively. Let American- mavlr if ! Thu stitution of tho United States can he changed, can ho subverted by Presiden tial proclamation !! I once knew’ a man whose motto w as that a lie, well told, was bettor than the truth, because, ho said truth was a stubborn, unmanageable thing, hut a lie in the hands of a genius could he fitted exactly to tho exigencies of the caso. But even he admitted that tho lie must he well told, or it would not serve. If it shoidd appear to be a he it would l>o turned from a tiling of power into a thing for contempt. There has been progress, sir, since that man taught. It is now discovered that a known, proven lie is as good as the truth, provided it can only get “proclaimed” bv a power having “jurisdiction” to prochum it!! I t sir, know’ of no power—either on the earth, or above it, or under it—that has ‘‘jurisdiction” to “proclaim” lies ! Nay, sir, 1 know of no power which has iurmdiction to proclaim amendments to the Constitution. According to my read ing of that instrument, amendments constitutionally proposed “shall he valid to all intents aud purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of tbroo-fourth of the seve ral State's, or by Conventions in throe- fourths thereof, as the one or tho other when it is supported by true and bold men, it i.; always more powerful. My way would be to elect » Democratic* President; and let him treat the usurpa tion »is a usurpation and a nullity, and let him withdraw the bayonet, aud “pro claim” that the revolutionary govern ment* in theeo ten States would not he supported by him, hut that the constitu tional Republican governments which now’ exist nero would be left free to rta« • from their state of forcible repression, and do their natural and legitimate work of true restoration, real peace, sincere sired to do so.* It fails to show that any had been required, uud could have bi-en one of them heard me make a single n- paid, but bu t tnl been paid- remain uu- mark, saw mo do a ring]*- act, or was even | altered, om the beginning to the The managers, then, in receiving the in my presence from the beginning end of the three days’ election. As lo the remark which I made to a small crowd, shout prosecuting all who should vote without having paid their taxes, 1 have this to say: Xu the first place, it is not shown who composed that crowd, nor that a single one of them was a person entitled to vote. In the next place, the remark was a lawful one; for .it was simply tbo declaration of uu intcu- and cordial fraternity. Tlie whole prob- j tiou, not to interfere with legal voters, lem is solved by the simple withdrawal of ‘ but to prosecute criminals; and therefore w ti was proposed, were absent f *» was voluntary, and therefore did Scot the validity of the proposal tree, also, that the Legislatures i rati floddt for thsee ten States had initiation Iu a palpable usurps- wHs&'a now de jure jort a* it stood then; unless it ha* mow that time been changed by the action of it# constitutional constitu ency. I think eech of them trot er. changed in the letter part of that name year. In each of them e Convention wee elected by a large end unque.tion.ble majority of the constitutional constituen cy (although a portion of them were ox- modc of ratification may ho proposed by tho Congress.” The ratification by three- fourths of tho Stairs, acting through tlieir Legislatures or their Conventions, sots tho seal of validity on tho amend meut and makes it a part of the Consti tution. Nothing else can doit It must Ik' a true ratification by i> true Legisla ture, or a true Convention of tlie State. A false ratification by a true Legislature of tho State will not do. A true ratifica tion by a spurious Legislature will not do. 'i'he validity of tho amendment and its authority as a part of the Constitu tion, arc mode to depend upon the histor ic truth of its ratification as required by tlie Constitution. Proclamations of falsehoods from Presidents, or from unybodv else, have nothing to do with the subject. This is plain doctrine, drawn from the Constitution itself. The validity of the Constitution iu all its parts depends npon tho facts of their history. But, according to this new discovery, the President of tho United States can subvert the whole Constitution, and make himself a legal and valid autocrat, by simply “proclaiming” that an amend ment to the Constitution to that effect has been projiosed by two-thirds of each 1 loose of Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States; although it may be known of all men that there is not one word of truth iu the proclamation. Tho President of the United States can legally convert him self into an autocrat by his own procla mation. Theories aro quickly put into practice iu those days. Lot tuo country beware!! We are also told by this new Daniel, not only that the usurpation has become obligator}' by its success, hut there is no hope of getting rid of it; for he says it cannot be changed without another amendment, ratified by three-fourtlis of the States, and that there is no prospect of getting these three-fourths. Wonder ful! Why, ho himself lias taught us that tho w hole thiug may be accomplished by a Presidential proclamation. Wo have only to elect a Democratic Presi dent, and let him “proclaim” that a new amendment, abolishing the 14th and 16th, has been duly proposed and duly ratified; and the thing is done. That, air, would be the way taught by this new light; hut it would never be my way. I do not propose to walk in tho ways of falsehood. I prefer truth; because it is nuer. nobler, grand I believe also that, the bayonet. 1 have now shown that tlie 14th aud 15th Amendments do not form any part of the Constitution; and thus have made good my first position, that the whole Enforcement Act, which depends solely upon them for its validity, is not a law, hut a more legal nullity. My second position is that, even if the so-called 14th aud 15th Amendments were valid, yet all those parts of the En forcement Act claimed as applicable to my case are utterly “outside*’ of them, and (being confessedly outside of the Constitution, apart from them) are un constitutional, and not binding as law. The 14th Amendment, and the small [Murt of the Enforcement Act relating to ;!t, have no relevancy to this prosecution, aud I shall say nothing further about them. Those ports of the Act claimed as ap plicable to my cose rests solely upon the 15th for their validity; and iu order to seo whether they are outside of it or not, it becomes necessary to know what are tho terms and extent of that amend ment. Tbo effect of its terms is strangely misapprehended. It seems to he regard ed as a thing which, by its terms, secures the right of suffrage to tlie negro, and empowers Congress to enforce that right. This is a total and most danger ous mistake. Here is the amendment. It is not longer thou tho first joint of my little finger: “Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote sliall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on uccount of race, color, or previous condition of ser vitude. Sec. 2. Tho Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro priate legislation, ” This is the whole of it Now, sir, I defy refutation, when I affirm that, by these terms, the right of suffrage is not conferred upon nor secured to any per son or class of persons whomsoever. The whole is simply a prohibition on the United States and the several States. The United States, in legislat ing for the District of Columbia or a Ter ritory, and tho several States in regulat ing tlieir suffrage, each for herself, are prohibited from denying it to anybody or abridging its exercise on either one of the three grounds—race, color, or previ ous condition of servitude—hut are left perfectly free to abridge it or deny it on any other ground whatsoever—sex, female or male, ignorance or intelligence, pov erty or wealth, crime or virtue, or any other of on innumerable multitude of other grounds. In point of fact, the right is denied both by the United States and by each one of tho several States, on many of these other grounds; aud the denial is enforced under heavy penalties, not only by tlie laws of the States, but by this very Enforcement Act itself. To say that the right is conferred on or secured to anybody, because it cannot lie denied for ony one or all of three reasons out of an indefinite number of possible and usual reasons, is simply absurd. As well say that a plat of ground is fenced or secured from intrusion by putting a wall on one of its many sides, leaving all the other eudoo perfectly open. A right is not con ferred or secured by a law, when it can be denied without a violation of that law. This brings me to the crucial test of my second position. Whether I liave violated any provisions of the Enforce ment Act or not, it is at least certain that I have not violated the 15th Amendment. It is # affirmatively proven, by the testi mony of the two prosecutors in this cose— the two uegro managers of election—that I did not object to or in any manner in terfere with any vote ou the ground of either race, color or previous condition of servitude. It is manifest, then, that if I have violated any part or parts of the En forcement Act, such part or pur is are “outside” of the Amendment and unau thorized by it; since I have not v iolated tho Amendment itself. I have not violated theAmendment, even if its prohibition reached private citizens, instead of being confined, as it plainly is, to the United States and tlie States severally. The truth is, that far the greater part of the Enforcement Act is “outside” of the Amendments which it professes to enforce. This not presents another Jive and very lively issue to the people of this country; and already are the thunders of opposition heard from Republican as well as from Democratic quarters. Under tho pretense of restraining tho United States and the several States from denying or abridging the right of suffrage on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, this act takes control of the general and local elections in all the States—soizing the whole political power of the country, and wielding it by tlie bayonet; and fills up pages of the statute book with new offenses and heavy penal ties levelled, not against the United States or tho several States, or their officers by whom alone the 15th Amend ment can possibly lie violated, but against private citizens. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which by the power of their recoil, exterminated their authora, were not equal to this act either in the nakedness or the danger of their usurpation. If this act sliall prevail and abide ss law, then our heritage of local self-government, lost to us, will pass into history, and there stand out forever a glory to the noble sires who wrung it from one tyranny, and s shame to tlie degenerate sons who sur rendered it to another. My third and last position is, that, eu if the Enforcement Act wore valid in all its ports, yet I have not k iolated any one of them. I am accused under its 5th and 19th sections. The 5th provides a penalty against “preventing, hindering, controlling or intimidating, or attempting to prevent, hinder, control or intimidate” any person from voting “to whom the right of suf frage is secured or guaranteed by tlie 15th Amentment” I have already demon strated that the 15th Amendment secures or guarantees the right of suffrage to no body whomsoever. It is impossible, therefore, that I am, or that anybody ever can be, guilty under that section. But again; the testimony utterly fails to show that I interferred in auy way with the voting of any person legally entitled to vote, or indeed, with the voting of any person whomsoever. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to show what person, if any; aud that thev were persons entitled to vote. The Enforcement Act itself inflicts a penalty cannot bo tortured into a iLivat, iu any legal or criminal sense of that word. A threat, to be criminul, must be the decla ration of uu intention to do some nnlaW- tea of persons who had not paid thoir poll tnx, were not in “the discharge of I their duties.” Whether they tiioughl so. J is not the question. If they were really wrong, then I was right, and surely, lam not to be punished for being right. There was no interference with them m the dis charge of their duties. But again: even if I were wrong in the opinion which I entertained of their duty, yot I did not interfere with them unlawfully. Tue whole context of thut clause, iu tho 19th section, under which I am accused, shows thut tho interference couteiunlatcd is uu unlawful interference; especially tho words ahich <*ime im- ful act; aud it never can be unlawful to mediately after it—“or by any of such on all persons who vote illegally; and, of oourse, cannot intend to punish the pre vention or hindrance of illegal voting.— The attempted proof, as to my interfer ence with voters, relates to four persons only. It fails to show that either one of the four was a person entitled to vote. It fails to show that three of them did not actually vote. It fails to show that any one of them offered to vote, or even de- appeal to the laws. I pass to the charge, under the 19th section, that I interfered with the maua- S ere of election in the discharge of tlieir uties, by causing their arrest under ju dicial warrant Tlmt part of the 19th sec tion which is invoked against’ me is in these words: “Or interfere in auy man ner with any officer of said elections in the discharge of his duties.” My first answer to this charge is, tlmt the managers were arrested, not in the dischurge of their duties, but in the vio lation of ono of the BM important of them—one prescribed not only by the Constitution of the State, but by this very Enforcement act itself ; for the act made it their duty to reject all illegal votes, and provided a penalty for receiv ing them. These managers had received and were still receiving the votes of per sons who had not paid their taxes of the year next preceding tho election, as re quired by tlie Constitution of this State. The testimony shows that this fact was fully proven and not denied by them, on the commitment trial liefore the magis trate. The reply to it then was, and now is, not a denial, lnR (V justification, ou two grounds. One of these grounds was, that the oath which they hau taken, under tho Akerman Election act, required them to let every person vote, who was of apparent full age, was a resident of the county, and had not previously voted in that election. They said then, and it is now said again here, that they could not inquire iaio the non-payment of taxes or any other Constitutional disqualifica tion for voting, except only non-age, non residence and previous voting in that election. And yet, a man who was of full age, and a resident of the county, and who had not previously voted, was exclu ded by these same managers, on tlie ground thut he was a convicted felon.— Their own action in excluding the felon is utterly inconsistent with their construc tion of the obligation of their oath. The oath, as construed by them, aud now construed here by tho prosecuting attor ney, is in plain conflict with the Consti tution, and is, therefore, void, and could not relieve them from their Constitution al duty to exclude all who had not paid their taxes. The first ground of the man- agers’ justification therefore fails. Their other ground was, that tho unpaid tax of those whom they had allowed to vote without payment of taxes, was only poll tax, and that the poll tax had been declared by un act of tlie Legislature to be illegal and unwarranted by the Con stitution, and its further collection sus pended. The fact that it was only poll tax does not appear from tho evidence lie- fore your Honor, but I admit it to lie true. I did not come here to quibble.— I am here to justify my conduct under the law, on the truth os it exists, whether proven here or not. My answer is, that this declaratory act of the Legislature is false, unconstitutional, null and void. The act is but the opionion of the Legislature, concerning the constitu tionality of a previous act of 18G9, im posing the poll tax for that year. That act is before me, imposing a poll tax of one dollar jier head “for educational pur poses” using the very words which are used by the Constitution itself in defin ing the purpose for which poll tuxes may be imposed. Now, sir, the questiou which I ask is, what is it that makes this act “illegal” or unwarranted by the Con stitution? Surely, it is not mode so by the subsequent declaration of tlie Legis lature, put forth just before the election, to servo a palpable, fraudulent, party purpose. The Legislature is not a Court; but on the contrary it is expressly prohibited by the Constitution from exercising judicial functions, aud its declarations concerning the constitutionality of Legislative acts, Lave no more authority than those of private citizens. The single questiou, then, is whether the declaration in this case is true. The Legislature assigned its reason for the opinion it gave. \\ T hat is that reason ? It is that tjip Constitu tion limits the imposition of poll taxes to educational purposes; and that when the poll tux in question was imposed, there was no system of common schools or educational purposes to which it could de applied. Therefore, they said its imposition was “illegal and unwar ranted by the Constitution.” They said it was unwarranted by tho Constitution to provide tho money before organiz ing the schools, to which the money was to be applied; that is to say, the only Constitutional way to organize the schools, was to go in debt for them ! I lack words, sir, to properly characterize tho silliness of this reason. But, curious enough, tho Constitution itself took the very course', which these sapiant legislators declared to be illegal and unwarranted by the Constitution. It provided money and devoted it to these very Common Schools, which were still in the womb of the future at the time of its adoption. It dedicated to that pur pose tlie whole educational fund which was then on hand. Therefore, I say, this declaratory act is not only false, but is in the verv teeth of the Constitution itself. Mark you, sir, it did not rejwal nor attempt to repeal the poll tax; it only suspended its collection. But, I say, if it had beeu a repeal in terms, in stead of a mere suspension, it could not change the case, os to tho right of a person to vote without haring paid the tax. The Constitutional requirement is, that “ho shall have paid all taxes, w hich may havo been required of him, and which he may have had an opportunity of paying agreeably to law fqr the year next preceding tl)e election.” The poll tax was required in April, 1869, and continued to bo required, up to the pas sage of the aforesaid false declaratory act, in October, 1870—a year and a-half. During all that period tax-payers had “opportunity” to pay it. On the day of the election, then, any man who had not paid his poll tax for 1869, stood in the position of not having paid a tax, which had been required of him,.and which he had had very many opportunities of pay ing agreeably to law. He stood clearly means or otlwr unlawful means,” etc.— This word “other” shows conclusively that all the menus contemplated were only such as were of an unlawful charac- This would be implied in constru ing any penal statute, even if it were not expressed; for the universal rule of con struction for penal statutes is to construe strictly against the prosecution, und lib erally iu favor of the aocusod. Is it pos sible that any judge can have the hardi hood to hold that it w?ts the iutontion of this Enforcement Act to impart to man agers of electiou the sacred character of Eastern Brahmins, making them too holy to he touohed even for their crimes? Surely it was not intended to give them greater sanctity than belongs to Poem of the British Pariamunt, or to legislators in our own country while eDguged in leg islation. Notwithstanding ail the higi privileges accorded to them, all of these are subject to arrest in any place, at any moment, under a warrant charging breach of the peuce or felony. Was it intended to protect theso managers from immedi ate accountability for all felonies which they might oornmit during three whole days? Until this shall be held as the in tention of the Enforcement Act, it is im possible to maintaiu that I have violated it in any particular whatever. The Constitution declares that “the right of tho citizen to appeal to the courts shall never be impaired.” My whole offense, sir, is this: dial J appealed to a court of competent jurisdiction. I de voutly believed 1 was right in my opinion of the luw. I believe so now. But, whether I was right or wrong in my opin ion, who will dare to say that I was wrong in testing that opinion, not by the strong hand, but by appealing to a court ap pointed by the Constitution for the very purpose of deciding the questiou ? That court decided that I was right; and the “interference” which followed, sir, was tho interference, not of myself, but of the law. as expounded and administered by a judicial tribunal. Moreover, sir, the decision of that tribunal stands*as the law of the cose, until it shall be reversed according to law. These managers were charged with felony under the laws of this State. Was it a crime forme to seek a judicial inquiry into the truth or prob ability of such a charge? I suspect, sir, that my real crime, in the estimation of my prosecutors, is, that the judicial in terposition invoked by me had the effect of preventing numerous repetitions of a crime which would have done signal ser vice to their political parly. If angry power demands a sacrifice from those who have thwarted its fraud ulent purposes, I feel honored, sir, in being selected os tho victim. If my suf fering could arouse my conntrymen to a just and lofty indignation against the despotism which, in attacking me, is but assailing law, order, and constitutional government, I would not shrink from the sacrifice, though my blood should be re quired instead of my liberty. Xllisrcllfliicons ^bticrticcwcnle. CITY FLOURING MILLS, .1 T’Ll.rr.4, tlEOHUl.l. If all tilings are equal, why nut putro ize home manufacture l I HAVE fnr?iiih«d Diy MP1* throughout with NEW an.l l.WPKOVKD MACHINEKY, and uu uuw grinding n»w whmt, »ud irn i»n f»n*d to aud will guarantee etmry i>ouinl of floui that ImU tu ooiik fully up to repreauuUtiou; otherwise. It can beatiin- l*d back to tue at my eipeuaw. I atu prepared to furpuk Um trade, in auy quantity, iu aacka. half aacka or qtlArter aarka: l'RIDE OF DIXIE, from choice white wheat. CITY IIILLS FAMILY, bom M'acted red wheat. CAPITOL MILLS FAMILY. STAB MILLS FAMILY. BRAN. Backed or uiittcked. J. E. BUTLER, jPiopxfetor. augliani To Parties Desiring to Build T-SaKRSSterffSS SLt MajHWalnl th* MmUSlmg' mmd nit Mur er IJm MOuMtinf /tv purl meut mutuhufiLlu Plr.1 OUm «•«.. I.,, I. Hr—U He haa at his comm uud a picked act of hernia, and fee la confident in giviug general satisfaction SO- REFERENCE -CoL John L. Chant, Longloy & Robiuaou, and Fajr k Corput. Architects. JOHJT C. ATiCMMOLfL OFFICE IN AJR-LINE IiOUSn. PRYOR STREET ap97-0m NAiH’l. H7NTOUT, M. 1}„ Ageut for Introduction of Harper Sc Brothers’ EDUCATIONAL. WORKS. nr Office at Phillips k Crews’, corner Marietta and Peachtree streets, Atlanta, Ua. Judge T. 8. Foa. iA, clerk; always present to attend to hualueattiu his absence. aug l-lm WANTED. mo Exchange some unimproved Rea) Estate, tn A Atlanta, for a Stock of Good* (Dry Goods or Gro ceries), for which a fair trade will be given. Address REAL ESTATE. Sun Office. Atlanta. Ga, Ang. S3.1871-dt irar. jnjtcKiE, rainier andlitrcu-mtmr, f \FFICE .bov. W. Q. Jwk 1 . WUMall .troet, r turns thanks to hla old patrons for formal », and hooea by “ * ‘ ‘ continuance of the a Popniar i'amiln Scroing XUacljmcB $2.i.00 Xnvi'il I $25.00 Saved! PRICES AND TERMS OF WILSON SHUTTLE Sewing Machines. CNnrnrKED nett cash. $10 ro no. $5 pa mo. THOS. HAMPTON, B. D. SALMONS, W. A. BAHNOUK. Drake's Creek JftiUs. F. A. D ARBOUR dt C0. % J^EALER8 IN FLOUR, MEAL, fc SHIP STUFF, mtLtjrstiajr, KKjrrvcKir. S3- HIGHEST PRIOR PAID FOR WHEAT, -ft All produoe delivered at the depot free of charge' iprlSda Musical Instruction. J3R0F. UUTC1IISS0N, Musical Director of the Beethoven Society, At’auta, Teacher of Piano-Forte, Organ aud Melodeon. Address—Care Laweho and Haynes, Whitehall street, or P. O. Box 261. aug at-1 m JOHN MILLEDGE, Jr., ATTORNEY AT LAW, Office in Grant’s Buildinp, corner of Marietta and Broad streets. Practice* In the Courts of tho city and county. I AM GLAD HE HAS COME. the Stale of $ 45 $ 55 $60. within the letter of the Constitutional dis qualification for votiug. He stood ulso within its reason and spirit, for its true intentiou was to discriminate against the citizen who should not have discharged a public duty for the year next preced ing the election. Nothing but payment could remove from him the character of a public delinquent. Legislative remis sion of the tax cannot serve the purpose, for he still stands after that as a mao who has failed in a public duty. The most that can be said lor him is, that after the repeal, the tax ceased to bo required of him; but the only material facto—that it No. 6. Plain Table No. 6, half-eaae, pin bx 50 No. 7. do fau’y 65 65 70 No. 7, Folding oover 70 so Na. S, Full Cabinet, 100 HO No. 8, Folding Cover, 120 WARRANTED FIVE YEAR8 BY WILSON SEWING MACHINE CO We wish it dlatlnctly understood that these are our terms from which we never deviate; and we guaran tee our Machines to have every poiut of excellence to be found in any Underfeed Shuttle Machine, and as durable, made of as good material as any Machine uio world, and that It will do aa elegant work. W. li. GRIFFIN, Gen. Agent, 32 Peachtree Street, Atlanta. Ga. Georgia—button County. Fulton Supebioh Count—Apxil Tknm. 1871. Mantua F. Utan) ' Vi * | tor Divorce In said Court Gkobun a. Ryan. ) U ai>j>eani Shcrifl. that above stated _ ^ u Fulton. .nil it -L... .ppMrlii* thtt h. iltw. no. rv.ulc In uul KUU ot (hojrgU, It u, Uiorerore, ordenid t,v Uio Court that um™ of Mid llbol bo m„V On mill Uoorico A. Hjin. by pnbUcUon of uu. order In uu public gaxette in this state, .«*. . »—.u - * moutha. Granted I'he Heat Paper Hanger In Georgia. charge for varnishing chaira 1 UyhoMtriuc, J-'urullure krjMlrlsf, #•#., to give satisfaction. Furniture covers out, made and a fit warranted. Hair and spring mattresses made to order. All kinds of household furniture aud up holstery done at the shortest notice. I havo re moved to DeGiva’a Opera House, under Mayaon’s Auction Wareroom. ou Marietta street. C. R. BROWN. tplMm Late of Richmond. Va. School Notice. ri'HE Ninth Session of MI8H LATIMER** SELECT 1- SCHOOL, on corner of Marietta and Iatiuicr Streets, will commence on MONDAY, 26TH OF AUGUST, and close of the lOih of December. Curriculum of studies same as adopted In beet Schools and Colleges. TERMS; PRIMARY CLA88—$2 00. INTERMEDIATE—(Eutbtwotng all English branch- Latin and Frcnoh)—$4 00, per scholastic mouth. Number ul scholars limited to 35. »Ug35 3t. Atlanta Marble Works. WILLIAM OBAY IMPOSTER AMO DEALER IN American, Italian and all other Marble. Am scotch omuriTE. dc ana in the la tost and moat approved manner. Designs of all Cemetery work tarnished FREE oi application. j. £. LEAS, Aunnt. Address p. O. Box 640, aug25 2m Atlanta, Georgia. HOME-MADE Carriages, Buggies, PHAETONS, cfco., cSfao., cfco., db<p. AT A. T. Flnnoy’» Carriage Emporium, KO. 5 HKQAP STRKF.T, ATLA.rTJ. OEOROI.1. a month for four public gaxette i by tho Court. M. V . MT| . „ A true Extract from the minutes ot i W. R. VENABLE, Clerk. Tho Pioneer Carriage Manufactory of Atlanta, H m work EQUALS If not SURPASSES, in finish, the nest JtTaf'them^JfMade Work^ And in durability la FAR 8UPEUIOR—all work be ing put np of the very best seasoned wood and by THE BEST WORKMEN, Wbil. In PHIOER, I r ■Iu for yuurMlf, or Mud y»“ r fiarbmart, dmlcrj, ©ntt», &t. W. JLi. WADSWORTn Ac CO., INIPORTIRS AND WHOLBALE DEALERS IN HARDWARE, CUTLERY, GUNS, »“«» Bullrteite MaterlAl reared Tool., Rubber and Xjoretttor Boltin. Mo. B4 WhlUbAll Btroet, Cor. Al*beu», Oppmlto Jomei’ Bonk ATLANTA CA* Amni.t—ttllHoptlO ATLANTA SUBSCRIBE FOlt THE SrtJJV> H «f*JS tY por temr.