Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

NTMBER 6. Liberty Hale, , OMYrpoianTLLE, GA.,*JGtli June, 1874. )' Editor cf the Constitutionalist: The long ■Ylavwi nply of Mr. Hill to my articles 3 and 4. in which his letter to me of Hatch 14th, 1864” was given to the pub- ’ic, has h*«n before me several days; and jgjtwsendyoa for publication such com ments upon it as I deem pertinent, and os mv emit feebleness of body has permitted to have reduced to writing. The >nsth of this most remarkable paper of Sir Hill requires me, in noticing it, to draw much more largely upon your col ons than is at all compatible with my vjdie*: but I trust you will on this Ocea nia indulse me. I shall be as brief, con- .hnsed and methodical as possible. 1st What Mr. Hill’s exigencies required rf him, was not a history of his letter of -Mairh 14th, 18G4,” or how it-came to be written; Imt what he had to say of its sub- ,yt** and subject matter, in ex- Tricathm of himself from the “hor rible” dilemma in which it clearly tjaced him; in view of wliat he had as- jetted in his “Historical Address 1 ’ about the mischievous and treacherous mach inations of the “malcontents” in Georgia in their attempt to array the State in hos tility to the Confederate Administration, at the extra session of the Legislature in ]«-*»; and of Ids “gandcrlcering” (not candekering, as Mr. Hill seems not to jeireive the meaning of that word as used bv me) to Mr. Davis over his ex ploits in defeating the movement His letter of “March 14th, 1804,” showed cnodusivefo that the action of the Legis lature had been in pursuance of a pro- examine previously fully agreed to by aim. At first he was so “staggered” by the extract from this letter published in my ankle No. 3, (which covered all the points I then had in hand,) that he called for the entire letter, hoping, perhaps, to find something in other parts of it. on which be could venture, by tho ingenuity of a sophistical argument, to relieve him self from the dilemma in which he was then so dearly placed. In making this call, however, he it remembered, Mr. Hill said: "Irmly nay now, mrlM, written or Ifu UUmlify me fur one war on. the Confederate Administration and lama, then I will confess that I am not entitled to the mated of Southern titan, teaman or r\ild nor. or enrr." llis call was promptly replied to by the {Mtldkation of all the other portions of the letter not embraced in the extract be fore given. So the public then had the whole of the letter, from the beginning to the end—without the mutilation of a K-ntence, word, syllable or “comma” in it. Mr. Hill certainly got no comfort from the response to his call. The other portions of the letter were quite os dam aging to liis itosition as that part first pub lished. After the whole was thus brought «»ut, it will lie recollected that I, in my ankle No. 4, in reply to his language just above quoted, brought him directly to law. in these words: “ All I have to say in reply to this is, • that If I, or Gov. Brown, or lion. Linton 1 Stephens, of the Georgia Legislature, in their action at the extra session of 1864, made “war upon the Confederate Adminis tration or its lairs,” then ttyc letter, in all its essential parts, fully identified him with what wc did in cvcty essential particular.” If tliis shall bring him to the convic tion that “ he is not entitled to the re spect ef any true Southern man, woman nr child now, or ever; be it so. It is a matter for his own conscience to deter mine, when he sees wliat he put in wri ting ct :he time. He may ciy “out” to tbeae lines so penned, but they will not “out.” Ilk only escape, consistently with his character, is upon the ground he did not stand to the principles ami sentiments so announced by him, for Ihc space of "one hour” The issue thus presented he did not at tempt to meet, drinking, perhaps, if lie adopted the only plan of escape indicated, a 211 . . *** uu auo IYCI IKJ U bill m chancery which he was about to be sworn to: “I*st some suspect your tale to be untrue • Better keep probability to view.” ’ Mr - 2Arc » h 'J tne! For ^ he most . Perfect friendly rela- ev * r existed Between us. No expression of personal unkindness had C !5 r be ? 1 uttered by either against the 2™™i^£ ar “J wasaware - Hebad often consulted with me upon the most detinde questions of war up to that time. I had a n d fni nkly given him my views a upon all questions when asked. I had as freely and frankly conferred with personally and by letter, urging my views on matters which I deemed of vital importance to our cause, on which my counsels had not been sought. On W °f tBese he disagreed with me. Just as I had urged in the most friendly way upon many of my best personal friends not to adopt the policy of seces sion, but their disagreement with me on this point, in no way or degree alienated my personal feelings from them. Mr. Hill says I know how to hate; but do not know how to sacrifice personal feelings on the altar of the public good. Who among the dead or the living ever had lesa of “Aafe” in his nature, or ever ex hibited, throughout liis life, in a greater degree than I have, the virtue of “sacri ficing his personal feelings on the altar of the public good.” Hate, indeed! This quality is as far from my nature as are itskindred qualities of double-dealing, deceit, duplicity and hypocrisy. In tins connection, I beg to be excused for say ing that I have seen it stated in some pa pers that I was influenced by "hate” or an "old grudge” against Mr. Hill in entering upon a review of Iris “Historical Ad dress.” Such writers know nothing of my nature. What cause had I ever had for "hate” or "grudge” against him, even if I had been capable of entertaining such sentiments? Our personal interests in no way clashed. I never met him on the hustings but once, and was perfectly sat isfied witli the result of the discussion then had. The popular verdict rendered at the polls in a short time after, upon the merits of our respective arguments, showed an increased majority on that side which was advocated by me. Was this any cause of “hate” or “grudge” on my part? I never met Mr. Hill in a court, cither before a jury or a judge, in the State Circuit Court, or Supreme Court, or the Federal Court, where the verdict of the jury or the decision of the Bench was not in my favor. Was this any cause of “hate” or “grudge” on my part towards him? No! On the altar of Tisiphone no offerings were ever presented by me. Malice I can cherish towards no human being. It is true I am not devoid of passion, or even tbe highest indignation, especially at wrong, injustice and baseness; but even now, after Mr. Hill has exhausted his vocabulary of denunciations against me, and taken his flight, I feel very much to wards him as Uncle Toby did towards the fly. His "bussing,” os I have hereto fore said, about me for several years since the war, with whatever motive or with whatever object, I permitted to pass with perfect indifference. It was only when he exhibited himself in his “His torical Address,” as belonging to tbe green species order of that insect by his profuse deposits of loathsome larvae upon my integrity, character, and patriotism, as well as that of the good name of many of the truest and noblest men of the South, I felt it to be my duty to crush these noxious vermin without any dispo sition to hurt individually the creature that had laid them. Again; If the matter of my defection from the “cause” was a subject of discus sion at Richmond in the Winter of 1863, as he says it was, and if he and others there “had reason to know that it was re garded by our enemies as a most signifi cant indication of a dividing and collap sing Confederacy,” as he now says, why did he not inform me of these facts when he was at my house? Why wait ten years ‘to give me the information? Accordingto . . his account, his visit here was a “brave that ho would bo irretrievably caught, undertaking on his part, to make a patriot and more ilamagingly exposed by proof of his well known support in 1863, of lion. Joshua Hill for Governor of Geor gia, who had not only been opposed to Secession, but was one of tbe very few in tlic State who luul, during the whole war, so little sympathy with the Confed erate cause, that he was at its close ena bled to take the iron-clad oath, so- called. In this most embarrassing predicament, Mr. Hill, after two weeks rcconnoissance and close observation of the situation, so far as concerned any further contest in a discussion of the question at issue, seems to have come to the same conclusion as to his course in this matter, that another redoubtable knight arrived at, as to his, under similar circumstances, though in a conflict of a different sort, to-wit, that; ••In all the trade of war no feat I* nobler than a brave retreat; For he that fights and runs away, May live to fight another day.” Hr. Hill, at one bound, quits the field of argument, and betakes himself to his lavorae arena of fancy and fiction. Hence his most remarkable new Chapter of Con frderate History! 2. This new chapter, which is the work entirely of liis imagination, as most of his 'Historical Address” was, is, to me, from tlie beginning to the end, one of the most amusing sj»eciiuens of work of this sort, I ever rent. Nothing in the heroic JSclie- utzkIcs thousandaud one stories, in the Arabian Nights Entertainments, invented to secure her escape from death, is more of the Vice“Presidcnt!” 3d. Mr. Hill begins this new “chapter in Confederate history” by assigning as a reason for his vbold retreat, or “retirement,” as it is called, from any further contest in this controversy over those portions of his “Historical Ad dress” reviewed by me in this series of Ar ticles. wliat he claims to be a pending question of veracity between us, growing out of what I said in my first Article about his absence from Richmond pen ding the consideration of the appointment of commissioners to the Hampton Roads Conference. On this point he claims that he has shown me to be a "liar," and guilty of a most “malicious falsehood 1 ’— that lie has outlawed" me from the pale of truth, and that henceforth I am utterly •unworthy of belief, &c. This is ccrtainlv a most ludicrous pre text for such a bold and extraordinary retreat in view of the facts of the case. (Suppose I did 6ay he was not in Rich mond when he was, feeling fully assured of the truth of the assertion when I made it, does that constitute falsehood on my part? According to all standard writers on law and morals, and ac cording to the universal good sense of mankind, "falsBurod" can never be justly charged upon any one for stating what he believe* to be true, especially if there be good> reasons for this belief—even though the fact turns out to be otherwise than it was thus believed to be. My reason for stating that Mr. Hill was not in Rich- r . mond at the time Mr, Davis and Iris Cab- Not even her account of the “Mer- inet had under consideration the appoint- h.-uit and the Genius,” “Sinbad, the ment of the Commissioners, under the Sailor,” or “Aladdin,” with his “Won- Blair proposition, (and which ended in the Hampton Roads Conference) icrful Lamp.” What, for instance, more amusing,* and at the same time more incredible <oiy could liuve been invented, by tbe m<Wi fruitful imagination than, that I < ouid have told Mr. Hill at our interview in March, 1864. that I had no confidence in Jfr. Haris—I knew him tcM—that ire must ffit lktri* as well as Lincoln—that I knew ■dr. IKiris intended to make himself a mib- '■■<ry dictator—that I knew what I was say- •\c. and hid reasons for knotting it, which l could not state—that Darts meant to arrest «<■—that he meant to arrest Brown, and even Mr. Uul himself! Whoever believes such a tale as that, •an readily swallow as truth, anything in •Julliver or Munchausen. Then his state ment. that he well knew that- my oppo- 'ition to conscription, impressments, and habeas corpus suspensions originated in nothing but "hatred” of Mr. Davis, is of ’-lie same diameter. Who can be so credulous as to believe any such story f Mr. Hill in putting it up would have done wen to have borne in mind the memor able couplet, said to have been repeated •;y the elder Judge Underwood, of our s iate, (a distinguished lawyer and brilliant wit of his day,) to a client of his who *Dr. Johnson remarks, that amuse implies vimething less lively than divert, and less •apoitant than pleats. Hence it is often said, •c are amused with trifles. ampton Roads Conference) was the fact that Mr. Hill had himself told me a night or two before Mr. Davis sent for me, on his first taking this matter under consideration, that he was going to Georgia, and took leave of me according ly, and that I had not seen him there afterwards. If a man takes leave of me atmy house, and says he is going on the next train to Augusta, and 1 do not see him afterwards, I should not hesitate to say, if the in quiry was made for him, that he had gone to Augusta ; nor should I thereby subject myself to the just charge of false hood, even though he did not go, as he said he intended to do. No turpitude either in law or morals attaches to any one for any such act or. statement, unless he persists in his statement, after it clearly appears to him, from any subsequent de velopment, that the probabilities are that the fact was not as he thought it to be. But whether a party, who attempts to fix "falsehood’ upon another, who frankly admits in such a case that the fact may be otherwise than he thought it to be at first, and expressly refrains from a re- affirmance of it, is "free himself from tur pitude of some sort, I leave to the public t0 ^ovMthis is just wliat I did, when I saw Mr. Hill’s “unwritten history of the Hampton Roads Commission,” and his open avowal, therein, of his double deal ing and duplicity towards me in the mat- of the Congressional Commission, which I had proposed; and his bold an nouncement in the same, of what he styled the “flank movement” made by him and the Georgia delegation, in conjunction with Mr. Davis in reference to the pro posed Congressional Commission, in or der to “circumvent” me, and “stop” my tongue,” by giving the “Negotiations” and “Peace movement men their own medicine mixed to suit themselves.” I readily saw that his taking leave of me, and telling me he was going to start to Georgia the next morning, when he had no idea of doing so, was in perfect ac cord with his other deceitful and double dealing conduct towards me on this entire subject, so openly proclaimed by him. It was when, this new, but baleful, glare of light was thus thrown upon this whole transaction, that I “frankly con fessed” that “the probabilities” were that he was in Richmond, when I supposed he was in Georgia; and stated with equal frankness that I would not “reaffirm” that he was absent from Richmond at the time stated. It was no "sickly admission” after I was "ocerichelmed” by the evidence of his witnesses. It was before one word of Iris testimony, so-called, on this point, was given to the public. It was made most promptly, ana in the most manly and truth-bearing manner, upon liis own most infamous disclosure. It is not my purpose now, nor has it been at any time, to discuss the merits of his testimony, nor to show how far short it comes of sustaining him in making good his pledge “on pain of infamy” to prove, not only that he was in Richmond at the time, but that I knew he was there; and that he had insisted upon my accept ance of the appointment as one of these commissioners in the presence of a num ber of gentlemen. I will say, however, that the statement of Hon. Hiram P. Bell, that he and other members of the Geor gia delegation, Mr. Hill included, were in my room in consultation upon my pro posed Congressional Commission, the night before Mr. Davis sent for me, and that Mr. Hill said on that occasion that lie intended to to go Georgia at an early day; and that Mr. Bell did not remember meeting him in Richmond again after they parted that night at my room, is quite confirmatory in its character of what I said about Mr. Hill’s telling me in my room, either that night or the night before, that lie was going to Georgia, and taking leave of me witli that declared object, when we parted. But all this has nothing to do with the merits of the real issue between Mr. Hill and myself on the Hampton Roads affair. His presence at or absence from Rich mond at that time does not in the least affect that issue. It is true I stated his absence as one of the reasons of the ins- possibility of his knowing what he said he knew. But.other reasons of the impossi bility of his knowing what he said he knew, equally conclusive with this, if the fact had been as I supposed it to he, were given by me in the same connection. IIow, for instance, was it possible for him to know and assert that what I had written and published, as a history of the conference, was not true, when the con ference was held hundreds of miles from where he was, whether he was in Rich mond or Georgia? And how was it pos sible that he could have known the reasons why each of the Commissioners had been selected, if what Mr. Davis had told me was true? So this question of his presence or ab sence is a perfectly immaterial point. It does not at all cover the merits of the real issue between us. In this connection further state, that I did not intend to charge the Georgia delegation as being “accomplices” with Mr. Hill. I only said they were “accomplices” “accord ing to Ins account of their joining him in his flank-movement” in conjunction with Mr. Davis to “circumvent me!” That account I did not believe to be true, believe they were as much imposed upon as I was. I believe when they heard that the Commissioners were ap pointed, they believed it was an honest bond fide movement for negotiations for Peace. They little dreamed that it was nothing but a response to Mr. Blair’s proposition for a secret Military Conven tion without any reference whatever to makiner Peace on anv terms. I will here also add that what Mr. Hill says in his third letter about the rumors touching Mr. Davis’ instructions to the Commissioners, and what he had heard of my private conversations, as to the limitations of the instructions of Mr. Davis to the Commissioners, as to the terms on which they should make peace, is the veriest bosh that was ever written. I have never in private or public said anything on this subject different from what is published in the “War Between the States.” . I have told everybody with whom I conversed on this subject, from the time I returned from Fortress Mon roe, that it was no Peace Commission at all, in any proper sense of the word, arid there were no instructions whatever given by Hr. Davis to the Commission ers as to the terms on which they should agree to treat upon the subject of Peace. 4th. Mr. Hill says that I claim in my article No. 5 that the Confederate cause was lost because my plan of buying up cotton was not adopted. In this he errs. In No. 5 I only maintained that Mr. Davis had said tliat our failure was owing to a very different cause from that asserted by Mr. Hill in his “Historical Address.” Mr. Davis had said that the failure of our finances was the failure of our cause, and that this failure might have been prevented if a proper plan had been adopted for tbe purchase by the Government of cotton, and rushing it out to Europe before the blockade was closed. I did assert tliat I had urged upon Mr. Davis the plan of purchasing the cotton, by giving eight per cent Confederate bonds for it, and so rushing it out, and that he referred me to Mr. Memminser, who obstinately opposed it. I said also that thousands of people in this District knew that this was the plan advocated by me in canvassing for the cotton loan in the summer of 1861. Mr. Hill says I did not offer it in the Provis ional Congress. This is true. It was not until the meeting of Congress in Richmond that I had any opportunity to do so. It was then I urged my views upon Mr. Davis and Mr. Memminger; and I did not offer my plan in Congress because I could not get tbe administra tion to agree with me. I knew nothing could be done without its concurrence. It was to avoid divisions and avoid sub jecting myself to the charge of heading a party in opposition to the administra tion. This was well known to many members of the Provisional Congress, whether to Mr. Hill or not Mr. Brooks’ plan was entirely different from mine. Its avowed object was the relief of planters by issuing Treasury notes for cotton, and thus inflating the currency. This was the scheme which General Toombs opposed and defeated. But my plan was to buy the cotton with eight per cent, bonds, with several years to run and by which the curren cy would not have been increased a dime. But I told 3D. Brooks and other friends of using cotton in any way proposed, and especially CoL R. W. Johnson, of Arkan sas, who was a most zealous advocate of the cotton policy, in some shape or other, that it was utterly useless for us to attempt to do anything on this line, nnlpw we could first get the approval and co-opera tion of the administration. These are the facts of the case, and if anybody has the curiosity to investigate them further, I refer him to Cleveland’s compilation of my speeches, page 756. 3Ir. Hill’s re mark abont this compilation is in character with himself. I simply fur nished 3Ir. Cleveland with copies of my speeches as they had been previously pub lished. This speech was published at the time it was made from no reason except a vindication of myself against unjust attacks _ in the newspapers for factious opposition to the Administration. No fact stated in this speech has ever been questioned from that day to this, so far as I have heard. In my opinion, the blunder of the Administration in not using cotton, as they might and could, before it was too late, was only one of the many like blunders, both in our interned and exterrud policy which led to the ulti mate failure of the cause. 3Ir. Hill says in his new chapter, that from the begin ning he always kept before him the “great overshadowing conviction that Independence was certain, if our people could be kept resolutely united,” etc. A very strange conviction this for anyone pretending to be a statesman. Did not Cortes with less, perhaps, than a thous and men, subjugate Mexico and deprive millions of resolutely united men of their Independence ? History teaches that brains—trise counsels—are as essential in the civil as well as the military depart ment, for the successful conduct of war. My convictions at the beginning, as to the result af the issues presented by the Secessionjof the Southern States, were ex pressed in that celebrated “corner stone” speech, (to which Mr. Hill refers), in the following words: “Will everything, commenced so well, continue as it has begun ? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health talent and ability, under a favor ing Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His des tinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industiy, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence and Statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelli gence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full meas ures of our most sanguine hopes, may he looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail — if we become divided—if schisms arise—if dissensions spring up—if fac tions are engendered—if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you.” * * * Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better Government than that to which neghboring States belong.” No man ever made greater “sacrifices of personal feeling upon the altar of the public good,” to avoid dissensions, and keep down discontents among the people, by keeping the Administration on a right line of policy, than I did during the whole war. When I warned the author? ities personally of what I deemed the fatal tendency of their omissions as well as commissions, 1 remained perfectly silent until driven in a few instances to address the public in self-vindication. Now a few words in reply to Mr. Hill’s remarks in reference to this speech. He says it did a great deal in alienating for eign sympathy from our cause { because I had declared that the subordination of the inferior to the superior race among us was the comer stone of the Confeder acy. How could this have effected our interest, as argued by Mr. Hill? In using this figure of speech on that occasion 1 hut repeated what Judge Baldwin, of the Supreme Court of the United States, had long before judicially announced in reference’ to the Federal Constitution. He had said, and judicially proclaimed, that “slavery” as it existed in this coun try, was “the comer stone of the Consti tution of the United States.” This was known to all foreign nations, whose sympathy we sought. How, then, could my announcement of the same truth in reference to the Confederate Constitution have affected their sympathies against us in this respect? Mr. Hill’s remarks, therefore, about my lunacy in making such a declaration merits no further notice. 5th. Mr. Hill says I perverted his letter by the manner in which I published it, and by injecting my comments upon the separate parts as given to the public. In illustration of this he says, that liisap- S royal of Governor Brown’s message of [arch 1864. was confined to that por tion which treats of the causes of the war, how conducted and who responsi ble. “Now,” says he, “what will the people think of Mr. Stephens w hen I tell them that this portion of the message thus approved relates exclusively to Mr. Lincoln and hi* party,” etc. The only reply I make to this is, what will the people think of Mr. Hill when they refer, as I ask them to do, to liis own language as published in these words: ‘Beginning with that portion of the message which treats of "the causes of the war, how conducted, and who re sponsible’—from that point to the end, I must say I have not read anything during the revolution with half so much pleasure and satisfaction. I know I must thank you for it The whole country will owe vou an everlasting debt for it. Governor Brown can never pay you in kind for the great benefit you have bestowed upon him. You have given him a grandeur of conception, an enlargement of views, and a perspicuity and power of style to which he never could have reached. His only trouble can be the footprints are too plain not to be recognized.” The italics in the above quotation em bracing the words, from that point to the end, I make in this republication, in order to call special attention to the fact, that he had not confined lus high com mendation to that portion of the message, which he thus attempts to make the peo ple believe be had! What, again, will the people think of such a device to ex tricate himself, and that, too, by charging me with a perversion of the record? Snch a Parthian shot is too amusing, (in its Johnsonian sense), for farther notice. But I ask again, with emphasis, what act of the Legislature—wliat part of Gov. Btown’s message—what part of the reso lution of my brother, Hon. Linton Steph ens, on conscription, impressments, sus pension of habeas corpus, or what pint of my speech delivered on that occasion, had he not previously substantially and cordially approved in principle, in his letter of the 14th of March ? I had called upon him to specify any portion of either of these that he had not thus ap proved. He responds to this call only so far as the speech is concerned. This, in general .terms, he characterizes as “a most vindictive tirade against every leading measure of the Congress adopted to cany on the war.” His specifications, however, are confined to tho following quotations from the speech : ‘‘Without liberty—I would not turn in my heels for independence. I scorn independence which does not secure liberty. “I warn you also against another fatal delusion, commonly dressed up in the fascinating language, of, if we are to have a master, who # would not prefer to have a Southern one to a Northern one? Use no such language. Countenance none such. * * * I would not turn on my heel to choose masters. I was not bom to acknowledge a master from either the North or the South!” On these, amongst other like com ments, he indulges in the following lan- t was the effect 9t this message and speech, and the ‘gandeleering’ be tween tbe Vice President, the Governor and the ex-judge of the Supreme Court at the State Capitol against the Confed erate Administration and laws ? The ‘horrible’ portion of the message and this speech were circulated by the Re publicans in the Northern Presidential campaign of 1864, to prove that the Con federacy was collapsing ! It was written and spread over the North that ‘Gov. Brown, of Georgia, sent a message to the Legislature against the Confederate laws which rallied m its support every disaffected and disappointed man in the Confederacy. This message was supported by Vice-Presi dent Stephens." Now on these points, what had he said to me in his letter ? Here are his exact words: “1. To the legal principles you announce, I agree. I intimate as much iu my speech. I will never agree that the mili tary, as such, from the commander-in- cliief down, can take charge of and con trol the citizen. Civilians must be gov erned, and governed only by civil tribu nals. Persons in no way attached to, or within the lines of the army, cannot, ought not, and must not, be governed by military law, or military officers. “The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not and cannot annul, repeal or modify the citizens’ constitutional bill of rights. Here lies, deep imbedded, the corner stone of Freedom's Temple, and I will never consent to its removal. The act of Congress, if carried out, docs infringe in this rtspect. and, there fore, I voted against it.” If there was anything “liomble” in the message of Gov. Brown on habeas corpus, or the resolutions of Hon. Linton Stephens, in arraying the people of Georgia in hostility to Confederate laws, which was spread over the North to the injury of our cause, was not 3Ir. Hill as responsible for it as any or all of us? Now, I will venture the opinion that the extract quoted from a Northern paper was taken from a Richmond paper, and that the message of Governor Brown and my speech were never republished in any paper at the North. But why, let me ask, did Mr. Hill not quote the passages .in my speech, which immediately preceded the parts he picked out, and which fit them in due connection ? As the public may feel some interest in the subject, in judging of the justice,of these comments, I, in self-vindication, reproduce them. They are in these words: * ‘Never for a moment permit yourselves to look upon liberty, that constitutional liberty which you inherited as a birth right, as subordinate to independence. The one was resorted to to secure the other. Let them ever be held and cher ished as objects co-ordinate, co-existent, co-equal, co-eval; and forever insepara ble. Let them stand together ‘through weal and through woe,’ and if such be our fate, let them and us, all go down together in a common ruin. Without liberty I would not turn upon my heel for independence. I scorn all independ ence that does not secure liberty.” Who but Mr. Hill can see in these sen timents anything hut the strongest devo tion to those principles, and that cause, for which the people of the Southern States were struggling? Who but 3D. Hill can see in them anything like a de nunciation of 3D. Davis? I should have thought infinitely less of 3D. Davis than I then did, if I had supposed that he would have been offended at them. The difference between 3D. Hill and myself was, that when the Richmond pa pers, and others which were clamoring for a dictatorship, which I was os loth to believe that Mr. Davis favored, as Mr. Hill liimself was, when he was with me, raised their denunciations against this action of Georgia; and when 3D. Davis gave no public utterance in opposition to these denunciations, 3D. Hill grew weak in liis spinal column, and came to the con clusion in pursuance of his natural incli nations to seek favor at court, “And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee, Where thrift may follow fawning.” I was indeed obstinate cnongli to show that I was made of sterner stuff. 1 ad hered to the principles, on which he had so agreed with me “witli all” liis “heart.” By these principles I then stood, now stand, and will die, and never will choose between masters. Mr. Hill’s statement that I have been the apologist for any Radical usurpations at any time, is in perfect accord with his character. It is utterly without the slightest foundation in fact to rest upon. Nothing is better known, than that in 1872, while 1 was still obstinate enough to withhold my assent to any of the usurpations in the Recon struction Measures, lie was the champion of those in Georgia, 'who were urging upon the Southern people to give their full sanction to all these abominations. In 1864 I stood by the Constitution of the Confederate Government, which was the constitution of our fathers; while tlic only feat of statesmanship which Mr. Hill claims for himself in the pa per now before me, was his substituted Habeas Corpus bill in the Confederate Senate, which by his admissions to me in his letter on the 14th of 3Iarch, did vio late that sacred instrument. The charac ter of one occupying snch position, I will not portray. I will not even resort to Macaulcy or any of the English standard classical writers for a proper character ization. In this instance I shall forbear, not only from using any epithets myself, but Dom resorting to any other source for them, except to Mr. Hill’s own words on a former occasion; so that he can take the “physic” prepared for 6uch a patient according to “his own mixture.” In his notes No. 10 on the situation in 1867, he used this language: “I ask again and again, and I beseech all men to ask—it is the earnest, anxious, piercing appeal of the dying hope of lib erty: Are you willing to violate the Con stitution? Are you willing, first, to swear to support it, with the intent, at the time, of swearing to violate it ? Then, I proclaim—all posterity will proclaim— your hell-mortgaged conscience will never cease to proclaim: you are perjured, and perjury is not half your crime—you commit perjury in order to become a traitor!” Was not this as applicable to Mr. Hill in 1864, according to his own written ac knowledgement, as it was to the most zealous reconstructionist in 1867 ?—What was sauce for the goose then is certainly good sauce for - the gander now. Further comments are unnecessary. But after this most extravagant condem nation of himself, as one of those trai tors who touched the ark of our cove nant, from which come all the discontent and crushing out of the spirit of liberty in our country, ending in our ruin, what care I for his anathemas against me (one of the fullest loads his ink battery ever before discharged) contained in the con cluding paragraph of his letter now be fore me? No more than Eden’s guardian- angel did for the archfiend’s defiant de nunciations of him on his “bold retreat,” when “he looked up,” and “read his lot” in “the celestial sign,” where he was “weighed” in Heaven’s “scales,” and saw how “light, how weak”" he was, if he persisted in- the combat 1 Mr. Hill was evidently mad—I will not say "insanely mad," but rather Satanically enraged, when he penned those lines. On me their effect was nothing but a most serene smile in my inflexible integrity, and “unapproach able” equanimity of temper, even in the • highest excitement. 6tli. 3D. Hill says I made a “savage attempt to ruin” him, “and if it has ruined” me “the punishment is just.’* This is among his fulminary denuncia tions uttered as he was retreating. If his premises were correct, his conclu sion would be right. But in his state ment he perverted the facts. It was he, who in his “Historical Address,” attempted to ruin me and others, and not I by vindicating my own honor and integrity, who attempted to ruin himf' Let the proposition, therefore, be entirely reversed, and the truth will be fully main tained. But Mr. Hill must recollect that I was not the aggressor in this controversy. I never in mylife gave an unprovoked • offense to any human being. We are, . however, tola by the highest authority that,, “it must needs be that offenses - come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” ) ;v-- While by nature I am utterly adverse c to all such personal controversies as this,. yet in reference to them, I have been- governed through life by the counsel ot» Poloniue: _ Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, Bear it, that the opposer may beware of thee.” 3D. Hill’s present torture, if he pro vokes the issue, may be greatly intensi fied by a full exposure of that wonderful 'strategy,” (not "trick,” he plays “tricks” . upon nobody) but that wonderful strategy . by which he became the savior of Geor-. gia in driving out Radical rulers, and in - rescuing the property of the State from the <«. hands of robbers. There is a great deal yi of unwritten history on the secret negotia tions between him and the “robbers,” besides that which he gave to the New - 1 York Sun interviewer. If any portion he thus gave mode him "sick as a dog,” per haps when the facts attending his earlier' * meetings at later hours in the night than , that at the Kimball House banquet witli those whom he now styles “skunks,” shall, be brought out, he may be seized with a sudden inclination to make another re treat, or “retirement” But no more at present on that subject As I have said, 3D. Hill was intensely enraged when he poured forth that volley . of ink curses against me in his concluding paragraph. He was evidently in as’great a fury as Cassius was in his quarrel with Brutus, when he exclainled: “Oh gods! ye gods! must I endure all this?” My reply is that of Brutus: “All thi6? aye, and more! * * * You shall digest the venom of your spleen,. Though it do split you; for, from this day forth, I’ll use you for my mirth, j*ea, for my laughter, When you are waspish.” AlexanderStephens. Mr. J. D. Creswell Murdered in Bar tow County. Mr. J. D. Creswell, who will be remem bered as a former citizen of our town, was- murdered, at his farm in Bartow county,, last Saturday night, in a most brutal manner - by a Swede named Conrad. Ha. Creswell, on Saturday morning, made - a contract with this Swede, Conrad, to clean • out his well; promising to pay him five dol lars for the work, but stipulating that he- should only pay him two dollars and., fifty cents cash, and the other two dol lars and fifty cents in the fall, or when- the crop was laid by. The well was cleaned, to all appearances satisfactorily to 3D. Cres well, and Conrad received his two dollars and fifty cents, according to tbeb stipula tion, and took his leave for home—which was a only a short distance—as if all was entirely satisfactory to him. Ahont dark Conrad called at Mr. Cre6well’s house and said he wanted all of the money. Hr. Cres well remonstrated with hlA for making such, a demand in violation of his contract, when Conrad turned as if he would go back home. Mr. Creswell went to the gate with him rather to satisfy himself that Conrad was in no bad feeling about the matter. As 3D. Creswell turned to go back to the bouse Conrad threw a rock and hit 3D. Creswell on the back of the head, knocking him down. He then sprang upon tbe prostrate man and plunged a knife through his heart,, letting the knife remain in tbe wound. As- 3D. Creswell was assaulted he called to a colored man in the house, who came- to him at once and found him witt ering in his blood and the: murderer gone in the darkness. The colored man. took up the lifeless man and laid him in his • room on a sofa, and in his excitement left the house for the purpose of notifying 3D. 8tyles, who lived near by. Mr. Styles came in a few minutes and found Mr. Creswell dead and 3Ds. Creswell apparently in the- same condition lying in the floor. It turned out, however, that Mrs. Creswell, after the- colored man had left the house, had realized the fact that her husband was dead, and she had fainted away, but subsequently was re suscitated.—Borne Commercial. Poster takes Leo Bail.—Yesterday af ternoon J. F. Porter escaped from officer Kendrick of the Police, and np to one last night had not been arrested. He was ar rested and in custody upon a bench warrant charging him with another case of black mailing. Kendrick accompanied him to his (the Tremont) house, and Porter asked to- step into anotherroom to change his clothes. Here he jumped out of a window and be took himself to parts unknown. Diligent efforts are being made to capture him. The success of tbe Southern Branch of the National Surgical Institute, since its lo cation here, has been truly wonderful. Patients have flocked in by the score and' sent home cured aqd rejoicing. With all the modem conveniences and the latest and best medical appliances, with skilled and successful physicians, they deserve their en larged success. It is not then a source of wonder that the unscrupulous will use their good name to obtain money from the public. We are assured that they have no agents’ in'- - the field, and will pay a reward for the cap ture of all parties representing themselves - as their agents.