Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE ATLANTA SUN I>AIX.Y and. WEEKLY XJiRMS OF 8UBHCRIPTION Dally—Slngcle Copy > XwdwMonUii....»10 00 I Three Month* 3 00 Uix Month* 6 00 | Ono Month 1 00 Club* for Dally—Per Annum i Three Copies 27 00 I Eight Copies 68 Four •* 35 00 Ten " ® J five « 43 00 I Single o Weekly—Per Annum» . Single Copy 2 00 I Ten Copies- 1ft 0 Three Copies 6 00' Twenty Copies..—.28 00 Fire Copies 8 00 TUty Copies ..05 00 One Hardred Copies *• 00 Weekly for Six MontUs s Single Copy. 1 00 I Twenty Copies 15 /0 -rw v 'yifty Copies M N - * ’ “ T 00 cts Single Copy. 1 00 | Twenty Copies lft . Three Copies 2 501 FiltyCopiCi... ■ •».31 * 1 Fire Conies . 4 00 | One Hundred CopiesBo Ten Copies. 7 6° I Single paper— 6 c CON T.i2 NTS “ATLANTA WEEKLY SUN,” FOB THE WEES ESDISQ \VKU.VESDAV, JULY 17th, 1878. EDITORIALS B7 MB. STEPHENS— Will the Democracy of Georgia Abandon their Principles . - page 4 EDITORIALS— The African Explorer Found, 2; Politics Here and There, 2; Got. Smith, 4; Tho Fulton County Dele gation to tho Gubernatorial Convention, 1; Is Mr. James an Independent Candidate, .8; Important Political Items,! 8. DEATH OF HON. LISTON STEPHENS—pages 1 r.nd 8. POLITICAL ARTICLES— On the Candidacy of Gov. Smith and Mr. James, pages 2, 3andC; The Baltimore Convention—Its l'olly and Shame—IU Work ; Horace Greeley and the Cincinnati Platform, page 4. THE STATE ROAD LEASE— Corresponded between Hon. B. W. Phillips and cx-Governor Brown, 2. SUPREME COURT PROOEEDINGS-page 6. COUNTY MEETINGS— *1 Forsyth, 6; Taliaferro, 8, Screxen, 2. FROM THE COLLEGES, ETC. State University, 6; Bowdon, 5; Wesleyan Fe male, 0; Grantville, C. SUGGESTIONS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST FRAUDS IN COMMERCIAL, FERTILIZERS — pago4. HISTORY OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH IN ATLANTA—page 4. MISCELLANEOUS— Recorder’s Court, 7. TELEGRAMS—3 and 8. ADVERTISEMENTS—7 and 8. COMMERCIAL AND MARKETS—8. Judge Stephens’ funeral will take 1 place to-day. He will be buried at Sparta, instead of Crawfordville, as we stated yesterday that we supposed he would be. : >-44-4 VOL. 3, NO. 4.j ATLANTA, GA„ WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1872. WHOLE NUMBER 101. Judge Stephens’ Death. It was with the profoundest grief and pain that we announced last evening the death of Hon. Linton Stephens, which occurred at his residence in Sparta, at 5 o’clock p. m. on Sunday, the 14th. We have obtained some additional particu lars, which are reliable, which we now state for public information. *His disease was congestion of the bowels and lungs—the result of causes which wo now proceed to narrate. After the exhaustive labors which he ,T rant through in the' Superior Court in this city, three weeks ago, he went home to attend an adjourned term of the court in his own county, which came off week before last. Haring this court his labors were so great—so exhausting—ag gravated as they were*>y the excessiVe heat, that his strength failed, rendering it necessary to continue several of his important cases in consequence of his in ability to proceed with them. It was not, however, until Friday, the 5th inst, that he was confined to his bed; and nothing serious was apprehended until last Satnrday, when his disease as sumed a dangerous type, terminating as wo have stated. HJudge Stephens was the youngest ^brother of Hon. Alex. H. Stephens, and was we before stated, was 49 years old on the first day of this month. Many thousands of hearts will feel the same pangs of sorrow which we do on learning of the doath of this truly great and noble man. In him has passed away, in the prime of life, and in the zenith of a well-earned feme, one of the brightest intellects, one of the profound est lawyers, jurists and statesman, as well as one of the most powerful and brilliant orators which Georgia ever produced. But the brightest trait in his character, and one that will bo longest remember ed, was his unswerving honor and inflex ible integrity in private and pnblio life. His action in all things was governed by principle. * We have known Judge Stephens very intimately since 1855. Wo have seen him on many trying occasions; and in mingling our tears with those most dear to him, we can truly say that a truer an bier or nobler man wo have never asso ciated with. This offering of onr heart is but a poor tribute to liis memory. His proper eu logy we leave to others. To the heart' stricken brother, widowed wife, and or phaned children, we extend all the condo lence, that one beloved friend can extend to others in those heavy afflictions which alTect- all alike, though not in the same degree. The ties of nature are tenderer and stronger than any attachments springing from the most devoted friend ship or the highest admiration. . ^ H XTffTVT MBBMHi Gen* Toombs’ Card, This paper of Gen. Toombs did not reach us till yesterday morning. It has lingered on the way somewhere. i Selma, Ala., July 15.—This city, to day, by a large majority, voted one hand red thousand dollars subscription to the 2*ew Orleans & Selma Railread. The Fulton County Delegation t* the Gubernatorial Convention. The gentlemen selected by the Democ racy of Fulton county, on Saturday last, to represent them in the State Conven tion of the 24th inst., is a most respecta ble and influential delegation, who are thoroughly identified with the interests of Atlanta and Fulton county, and will, in this respect, be true representatives of odr people. In choosing them, the Democracy of Fulton gave a decided expression in favor of Governor Smith, as their choice for that high office at the ensning election. The giving of expression to this choice was, we know, on one acconnt, very un pleasant and even painful to most of those who did so; and it was only a sense of duty to this city and to the State, which prompted this action. No man in this city is more highly esteebned and' admired by almost our entire people, than John H. James. , He'has as few enemies, and as many friends in Atlanta as any man has at his home any where. We are well assured that a very large majority of .those who voted the Smith ticket on Saturday, were warm personal friends of Mr. James, who voted against him with no pleasure whatever, and did so only from a sincere conviction that it would be a very great injury to Atlanta for the voice of this oounty to be expressed against Governor Smith; that it would be a very great damage to the State for Governor Smith not to be re-elected to the high office be now.fills; and that it would be an incal culable damage, not only to the State, bat to Mr. James himself, to make him onr Governor at this time, and under existing cironmstances. "We also are well aware that a very large majority of those who voted for the James ticket on Saturday, honestly prefer Gov. Smith to fill the Executive Chair for the next term, hut voted as they did only because of their warm personal friendship for Mr. James. * The truth is, Mr. James is popular in this county. He is highly esteemed by almost everybody.- A more popular man does not reside in Fulton county; and it was a cross to our people to vote against him. But his great popularity and: the high respect whioh our people entertain for him, were not sufficient to indnee the Democracy of Fulton county to signify that he is their preference for Governor; and they have in this case, as in the past, firmly adhered to principle, and carried out their honest political convictions; and no consideration has been able to swerve- them from the path of political duty. The people of this county know that op position to Gov. Smith is, to a great ex tent, equivalent to a condemnation of his course against public thieves and plunderers. They know that however far Mr. James may be from favoring any of the schemes or plans of those who have been guilty of the plunderings of the past, who are now in possession of their ill-gotten gains and desire to be let alone with the same; or those who may have plans of robbery or corruption for the future which they wish to cany out— no matter how much he may be opposed to everything of this kind; nevertheless, all those who are in this way interested, have been thus far supporting Mr. James, and will continue to support him in the future, if he should be a candi date—not so much because they expect him to favor their wicked schemes, or to protect them in past crimes, as their in stinctive favoring of anything or any body who is against Gov. Smith, They will most earnestly snpport Mr. James, or any one else, in opposition to the man whom they know will give them no quar ter whatever. Atlanta occupies a peculiar position. Our interest and the true interest of the State, and the indorsement of Governor Smith, all run together; and opposition to him, whether so intended or not, is, in effect, opposition to the highest in terests of Atlanta, as well as the highest interest of the State. The P eople—the masses of Georgia— have started out on a line of opposition to the robberies of the past. If they intend now to cease that opposition, the most effectual way to do so is to oppose Gov. Smith. Gen. Toombs, Judge Locbranc and ex- Governor Brown. Some time ago, an extract from a pri vate letter, written by General Robert Toombs to a gentleman in Griffin, xvas published in the Griffin Daily News. In it Gen. Toombs alluded tc Judge Loch- rane and ex-Governor Brown, by name, in connection with the Mitchell proper ty, and alleged that the transaction was the result of bribery. In reply to this, Judge Lochrane and Gov. Brown published Cards in the Con stitution; and to these Gen. Toombs re plies in a Card, which we publish to-day. We have, heretofore, not published any of these Cards, but to-day we lay the while before the readers of The Sun, so that they may see the entire correspond ence, and be able to form their own con clusions. From the Griffin Daily News; 27th June. We have been permitted to make the following extract from a private letter to a gentleman of this city from General Toombs: . i . ‘ Washington, June 19th, 1872. Dear Sir—-I do not know the heirs of Mitchell, and do not know whether they are men, women or children, and cer tainly made no allusion whatever to them in the speech referred to, and I will add that I have no donbt that if they had any rights to the property referred to, they were stripped of the largest portion of their rights, as well as the State. The Journals of the Legislature show, that in the face of a direct 'offer of one hundred thousand dollars for a quit claim deed to the property in dispute, made by General Austell and others,and of the unanimous opinion of all the law yers employed in the case by Bollock, except one, that the title of the State was clear, the Legislature accepted the offer of thirty-five thousand dollars from Lochrane, Kimball and Brown, who en gineered the bill through the Legislature in the name of the Mitchell heirs. The term '/orphans of Mitchell” was applied to them in derision of the pre tenses, under which the people were stripped of this property for the use of these ’‘orphans.” This action of the Legislature .was the result of bribery, pure and simple. The acceptance of the thirty thousand dol lars in lieu of the hundred thousand of fered under the circumstances contained in the Journals is conclusive proof of that fact. I did state further, that as far as my knowledge extended, all of the public plunderers who pretended to be Demo crats, from Tammany Hall down to the smallest petty larceny thief on the State Road, were Greeley men, and so is the fact. The spoliators of every party in this country dread nothing so mnen as the return to power of the State Rights Democratic party of the United States. That party is the term of all the enemies of tho public by whatever name they may be called. I am very respectfully, Tour ob’fc sv’t., t > , R« Toombs. From the Constitution, 3d July.] REPLY OF JUDGE LOCHRANE TO LETTER OF MR TOOMBS PUBLISHED IN THE GRIFFIN NEWS. l «» •!> Editors Constitution : While the press of the whole country almost is pro nouncing Robert Toombs a madman, his condition might, perhaps, inspire pity rather than reply ; but to those who are not acquainted with the blaster and wind of this gentle man, it may be proper to reply briefly to the humbng and fury of his tirade about the Mitchell properly, in which he ex hibits his usual perverse propensity, to deal in accusations, under the.pretexb of zeal in the public welfare, and solicitude for the interests of the State. The speech which gave rise to the explanation published in the Griffin News, was an exhaustive harangue of billingsgate against Mr. • Greeley. Toombs, forgetful of his own blunders which plunged the country in blood and stripped Georgia of everything, his statesmanship under took to protect and preserve, might be expected to indulge in tolerance of opin ion,_ but remembering only his own vanity} and mad because he no longer roles Georgia—all who differ with him are branded with charges, clothed in vituperation and disgusting epithets. The people have long since given the dignity of silence to his utterances re garding them_ as the contortions of a diseased imagination. But silence be comes too generous when ravings assume the attitude of vindictive and untruthful aspersion. In the letter alluded to, Toombs makes reference to myself with others as hav ing bought out the Mitchell heirs and engineered the case through the Legis lature. This charge is false. I got but comparatively a small fee, and what I hold as purchaser of the Mitchell prop erty cost me paid, and in notes secured by Mortgage to be paid,over §20,000 and the improvements placed upon it, amounts to over §64,000, making a cash transac tion of some §84,000. It must be a distorted and depraved nature that can extract from so large an outlay in permanent improvement on the soil of Georgia the idea of injury and detriment to the State, and must be attributed to that malignity which small minds have, originated in envy against those whose success they feel as a wound. Now, in the light of an argument, the General says: The Journal of the House shows Austell and others offered §100,- 000 for a quit claim to the property, and the deduction drawn is, it must have been fraud to sell it for the $35,000 paid by the parties. This argument admits the right to sell—that mnch is conceded —but what were the facts ? The same Journal discloses that the property was in suit. Mr. Mitchell in his life gate the -use of five acres for the purpose of erect ing thereon the necessary buildings at the terminus of ihe Western iC Atlantic Rail road. The abandonment offpart was, in law, the abandonment of the whole, and the Stato had abandoned a part by ex changing all on Alabama street with the Macon Sc "Western Railroad for land on which to. put these buildings. This part was again exchanged by the Macon & IV estern Railroad with the city of At- lanta for the land on which the buildings of the Macon & Western Railroad are located, and this part was owned by com promise with the city by the heirs of Mr. MucheiL The new depot stands, a por- non of it, on tnis very ground belonging to the Mitchell s, and to which the State had not the shadow of a title. The jour nals would have shown that a proposi- faon was made to give a deed to all the State wanted for railroad purposes, ana to t.tis property needed for $35,000. The proposition of Austell, J which was conceived in unfairness, was to defeat the settlement, but, if accept ed, the State thereby abandoned the other side and lost all. For by the act of 1837, the road could only be extended to .a point not exceeding §even miles this side of. the Chattahoochee river. The seven miles terminated in the cut on Broad street, and the land deeded by Mitchell, if abandoned for the use for which it was given, which it would clear ly, first, by the exchange seven and one- half years ago to the Macon and West ern Railroad; second, by such contem plated sale to Austell, would have result ed :n the State losing all. Then, again, by the loss the State had paid no consid eration for the land on which the build ings of the Western and Atlantic Rail road aTe located, worth more than the offer, and whsen was quieted and per fected by the deed made by the heirs of Mitchell to the State. But again, it was in point of value worth more, outside quieting the State’s title, and giving title to some land she had no pretence of title to. For the land, if sold to Austell and his confreres could not have been bfiilt upon or nsed for any other purpose, and the taxes on the James’ Block ami on the hlock in front ,of the Kimball House would not only pay in a feW y6ars a larger amount, but for all time bo ivsource of large and im portant revenue; Thus what Toombs thinks is proof of corruption is proof that the Legislature acted wisely and judiciously iu rejecting as it did the quasi bid of the distinguished financial speculators. But this is not all like Sheridan look ing over “the towering forests of enor mity.” Toombs did not see that , the journals showed a joint committee of a previous.Legisla ture, with men as good as ever sat in the House or Senate, and as honest, reported in fawor of restoring the property without a dollar, and was beat en by only one vote in the Senate, advo cated by men as true as any men living or dead, upon the ground that legally it belonged to the Mitchells and not to the State. At the next Legislature, when it passed, it was submitted to the General Assembly by. the Governor, upon a pro position which was liberal, and more than the State had a right to ask. It was submitted to a joint committee, was by them beard upon agreement for the State, and by myself against, was reported on .favorably, was passed, deeds were ex changed, sale took place, and the pur chasers stand to-day with title as perfect and unassailable as any in Georgia: 1. - Upon the original title which revert ed to the Mitchell heirs. 2. Upon compromise of snits pending, and of land conveyed and money paid. 3. Upon the conveyance of the State under the Great Seal of the State by au thority of the Legislature. Now, for what purpose are such as saults made?,. Why such vaporing accu- •sations? Why was eternal denunciation of everybody and everything that differ with Toombs? Why, except in the men tal obliquity that affects the tongue and leads the brain through a [wilderness of iniquities, to contemplate, like Cervante’s knight, some magnificence of guilt bom of its own creation. Too long have the interests of Georgia been cursed by the bewildering folly of Toombs. May the god of justice interpose to save the State from the farther infliction of his pesti lential influence, and as the State has heretofore been spared his precedent, may Providence in the future, spare her the curse of his parallel. O. A. Lochrane. From the Constitution, 3d July. THE MITCHELL HEIR M ATTER. Card of Ex-Gov. J. E. Brown. Atlanta, Ga., July 2, 1872. Editors Constitution: My attention has been called to a letter published in the Griffin Daily News, signed R. Toombs, in reference to the passage of the resolu tion of the Legislature of 1870, compro mising the litigation between the heirs of Samuel Mitchell and the State of Georgia, in which Gen. Toombs uses the following language: ' “The Legislature accepted the offer of thirty-five thousand dollars from' Loch- rone, Kimball and Brown, who engi neered the bill through the Legislature in the name of the Mitchell heirs. The teim “Orphans of Mitchell” was applied to them in derision of the pretenses un der which the people were stripped of this propel ty, for the use of these “or phans.” This action of the Legislature was the result of bribery, pure and sim ple. * * * I did state further, that fts far as my kdowledge extended, all of the public plunderers who pretended to be Democrats, from Tammany Hall down so the smallest petty larceny thief on the State Road were Greeley men, and so is the fact.” Now, if Gen. Toombs intends by thin language to say that I have been guilty of bribery in “engineering” this bill through the Legislature, I pronounce his statement an infamous falsehood and its author an unscrupulous liar. Very respectfully, Joseph E. Brown. GEN. TOOMBS’ CARD. Washington, Ga., July 11, 1872. To ihe Editorsff the Sun:—A brace of ex-Chief-Jastices, of this State, honored me with their notice and vituperation in the Constitution of the 3d instant There were a trio of these chevaliers cCinduslrie engaged in the transactions referred to. The third member of the firm (Mr. H. L Kimball) is absent from the State, I sup pose, “from' circumstances beyond bis control.” These assaults excite no sur prise. Since the adjonrnment of that band of public plunderers whom General Terry and Bnllock installed as the Legislature of Georgia inOctober, 1870, I have de voted much of my time and strength in endeavoring to secure the persons of these accomplices in guilt, and to pre serve the evidence of their crimes from destruction, until the criminal laws could ihe new depo', as well as to pay 1 be enforced against them, and a “free the Governor. parliament ofjthe people” could assemble to aid the administration of justice, and wrest from the grasp of the spoilers so much of their ill-gotten gains as might be within the reach of law or legislation. These efforts have not been wholly un availing and I trust I have been able to render some small service to some of the very able and efficient committees whom the Legislature have charged with the consummation of this great work. My small portion of the work has excited the deepest enmity of the whole gang of spoliators against me. I accept it as some evidence that I have not labored wholly in vain. It is worthy of notice in the begin ning, that not a single statement made by me in the publication to which they refer, is denied by either Lochrane or Brown. They do not deny that they, in connection with Kimball, engineered through the Legislature, the Resolution ceding the Railroad Park property in At lanta, in the name of the heirs of Mitch ell; nor that the Legislature accepted thirty-five thousand dollars from their clients in the face of a responsible offer of one hundred thousand dollars ■ for a quit claim deed to the same property; nor that this action of the Legislature was the result of bribery, pnre and sim ple; nor that the acceptance of the thir ty-five thousand dollars in lieu of the one hundred thousand dollars offered under the circumstances contained in the journals, is conclusive of that fact. Here are the specific charges contained in my letter, and the proof referred to, to sustain them. I shall dismiss the reply of Lochrane very summarily. Treachery, mendacity, venality, servility to Bullock and the Radical gang, rottenness in and out of office since toe surrender, has so strongly stamped his character, that nothing he could now , say—no new falsehood he might utter, and no new crime he might now commit, would, in the least degree, affect his public reputation or his private character where he is known. He boasts of baying a large portion of the Park property, and of large amounts expended, in its improvement, when I know that since that purchase, if pur chase it be, he has been compromising his honest debts for about thirty cents in the dollar; and if the money for the improve ments came out of his purse, it mast have been facquired by his practices under color of his profession, or his mal practices on the Bench. Ex-Chief Justice Brown denies neither of the statements which I affirmed. He contents himself with quoting from my letter, and then adding: “Nowif General Toombs, by this language, intends to say that I have been guilty of bribery in engineering this bill through the Legis lature, I pronounce his statement an. in famous falsehood and its author an*un- scrupulous liar.” He quoted the language, and there fore knew I did not “say” so.. If he felt in doubt about the intention—the con struetion of the language—he might have asked for an explanation. The propriety of this course is so obvious that ho gentleman could fail to perceive it. Brown preferred hypothetical de nunciation, the usual dodge of a vulgar poltroon, and played his characteristic role. He is extremely technical: "if General Toombs intends by this language that / have been guilty of bribery in en gineering this bill through the Legisla ture,” &c. I think the probabilities are very much against Brown’s being per sonally engaged in the bribery. I think he is too canning and skillful a lobbyist to run any such unnecessary risks, es pecially with such experts as Kimball and Lochrane, aided by Blodgett, assist ing him in the work of engineering the bill through the Legislature. The plain history of the case, and the examination of the jonmals of the Leg islature (thei evidence to which I referred) will fully vindicate the correctness of my opinion of the transaction. ' In 1842, Gharles Mitchell, with the view to secure the location of the depot, of the road on his land, donated, in fee simple, by deed of warranty, five acres of land to toe State for “placing there on the necessary buildings which may hereafter be required for public purposes at the terminus of said road.” The State entered, occupied and held undisturbed possession of this property for nearly a quarter of a century. In 1867, Brown & Pope brought suit for the heirs of Mitchell for the Park portion of toe property. No action was ever had oh this suit; but in 1868, the case was carried before the Legislature, and the claim rejected. It there slept until Bnllock got another reconstruction act through Congress, and he and Gen. Terry bad, by fraud and force, ejected a large number of the true representatives of the people, and replaced them with a sufficient number of bis own pliant and corrupt tools to render powerless the hon est men whom he could get no pretext for ejecting. The State being thus prostrate at the feet of the usurpers and plunderers,{Bol lock, their chief, with a corrupt Judicia ry of his own appointment, with a venal Legislature, sounded his bugle, and called his clans to the sacking of the Commonwealth. Lochrane was among the very first to obey the call. In July, 1870, he put in the rejected claim of toe heirs of Mitch ell, in a proposition to Bnllock, to give him the whole of the property in dispute in the snits, except a strip of land two hundred and forty feet wide, between Loyd and Pryor streets, where^he Depot then and now stands, for thirty-live thousand dollars. This property was estimated then to be worth between three hundred thousand and four hund red thousand dollars, by some of the best citizens in Atlanta. The proposition was referred by Bullock to the counsel he had employed to defend the State’s interests. Mr. ‘William Dougherty, Judge Collier, Mr. Hoyt. Judge Hop kins and Mr. Nunnally, of the counsel, met, consulted, and, except Nunnally, unanimously decided that the title of the State was clear and unquestionable, and di rected one of their number so to report to Judge Hopkins differs with Messrs. Dougherty, Collier and Hoyt as to the other facts,- bat agrees that the title of the State was clear. Bullock sent in Lochrane’s proposition, with a false statement, os was his habit, of a material fact in the case. This mes sage was received on the 13th of Octo ber, 1870, referred to a select committee of both houses the same day, and on the next day, was reported book with a re commendation that Lochrane’s proposi tion be accepted. The counsel, for the State had no notice of the meeting of the committee and were not present, ex cept Nunnally, who favored Lochrane’s proposition, and Judge Hopkins, who suggested to Bnllock a compromise, “on such terms as the relative vantage ground of the two parties will justify.” Lochrane represented the Mitehell h^rs. This report was made the special order of the day for the 17th October. It was taken up on that day. Mr. Candler, on the 14th, having moved to i eqnest the Gov ernor to send in tan opinions of the counsel for tie Scute, bis resolution, on motion of Mr. Speer, was laid on the table. On the 17th Mr. Candler moved a sub stitute reciting the offer of General Aus tell and others, to bill one hundred thou sand dollars for a quit claim title to toe Park, and providing for its acceptance and patting the property up at auction, with that upset bid. Mr. Bradley offered as a substitute to the whole a resolution to give the heir3 of Mitchell the right to sue iu tho courts of the State for the property, which sub stitute was rejected, and the substitute of Mr. Candler was also rejected by one vote, and the report was then adopted by 22 to 11 votes. The Chairman of the Hon>o Commit tee, on the Utii Oet«»i>er, made the same joint report to the Horn**, It was taken up on the 20th, nud Mr. Hull moved the adoption of the Semite’s report as a sub- sitnte for his own. Mr. Scott then submitted the offer of Gen. Austell and twelve other citizens of Atlanta, to pay one hundred thousand dollars for the State’s quit claim deed to the property within ninety days af ter date; and offered a resolution pro viding for commissioners to pat np the property at pnblio auotion; and pro viding farther, that if the commissioners failed to get a bid of one hundred thou sand dollars for a quit-claim title to the property, the Governor should be au thorized to accept the proposition of the Mitchell heirs for thirty-five thousand, dollars. This proposition was rejeoted by a vote of 49 to 73, and the Senate’s substitute was adopted. Such is the record upon whioh I form ed the opinion that the action was toe result of bribery, pure and simple, I did not suppose that even all who voted for the bill were corrupted. Some men were, doubtless, misled. Others, influ enced by other than corrupt motives; but it is clear that the managers of the scheme of plunder profited by their be- rayal of their public trust. The record is complete. The State’s title was settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court; was clear and indubita ble, in the opinion of four of the leading counsel of toe State. Their opinions were suppressed by a direct vote of the Senate. The friends of the bill refused to permit the claims to go before toe courts for trial, though counsel fees to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars were paid to defend the titles. Thirty-live thousand dollars was accepted from the Mitchell heirs for a property in lieu of one hundred thousand dollars offered by others,- without the pretense of a reason therefor being found on the record—except Jackson’s letter to Bullock—which property, within a few days after the consummation of this wickedness, with all the cloud of this corruption hanging over it, brought at - public outcry over two hundred thous and dollars. Gov. Brown does not deny that he aided in lobbying this measure through the Legislature. He was present in the Senate when the bill was before it, as was also Lochrane, Kimball and Blod gett; andhewas justiyrebuked on the floor of the Senate by Mr. Candler for his con duct in this matter. Lobbying is a crime—a misdemeanor at common law; a crime intensified by his high judicial position. Bnt there is yet a still graver charge than lobbying against the ex-Chief Justice. Before these scenes occur red, the case of Thornton and others vs. Trammell and others, came before the Supreme Court. It was a case really against the Western & At lantic Railroad, for the Dalton depot, and involving the same principles. The counsel for the road objected to Brown’s sitting in that case, on the ground that he was employed in the Mitchell heirs caBe, which was undecided. See 39th Georgia, 1208. Brown stated “that in that case, the language of the deed is differ ent, and I have turned over the case with the obligation of the fee to the other counsel. Under these circumstances,” he was adjudged by the other Judges, com petent to sit on the case. He did sit, dissented from the court, but gave no opinion. He weakened the opin ion all he conld by his dissent, but gave no opinion himself. Was that statement of Brown true?— If so, he either had no claims on the Mitchell heirs for fees, or he afterwards contracted for and accepted fees while on the Bench. If not true, he sat in a case in the decision of which he was interest ed, and decided in his own favor. It is a high crime in the highest judi cial officer of the State to bring his influ ence to bear in any way to control the action of the Legislature. Tfia very po sition may control those who have snits before him. The ordinary criminal may be in his hands. He may have power to_ save from just punishment for his crimes even the victim of his own per fidious debauchery. R. Toombs. Unanimously and Unceasingly for Gov ernor Smith* Editors Sun : At a meeting of the De mocracy to send delegates to ihe State Con vention, held in Alberts, to-day, the fol lowing resolution, offered by A. L. Mitchell, Esq., was unanimously adopt ed : “Resoled, by the Democratic, Party of Clark county in Convention assembled, That the delegation from this county to the Gubernatorial Convention to be held in Atlanta on the 24th instant, be in structed to vote unanimously and unceas ingly for the nomination of the Hon. James M. Smith, for Governor. This county will give an almost unani mous vote for Governor Smith. Sen in.