Newspaper Page Text
THE ATLANTA SUN
PtvmTIm Daily So. of Mirck 8, IS7«
CLIFFORD THOUF."
This new novel by our talente<fand
distinguished towns-lady, Mrs. West
moreland, has been out for a week or
two. It ii already, as anything
from the pen of this rising luminary
in the literary firmament soon does,
attracting the attention of the press
and critics generally. We have just
given it a thorough perusal, and take
pleasure in expressing to the public
the gratification it has afforded us.
In another oolumn we republish an
article from the Macon Telegraph
and Messenger upon this work. This
we do for two reasons—first, that our
readers may see what some of our co-
temporaries think of it; and, second
ly, to express our decided dissent
from several of the opinions of our
neighbor in Macon, especially those
relating to what are designated as
“ defects” in the book. The * moral
izing” parts constitute, in our view,
its chief excellencies. In these par
ticulars we think Mrs. Westmoreland
has but few superiors. The real merit
• of all fiction—that which gives it
life and immortality—is the high
moral inculcated by its teaching. It
is upon this the fame of Sir Walter
Soott rests much more than upon his
elegant descriptions and perfect del in
eation of characters.
Of course, we do not mean to class
Mrs. Westmoreland with Scott or
others of his rank; but we do mean
to say that we regard her as deeply
versed in the philosophy of human
nature, and justly entitled to distinc
tion among the best living novelists
of this country. Whatever may be
said in the way of criticism, we think
no one can read “Clifford Troup”
without being entertained with its
narrative and plot, nor without being
benefited by its teachings and morals.
While we thus dissent in part from
our cotemporary, we take pleasure in
adding that in another part of his
article we fully concur. It is that, as
will be seen, in which he speaks of
the presentation of the characters in
the book. On this point he says:
“They are all powerfully drawn;
“and, from first to last, are in perfect
“accord with the parts they are
“meant to play. There is no in
equality in movement—no lagging
“here or pushing forward there.
“From entrance to exit all move with
“the grace and harmony of a oom-
“pany of finished artists upon the
“stage, whose perfect acting cheats
“the most cynical, matter-of-faot au
dience almost into the belief that the
“scene is real. It is here that Mrs.
“W. has shown her greatest progress—
“here she has well won a decided tri-
“umph, and we congratulate her upon
“it with a warmth and sincerity born
“of pride in her as a Georgian, esteem
‘Tor her as a much-prized personal
“friend, and admiration for her as a
“most charming and accomplished
“woman.”
All this we heartily concur in, and
in conclusion heartily recommend
the Book to our readers, hoping they
may be as well pleased with it as we
have been.
THE GWINNETT HERALD.
In the issue of The Sun of the
28th in the “ Spirit of the Georgia
Press,” the Herald was made to ap
pear as favoring the repeal of the
usury laws, and was made to say
“ that a man has the same right to
put a price upon his horse or lands. 1
The Herald informs us that what it
did say was that, in its opinion, a man
had tbe same right to put a price
upon his money that he has to price
his horse or his lands.
"We cheerfully set the Herald right,
as we have no desire’to misstate the
position of auy of pur contempora
ries upon any subject. Errors will
creep in a newspaper occasionally
with the most careful management.
the bankrupt law.
In amending the bankrupt law,
Congress has, according to the Balti
more American, violated the great
principle of equality that was the
crowning feature of the old law as
first enacted. It appeals to the Presi
dent to look well into this measure,
and see if Congress has not prepared
the way for a manifest wrong and
the grossest inequality, subordinating
its operations to the unequal laws of
th* States relating to exemptions from
BON. M. W. BBCTM SPKMCB.
We direct the especial attention of
our readers to the able argument of
E. W. Beck, of Georgia, made in
Congress a few days ago on the Sen
ate amendment of Mr. Morrill, ex
cluding all persons from renumera
tion for losses inflicted by tL*e United
States troop6 during the war, who
gave aid and comfort to the rebellion.
Mr. Beck took ground against this
unmanly and proscriptive proviso
which virtually revoked the Execu
tive pardon, and again placed under
the ban of Government reprobation
many of the claimants who were in
cluded in the terms of the bill.
The speech will be found on the
first page of to-day’s Sun, and will be
found to be a masterly argument,
evincing deep research, sound logic
and is full of the most practical good
The constitutional view of
his argument shows the speaker to
be thoroughly familiar with the
points he made in that respect, and
the whole is most pronounced and
decided in the presentation of the
facts discussed. It is a speech worthy
of Mr. Beck, who thus shows himself
to be an able and worthy Representa
tive of Georgia, of whom her people
may feel justly proud.
Mr. Beck is one of the three Geor
gia Representatives who opposed and
voted against the proposed increased
compensation to the members of the
42nd and future Congresses. Al
though elected to fill out a short
unexpired term in Congress, Mr.
Beck’s career has been most creditable
to himself and in the eyes of his con
stituents.
■ »#«■-
Aabw.
The ashes of .the past are often
seen when the memory of some bright
hope, once indulged though fnever real
ized fits through the mind
Ashes of old time customs are often
blown into onr eyes by the March winds
of these latter days, and with a smarter
view wa realize the rapid advances made
by science and civilization. In many of
the comforts and conveniences of life as
now enjoyed, contrasted with onr ear
lier years, as great a difference is shown
ss exists between the old-fashioned “ Ash
hopper” and a steam soap factory.
These reflections were oalled forth by
opening a letter in whioh some old gen
tleman hadPponred ashes as a blotter.
This recalled the days of blottiDg sand,
and many other recollections of the
usages of the past, such as the old red
wafers and the smoothflowing goose
quill, dipped in “ pokeberry” ink. We
oannot close these ashen remarks with
ont impressing this truth, " Ashes is 1
fertilizer.”
A Sad Sceae.
On Thorsday night last there arrived
in this city, on the Maoon train, a Mrs.
J. W. Palmateer, from Florida. The
lady with her husband resides in Indiana,
and had sought to spend a winter in the
sunny South, with the hope that her
disease, consumption, might be either
mitigated or cored. Vain hope. On
her arrival in this oity, she was almost
prostrated—was carried to the Fulton
House, corner of Pryor and Wall streets,
where, notwithstanding the efforts of
medical skill and the ministrations of a
loving husband, she breathed her last,
and was buried yesterday in the city
oemeterv.
Flour Down.—The reader mast not
think by the caption of this paragraph
that we intend to oonvey the idea that
the price of floor has fallen—not bo ; but
that there was a terrible scattering of that
very mdispensible article in household
economy yesterday on Decatur street,
which occurred thusly:JAn aged darkey,
riding upon a skeleton of a mnle to a
grocery establishment on the street afore
said, and after bargaining and paying
over his greenbacks for a sack of floor,
shouldered it out, and when attempting
to pot it on his mole’s back, the ornary
critter dodged to escape the pressut e, as
J. N. would say, and down came the floor
on the street, barsting tbe bag, causing
such a scattering as we have not seen for
many a day. The woe-begone look of
that darkey was a sad picture to behold,
sufficient to melt the heart of even an
editor. It did ours; we fumbled in our
pockets for a lew nickles to help the poor
fellow, but hadn’t a red. Just our luck,
when we ought to have money we liavn’t
execution.
KT The “Spirit of the Georgia
Press” was unavoidably crowded out
of The Sun to-day.
Thowjubvillh. —Ray. N. P. Quarter
men, of Savannah, has been oalled and
■ocepted the Pastorate of thePreaby-
Church. .Eggs are down to fifteen
the Ee * P*P«*
Returned to Atlanta.—Onr citizens
generally will be pleased to learn that
our former fellow-citizen, Dr. George C.
Crawford, has returned to Atlanta, and
will in future make this his home. He
has formed a partnership with Dr. Charles
Pinckney, and these two splendid physi
cians will practioe together. Dr. Craw
ford has been farming the past year in
Middle Georgia, where he las fine land
ed estates.
Confederate Graves.—The Council
last night adopted the report of its com
mittee recommending that the Ladies’
Memorial Association receive $200 for
beautifying the grounds of the Confed
erate dead in the City Cemetery.
The Clerk read tbe ninetieth
ment of the Senate, aa follows:
Add to the following:
To pay judgments of the Court of
Claims, $400,000, tbe following proviso:
Provided, That in rendering any judg
ment in favor of any claimant under the
set at March 12, 1668, the mid oourt
■hall find the amount due, and shall also
find and state whether or not said claim
ant bad proved that he rendered no aid
or oomfort to the rebellion; and where
snob claimant shall have failed to prove
that he had not rendered snob aid or
oomfort, no judgment of said oourt shall
be paid until a special appropriation
therefor shall be paid by Congress.
MB. BECK, ov Gkobqia—Mr. Chair-
man, in the amendment this House is now
asked to concur, is the same in effect
as the amendment offered by the gentle
man from New York, (Mr. Smith,) pend
ing a previous consideration of the ap
propriation bill upon this floor. This
loose rejected tbe latter’s amendment
by a very decided vote.
Tbe question rectus again in another
form, bat equally objectionable, being
nothing leas than asking Congrem by
legislative enactment to invade the juris
diction of the jadicial department of the
Government. An analysis of this amend
ment, now well known to the 00 on try as
the '‘Morrill amendment,” contains three
j previsions especially which are obnox
ious, because of the constitutional :e*
strictiona implied
1. In providing, after the jurisdiction
of the oourt has attached, the form of
tne judgment to be rendered and the
nature and character of tbe proof to be
submitted, Congress is invested with the
power to interfere with theoonstitntional
duties of the court.
2. In declaring, after the rights of the
parties have vested the aot, that
the effect of the executive pardon shall
not have the effect given it by the courts,
thereby denying the claimant the rights
which legally result from his pardon, is
to im, i-ir an unquestioned prerogative
ofth« Executive.
8. In providing that the payments of
judgments rendered in fvvor of claimants
who fail to make the proof required con
ditional upon a special appropriation, is
to invest Congress with the power to re
fuse to give effect to the sots of the other
co ordinate departments of the Govern
ment.
This amendment, Mr, Chairman, is no
stranger to this House, It has been re
peatedly offered and as often rejeoted.
The country is not yet prepared to sanc
tion aninnovationjwhich, if oarriedontto
its logical results, will abolish that limit
which separates the legislative from the
jadicial power. To do this is to declare
that the three oo-ordiiiate departments
of tbe government, the legislative, the
jndioial, and the executive, are no longer
separate and independent in the sphere
of their respective jurisdictions. It is
true that this amendment proposes alone
to affect the claimant, withont disturbing
the subjeot matter of his claim; to pre
scribe what he most prove with regard to
his past relation to the government be
fore he can obtain the assent of Congress
to the payment of his judgment. The
right to make this requirement includes
the right also to further inquire into the
validity of the judgment itself. For if
Congress has the discretionary right to
say that certain judgments shall not be
paid, it has equally the power to review
the whole case, and set aside the decision
and finding of the court; the status of the
claimant being no more the subject mat
ter of review by Congress than the amoun t
and character of the claim. Thus by this
amendment Congress is constituted
court of appelate jurisdiction.
The proposition is nothing less than
to get rid of tbe aot of 1853 by an amend
ment to an appropriation bill to deolare
that aot by which the Court of Claims
was invested with the jurisdiction of
these claimants and their demands a nul
lity by denying the validity of the judg
ments rendered by its authority. This
is proposed, too, after the rights of these
claimants have become vested by legal
judgments which define and fix tbe lia
bility of the Government. Where, sir,
do yon find in the aot of 1863 or any of
the subsequent acts making more specific
the jurisdiction of this court, any reser
vation by Congress of tbe right to exer
cise the supervisory control over this
oourt and its proceedings as claimed Dy
this amendment. Congress, by this act
of 1863, voluntarily
jurisdiction over claims for cotton seized
by tbe agents of the Government by
transferring its jurisdiction to this court.
This jurisdiction can only be regained
by the repeal of the act of
1863 by direct legislation.
It cannot be done by imposing new
terms upon these claimants and thereby
make the payment of the judgments ren
dered in their favor conditional after the
court has taken jurisdiction and admin
istered the law as required by Congress.
A case has been made, the jurisdiction of
the court has attached, a trial has been
had, a judgment has been rendered, the
liability of the Government to the claim
ant has been ascertained and fixed. In
all this, does not the rights of the claim
ant become vested, and how can you by
adopting this amendment, which impo
ses upon him new conditions, avoid mak
ing a law which is retroactive, and would
so beheld by the Supreme Court. Sir,
gentlemen in the previous discussion of
this question seem to hold to the idea
that the Court of Claims is not a court,
but a kind of auditing commission to
prepare legislation for Congress. Sir,
this may have been the character of the
coart when first constituted, but after
the date of the act of 1863 it became for
all purposes within the limit of its juris
diction one of the inferior courts of tbe
United States. The Supreme Court in
the case of Klun 13 Wallace, says ol it
thus:
"Since then the Court of Claims has
exercised all the functions ol a oourt and
this oourt has taken full jurisdiction on
appeal The Court of Claims is thus
constituted one »f those inferior courts
which Congress authorises, and has ju
risdiction of oontracts between the Gov
Ah infant child of Mr. Joshua C. Rey
nolds was buried yesterday. It had been
sick for several days with measles and
waa not supposed to be in any danger,
when a sodden congestion Of the longs
took itsyeong life away.
ment and the citizen from which appeal
regnlarly lies to this court.’'
Thus tbe Court of Claims from the
time Congress conferred the jurisdiction
to hear and determine these ootton claims
has been as much one of the Inferior
Coarts of the United States, as absolute
and independent within the sphere of its
jurisdiction aa the District or Circuit
Court.
It is not denied bat that Congress has
the power from time to time to "ordain
and establish Inferior Courts,” bat when,
established they become a part of the jo.
dJdal system and pees beyosid the
visory control of Oongrean
The Oooatitation provides that :
"The jndioial power of the United
gtiies «h«H be reeled in one Supreme
Court and in snob Inferior Courts aa the
Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish.”
And that instrument farther provides
that—
"Tbe jadicial power shall extend to all
oases in law and equity arising under this
Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties which shall be made
under their authority.”
Thns it is seen that the "judicial
power” is.vested in the oourta and ex
tends to " all cases” in law or equity
arising under the laws of the United
States. Any legislation by Congress
that prevents the jndioial power from
extending to any " case” under the laws
of the United States is an assnmption of
power by the legislative department that
no exigency can justify, and no result to
be attained can excuse. It is such an as
sumption of power whioh threatens to
change the very system of our Govern
ment itself, by imperiling the indepen
dence, if not the existence, of that tri
bunal to whioh the people of this country
look in the last resort for the protection
aud maintenance of their constitutional
rights. It may be regarded by some
that we exaggerate the importancs of
this question in this connection.
But, Mr. Chairman, who will under
take to define th« limit to which Con
gress may not go if the precedent is once
established as by the adoption of tbe
amendment under consideration ? For
if Congress has the discretionary power
to withhold the appropriation to pay
these judgments, it has equally tne power
to make void auy other judgments, and
thereby make nugatory the jadicial power
itself. But it is implied by this amend
ment that the court of claims has failed
to administer the law as required by the
terms of the act of 1863 by rendering
judgments in favor of claimants who fail
to prove that they gave no " aid cr com
fort” to the enemies of the United States
in the late war, but accepted instead there
of as a substitute for such proof the procla
mation of pardon by the President and
its acceptance by the party. The court
holding that amnesty blotted out ail guilt
and made the man innocent in the eye
of the law. *• If amnesty was plead and
shown, and thereby the innooence of the
claimant established, why require him to
prove he was not guilty, the law never
requiring that to be done which is in con
templation of law an unnecessary act.
The proclamation of amnesty relied on
by the claimant placed him before the
court in the position of one having
proven affirmatively that he rendered no
“aid or oomfort” to the rebellion, the
Supreme Court of the United States hav
ing determined in a previous case that
the proclamation of pardon by the Pres
ident and its acceptance by the citizen
absolved him from all the consequences
of his guilt as though he had never com
mitted the offense. Such is the judg
ment of the highest judicial tribunal
known to the Constitution. This ruling,
sir, is in harmony with the decisions in
England, whioh go to the extent that
when a man has been pardoned, to re
peat the oharge as in case of treason, to
call him a traitor, he oan bring and sus
tain a suit for defamation of character.
This is the language of the Supreme
Court in Garland's case :
" Pardon blots out of existence the
guilt, so that in the eye of the law the
offender is as innocent as if he had never
committed the offense.”
Paidon and amnesty creating a jurisdic
tional fact, obliterating the words "aid
or comfort” to which the crime was
ascribed, restored the citizen to all of
his rights in the courts previously de
nied him by reason of his connection
with the rebellion. This power to grant
pardon and amnesty is vested by the
Constitution in tne President alone. It
cannot be fettered by legislation. Every
class that it reaches is entitled under the
Constitution to all the benefits it oon-
fers. And it is a usurpation in Congress
to propose by legislation either to restrict
its * p plication or to limit its results.
The effeot of a pardon is purely a ju
dicial question; to what extent and in
what way it restores the civil rights of
the party are matters solely within the
jurisdiction of the courts. Thus the
Drake amendment, because it excluded
the benefits of pardon and amnesty from
a certain class before the court, was de
clared by the Supreme Court to be un
constitutional; that act infringed upon
the proper powers and duties not only of
the judicial, but equally of the executive
department of tne Government. The
Supreme Court say of this act further
that it is unconstitutional because "its
great and controlling purpose is to deny
to pardons the effect which the judiciary
has adjudged them to have.” Thus the
act was manifestly unconstitutional, be
cause it attempted on the one hand to
impair the constitutional powers ol the
executive, and on the other to control
the constitutional proceedings of the ju
diciary. Under the Constitution the
Presiaent has the power to grant re
prieve and pardon for offenses against
the United States, except in oases of im
peachment.
This great right—this benign preroga
tive of mercy reposed in JJthe President
—cannot be fettered by any legislative
restrictions. Now, sir, I insist that this
"Morrill amendment” is as obnoxious
to the principle as thus laid down by the
Supreme Court as was the Drake amend
ment, because, as with the latter, it pro
poses to limit the pardoning power of
tho President by exclnling a certain
class not excepted by the Constitution
from its benefits; second, to take away
the appellate jurisdiction of the Su-
S reme Court ol the United States by
etermining a judicial question which
that court can alone review upon an ap
peal, aiming at nothing less than by au
amendment to an appropriation bill to
undermine the independence and validity
of one the inferior courts of the U. S.
by the exercise of a discretionary power
that can declare void its judgments.
Sir, such legislation is withont pre
cedent, and is an assnmption of power
by Congress nowhere to be found in the
Constitution. Whatever may have been
the status of these claimants daring the
war, how far they may have rendered
"aid and comfort” to the enemies of the
United States; how far, in the opinion of
certain gentlemen upon this floor, they
may have forfeited all claim to the pro
tection of the Government under which
they live, yet I oan conceive of no status
of theirs in the past that will justify the
usurpation by Congress if the amend
ment under consideration is adopted.
The Constitution provides that each of
the great coordinate departments of the
OoTemmcat—tbe legislative, the neon
tire, and tbe jadicial—shall be in ik
■Pbere mA independent at the others.
In that instrument tbe limitations of
power as to eeeh is clmrly defined.
While it ie contemplated by tbe fnuners
that Congress might go in the exercise
of the power conferred to the utmost
limit of that power as specifically grant
ed, yet they never provided that in any
contingency Congress could by legisla
tion fetter the power of the President in
the exercise by him of an unquestioned
prerogative, or to deny to the oourts the
jurisdiction expressly conferred by the
Constitution to determine questions
purely and exclusively jadicial in their
character.
Now, sir, in what character does the
Government hold the money arising from
the sale of this ootton ? The Supreme
Court has determined this question in a
way ( that cannot be misunderstood. The
justice, as well as the legal correctness of
the decision, commends itself to the
honest judgment of the nation. In the
United States vs. Paddleford, (9 Wall.
Reps.,) the court say:
" Under the proclamation and the act,
the Government is a trustee, holding the
proceeds of petitioners’ property for his
benefit”
In another connection, tbe coart hold
that tbe character of the Government
was that of a " stakeholder.” Thns it is
seen that there is no title in the Govern
ment to this property or its prooeeds.
This judgment is put upon the broad
groand that there has been no judgment
of confiscation by which the title of
these claimants could alone have been
divested.
The Supreme Court in the case of the
Unitdft States vs. Klein (13 Wall. Bep.)
say by the Chief Justice:
“ It is thns seen that exoept to property
used in actual hostilities, as mentioned
in the first section of the aot of March
12, 1863, no titles were divested in the
insurgent States unless in pursuance of
a judgment rendered after due legal pro
ceedings.”
The oourt add, in adverting to the
capture of private property of non
combatant enemies:
“The Government recognize to the
fullest extent the hnmane maxims of the
modern laws of nations which exempts
private property of non-combatant ene
mies as booty of war. Even the law of
confiscation was sparingly applied. The
cases were few indeed in whioh tho prop
erty of any not engaged in actual hostili
ties was subjected to seizure and sale.”
There being no judgment of confisca
tion rendered in any of these cases by
whioh alone the title of these claimants
conld be divested, no rignt of property
in this cotton ever passed to the United
States; and in those cases, by the mod
em law of nations as recognized by this
Government, there was exempt even
from seizure so much of this ootton as
belonged to non-combatant enemies.
If nothing bat a judgment of confisca
tion could divest the title of these claim
ants, tbe sale of this cotton by the Gov
ernment did not vest in tne United
States any higher claim to |tbe money
than it obtained to the property. For by
what law, either tne common law or the
law of nations, can the holder of property
not his own, get a title to the prooeeds
of its sale whioh he did not have
to the property itself ? Is the Govern
ment in any better position with
respect to the application of this sound
principle of law than the individual ?
Who ever heard of the legal title of the
trustee becoming absolnte because be
sold tbe property and held in its stead
the money arising from its sale; or by
what process, when there is a rightful
olaimant, can the bare possessionfof the
stakeholder ripen into such an adverse
title as will prevail over that of the law
ful owner ? Or from what code of ethics
is the principle obtained that makes the
moral or political character of the owners
a test for the conduct of the stakeholder
or trustee ? These claimants, Mr. Chair
man, simply ask justice of tho Govern
ment. They only claim that Congress
shall respect the good faith of the na
tion, which was pledged to abide the
award of that arbiter selected by the
United States to pass upon the disputed
title of this property between the Govern
ment and the claimants. The arbiter,
with the affirmance of the Supreme
Oourt, has decided who are the rightful
claimants of this fund.
Now, is it justice ? Is it worthy of a
Great Government that ought to be as
juBt as she is powerful, by wrong
fully ignoring the solemn judgments « f
tbe courts, to hold on t j the proceeds o.
this property without compeusutiou.
These claimants, whatever may have
been their past relatiou to the Govern
ment of the United Statee, were at the
time these judgments were rendered,
and are to-day in the eyes of the law, as
though they had committed no offense.
The broad shield of the proclamation of
pardon from the Executive has inter
posed between them and the "pains and
penalties” incurred by (heir past disloy
alty, restoring them aa to their property
to all the rights and privileges of citizen
ship under the Constitution. Where is
the plighted faith of the Government, ii
the amnesty granted by the President to
their claimants is to be ignored?
New, sir, the records of the Treasury
Department show that the amount of
proceeds of abandoned and captured
property conveyed into the Treasury ag
gregates the sum of $26,709,268 89. Of
this sum there has been returned to
claimants, in accordance with the awards
of the United States Court of Claims,
the sum of $1,556,247 69. The
amount disbursed for tbe ex
penses of collection and sale of prop
erty i-> $75,000; leaving a balance
in the Treasury on the 9th of February,
1872, as the proceeds of sale of aban
doned and captured property, the sum of
$22,612,187 51. The cotton captured at
Mobile, Savannah and Charleston, was
sold for corn, thereby realizing a pre
mium iu currency amounting to $2,569,-
768 29 which is not included in the above
gross amount. Of the whole amount of
proceeds of captured and abandoned
property conveyed into tne Treasury it
is estimated that $19,204,211 was from
the sale of ootton. Suits were brought
by claimants within the two years as pre
scribed by the statute to tho amount ol
$15,727,788 35, leaving in the Treasury,
which become* forfeited to tbe Govern
ment by the laohee of the parties who
did not bring suit within the limit as
provided by the law, the *nm of $10,-
981,480 54.
Now, sir, it oan be seen by making the
calculation that the interest upon the
gross sum, including the premium on
the sale of the coin, the proceeds of ootton
States (for whioh she does not nmZT'
to account) from the date of the^sm^
ofthis property to tho prweu®
oeed the whole amount sued forbv clJ?'
anta in the Oourt of Claims! 7 ft*
then, with all this cant about deplS
the Treasury of the United States foS
benefit of "rebel” claimants.
To udoot this amendment, Mr. Si>e»v
«, is to violate those principles of f
that ought to be held sacred bVev£ 1
department of the Government-to
iate the plighted faith of the
which is pledged to abide the award ,/
the arbiter of its own selection; to anta-
nniva fKn ftt *1._ " *
onize the jurisdiction ot the courts ana
bring into collision the legislative and
judicial power; to fetter by legislation
the constitutional prerogatives of the
President in granting pardon and am
uesty to the citizen; in a word, to ma K
a law without precedent in legislation
and without authority in the Constitn
tion.
The amendment was defeated in the
House by a majority of twenty voter
and must be referred to a Committee c't
Conference from both Houses.
CLIFFORD TROUP — a GEORGIA STORY r.r
HRS. MARIA JOURDAN WESTUOHE.**
LAND.
From tha Macon Telesranh *nd Megfengw,
1873.
We have bad the pleasure reoentlv o'
reading this book. It is a decided ini'-
provement upon the author’s first ven
ture, “ Heart Hungry,” but still does not
altogether satisfy us, snre as we are from
the promise it displays, that she is caps-
ble of better work. In it she shows pos
sibilities and powers that we are eon-
vineed cau be made to bear more golden
fruit than auy she has yet offered the
reading world. The fire is there bat it
does not barn with that steady, Iumi-
uous flame, in whose .,ight successful
authors read the glorious story of their
triumph and the public homage. It has,
indeed, gathered added warmth and
brilliancy sinoe last we saw it, but not in
proportion to onr expectations, or its
own deserving.
Chief among the book’s defects, are its
proneness to moralizing and the lachry
mose habit of its characters. They all
seem emulous of Niobe, and are dis
solved in tears npon the slightest occa
sion. True, the author Las invented
oircnmstances and situations for them
where tears are almost inevitable, if the
mirror be held truly up to Nature; but
we plead against suoh dealing with them.
This much we say, however, in extenua
tion : That their tears are never hysteri
cal. They weep only under each inspi
ration as is common to all earnest na
tures in real life. But there is more
than enough of sighs and tears in the
world as we find ik Iu the world of fic
tion—in that enchanted land wherein
we walk—our work-a-day life and all its
petty oarks and cares left far behind—we
would have as little of such reminders of
sorrow and suffering as possible. Let
ns be generous thongb, as well as
iust, and say that Mrs. Westmore
land has shown most marked and gratify
ing improvement, not only in the conoep-
ception, bat in the presentation of her
characters. They are all powerfully
drawn; and, from first to last, are in
perfect accord with the parts they are
meant to play. There is no inequality
in movement—no lagging here or push
ing forward there. From entrance to
exit all move with the grace and harmony
of a company of finished artists upon the
stage whose perfect acting cheats the
most cynical, matter-of-faot audience
almost into the belief that the soene is
real. It is here that Mrs. W. has shown
her greatest progress—here Bhe has well
won a decided triumph, and we congrat
ulate her upon it with a warmth and sin
cerity born of pride in her as a Georgian,
esteem for her as a much prized personal
friend, and admiration for her as a most
charming and accomplished woman.
We have said nothing as to the style,
plot, or diction of “ Clifford Troup,” for
of those, perhaps, it would be batter to
allow readers to judge for themselves.
Tastes differ more widely in these re
spects than any other, but lest it be ob
jected to retioence as to them since, as
some aver, these make the book, we sim
ply say that the first is pure and grace
ful—just as a refined, cultivated gentle
woman should write; the second cleverly
contrived and most deftly developed; and
tbe last elegant and chaste, yet nervous
BUii sinewy with the strength and fire of
true intellectual force.
Since writing the a cove, we have found
a 1 omniuuication ia tne .Suvnumh Re
publican, the subject matter ot which is
tuis (took, and lrom which we extract as
follows, it shows the writer well skilled
in the handling of the “ gray goose
quill," and he (or she) ha&reau “Clifford
Troup” with keen appreciation:
Amongst the thousand gems of this
boos is tne description 01 “The Ter
races" “Mossy Creek” aud “Pleasant
Retreat,” the latter evidently being a
sketch of the home of Georgia’s honored
and best loved son Alexander H. Ste-
S hens, whose greatness and virtues are
welt upon with all tho fondness ot a de
voted admirer, while the chapter neaded
‘‘A Charming Pupil”will prove particular
ly delicious to those who enjoy an exqui
sitely delineated flirtation scene.
Oar heart warms towards "Clifford
Troup.” It is essentially a Georgia
story, true to nature, rich in description
and brim full of the good old times—for
the plot is laid thirty years ago—when
the South presented a peculiar civiliza
tion patriarchal and lovely to contem
plate; and for these considerations the
book should be cherished at every fire
side to keep alive iu our memories the
dear, dead, poetic past, and to preserve
for our children a taithful picture of
Southern life before the evil days.
Mrs. Westmoreland failed to do her
self justice in her first book—which,
however, deserved a better name than
the one bestowed; bat “Clifford Troup”
comes to as a genial, earnest, welcome
visitor, to teach, in winning prose, grave
lessons on social evils and examples of
this YeneeriDg age. Lectures npon tem
perance, morals, constancy, truth, from
a mouth masculine, are unheeded or
only annoy; but when these lessons fall
from the living lips of a beautiful woman,
who is there with heart so cold that does
not eagerly linger to catch the music of
her eioquanoe?
The friends of CoL R. A. Alston—an 1
they are legion—will be gratified to learn
of the recovery of his family from the
serious illness that has recently visited
i
serious illness that has recently visitei
every memoer of ik One ot the house
hold, Mary Anderson, a niece and
adopted daughter of CoL Alston, was
taken from their midst. We deeply 6ym-
, T ''pathif e with the family in this sad atBic-
seized at Savannah, Mobile and Charles- /tion, for the lost one was as an own child
ton, that has accrued to the United 1 and sister.