Newspaper Page Text
COLQUITT’S REPLY
A mum UTTER TO THE PEOPLE
In Answer of t ho Lato Speech
of Mr. Norwood m Atlan
ta -Norwood Dissect
ed and Put in a
Bad Plight.
A Bold, Decisive, and Unanswer
able Document.
From tho Atlanta Constitution.]
Atlanta, Ga., August 21, 1880. —
To the People ol Georgia: I reply
through tins Utter to tho speech of
Hou Thomas Norwood, made in the
representative chamber of Atlanta,
critici.-ing my administration. 1 adopt
this medium because it will be impos
sible on account oi my official duties
ifor mo to accompany him over the
entire stato and thus meet these
charges face to face, as well as the
anonymous charges circulated over
the country. I requested the privilege
of dividing time with him. Tho city
was felled with posters inviting the
people to come.aiit ami hear him "ex
pose OoiquiUtis4s,”Hd I h:ul,therefore,
a direct personal interest in that is
sue. He declined to allow me a heal
ing on the ground that the meeting
was one ot rat'ficalion. A ratiticn
catiou meeting to ‘‘expose Co'quiit
isnr” seemed ami ineoagruifcy. It
would have been my pleasure to have
corrected some ot the grave mi.-stut -
merits of Mr. Norwood in reference to
myself as wed to have discussed some
matters connected with his own offi
cial record in which the people ol
Georgia have an int rest, in view of
his can lidaey.
MV POSITION AND IttS.
Mr. Norwood seems to consider iur
pn-itiun as precisely analogous, the
only diference being that I represent
an unorganized majority and he an
unorganized minoriiy. 1 beg to call
th- atlention of tbe people to the fact
that niv own candidacy was recom
mended by tbo people in primary as
semblies i?i a large majority of the
coun'ies ot Georgia and by almost
two-ihjrds of the convection, wh le
Mr. Norwoods candidacy was not
recommended by a primary a. sembly
in a single county in Georgia, hut by
tho eleven citizens who assembled
with him in a loom in the Kimball
house in Atlanta. The m noiily op
posed lo me participated in the action
of the convention, remained in it to
tiie close and acquiesced as fully as
any minority could. They did not
even enter a protest. They remain
ed taking prut in its deliberations
until its adjournment. Of the 350
voters in the convention 221 2-3 votes
—rwithiu nine votes of two-thirds ma
jority of the convention —and repre
sent ng, according to actual estimate
under the census of JS7O a popular
aggregate of 750,00 people against
400,000 represented by the 125 1-3
minority, constituted my suppoit
'That large majority recommended me
as denu era tic candidate lor governor.
In the vote upon this rcci jurnenda
tion the minority parlieipated by
voting against it and continued tak
ing part in ether important delibera
tions of the body and thus to the last
recognized the authority of the con -
volition and arc bound by its action.
MR. NORWOOD'S POSITION.
AVhat is Air. Norwood’s position as
a candidate ? After Jthc aujournment
of the convention a meeting of citi
zens was called and he was placid in
the chair, lie stall and in explaining
the object of the meeting that they
were a short time ago official dele
gates to a party convention, but they
had ceased to be so and were rcsolv
ed hack into citizens, no longi r a
minority of the convention, lor as
a minority they ceased to exist with
the end of the convention, then ap
pointed a committee of nine, with
Air. Norwood himself as chairman, to
report action, and then adjourned.
The nine gentclmen appointed by
Jlr. Norwood as chairman, vv.tii two
■Others who seemed to have joined
them during their two or three dais
session, nominated Air. Norwood as
their candidate for governor.
It is a striking coincidence that
pine votes were lacking to give inc
a nomination by a two-thirds majori
ty, and that these nine gentlemen as
H r . A. SINGLETON, FA- S Prop'r.
VOL 5.
delogaies in the convention could
have secured that party harmony,
they fo profesM and to seek by uniting
with the majority in making a nomi
nal icn. And these nino gentlemen,
after thwarting a nomination, have
nominated their own chairman as
their candidate for governor. The
coincident* 1 , 1 say, of nine delegates
defeating a two-thirds majority nom
inotion, and the same nine delegates,
as citizens, presenting a candidate to
tiro paity in opposition to tho action of
the convt rstion, in which they took
part and had their voice anti vote,
presents such a picture ol premedi
tattd paity di.-orgaization as must
strike every reasonable man with
amazement. And not only this, but
the small number necessary to make
a two-tliiids majority on thcono hand,
and nil the other inaugurating revolt
against the party recommendation,
presents an impressive contrast to
true democrats everywhere. If a
great majority, representing nearly
two-thirds of the people and
convention, are equaled in authority
by a stray committee of nine citizens,
lien paity obligation is at an end in
Georgia. Mr. Norwood gravely ar -
gues the remarkable proposition that
that the minority was as much a rna-
jority to nominate a3 the majority
was. The absurdity ol such a posi
tion needs no dt momtration. The
gentleman,•• however, in his address
precisely states bis own position, and
I accept his own words in designat
ing his candidacy. lie says that
Gov. Colquitt is "a self-appointed
candidate,” and then adds, “I stand
in the same position ho does.” 1
cheerfully accord to him absolute ac
uracy in his statement if his own at.
titude, and complinunt him upon
the frank and unmistkab'e manner in
which he acknowledges that he is a
"self-appointed cat tlidale.”
A PR-'OR.GANIZEU IN IIIS OWN INTEREST.
Theie is no stronger and more
ciusLing objection to his claim for
votes than the simple and damaging
fact that he was the leader of all the
disorganizing action in the conven
tion, and is to-day its beneficiary,
lie engineered the mischief and reaps
its benefits. He is the author and
leader of the successful (ffort lo de
feat a two-thirds nomination at all
buzzard, and is running fir governor
ili the disruption he made. lie can
not evade the irresistible conclusion
from his on coi ise that lie was a
designing dis< rgnnizer in his own in
terest and for the gratification of his
own nmb.ton. In his speech he an -
nounces that ho “came into this con
v< ntion for the purpose of discharg
ing a duty,” and he adds: “from npw
until tho going down of the sun on
the first Wednesday in October I ex
pect to raise my voice in vindication
of year rights that were trampled un
der foi t.” This is Mr. Norwood’s
figurative and fanciful method of
putting his determined purpose to
mu for governor upon some soit ol
nomination, although it might be
made by a committee appointed by
himself.
MR. NORWOOD PREVENTS A NOMINATION
But there was a scene in the con
vention that may bo properly men
tioned in this connection. In the
closing hour of the convention a del
egate from Harris county arose and |
desired to change the four votes of
his county for me, and as subsequent
ly ascertained, there were others
ready to change. It was at this
moment, when the minority was dis
integrating and the convention had
the piospect of nominating by a two
thinls -that Air. Norwood arose and
opposed any change of \otes what
ever and directly sought to prevent,
and in all probability did prevent, a
nomination when it scorned certain.
The significance of this attempt can
not. bo misunderstood. It shows
clearly and indisputably that ho op
posed a technical objection to the
BUENA VISTA, MARION COUNTY, GA., SEPTEMBER 1, 1880.
privi'ogc of delegates voting for Col
quitt who were patriotic enough to
yield at the last nn ment to the wish
es of the ms'jortv, and thus this “self
appointed candidate" lor governor
stands responsible for the failure to
a nomination. Does not this opposi
ion to the chango of votes at the
close of the convention form a strik
ing proof that he was a disorganize)'
in his own interest ?
BETA I LINO SI. ANDERS.
In nothing lias the speech (f Mr.
Norwood allordtd room for severer
criticism than in hi* comments upon
my administration. In commencing
his assaults lie declares that he does
not say whether the charges he makes i
arc false or hue,” And yet scandals
and slanders that he will not state to
be true, ho retails at hngth as a jus
tification of l.is own candidacy and
against my fair name and the integ
lity of iny administ.ntion.
THE NOIIIIKASTeRN BONDS.
I propose to take up some of these
matters and briefly discuss them,
giving the facts. There lias net been
in the wide range of public discus
sion a measure tiiat has icctmd moie
unfair criticism Ilian the indorsement
ol the Northeastern railroad bonds.
It was a proper measure, a politic
measure, legal measure and an im
perative duly in annuel) as it involved
the state’s sacred honor in relation
to her own citizens. Mr. Norwood
himself distinctly states that lie has
no charge of wrong to make against
me in connection with tLat act, but
that it has caused unkind comment.
If the act is wrong it should be con
demned. If it is t ight it. should be
sustained. Unkind c< mment upon it
does not make it wre ng. It is right
or wrong from its facts. Ignorance
or malice or self-interest can make
imlnvoralle comment about the best
and noblest actions; but actions must
be judged at last by their merits
ami not by personal views ot them,
as Air Norwood seems to argue.
What arc tie fuels of this matter?
The general assembly of the state
granted the Northeastern railroad
company the right to an indorsement
of its bonds iqoil certain conditions
Other roads received tiie same grant.
A subsequent legislature repealed tire
act, giving to those roads state aid,
except where the right had verted. —
But tli e sumo general assembly tha
repealed tiio acts authorizing state
aid, made by resolution a special ex
ception in the case of tLc Northeast
ern railroad. The officers of the road
went forward and incuircd debts up
on the plighted faith of the state.—
The decision in the matter of indorse
ment devolved upon me after I came
into office. I venture to say that nev
er, upon any pubic measure, lias an
executive deliberated were carefully,
and I am frank to say, reviewing iny
offic iul career, that no act of my offi
cial career has been a wiser or a bet
ter one. The matter having been
brought before the supreme court
that tribunal held .that (he duty of
deciding tire question rested will) the
executive. I then sought the
opinions of the ablest lawyeis
and public men of the state,
such gentlemen as General Toombs,
Governor Biowd, General Lawton,
| Hon. A O Bacon, Judge T J Sim
mons, president of the senate, Hon.
Henry McDaniel, Hon. L N Tram
null and others. While these opiu
ions in which I concurred satisfied
me that it was proper to indorse, yet
I preferred in abundant caution to
delay acting, so as to remit the mat
ter to the general assembly. But the
debts incurred upon the faith of the
state were pressed to the point where
the road must have been sacrificed
and great damage and loss be in
flicted npnn tho citizens of Clarke
county, who had invested their mo
ney. It was in this emergency, to
redeem the state’s faith, to save tho
J\. DEMOCBATIC IKTE-WSIP
loss of valuable property, to protect
a noble section of otjr f-jjute ftpin in
jury, and to and nil
doubled rig that, i gave the In
dorsement. Tho general assembly,
after a fil l investigation of the whole
matter, declared my motives pure
and the act a propi r one. The valid
ity and legality of the indorsement
has never been questioned by court
or legislation.
THE WESTERN' AND ATLANTIC RAILROAD
FEE.
Mr. Norwood make s allusion to the
fee that Mcsssrs. Baugh, Garlington,
Alston, Fain, Jackson. Lawton and
Ba: ingcr earned for the collection of
certain money lrom the United States
government on a claim connected
with the Western and Atlantic rail
road. The whole fee is improperly
dubbed the Alston fee, when all of
the above gentlemen and others were
interested in it. Mr. Norwood, who
is a lawyer, should be the last to pro
nounce this simple matter a wrong.
11 is very statement of tlic case show s
that in this, as in other thing-', he
has spoken without a foil examina
tion of the matter. What are the
facts of this also remarkably miscon
ceived transaction ? In 1868, Colo
nel Baugh, who, at the close of the
war was superintendent ol the State
road, and his paitner. General Gar
lington, were employed by the then
governor to prosecute a claim of sev
eral hundred thousand dollars against
the United States government for
the use of the State road during and
alter the close of the war. The con
tract was that t! cse damages should
have a retainer of $3,C00 and a con
tingent fee of 12£ per cent commis
sions. The claim was prosecuted. —
Colonel Fain, Colonel Alston and
others were engaged in the prosecu
tion. During Governor Smith's ad
mnistration Messrs. Jackson, Law
ton and Basinger came into the case
as additional counsel, and Governor
Smith placed upon the executive
minutes an order re cognizing the em
ployment ol the gentlemen, and in
creasing tee compensation to be al
lowed to a sum not lo exceed 25 per
cent of the amount collected, this
not to interfere with the rights ol
gentlemen already employed. I
Ibund this state of things when I
came into effie— a long standing
contract of the highest official au
thority. The money was collected,
the agents doing the work were al
lowed their contracted ftc, and the
state’s part of the money was paid
into the treasury.
r l he only question in the case at all
was whether the agents were entitled
to the full 25 per cent commission—
Whatever amount they were entitled
to was theirs immediately, and could
not go into"the treasury. They had
a legal lien upon it. It was theirs,
earned under under a legal contract,
and the withholding of one dollar
from them would have been a viola
tion of the faith ot the state. It is
tho law, well recognized in this coun
try. that lawyers who collect moneys
for others are first entitled to their
fees. The very act of collection
makes their fee their property. All
of these gentlemen concurred that
the contract was that they should
have the full 25 per cent and they aB
shared in the distribution of that per
cent. Tiny had been wtrkingon the
case ten years, Several had spent
session after session in Washington
under heavy expense- They had.
therefore, earned their fee and were
entitled to the fruits of their con
tract.
The position 'Of Air. Norwood that
bv law- the whole amount shoud have
gone into the treasury is untenable
There is no such law. The law re
quires nothing to go into the treasu
ry but the money belonging to the
state. No law n quires that the 25
‘percent belonging to the attorneys
should be paid into the treasury.—
On tho contrary the law gives attor
neys a lien upon the money collided
until their Ices arc paid. Tlic gov
ernor received a chock payable to his
order, with tlic consent of the alter -
neys which included the 25 percent
belonging to them and the 75 per
cent belonging to tbe state. And in the
discharge of a plain legal duty he
paid to tho attorneys the amount
which belonged to tue:n and paid in
to the treasury tbe amount whirl) be
longed to the state.
Tho case was one of contract, not
made by me, lor service to be render
ed to the slate for a compensation
agreed upon. The contract was pos
itive, the service undeniable. 'The
contract was fur 25 per cent. The
service was the collection of the
money. Tho money was collected,
and I had to carry out tho contract
in good faith. I did this. To do oth
erwise would have been a violation
of law, and a stigma on the state.
THE CONVICTS.
Mr. Noiwood has much to sty
about my administration of the law
regulating the convicts. In this, as
in almost every other matter to which
he makes reicrcncc, he shows a la
mentable ignorance of both the law
and the facts, or else he wilfully ig
nores both. llis method of treating
this subject leaves tbe impression on
the i uljiie mind that my administra
tion is responsible lor the present con
vict. system aud its past abuses.—
Whereas the present lease law was
passed before I became governor.
passed without any agency whatever
on my part, approved by Governor
Smith; and every contract under it
was entered into between Gov
ernor Smith ar.d the ’lessees before I
come into office. In discussing a re
port made to the legislature, but
which was never adopted by the leg
islature, Mr. Norwood is rash enough
to declare m the plainest words that
"the facts narrated in this report re
fer to his (my) administration ’’ Ho
makes no exception, but proceeds to
particularize some of these “fuels,’’
as lie terms them, with which he
seeks to justify his assault upon my
self and my administration. lie
leaves the impression on the public
mind that during my administration
523 convicts bai'C escaped and are
now running at large, and that for
every one of these escapes a penalty
of S2OO dollars is due the slate, not a
dollar of w hich, he says, has been
colli cted.
Such a misrepresentation of the
facts is simply monstrous. Mr. Ivor
wood w’ll scarcely be excused by the
public, when the real facts as given
in the official records are brought to
light as I shall bring them. I say
the misrepresentation is monstrous;
for so far from these 523 escapes hav
ing occurred during my administra
tion, that number includes every con
vict that lias escaped prior to that
report for the last fourteen years.—
The official records show that one
hundred and twenty-six have escaped
during my administration and one
hundred and eighty seven during
Governor Smith’s administration and
the balance ol the 523 escaped during
tornn r administrations. So that Mr.
M'U’wood places himself before the
country in the unfu’tuuate attitude
of having for political effect, crowded
the escapes for fourteen years in the
space of three and one half (3
years, To state the case arithmeti
cally, ns yeais are to fourteen
years, so arc Mr. Norwood’s state
ments to the facts of the official re
cords.
But his misrepresentations in refer,
once to the S2OO penalty are still
more glaring and and gross. The
law imposing S2OO tine for every con
vict that escapes, went into effect by
its provisions on the first of April,
1870. Prior to April of last year no
ANNUAL SUnSCHIPTJoN, $2 00
Mich penalty was imposed by the law.
.. u incc Hie law was of force, only (lit)
iiineteui have escaped. The penalty
llr '-° has been paid by ope company
without suit, and in every case is mi -
dcr investigation. Tho discrepancy.-
therefore, between Mr. Norwood’s
;statement and the truth of the case
is the diffyri nee between 521} and l!).
it will not do for Mr. Norwood' tossy
that he was reading from tho Alston
report, for ho distinctly asserted that
the facts narrated in that report re
tfemd lo my administration, whereas
four-filths of these escapes occurred
in former administrations, and only
19 out of tho 525 were liable to the
penalty of S2OO. The only comment
I make upon such wholesale misrep
resentations is that they place his en
tire speech under the ban of a fair,
popular judgment, as having heeu
made under the impulse of' unjustifi
able prejudice and not with, a view of
bringing tho facts before (lie country.
but Mr. Norwood s crus to con
sider it constent with his candidacy
for fbc high office of Governor, to
assume the utterly indefensible posi
tion that I am responsible for all the
evils of the convict system, with the
inauguration of which I had no agen
cy whatever. lie seems to have en
tirely forgotten the important fact
that another executive and a former
legislature are wholly’ responsible for
the lease act.
When I came into office the lease
law had already been passed by tho
legislature, and approved by Gov.
Smith. The contracts under it were
made by Governor Smith. Tiic sys
tem I found loosely managed, be
cause of tlie character of the system
itself and the deficiencies of the law.
The convicts had been farmed out in
small squads over tho state and the
statutes were sadly imperfect. 1
gave tbe matter closo attention and
entered zcalottsiy upon the work of
correcting abuses. Every step in the
direction of reform met my hearty
approval and encouragement. There
has been a most gratifyinging and
marked improvement in the health
and comfort of this unfortunate class
of our fellow men, as is shown by the
following official tables. The report
upon which Mr. Norwood based his
assault upon myself and my admin
istration was never agreed to by the
committee of the legislature and[ my
self. The staterm nts it contained
arc denied by sub-committees who
examined the camps. The report it
self was committed to the committee
and was never again reported. In
answer, however, to Mr. Norwood’s
unsupported charge that during roy
administration an unusual death rate
has occurred in the camps, I am con
tent to produce tho official reports
and their undisputed and undispufa
b!c records. I take Governor Sm.th’s
and my administration.
The-official records show tho death
rate' from 18*1 to 1819 to be as fol
lows:
smith’s administration,
Year No. convicts No. deaths | Death rate
187‘Jl , Bli9 40 | 4.1 per ct
1875 920 49 | 54 per ct
1870_ _ 1319 53 I4| per ct.
Colquitt’s administration .
Year No. convicts No. deaths J Death rate
1877 1448 55 |3J per ct
1878 | 1417 I 27 |lj per ct
1879 j 1400 | 32 j 2 j- per ct
These tables incude the whole num
ber whose names were on the books
during the year and not the number
on hand at anyone time.
I have taken (he last three years
of Governor Smith’s administration
and the three completed years of
mine, in the above statement,
Those official reports show that the
highest death rate was about 5 1-3
per cent, and this occurred in 1875
during Governor Smi'h’s administra
tion. The lowtst death rate was
about 1 7-8 percent, and this occur
red in 1878, during my administra
tion. These records show that the
highest death rate during my admin*
istration was in the year 1877, imme
diately alter I came into office and
before any great reforms could be
carried into practical operation; but
lln y also show tho fact inoct dam
aging to Mr. Norwood’s reputation
for fair dealing tlmt'the highest rate
during my administration is lower
than tho lowest death rale of the for
mer administration. They further
show that the death rate has decreas
ed almost on;-half during my ad
ministration as compared with tho ad
ministration which pweei-ded it A like
investigation will show that the
escapes have decreased in almost tho
name ratio.
f make public these fads from I hv
official records not tor '.lie fimposo
of criticising any former adm-inistra -
tion, but in order to show to every
mania Georgia the £•<* wrong
which my opponent seeks to (to
rn me.
NO. 50
1 bad no power to annul the lease
law, nor to break the contract!*
which my predecessor had mode ami
which are binding for twenty years.
Ihe people however, will judge front
tile above official facts w here respon
sibility lies and whether Mr. Nor
wood's assault niion my character
and administration is righteous or
ruthless. Where errors so- astound
ing and misrepresentation so flagrant
are made by one who could Imvo ex -
amined the- records, and whose char
acter and the office lie seeks.ought to
forbid the idea of malice, it is easy
to imagine tho reckless and auda
cious manner io which irresp-jsiblio
persons have Calumniated both my
administration andtny.ncU before tho
peopie of Georgia. And Mr- Nor
wood need not be .surprised if a just
minded public recoil from such meth
ods to injure an opponent.
SENATOR litlOWfJt AND GOVERNOR SMITH
Mr. Norwood dec-ends to nuke an
unworthy attack upon the motive that
actuated me in- tiro ap-nointment of
Gov. Brown as se-nat -r and Gov.
Smith as railroad eommisioucr, He
does not question the propriety of
either appointment, lie considers
both genterai.cn able and proper rep
resentatives of the peopie in the po
sitions to which they are appointed;
but the motive which actuated mo ho
professes to read and proceeds to-
condemn. He can sec in my ap
pointment of the fittest men to office
nothing higher or more commenda
ble than self-seeking. He charges
directly that my motive was to per
petuate myself in office. A friend or
a fair-minded foe might have been
able to find in the selection for office
of the ablest men, who were not spe
cial personal or political friends,
something of a disregard of selfish
considerations for the public good,
Mr. Norwood, however, arrogating ta
himself a power to search hearts and
read motives, which hitherto has been
supposed to belong to Deity alone,
does not hesitate lo declare that my
actions were prompted by the most
selfish considerations, lie then pro
ceeds to lecture me before tbe coun
try for my lack of patriotism and
official integrity. If I were per
mitted to judge of my own mo
tives I might flatly deny the
trutli of Mr, Norwood’s state
ment. I might, with some pro
priety, ask with Randolph,’’ who
made you a judge of motives aud a
searcher of hearts. I might ask in
what he has acquired the rightto be
come the censor ovei my actions and
tbe power to judge over my motives
when he cannot condemn my acts.
Has he this right and power because
of anything remarkable in his past
career? What is there m his record
that so exalts and dignifies ? Is it
his unparralieled patriotism exhibit
ed in the past? Did he demonstrate
iiis self-sacrificing devoting to his
country in battle from 1851 to 1805 ?
Did he refuse to vote himself $5,000
ol back salary after lie had given his
receipt to tho government for pay
ment in full, and did he unselfishly
refuse to accept that $5,000 of back
pay? Did he unselfishly give his
time and talents to save the people
of Georgia from the payment of the
fraudulent bonds or did lie take a
fee to induce the legislature to ini.
pose the fraudulent bonds upon the
people ? Are these the acts of self
abnegation and of patriotism which
have given to Mr. Norwood the right
to call in question my patriotism or
to sit in judgment upon my motives?
1 leave it to the voters of Georgia to
judge between us.
THE JONES SETTLEMENT.
Mr. Norwood thinks that in allow,
ingone of the securities of Ex-Trcus
urer John Jones, Mr. John T. Grant,
to compromise Ids liability by a cash
payment of thirty-five thousand
dollars inlo the state treasury
and governor Smith employed to as
sist him General R. Toombs, Messrs.
MoCay & Trippe, Colonel Wifha A.
Hawkins and Mr. Win, T. Newman
Lcontisuep on thirp paoe. I