Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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