Newspaper Page Text
ooBERT S. HOWARD,)
A ‘ ~ Editor and Publisher. $
VOLUME YI.
t\% ifefas.
PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY.
BOBER! S. HOWARD, Editor and Publisher,
JEFFERSON, JACKSON CO GJ.
vflCB. N. E. COR. PUBLIC SQUARE, UP-STAIRS.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION.
, - copy 12 months $1.50
• “ 6 “ 1.00
*• “ 3 “ 50
-..y For every Club of Ten subscribers, an cx
;rl copy of the paper will be given.
RATES OF ADVERTISING.
Oxe Dollar per square (of ten lines or less)
•\ r the first insertion, and Seventy-five Cents
• ur each subsequent insertion.
fsT V square is a space of one inch, measured
and down the column.
Advertisements sent without specifica
a of the numoer of insertions marked thereon,
r j be published till forbid, and charged
(ccordingly.
or Professional Cards, of six lines
#r less, Seven Dollars per annum; and where
V do not exceed ten lines, Ten Dollars.
£egnl JUoertiscmeufs.
fIKOIM-lA, Jackson County.
\J
Whereas, J. W . 11. Hamilton and T. K. Smith,
.Vluiinistrators on the estate of Hailey Chandler,
\j\i.of said county, deceased, applies for leave to
‘ : the lands belonging to said estate—
This is to cite all concerned, kindred and cred
■ ,rs, to show cause, if any they can, at the regu
;,r term of the Court of Ordinary of said county,
i the first Monday in October, 1880, why said
ave should not be granted the applicants.
Given under iny official signature, August 22d,
ISBO. aug27 11. VV r . BELL, Ord’y.
(IllOR€iIA, Jackson County.
\J
Whereas John F. Evans, Executor of the last
trill and testament of Daniel Evans dec’d rep
resents to the court, by his petition duly filed,
rat he has fully administered the estate of said
deceased, and is intitlcd to a discharge—
This is to cite all concerned, kindred and
reditors, ts show cause, if any, on the first
Monday in November, 1880 at the regular term
!the court of Ordinary of said county why the
.iters of Dismission should not be granted the
ipplicant.
(liven under my official signature, this August
Jd, ISSO. # 11. W. BELL, Ord’y.
MlOltdiiM, Jackson Comity.
Whereas, C. M. Wood, Administrator upon
theestate of Amanda M. Loggins late of said
Minty, deceased, applies for leave to sell the real
estate and Ga .11. It. Stock, belonging to said
estate—
This is to cite all concerned, kindred and cred
: rs. to show qause, if any, on the first Monday
. 'h'ptembcr next at the regular term of the
flirt of Ordinary of said county, why leave to
: said real estate and Georgia It. It. Stock
- m!J not he granted the applicant.
(iiveti under my official signature, this August
am 11. W. BELL, Ord’y.
Jackson County.
Whereas, a petition, signed by fifty or more
ftseholdors, citizens of said county, has been tiled
■ this office, asking that the question of Fence or
Fence be submitted to the lawful voters of said
county—
it no counter petition is filed on or before the
h-i day of October, 1880, said election will be
’Wed in accordance with the statute in such
n<l ' made and provided.
'opt- ’id, 1880. 11. W. BELL, Ord’y.
iM'.ORCJIA, Jackson Ceunfy.
"liercas. \V. S. Flanagan applies to me for
'ors of Administration on the estate of Julia
■ jhirson, late of said county, deceased—
iims is to cite all concerned, kindred and crcd
to show cause, if any they can, on the first
in October, 1880, at the regular term of
" fourt of Ordinary of said county, why said
-Mrs should not be granted.
’ (un under my ollicial signature, October 7th,
' scplO 11. W. BELL, Ord’y.
(VillTE LEAD
AND
OILS,
famishes & Colors,
BRU GS,
JSaiI’ISES and CHEMICALS,,
Grass and Clover Seed.
■ any of above, or anything in the Drug line,
>on J °
K. C. LONG & CO.,
' holesale & Retail Druggists,
ATHENS, C2--A--
"holier 24th, 1579.
teethina.
in , M T ho,rr lnfaiiiini. Allays Irritation and
's TccS!,in S easy. Removes aud prevents
trv of Children run ft he Hared, c-c*-
ln-or bf/ usinfl these I‘ot:'ders
° rsalc at DR PENDERGRASS, Drugstore.
SPEECH OF HON. HIRAM WARNER.
DELIVERED AT GREENVILLE, MERIWETHER
COUNTY, SEPTEMBER 7tH.
Fellow-Citizens; I have been invited
here to day to make a speech ; and as most
of you know, I have not been accustomed
to making public speeches for the last sev
eral years. But I have, in the course of my
lime made a great many speeches of one sort
or another. I have made a great many in
this house; and the last political speech I
have made was here irw 1800, in which I
endeavored in my feeble manner to persuade
our people against the folly and destructive
ness of separate state secession. In view of
some criticisms I have seen in the public
newspapers, perhaps I ought to preface my
remarks by saying,
“ You would scarce expect one of my age,
To speak in public on the stage.”
[Applause and laughter.] But (thank Provi
dence for the extension of my lease of life,
and the preservation of iny health and
strength !) I trust that lam not yet too old
to advocate good government for the people,
and to expose and condemn bad government.
[Long and continued applause.]
During the days of the Roman republic,
there was a great contest for political power
between Pompey and Caesar, two military
chieftains. Cicero, who was a civilian, was
called .upon to address the people, and he
commenced Lis speech by saying, “ Romans !
you have heard a great deal said about
Pompey ; you have beard a great deal said
about Caesar; but you have heard nothing
said about Rome.”
It is said that history repeats itself; and
in this, our day and time, wo hear a great deal
said about Colquitt, we hear a great deal said
about Cordon ; we hear a great deal said
about Brown ; but we hear precious little said
about Georgia.
I propose to-day to say something about
Georgia, and th# material interests of her
citizens.
As I am not a candidate for office, and
never expect to be, I shall not attempt to
make one of those “ spread-eagle” speeches
which candidates sometimes indulge in, ex
citing the passions and prejudices of their
hearers, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing ; but I shall endeavor to make to you
a plain, practical speech, in such manner as
may suit my own convenience, and in a man
ner which I trust you will be able to under
stand. It w'll be my purpose to express some
ideas tiiat occur to me, which may make a
lodgment in your minds. You may take them
home with you, rellect upon them, and form
your own conclusions.
Before the war, the people of Georgia were
a rich and prosperous people. By the results
of the war, millions of capital that had been
accumulating lor generations were swept out
of existence, as perfectly as if they had been
sunk in the bottom of the ocean. Whenever
you take out of any state or country millions
of its capital, upon which its credit is based,
it necessarily leaves that people miserably
poor, disguise it as we may.
I know it is not a pleasant thing to con
template. I don’t like to contemplate it
myself; but it is best to look stern facts in
the face and to regulate our conduct by
them.
When a people arc in that condition, it is
a struggle for existence ; and when we con
template the condition in which our people
were left, it is wonderful that they have done
so well as they have. When a people are left
in that impoverished condition, it must be
apparent to everybody that the burdens of
government should be made to bear as lightly'
upon them as possible, that no greater burden
should be imposed upon them than absolutely
necessary.
Few realize the facts as to the condition
of our people. It is true, there are some few
men who have grown rich since the war ; but
they are comparatively few. It is that class
of men who had some capital, and furnished
provisions and supplies at big rates of interest
and high commissions. That class of men
seemed to have prospered, to have grown rich ;
but they have done so off the necessities of
the great body of the people. The great
body of the people are still poor, and it will
be a long time before they replace the capital
which has been swept from under them.
There is one great fact that I wish to im
press upon your minds, because it is a fact
to which your experience will bear testi
mony, and it is this—that since tho war, when
the people are in their impoverished condition,
the amount of money and taxes that have
been required to run their governmet, is
larger—greater in amount than it was before
the 3 war? when the people had plenty of
property to be taxed, and the means to pay
it.
That fact cannot bo disputed. The ag
gregate amount required to run the govern
ment since Live war has been greater than it
was before the war, when then people were
rich and prosperous. The experience of
every man will testify to that. The aggregate
amount of your taxes has been larger since
the war than it was before the war, and the
question arises right there, why is that so ?
That the fact is true cannot bo disputed.
There must be a cause for it. Our people
have been restive under it. There is no dis
guising that fact either. They felt there was
something wrong somewhere. They pay their
taxes. You see no more of it after it goes
out of your hands. It is necessarily entusted
to your agent to make the application of it.
and see "that it is properly appropriated.
After you have entrusted it to him you sec
no more of it; you have paid it and it is
gone.
It is true also that large amounts of mon
cv have been collected from outside sources
—collected from the general government,
collected from back taxes upon railroads
under the act of 18 <4 and under the decisions
of court. Large amounts have been
paid into the public treasury, but how much
ought to be there ? That is the great question
—how much ought to be there ?
As I remarked, it is claimed that our peo
ple are prosperous. They have received
large amounts of money ; that money is in the
treasury. They are toki that the credit of the
state was never higher than it is now, that
JEFFERSON, JACKSON COUNTY, GA., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24. ISSO.
the state is prosperous, that the present ad
ministration is prosperous, that everything is
lovely and prosperous.
Well, that does very well to talk about;
but it is merely 7 talk ; and the only favor I
ask of you is that when you hear such repeated,
and go home after hearing it, you will hunt
up yOur tax receipts and see whether the taxes
have been lessened—whether the burdens
have been diminished. They will furnish the
best reply to all tiiat sort of argument. The
one is talk, the other is the stubborn fact.
That is the highest and best evidence you
can have in reply to these general declara
tions.
Our people, as I remarked, have been
restive under this state of tilings; and two
years ago they sent up to the state capito 1
representatives. Man\ r of them were y 7 oung
men who had grown up since the war, self
made men, energetic men who had been
accustomed to rely upon themselves, and
who had the confidence of their constitu
ents. They sent them to look into these
things.
They felt there was something wrong, and
they directed them to make inquiries, and they
did commence to make inquiries.
They began to investigate into the depart
ments of our government; and in the lan
guage of one member, of a committee, “ the
investigation showed everything rotten in
every department, except 4>ld m m Barnett’s,
and everything w r as right there.”
The result of that inquiry and investiga
tion was that two of your state house offi
cials were impeached, and a third would have
been if lie had not resigned. Thc3 7 were put
upon their trial. One of them was convicted,
and the other would have been if the weight
of the executive department of the govern
ment had not been thrown in favor of his
acquittal. There was a majority of the senate
who voted for his conviction, but he lacked
the two-thirds the constitution required, and
lie was acquitted. lie offered to pay back a
large sum of money 7 , if they would not prose
cute him ; but tiie committee thought it was
not proper that he should buy himself off in
that way*. If he had taken the public mono3 r ,
he should be prosecuted, and made an ex
ample of, to deter others from doing likewise ;
and they’ were right. But since his acquittal,
[ have never heard of his paying that money
back, and I don’t think ho has ever done it.
lie offered to pay 7 it back in order to avoid
the prosecution, but when he was acquitted
he kept the money. There is one question I
want to put to you to-day, and it is this:
Did y r ou approve at that time of the investiga
tion by y 7 our representatives into the condition
of your affairs at the state capitol ? Did you
approve of it at that time? I presume you
did. Did y 7 ou think it was right then to in
vestigate into the affairs of your trustees, the*
state house officers, and to expose fraud and
peculation ? I presume you did. And if it
was right then, it is right now. You have
no other protection but through your represen
tatives, and the investigation of those matters.
You pay y 7 our taxes, and that is the last
you sec of them.
The}' go to the headquarters, under the
supervision and superintendence of your
trustees ; and it is your right, through your
representatives, and it is their duty to look
into their appropoiation. And if everything
has been right, and has been done right, the
closer the investigation, the closer the scru
tiny, the more it will redound to the credit of
your officers. But if it is not right, if there
has been fraud and peculation, the sooner it
is made known and exposed, the better. And
it is the part of tho representative of the peo
ple to perform that duty, and they did per
form it. Are you going back upon them in
the performance of that duty J? If you do, it
will be poor encouragement for any future
investigation into these affairs by your rep
resentatives.
But it is said that all this investigation, all
this inquiry into frauds and peculation, was
done for the purpose of persecuting the gov
ernor of your State. Ido not suppose that
a single member of the house of representa
tives had any such idea. They •did it be
cause they felt it to be their duty. I admit
that it did rellect upon his administration.
It did that, and ought to have done it. It
ought to have reflected upon,any administra
tion. There was no disguising the fact, and
he felt it.
But that they had any personal motives,
as far as he was concerned, L do not believe.
They did it in pursuance of a public duty.
There was the governor ; these tilings had
been donoright there under his nose, in the
same building where lie was, and in the de
partments over which he had the superinten
dence ; and it may be possible (and I am
chairitable enough to.say so) that he did not
personally know anything of those frauds ami
peculation, so far as lie was concerned. That
may all be so, and out of charity, l will as
sume that it was so. But it was his duty to
have known what was going on right under
his nose, in the departments there; and he
had the authority of the law to require them
to make reports, and to make examinations
at any time he might think proper to do so.
Do you remember the motto of the State
of Georgia—her coat of arras? You see it
upon the great seal of the State ; and you no
tice there that the executive department is
represented by a little soldier with a drawn
sword. Ilc'stands there a representative of
the executive. That is emblematic of the
executive officer of the government; he is
put upon guard. lie is stationed there not
only to guard the constitution, but to guard
the people’s treasury.
It is emblematic of his duty, and is upon
the coat of arm3 of j'our State, and every
seal that you see is impressed with it. It is
no excuse to say that lie did not know of
them ; he was put upon guard and stationed
there to know of them ; and while he may
not personally have participated, (and I do
not say that he did) l do say it was his duty
to know what was going on there, for the
protection of tho people of the State. You
put him there for that purpose ; you paid him
>4,000 a year to do that thing, and it is his
business to do it, to look after and protect
your interest while yon are here at home
pursuing your daily avocations, digging your
tux money out of the earth, and scuding it
FOR THE PEOPLE.
up there to have it guarded, protected, and
properly appropriated. He says he did not
know. He was bound to know it; it was his
duty to have known it.
And it is high time that men who are en
trusted with public responsibilities and pub
lic office should understand that they have
j something to do besides sitting up there
! crossing their legs, besides traveling over
the country seeking popularity* and drawing
their salaries, doing nothing. They have
something to do, and the law and the consti
tion require that they* should be vigilant in
doing it. You have to trust them, and look to
them for protection. These malpractices
were occurring in your state-house, right
there in the same building with the execu
tive office, and although he might not have
known it, it reflected upon his administra
tion. It was all done in the interests of the
people those representatives represented. It
was done in your interests, and not for the
purpose of persecuting anybody. So much
then for the action of the representative de
partment of the government in persecuting
the executive.
I com 6 now to another branch of the gov
ernment. It is claimed that the judicial de
partment of the government has also been
persecuting the governor; and how did they 7
persecute him?
Well, it appears that in the regular course of
judicial proceedings, a case came before your
supreme court, and originated in this way :
A man by the name of Alston was elected
public printer ; the state advanced him $5,000
and instead of doing any work for the State,
he appropriated the money to his own use.
The State sued him and his securities to recov
er that $5,000. 11 is securities tiled a plea,
and they pleaded that the governor had re
ceived $5,000 which belonged to Alston and
was paid to him ; that ho had failed to de
duct the $5,000 Alston owed tire state;
Alston being insolvent, they 7 said this was
such neglect as discharged them as securi
ties under the law ; that lie ought to have
retained the money in his own hands which
Alston owed to the state.
Well, there are two question made before
the court, and they* originated upon this
statement of facts. I have the record be
fore me, and I think I have a pretty distinct
recollection of it.
The state had collected a large claim
against the federal government. In other
words, congress had appropriated in favor of
the state of Georgia, in satisfaction of a
claim, $198,028 58.
Well, the governor of the state went on to
Washington, and received a check for that
money. He brought it to Atlanta. lie paid
of that money $152,228 24 into the treasury*.
This check was made payable to him as gov
ernor of the State of Georgia. He received
it for the State of Georgia. lie was only
the agent of the State of Georgia. The mon
ey did not belong to him. He paid, as I re
marked, $152,228 24 into the treasury 7 of the
State, but retained $45,800 S3 in his own
hands that he did not pay into the treasury*.
What did he do with it? lie says that lie
paid it to certain lawyers, Alston, Garling
ton and another, as a foo ! that they had a
lion upon that for their fee; that that money
did not belong to the Stato; that it belonged
to these lawy*ers.
These are the facts. lam stating facts.
Well, the case came before the supreme court.
The first question the court had to decide
was whether it was the duty of the governor,
having received the money as the agent of
the state, made payable to him as the gov
ernor of the 3tato to have paid the whole
amount of that draft into the treasury of the
state, as well as the $152,000 that ho did
pay. Well, the supreme court decided that
it was his duty to have paid it all into the
treasury, the whole as well as a part. On
paying a part, he recognczed that it all be
longed to the state of Georgia. That is wiiat
the supreme court decided ; and they decided
an important principle, not only applicable
to that case, but to a great many other eases
that preceded it, or have since succeeded it.
Tt applied to the fee of SIO.OO or SII,OOO paid
to Tuggle ; it applied to the money paid to
Ely, and various other attorneys too numer
ous to mention, collected under the pre
tenee of rendering service to the state. The
governor paid the4noney out of the treasury
and paid them without any appropriations
having been made therefor by the legisla
ture, or investigation as to whether those fees
were reasonable or unreasonable. Your su
preme court decided that tiie governor had no
legal power under the constitution or the laws
to do that; and they intended to cut up by
the roots this pernicious practice of making
these contracts with lawyers and this thrust
ing of hands into the treasury and taking out
the money without any appropriation made
by the people’s representatives. Your supreme
court decided that they had no authority or
power to do that, ami they settled a great
principle in favor of the people of Georgia’
and for the protection of their interests.
Now the supreme court recognized this fact.
that the governor was authorized to make a
contract with attorneys to represent the in
terest of the state, but while he had the power
to*do that, he had no power conferred upon
him by the constitution or the laws to put
his hand in the treasury and take out the
money to pay them. Tho representatives of
the people had the power to see about that.
But the governor has appealed from the
decision of the people, and complained that
the court persecuted him ; that they persecuted
him in making that decision.
Now you have the facts. Let me repeat
them again, so we will know just where we
stand.
The governor received $108,028.58. He
paid into the treasury $152,228.24, and he
retained in his own hands $45,804.34, and
paid it to those lawyers. Now there is no
dispute about these facts. These are the
facts just as they exist and just as they appear
in the record which I have before me. Well,
now, I wish to give the governor's version of
it, the version given under his own hand. lie
had been asserting it over the country before
he wrote this letter; I read what he says
under his own hand in the Constitution. He
says:
“ The position that by law the whole
amount should have gone into the treasury
is untenable.” That is what the court de
cided—that he should have paid the whole
amount into the treasury. He says that is
untenable* “ There is no such law ; the law
requires nothing to go into the treasury but
the money belonging to the state. No law
requires that the twenty five per cent, belong
ing to the attorneys should be paid into the
treasury,”—assuming y*ou understand that it
belonged to them—“on the contrary the law
gives the attorneys a lien upon the monev
until their fees are paid. The governor re
ceived a check payable to bis order with the
consent of the attorneys, which included the
twenty-five per cent, belonging to them and
the seventy-live per cent belonging to the
state ; and in the discharge of a plain legal
duty*, he paid to the attorneys the amount
which belonged to them and paid into the
treasury tho amount which belonged to the
state.” That is his statement; and he and
the supreme court arc directly* at issue.
Now his whole argument is based upon
this idea, that this $45,804 34 belonged to
these lawyers, that it did not belong to the
State at all; because, he said, they had a
legal lien upon it, it belonged to them, that
he paid into the treasury what belonged to
tiie State, and he paid to them what belonged
to them. Well, the question is, did it belong
to them ? That is the question. lie says it
did ; the supreme court says it did not.
Well, now, you are not lawyers many* of
you, but you have some common sense, and
all good law is founded on reason and com
mon sense. You have common sense enough
to know that a man individually may make
a contract with a lawyer, and may agree io
pay him a certain amount for his services in
collecting money or anything else. When
the lawyer collects that money, he has a lien
upon it against that individual whose money
it is, because it comes out of his pocket, it is
his money, it belongs to no one else ; and he
can create a lien upon his own money. But
how is it when a man is a trustee and under
takes to create a lien upon the property* of
others ? That is a cat of* a different color
entirely*.
A trustee cannot make a contract to bind
the trust property unless ho lias express au
thority of law. It is not his property. And
this money was not the money of the Go
vernor ; it was the money* of the people of
the State. lie has no right to make a con
tract creating a lien upon it: the law confer
red no such authority upon him ; lie had no
right to bind their property, or create a lien
upon their money*.
Now you can see how these tilings would
Work, if the law was as the Governor con
tends.
Governor Smith made a contract with those
parties before Governor Colquitt came into
office. There is a dispute between them as
to whether the full amount of the twenty-five
•per cent, should have been paid. Governor
Smith says it was not to exceed twenty-five
per cent. But Ido not cavil about that. I
will put it upon the broad ground that the
contract was made with Governor Smith that
these men were to have twenty-five per cent.
Well, if the Governor, a trustee, (and he
is nothing but a trustee for the people) can
put hi 9 hand in tho treasury and take out
SIO,OOO, he can make a contract for $500,000
and put his hands into the treasury and bank
rupt it. He has no such power, and the peo
ple never entrusted him with any such power,
and God forbid that they ever should entrust
him with any such power!
Such a thing was never heard of in the
State until the advent of Bullock’s adminis
tration, and he employed lawyers and paid
them out of the treasury in that way. But
before the war the rule was this : when the
Governor employed a lawyer to do any busi
ness for the State, lie might agree upon the
fee, or to pay what his services were reason
ably worth—he might do either; but when
the services were performed, it never was
thought of that this lawyer had a lien upon
the people’s money. When he collected the
money he paid it into the treasury, and the
Governor reported the fact to the legislature
and recommended reasonable fees to be paid,
and they appropriated what they considered
just and reasonable, andjfrhe Governor drew
his warrant for whatever was appropriated.
The people have never let loose their hands
on the public money in the public treasury
for any Governor to dispose of without their
leave—never!
The whole error was in supposing that this
money belonged to those lawyers ; and the
truth is that they never had a dollar of it in
their hands to have a lien upon. But the*Go
vernor assumed that it belonged to them, and
not to the State, and he paid it.
Let us look into those things a little more
eloselyo There is no proof before the court
of any service they had rendered. The mo
ney was appropriated by act of congress.
They never sued for it in any court, nor col
looted any money. I supposed our repre
sentatives did their duty in getting the hill
through congress making the appropriation,
and as to what these men did, there is no
proof in tiie record. There was no suit by
them, or anything of the sort. There is not
a particle of evidence to show that they did
anything. Now let us see what the consti
tution and laws of your State say upon this
subject. Your constitution declares that no
money shall be drawn from the treasury ex
cept by appropriation made by law. Tiie law
says, “ all payments from the treasury, un
less otherwise provided, shall be made upon
the warrant of the Governor—and lie may
withhold his approval upon any account
audited and certified by the Comptroller-
General. Tiie warrant should always specify
upon what appropriation the fund is drawn.”
There was no check on the Treasurer at all:
there was nothing entered on the Comptroller-
General’s books, there was no account audit
ed —nothing of the kind. lie just takes $45,-
000 and pays it over to these lawyers upon
the assumption that they are entitled to it:
that is belonged to them, and did not belong
to the State. Your supreme court held that
the Governor did not have the power to do
that. While he could make a contract for
services, he could not take the people’s mo
ney and appropriate it in payment of these
services until they had an opportunity to
* * *
TERMS, $1.50 ER ANNUM.
) SI.OO For Six Months.
look into the matter, and say whether it fftm
reasonable or unreasonable, and appropriate
whatever they thought was right ami proper.
And you know, ami those parties knew, that
they whuld appropriate not $45,000, or any
thing like that. They would have appropri
ated what was reasonable, but they would not
appropriate such big amounts as that.
They knew that, and would not go before'
the legislature.
The Governor assumed that this money
belonged to these attorneys —that they had
a lien upon it.
I have endeavored to show that a trustee
could not create a lien upon the funds of the
cestui quo trust, unless lie had the express
authority of law to do it; and while the Go
vernor. as the trustee of the people, may make
a contract, yet the attorney acquires no lien
as against the people in consequence of that
contract, unless the general assembly says so,
and appropriates the mbney to pay it. That
is the great principle your supreme court de.
cided as to all these parties.
They decided that the GovcrnorNiad no'
power to pay that money; he says lie had,
that it belonged to the lawyers. Let me il
lustrate by a case with which you are inoro
familiar ; you may understand it better. An
administrator is the trustee for the estate bo
represents. Suppose be is entrusted with a
note for a thousand dollars belonging to the
orphans of the estate. He agress to give a
lawyer s.'>oo to collect it. This lawyer col
lects the full amount, retains out of it SSOO.
and says he has a lien upon that SSOO of
these orphans' money for his fee and the ad
ministrator claims a credit for that amount.
When he carries it to the Ordinary to have
the account allowed, the Ordinary will look
into the matter. lie will say, “you have a
right to create a lien upon your own prop
erty, but you have no right to create a lien;
upon these orphans’ money and property.”
If that were the law, the administrator could
gobble up the whole estate; and if that were
the law, the Governor and a few lawyers could
gobble up all the money in the treasury.
The Governor assumed that they had a lien
upon this money, without the consent of the
legislature. If it belonged to the lawyers,
there would be some force in it; it did not
belong to the lawyers, and there was no Go
vernor who could make such a contract.
Let us see what the code says. The only
authority the Governor had to make a con
tract, or employ lawyers at all, is to be found
in the 63d section of the code.
That gives him the authority to employ
lawyers. After going on to recite that ho
may do so, it says; “On such terms for
compensation that he may agree upon ; but
the fees of such attorneys shall be condition
al,” which meant to be reviewed by the gen
eral assembly and the representatives of the
people. The Governor has no right to make
an absolute contract. The law says such
fees shall be conditional; it is the right of
the through their representatives, to
pass upon and adjudicate the amount of those
fees, and not the Governor. If it is too
much, they will not pay it; if it is right and.
reasonable, they will.
This money belonged to the State of Geor
gia. It was received by the Governor as the
agent trustee of the people of Georgia*
and it was his duty to have paid it into the
treasury—all of it. What authority of Ur
did the Governor have to adjudge that any
part of it belonged to Alston and others, and
take it out of the treasury' otherwise than by
a warrant, upon an appropriation being made
therefor, required by law?
Alston and the others never had the mon-.
ey in their possession, but in contemplation
of law, it was in the state treasury. llow
could it legally have got out of there ?
Where is there any entry made upon the
books of the comptroller-general, charging
the treasury with this ? There was no war
rant. He simply handed it over, without
warrant or record. In tins way 7, ten or
eleven thousand dollars were paid to Tug
gle, and 1 don’t know how many 7 thousands
to others. And your supreme court thought
that your governor had no authority to do
that until the legislature gave him the au
thority. But the governor takes issue with
that decision, and makes an appeal from it,
and goes before you with that appeal.
Of course the decision of that court was
unanimous; hut it fell to my’ lot in the reg
ular business of the court, to deliver that
judgment; and the argument was brought
against me that I wa3 seeking to persecute
the governor.
I don't know what was the intention of my
colleagues, I know’ no such idea ever entered
my head. It was never my idea to persecute.
the governor or anybody else. We made the.
decision for the interests and protection of
the people of Georgia, and would make the
same decision again.
We were arraigned before the country. The.
legislature has been arraigned for looking
into the affairs of tiie country.
The governor complains that he lias been,
persecuted by the legislative and judicial;
departments of the state government. My
private opinion publicly expressed is that the.
people of the state have been worse persecuted,
by had government than anybody else, and;
have the best right to complain.
I gran£ that those things may reflect un-.
favorably upon the administration, and they
undoubtedly’ do, but it does not follow that
there was persecution.
The governor thought proper to take an.
appeal before the people from the supreme,
court of tiie state, of which I was at the time,
the chief justice. I had no intention at that.
time of resigning. I was able and willing to.
porform the duties of the office as I had been
for the ten years, so far a3 I knew ; but when
I saw one department of the government,
arraigning another department of the govern*,
ment before the country in a manner calculated;
to weaken public confidence in its judiciary,
l felt that I could no longer, with honor to,
myself and credit to the people, hold that,
position. [Great applause.]
if the chief justice of your supreme conrfc
was so regardless of his official duty as to be.
capable of making a decision adversely 7 to the.
official acts Of the governor contrary to law,
for the purpose of persecuting the governor,
[concluded on fourth page.]
NUMBEII 16.