Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.