Newspaper Page Text
The Gainesville Eagle.
f Published Every Friday Morning.
by .J . E. redwine.
* Hates of Subscription :
One copy one year $2 00
One copy eix months ... 100
One copy three months 50
EDITORIAL EAGLETS.
The New York 6'un which ie noted
for using plain language calls it the
v “salary grab steal.”
-• One of the encouraging signs ol
the times is that gold is flowing
from Europe to the United States.
Hon. Miles W. Lewis, a prominent
* citizen of Greene county, died sudden-
ly at his home in that county, od
Tuesday of last week.
Judge Spofford the contestant for
Kellogg’s seat in th*; Senate, from
Louisiana, died at White Sulphur
Springs, Va, last week.
When there are one hundred and
t forty-four guests and but twelve
plates, some have to wait and then
you see there is dissatisfaction.
Gen. B. F. Butler has abandoned
the republican party and announced
himself for Hancock and English.
The general is too old a rat to be
caught napping.
The dead lock in the congression
al convention for the fourth district
was broken by the withdrawal ol
Albert Cox, after which Judge Hugh
Buchanan, of Newnan, was nomina
ted.
Some of the Norwood papers say
that Joe Brown wrote Gov. Colquitt’s
reply to Mr. Norwood. It is so con
-1 elusive and unanswerable that they
seem to think no one else could have
constructed it
Col. Robertson, of Cobb county
having declined the nomination for
Congress in district, thi
convention was ro convened and nom
inated Hou Judson C. Clemente, ol
Walker county.
«+.
It is now plain to every one who
will not close his eyes that ono of th*,
main objects to be accomplished by
the opposition to Gov. Colquitt, it
the defeat of ex-Gov Brown for the
United
can be defeated Brown may bt
shelved.
«a»-
Some of the papers opp sod to
Gov. Colquitt have the candor to
admit that Mr. Norwood’s Athxna
speech was a great mistake The
truth is, it was a La;. of vague
insinuations and llumme? wholly
beneath tho digni:y oi u uian aspir
ing to the office oi :c : jr.
The constitution of Georgia makes
lobbying a crime. The clause was
inserted to headoff just such gentle
men as Mr. Norwood, who tried to
lobby through the Legislature a
, measure to pay fraudulent bends
that had been repudiated, And yet
some people want such a man for
Governor.
In all his speeches made this far,
Mr. Norwood has had more or less to
say about lawyers fees. A great
many people are curious to know the
fee Mr Norwood was to get for
fastening upon the tax-payers of
Georgia the payment of the fraudu
' lent bonds he tried to lobby through
*■ the Legislature.
People who live iu glass houses
should not throw stones promiscu
ously. Ex-Gov. Smith, soured be
ausc he failed of election to the
United States senate, h-*s taken the
stump for Norwood. The result is
that a few nights ago in Columbus
Gen. Gordon attacked Gov. Smith’s
administration and presented several
things that did not look attractive.
—
On Mon hiy night of last week
near Cochran, Georgia, four disguised
young men went to a negro cabin,
broke down the door and commenced
firing into the building. John
Brown, colored, the occupant of tire
building, got his double barrelled
shot-gun and blew off the heads of
two of the young men, who were
brothers, named Dyke. Tho other
two left and have not been identi
fied.
At last the correspondence in full
between Gen. Sherman and Gen.
Hancock, upon the political compi.-
- cations of 1876, is given to the pub
lic. While the letters of Gen. Han
cock breathe a spirit of patriotism
■and fidelity to the constitution and
Haws of the country in the highest
sense commendable, it is due to
Gen. Sherman to say that he also
expressed aversion to having the
army take part in settling the po
, litical troubles that then existed.
♦ ♦—
% It is a singular fact that in all the
charges that have been trumped up
againt Gov. Colquitt by his enemies,
the State has not lost one dollar, but
on the contrary has been iu almost
every case the gainer, as an impartial
investigation of the facts will demon
strate. This explains how it is that
the State’s credit is higher than ever
before, and the peoples taxes nearly
one third lower than they have been
since the way. If politicians from
sinister motives would confuse y iu,
hold these facts up to thorn. You
cannot explain away facts.
The Gainesville Eagle
VOL. XIV.
COLQUITT’S SELF-VINDICA
TION.
Kepiy to* Mr. Xorwood'n Charges.
Atlanta, Ga. , August 21, 1880.—
To the people of Georgia: I reply
through this letter to the speech of
the lion. Thos. Norwood, made in
the representative chamber of At
lanta, criticising my administration.
I adopt this medium because it will
be impossible on account of official
duties for me to accompany him over
the entire State 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. The city
w&s filled with posters that were in
viting the people to come out and
hear him “expose Oolquittism,” and
I had therefore a direct persoal in
terest in that issue, He declined to
allow me a hearing on the ground
that the meeting was one of ratifica
tion. A ratification meeting to “ex
pose Oolquittism” seemed an incon
gruity. It would have been my
pleasure to have corrected some of
the grave misstatements of Mr. Nor
wood iu reference to myself, as well
sis to have discussed some matters
connected with hie own official record
in which the people of Georgia have
an interest, in view of his present
candidacy.
MY POSITION AND HIS.
Mr. Norwood soorns to consider
our positions as precisely analogous*
the only difference being that I repre
sent an unorganized majority and he
an unorganized minority. I beg to
call tho attention of the people to
the fact that my own candidacy was
recommended by the people in prima
ry assemblies in a large majority c-f
the counties of Georgia and by almost
two-thirds of the convention, while
Mr. Norwood’s < andidaty v• is not re
commended in a primary assembly in
a single county c-f Georgia, but by the
eleven citizens who assembled with
him in u room in the Kimball House,
in Atlanta. The minority opposed to
me participated in the action of the
convention, remained in it to the
close ano acquiesced as fully as any
minority could. They did not even
enter a protest. They remained tak
ing part in the deliberations until its
adjournment. Os the 350 votes in
the convention 224 g votes, within 9
votes of a two-thirds majority of the
convention, and representing,accord
ing to actual estimate under the cen
ses of 1870, a popular aggregate ol
750,000 people against 100,000 repre
sented by the 1251 minority, consti
tuted my support. That large ma
jority recommended me an the Dem
ocratic candidate for governor. In
the vote upon ibis recommendation
the minority participated by voting
against it, and continued taking part
iu other important deliberations of
tho body,- and thus to the last recog
nized the authority of the convention
and are bound by its action.
MR. NORWOOD’S POSITION.
What is Mr. Norwood’s position as
a candidate ? After the adjournment
of the convention a meeting of citi
zens was called and he was placed in
the chair. He stated in explaining
the object of the meeting that they
were a short time ago official d. le
gates of a party convention, but they
had ceased to be so and were resolved
back into citizens. These citizens,
no longer a minority of the conven
tion. for as a minority they ceased to
exist with the end of the convention,
then appointed a committee of nine,
with Mr. Norwood himself us chair
man, to report action, and then ad
journed.
The nine gentlemen appointed by
Mr. Norwood us chairman, with two
others who seem to have joined them
during their two or thr e days’ ses
sion, nominated Mr. Norwood as their
candidate for governor.
It is a striking coincidence that
nine votes were lacking to give me a
nomination by a two thirds majority,
and that these nine gentlemen as
delegates in the convention could
have secured that harmony, they so
profess to seek, by uniting with the
majority in making a nomination.
And these nine gentlemen, after
thwarting a nomination, have nomi
nated their own chairman as their
candidate for governor. Tho coinci
dence, I say, of nine delegates defeat
ing a two-thirds majority nomina
tion, and the same nine delegates, as
citizens, ’presenting a candidate to
the party in opposition to the action
of the convention, in which they took
part and bad their voice aud vote,
presents such a picture of premedita
ted party disorganization as must
strike every reasonable man with
amazement. Aud not only this, but
the small number necessary to make
a two-thirds majority on the one
baud, and on the other inaugurating
revolt against the party recommen
dation, presents an impressive con
trast 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,
then party obligation is at an end in
Georgia. Mr.Norwood gravely arguesi
tho remarkable proposition that the
minority was as much a majority to
GAINESVILLE, GA., FRIDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 3, 1880.
i nominate as the majority was. The
i absurdity of such a proposition needs
■no demonstration. The gentleman,
| however, in his address, precisely
! states his own position, and I accept
his own words in designating his can
didacy. He says that Governor Col
quitt is “a self-appointed candidate,’’
and then adds, “I stand in the same
position that he does.” I cheerfully
and fully accord to him the absolute
accuracy in his statement of his own
attitude, and compliment him upon
the frank and unmistakable manner
in ?- hich he acknowledges that he is
“a self-appointed candidate.’’
A DISORGANIZER IN HIS OWN INTEREST.
There is no stronger and more
crushing objection to his claim for
votes than the simple and damaging
fact that he was the leader of all the
disorganizing action of the conven
tion, and is to-day its beneficiary,
He engineered the mischief and reaps
its benefits. He is the author and
leader of the successful efforts to de
feat a two thirds nomination at ail
hazards, and is running for governor
on the disruption he made. He can
not evade the irresistible conclusion
from his own course that he was a
disorganizer in his own interest and
for the gratification of his own ambi
tion. • In his speech he announces
that he “cam?, into this convention
for the purpose of discharging his
duty,’ and he adds: “From now un
til the going down of tho sun on the
first Wednesday in October I expect
to raise my voice in vindicati jh of
your rights that were trampled under
foot.” This Mr. Norwood’s figurative
and fanciful method of putting his
determined purpose to run fcr gover
nor upon some sort of nomination,
although it might bo made by a com
mittee appointed by himself.
MR. NORWOOD PREVENTS A NOMINATION.
But there was a scene in the con
vention that may be properly men •
Cloned iu this connection. In the
closing hour of the convention a dele
gate from Harris county arose and
desired to change the four votes of
his county to me, and, as was subst
quently ascertained, there were
others ready to change. It was at
this moment when the minority was
disintegrating and the convention
had tho prospect of a nomination by
a two-thirds majority, that Mr. Nor
wood arose and opposed any change
of votes whatever, and directly
bought to prevent, and in all proba
bility did prevent, a nomination,when
it seemed certain. The significance
of this attempt cannot be misunder
stood. It shows clearly and indis
putably that he opposed a technical
objection to the privilege of delegates
voting for Colquitt who were patri
otic enough to yield at the last mo
ment to the wishes of the majority,
and thus this “self-appointed candi
date” for govornor stands responsi
ble for the failure of a nomination.
Does not this opposition to the
change of votes at the close of the
convention form a striking proof that
he was a disoiganizer in his own in
terest ?
RETAILING SLANDERS,
In nothing has tho speech of Mr.
Norwood afforded room for severer
criticism than in his comments upon
my administration. In commencing
his assaults he declares that he does
not say whether the charges he makes
are false or true. And yet scandals
and slanders that he will not state to
be true, he retails at length as a justi
fication of his own candidacy and
against my fair name and the integ
rity of my administration.
THE NORTHEASTERN BONDS.
I propose to take up some of these
matters aud briefly discuss them,
giving the facts. There has not been
in the wide range of public discussion
a measure that has received more un
fair criticism than the indorsement of
the Northeastern railroad bonds. It
was a proper measure, a politic meas
ure, a legal measurg and an impera
tive duty inasmuch as it involved the
State’s sacred honor in relation to
her own citizens. Mr. Norwood him
self distinctly states that he has no
charge of wrong to make against me
in connection with that act, but that
it has caused unkind comment, If
the act is wrong it should be con
demned. If it is right it should be
sustained. Unkind comment upon
it dues not make it wrong. It is
right or wrong from its facts. Igno
rance or malice or self-interest can
make unfavorable comment about the
best and noblest actions; but actions
must be judged at last by their merits
and not by personal views of them,
as Mr. Norwood seems to argue.
What are the facts of this matter?
The general assembly of the State
granted the Northeastern railroad
company, the right to an indorse
ment of its bonds upon ceitain con
ditions. Other roads received the
same grant. A subsequent legisla
ture repealed the act, giving to these
' roads State aid, except where the
right had vested. But the same
general assembly that repealed the
acts authorizing State aid, made by
resolution a special exception in the
case of the Northeastern railroad,
The officers of the road went forward
and incurred debts upon the plight
ed faith of the State. The decision
in the matter of indorsement devolv
ed upon me after I came into office.
I venture to say that never, upon
any public measure, has an execu
tive deliberated more carefully, and
lam frank to say, reviewing my offi
cial career, that no act of my admin
istration has been a wiser or a better
one. The matter having been brought
before the Supreme court, that tribu
nal held that tho duty of deciding
the question rested with the execu
tive. I then sought the opinions of
the ablest lawyers and public men of
the State, such gentlemen as Gener
al Toombs, Governor Brown, Gener
al Lawton, Hon. A. O. Bacon, Judge
!• J. Simmons, president of the Sen
ate; Hon. Henry McDaniel, Hon. L.
N. Trammell and others* While
these opinions in which I concurred
satisfied me that it was proper to in
dorse, yet I preferred in abundant
caution to delay acting, so as to remit
the matter 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 inflicted upon the citizens of
Olarke county, who had invested
their money. It was in this emer
gency, to redeem the State’s faith, to
save tho loss of valuable property, to
to protect a noble section of our
State from injury, and to enforce a
legal and undoubted right, that I gave
the indorsement. The general assem
bly, after a full investigation of the
whole matter, doclared my motives
pure and the act u proper one, The
validity and legality of the indorse
ment has never been questioned by
court or legislation.
THE WESTERN AND ATLANTIC RAILROAD
FEE.
Mr. Norwood makes allusion to the
fee that Messrs. Baugh Garlington,
Alston, Fain, Jacksun, Lawton and
Basinger earned for the collection oi
certain money from 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 oi
the above gentlemen and others were
interested in it. Air. Norwood, who
is a lawyer, should be the last to pro
nounce this simple matter a wrong.
His very statement of the cate shows
that in this, as in other things, he has
spoken without a full examination of
the matter. What are the facts of
this also remarkably misconceived
transaction ? In 1868, Colonel Baugh,
who, at the close of the war, was
superintendent of the State road, and
his partner, General Garlineton, were
employed by the then governor to
prosecute a claim of several hundred
thousand dollars against the United
States government for the use of the
State road during and after the close
of tho war. The contract was that
these attorneys should have a retainer
of $3,000, and a contingent fee of
per cent, commissions. The claim
was prosecuted, Colonel Fain, Colo
nel Alston, and others, were engaged
in the prosecution. During Gover
nor Smith’s administration, Messrs.
Jackson, Lawton aud Basinger, came
into the case as additional counsel,
and Governor Smith placed upon the
executive minutes an order’recogniz
ing the employment ol these gentle
men, and increasing the compensa
tion to be allowed to a sum not to
exceed 25 per cent, of the amount
collected, this not to interfere with
the rights of the gentlemen already
employed. I found this state of
things when I came into office—a
long standing contract of the highest
official authority. The money was
collected, the agents doing the work
were allowed their contracted fee, and
the State’s part of the money was
paid into the treasury.
The only question in the case at
all was whether the agents were enti
tled to the full 25 per cent, commis
sion. 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 a legal contract,
and the withholding of one dollar
from them would have been a viola
tion of the faith of the State. It is
the 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
all shared in the distribution of that
per cent. They had been working on
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 Mr. Norwood, that
by law the whole amount should have
gone into the treasury, is untenable.
There is no such law. The law re
quires nothing to go into the treasury
but the money belonging to the
State. No law requires that the 25
per cent, belonging to the attorneys
should be. paid into the treasury. On
tho contrary the law gives attorneys a
lien upon the money collected until
their fies are paid. The governor re
ceived a check payable to his order,
with the consent of the attorneys,
which included the 25 per cont. be
longing to them and the 75 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 the amount which be
longed to the State.
The case was one of contract, not
made by me, for service rendered to
the State for a compensation agreed
upon. The contract was positive,
the service undeniable. The contract
was for 25 per cent. The service
was the collection of the money. The
money was collected, and I had to
carry out the contract in good faith.
I did this. To do otherwise would
have been a violation of law, and a
stigma on the State.
THE CONVICTS.
Mr- Norwood has much to say
about my administration of the law
regulating convicts. In this, as in
almost every other matter to which
he makes reference, he shows a
lamentable ignorance of both the law
and the facts, or else he wilfully ig
nores both. His method of treating
this subject leaves the impression on
the public mind that my administra
tion is responsible for the present
convict system and its 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. Smith
aud the lessees before I camo into
office. In discussing a report made
to the legislature, but which was
never adopted Ly the legislature, Mr-
Norwood is rash enough to declare in
the plainest words that “the facts
narrated in this report refer to his
(my) administration.” He makes
no exceptaion, but proceeds to partic
ularize some of these “facts,” as he
terms them, with which he seeks to
justify his assault upon myself and
my administration. He leaves the
impression on the public mind that
during my administration 523 con
victs have escaped and are now run
ning at large, and that for every one
of these escapes a penalty of S2OO is
due the State, not a dollar of which,
he says, has been collected.
Such a misrepresentation of the
facts is simply monstrous. Mr. Nor
wood will scarcely be excused by the
public, ’frhen the real facts as given
in the official records are broug ht to
light as I shall bring them. I say
the misrepresentation is monstrous;
for so far from these 523 escapes
having occurred during my adminis
tration, that number includes every
convict that has 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 of the five hundred
and twenty-three escaped during
former administrations. So that Mr.
Norwood places himself before the
country in the unfortunate attitude
of having, for political effect, crowd
ed the escapes for fourteen years in
the space of three and a half (3|)
years. To state the ease arithme
tically, as 3| years are to fourteen
years, so are Mr. Norwood’s state
ments to the facts of the official re
cords.
But his misrepresentations in ref
erence to the S2OO penalty are still
more glaring and gross. The law
imposing S2OO fine for every convict
that escapes, went into effect by its
provisions on the first of April, 1879.
Prior to April of last year no such
penalty was imposed by the law.
Since the law was of force, only (19)
nineteen have escaped. The penalty
due has been paid by one company
without suit, and in every case is un
der investigation. The discrepancy,
therefore, between Mr. Norwood’s
statement and the truth of the case
is the difference between 523 and 19.
It will not do for Mr. Norwood to
now say that he was reading from
the Alston report, for he distinctly
asserted that tho facts narrated in
t’ at report referred to my adminis
tration, whereas four-fifths of these
escapes occurred in former adminis
trations, and only 19 out of the 523
were liable to the penalty of S2OO.
The only comment I make upon
such wholesale misrepresentations is
that they place his entire speech un
der the ban of a fair, popular judg
ment, as having been made under
the impulse of unjustifiable prejudice,
and not with the view of bringing the
facts before the country.
But Mr. «Norwood seems to con
sider it oonsistent with his candida
cy for the high office of governor, to
assume the utterly indefensible posi ■
that I am responsible for all the evils
of the convict system, with the in
auguration of which I had no agency
whatever. He seems to have entirely
forgotten the important fact that an
other executive and a former legisla
ture are wholly responsible for the
lease act.
When I came into office the lease
law had already been passed by the
legislature, and approved by Gover
nor Smith. The contracts under it
were made by Governor Smith. The ;
system I found loosely managed, be
cause of the character of the system
itself, and the deficiencies of the law.
The convicts had been farmed out in
small squads over the State, and the
statutes were sadly imperfect. I
gave the matter close attention, and
entered zealously upon the work of
correcting abuses. Every step in
the direction of reform met my hearty
approval and encouragement. There
has been a most gratifying and mark
ed 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
remarks upon myself and my admin
istration was never agreed to by the
committee of the legislature and my
self. The statements it contained
are denied by sub-committees who
examined the camps. The report
itself was recommited to the commit
tee and was never again reported.
In answer, however, to Mr. Nor
wood’s unsuppoited charge that dur
ing my administration an unusual
death rate occurred in the camps, I
am content to produce the official re
ports and their undisputed and indis
putable records* I take Gov. Smith’s
and my administration.
The official iecords show the death
rate from 1874 to 1879, inclusive, to
be as follows:
smith’s administration.
i No. of No. of
Year, (convicts, deaths. Death rate.
1874 i 899 40 |4| per cent*
1875 926 49 |s| per cent-
1876 . 1316 58 j4| per cent-
cclquitt’s administrarion.
I No. of | No. of I
Year. jconvicts.|deathe.| Death rate.
1877 j 1448 55 i3| per cent.
1878 : 1417 27 .1? per cent.
1879 : 1400 32 j2| per cent.
These tables include the whole
number whose names were on the
books during the year, and not the
number on hand at any one time.
I have taken the last three years of
Governor Smith’s administration and
the three completed years of mine,
in the above statement.
These official reports show that
the highest death rate was about 5|
per cent., and this occurred in 1875
during Governor Smith’s administra
tion. The lowest death rate was
about 1| per cent,, and this occurred
in 1878, during my administration.
These records show that the highest
death rate daring my administration
was in the year 1879, immediately
after I came into office, and before
any great reforms could be carried
into operation; but they also show
the fact most damaging to Mr. Nor
wood’s reputation for fair dealing
that the highest death rate during
my administration is lower than the
lowest death rate of the former ad
ministration* They further show
that the death rate has decreased
almost one-half during my adminis
tration as compared with that of the
administration which preceded it. A
like investigation will show that the
escapes have decaeased in almost the
same ratio.
I make public these facts from the
official records not for the purpose
of criticising any former administra
tion, but in order to show to every
man in Georgia the gross injustice
which my opponent seeks to do mine
I had no power to annul the lease
law, nor to break the contracts
which my predecessor had made and
which are binding for twenty years.
The people, however, will judge from
the above official facts where respon
sibility lies and whether Mr. Nor
wood’s assault upon my character
and administration is righteous or
ruthless. Where errors so astound
ing and misrepresentations so fla
grant are made by one who could
have examined the records, and
whose character and the office he
seeks ought to forbid the idea of
malice, it is easy to imagine the
reckless and audacious manner in
which irresponsible persons have
caluminated both my administration
and myself before the people of Geor
gia. And Mr. Norwood need not be
surprised if a just-minded public re
coil from such methods to injure an
opponent.
SENATOR BROWN AND GOVERNOR SMITH.
Mr. Norwood descends to make an
unworthy attack upon the motive
which actuated me in the appoint
ment of Governor Brown as Senator,*
and Governor Smith as railroad com
missioner. He does not question
the propriety of either appointment.
He considers both gentlemen able
and proper representatives of the
people in the positions to which they
are appointed ; but the motive which
actuated me he professes to read and
proceeds to condemn. He can see
in my appointment of the fittest men
to office nothing higher, nor more
commendable than self-seeking. He
charges directly that my motive was
to perpetuate myself in office. A
friend or a fair-minded foe might
have been able to find in the selec
tion for office of the ablest men, who
were not special, personal or politi
cal friends, something of a disregard
I of selfish considerations for the pub-
i lie good. Mr. Norwood, however,
arrogating to himself a power to
search hearts and read motives,
which hitherto has been supposed to
belong to Deity alone, does not hesi
tate to declare that my actions were
prompted by the most selfish consid
erations. He then proceeds to lec
ture me before the country for my
lack of patriotism and official integ
rity. If I were permitted to judge
of my own motives, I might flat)}
deny the truth of Mr. Norwoods
statement. I might, with some pro
priety, ask with Randolph, “who
made you a judge of motives and a
searcher of hearts.” I might ask in
what way he has acquired the right
to become the censor over my actions
and the power to judge over my mo
tives when he cannot condemn my
acts. Has he this right and power
because of anything remarkable in
his past career ? What is there in
his record that so exal‘s and dignifies?
Is it his unparalleled patriotism ex
hibited in the past *? Did be demon
strate his self-sacrificing devotion to
his country in battle from 1861 to
1865 ? Did he refuse to yote himself
$5,000 of back salary after ho had
given his receipt to the government
for piymont in full, and did he U’-
selfishly refuse to accept that $5,000
of back pay ? Did he unselfishly give
his time and talents to save the peo
pie of Georgia from the payment of
the fraudulent bonds, or did Le-take
a :ee to induce the legislature to im
pose 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?
I leave it to the voters of Georgia to
judge between us.
THE JONES SETTLEMENT.
Mr. Norwood thinks that in allow
ing one of the securities of ex-Treas
urer John Jones, Mr. John T. Grant,
to compromise his liability by a cash
payment of $35,000 into the State
treasury, 1 committed a grave viola
tion of official duty. These suits
were instituted m Gov. Smith’s
time by Hod. N. J. Hammond, then
attorney general of the State, and
Governor Smith employed to assist
him General R. Toombs, Messrs.
McCay & Trippe, Colonel Willis A.
Hawkins and Mr. Wm. T. Newman,
All of these distinguished aud experi
enced lawyers representing the State,
joined in advising me to accept the
$35,000. They constituted an unus
ually strong array of counsel for the
State, and gentlemen whose high
character gave absolute guarantee
that they would only advise for the
be-t interest of the State, I unhesita
tingly acted upon their unanimous
recommendation to release Mr.
Grant upon his payment of $35,000.
I may state that the fact that Mr.
Grant was able to prove that the
bond he signed was intended to be
only temporary, but under the tech
nical rules of the law was not allow
ed to make the proof, constitutes
this h case of such doubtful equit}
that this compromise has been deem
ed a fair one by ail right-minded
men acquainted with the facts.
I append the letter of Mr, Grant
and the indorsement of the attorneys
for the information of the people, as
to the basis of my action.
THE STATE FINANCES AND TAXATION.
Mr. Norwood makes the point that
I have violated the law by levying
excessive taxes. He says, “there
was an act passed in 1873, which
required the raising of SIOO,OOO per
annum to pay the interest upon cer
tain bonds called the Nutting bonds,”
and that I levied one-tenth of one
per cent, for that purpose. Mr. Nor
wood, either ignorantly or wilfully,
misstates the law. There is no such
statute. There is a statute of 1873
which required the raising of SIOO,
000 in excess of the amount other
wise authorized to be collected, fcr
the payment, not of the interest on
the Nutting bonds, but for the pay
ment annually of the sum of SIOO,OOO
of the principal of said bonds. The
interest on these bonds is part of the
interest of the public debt, and is em
braced in the general provision made
for the payment of interest on the
public debt.
Under this statute my predecessor
for the three years prior to the com
mencement of my administration,
embracing every year since the bonds
were issued, raised one-tenth of one
per cent, in addition to the general
1 evy to meet the annual payment of
the principal of the Nutting bonds
required by the statute. I continued
this same assessment during tho
years 1877 and 1878, but finding
that it raised more money than was
necessary for the purpose above men
tioned, I reduced it and ordered an
assessment of ofle-haif of one-tenth
of one per cent, for the years 1879
and 1880. No poition of the money
collected as aforesaid was misapplied
but it went to the payment of the
public expenses and the redaction
of the public debt.
And in this connection Mr. Nor
wood makes another statement which
shows his reckless disregard of facts,
or his reluctance to conduct such
investigations as are necessary to
Arlv ertl«<n.B Rato«
Legal advertisement* charged seventy-five cents
per hundred words or fraction thereof each inser
tion for the first four insertions, and thirty-five
cents for each subsequent insertion.
Transient advertising will be charged fil per inch
for the first, and fifty cents for each subsequent
insertion. Advertisers desiring larger space for a
longer time than one month will receive a liberal
deduction from regular rates.
All bills due upon the first appearance of the ad -
yertisement, and win be presented at the pleasure
of the proprietor. Transient advertisements from
unknown parties mutt be paid for in advance.
arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
He says: “But for the Nutting bonds,
four-tenths would have been ample
to have raised all the money needed
by the State, and in fixing this rate
one-half of one mill would have been
ample to have raised the money to
pay the interest on those bonds.
Therefore, instead of fixing the rate
at one-half of one percent., he should
have fixed it at four and one-half
tenths per cent.”
Here again Mr. Norwood falls into
the error of confounding the princi
pal with the interest, when he speaks
of the amount tn be raised on the
Nutting bonds. Now, ii Mr. Norwood
had given himself the trouble to have
ascertained the facts, and had been
willing to do me and my administra
tion justice, he would have informed
his audience that instead of collect
ing four and one-half tenths of one
per cent., I am only collecting three
and one-half tenths of one per cent,
io meet all the current expenses of
the government, pay the interest on
the whole public debt aud to pay
5100,000 annually of the principal of
the Nutting bonds. But it seems
this was a fact that did not suit his
purpose, and he was careful to with
hold it from the public.
Mr. Norwood’s purpose seems to
have been to create the impression
upon the public mind that my admin
istration has been an oppressive one,
and that I have collected from tho
people unnecessary taxes. What aro
the facts? I compare the year 1876,
the last year of my predecessor's ad
ministration, and 1879, the last com
pleted year of my own. In 1876, as
shown by the comptroller’s report of
that year, the value of the taxable
property of the State vas $245,853,-
750, On this a tax of 5-10 of 1 per
cent, was levied, which raised $1,229,-
268. In 1879, under my administra
tion, the whole value of the taxable
property was $225,093,419. On this
4 tax of 35-100 of 1 per cent, was
levied, which raised $783,826, mak
ing $440,442 less raised in 1879 by
general taxation, by my administra
tion, than in 1876, under my prede
cessor's administration. The public
debt in 187 6 was $11,095,888. In 1880
it has been reduced to $9,871,500, the
reduction being the large sum of sl,-
224,497.
Tuere has been paid into the State
treasury money from outside sources
to the amount of nearly half a million
of dollars, thus relieving the burdens
of taxation. Os this amount a large
sum was collected from the United
States government. There has been
very much said about the fees paid,
but very little about the public bene
fit in securing such large and unex
pected sums for the State, easing the
financial burdens of the people.
In conclusion, fellow-citizens, I call
your attention to the facts sustained
by the public records, and other un
doubted evidences, that during my
administration the taxes have been
lessened, the public debt has been
reduced, the evils of the convict sys
tem have been ameliorated, the moral
condition of uur people has improved,
and crime has diminished, the credit
and standing of the State abroad
has Lean elevated, and in every de
partment of the State government
over which the executive has any con
trol there has been a marked im
provement. I am, very respectfully,
your fellow citizen,
Alfred H Colquitt.
[Following this are copies of letters
from Gen. Toombs, H. K McCay, for
McCay & Trippe, Willis A. Hawkins,
N. J. Hammond and W. T, Newman,
the attorneys for the State, recom
mending Gov. Colquitt to accept the
proprosed compromise on account of
the uncertainly as to what would be
the final decission of the courts.]
News comes from India that the
famous car of Juggernaut was not as
usual dragged through the streets of
Puri on the 9th of July; and it seems
that by religious custom or law, if it
be not drawn on the ninth day of the
car festival twelve years must elapse
before it is again used. The fact of
the car not being brought out this
time is attributed by a correspond
ent to what he calls “an act of un
pardonable negligence on the part
of meddling Government officials,’’
and that is all he has to say about
it.
A Kansas City reporter records
the fact that the defeated candidate
“took his way to the train, wrapped
in gloom and new store clothes. The
gloom was an elegant fit, but the
store clothes were too short in the
legs and very baggy about the
shoulders.”
Two thousand one hundred super
ficial feet, belonging to the Ecclesi
astical Commission, in Park Lane, a
fashionable district of London, sold
lately at the rate of $1,250,000 an
acre.
Two men rode up on harnessed
aorses to a circus ticket wagon in
Leadville, hitched the beasts to it aud
dashed off with the vehicle in which
were the treasurer and $1,500. The
showmen g”.ve quick chase and re
gained their treasure, but the robbers
escaped.
NO. 39