Newspaper Page Text
The Greorgia, Weekly Telegraph and Jcmrnal &p Messenger.
Telegraph and Messenger.
MACON, FEBRUARY 3, 1871.
A New Use foe Old Field Pine.—The short
leaf old field pine is apparently as useless a
tree as exists. For fuel it is of little value—of
none at all as timber, and it adds no fertility to
tho earth in its annnal droppings. But Mr. F.
S. Johnson, of the firm of Dunlap & Johnson,
in Macon, showed ns yesterday a splendid bas
ket, made of old field pine splits, three inches
wide, by ono of the Jones county Swedes. The
basket is at the store, (72 Third street), and
the reader will be surprised to see what a strong
and handsome basket it is, and how admirably
adapted the wood is to this use. Mr. Johnson
has a great many orders for these baskets, (Acl
tho Swedo will make a good thing ont of tho
manufacture.
Gbant as a Milkman.—Grant is the boy with
a sharp eye for tho main chance. His last
“speo” is selling milk to the people of St.
Louis from hi3 farm near that city. And we
feel sure, from his well known tastes and hab
its, that he don’t water it. As it would be un
reasonable to expect him to give tho American
people all the energies of his great intellect for
tho pitiful sum of ©25,000 a year, we see noth
ing in this matter that they can object to. The
profits of this new business may be very accept
able after March 4, 1873, when presents may
may not be so plentiful as now. There’s noth
ing like having as many strings as possible to
one’s bow.
The Southebn Magazine, for February, pre
sents a very attractive table of contents. Among
the original papers are—Petrie Roy, a Legend
of Strathspey; Goldsmith on Boswells’ John-
son; A Family Picture, by the late Judge
Longstreet; Froderich Gerstcecker’s Autobio
graphy; A Day in Quebec; Histry ov the Waw,
by Dr. Bagby, of Richmond; Woman—her
Mission and Influence; Tho Characteristic Dif
ference between Ancient and Modern Civiliza
tion, by Prof. Blau:. This Magazine is pub
lished by Murdoch, Browne & Hill, ICG Balti
more Btreet, Baltimore, at ©4 00.
Losing People.—The New York Commercial
Advertiser says Col. Kerrigan credits Govern
or Scott, of South Carolina, with a new device
for disposing of obnoxious individuals in a
community. His Excellency said that there
were four or five men in tho State who controll
ed the opinions of the people, and that it would
be of infinite service to the country if they were
forced to emigrate without making their wills;
or in other words, if they were taken out and
lost. . | [
Jebsexmen in Nobth Carolina.—A colony
numbering about three thousand persons, many
of whom are Jerseymen, has been recently
formed in the western part of North Carolina
on the same principle as that of Greeley, in
Colorado. It was through the instrumentality
of Mr. Greeley that the above colony has like
wise been created. The tract of land purchased
is valued at ©500,000, and Mr. Davidson, a law
yer of Elizabeth, is on his way to North Caroli
na to investigate the title to the purchase in
behalf of the colonists.
We are glad to hear that the people of Put
nam, Baldwin and Jasper, along the line of the
Milledgeville and Eatonton Railroad, are so
pleased with tho recent schedule on the Central
Railroad. Parties in Eatonton and Monticello
are enabled to receive their newspaper and oth
er mail from Macon on the day of publication
which they never did before, and to make pleas
ant trips back and forth in daylight. In behalf
of them, wo thank Mr. Rogers, and hope they
may continue in the same schedule in the future.
Think of Senator Wade, sturdy old Ben,
seated on the back of one of those useful animals,
the jackass, and travelling wearily under the
hot tropical sun. Won’t Ben belabor the sides
of his ass and fill the air with imprecations ?
This is'sweet employment for an ex-Senator of
the United States. He is to be inspector of
barbarous niggers in the wilds of San Domingo,
and this will be the last of Benjamin,! Exit
Wade.—Bonn Piatt.
King William is spoken of as a pious man
whose mind has been “liberalized by the gentle
influence of the amiable Queen Augusta in mat
ters of religion.” Amen! say we, but three
years ago last summer, when this “pious man”
was practicing “liberal” morality with his mis
tress at Ems, the “amiable Augusta’s gentle in
fluence” evidently hadn't begun to be very ef
fective.—N. T. Commercial Advertiser.
The Czntbal City Raileoad.—Under this
name, Mr. Genet in the New York Legislature
has a bill which plans a street railway avenue
100 feet wide along the backbone of Manhattan
Island into Westchester county, with six surface
tracks for horse-cars, and a number of elevated
steam roads, and for raising the money—©100,-
000,000—to make it with, by taxing New York
and Westchester counties.
A prominent dealer in Kentucky whisky writes
to the Louisville Commercial that from hi3
knowledge of the stocks of Bourbon whisky
now being carried by Kentucky distillers for
which there is not only no remnnoxative mar
ket, but literally none whatever, he is prepaid
to assert that there is now on hand full two and
a half years’ supply of such liquor.
Albebt Woohanse is a Block Island product.
He was in town yesterday drunk to a melan-
cholly degree. While thus afflicted he evinced
so general a tendency to claw things that one
was forced to admire the truthfulness of the
poet’s words, “Hell hath no fury like A Woo-
manso corned.”—Norwich Bulletin.
Thebe has been so much said about General
Schenck’s disabled hand, it seems no more than
justice that we make a public explanation of
what’s tho matter with it. He had a bob-tail
flush in his hand, and ran it violently against
another man’s ace fulh It disabled Mm over
$700.—New York Democrat.
It tarns out that ex-Senator Warner, of Ala
bama, is not to be made Commissioner of the
General Land Office after alL Wo were a little
afraid, from the start, that the President would
require a heavier cash payment than Warner'
could conveniently meet.—Courier-Journal.
The Bub-Reconstruction Committee of the
House have agreed to recommend the passage
of the Senate bill abolishing the iron clad oath.
This, if done, will remove all disabilities except
those imposed by the 14th amendment.
A toukg man in Portland, Me., seoing a lady
shaking a napkin at a window, thought she
meant a handkerchief signal, and called. They
picked him up on the sidewalk, with a Frenoh
roof over Ms eye. ,
The Geobgia Benatobs.—Unexpectedly the
Senate minority report seating Farrow and
WMteley was voted down on Monday—19 to 30.
Probably this edition will announce the seating
of Hill. 6
C. O. Bowen, tho carpet-bag Congressman
from Charleston, B. O., has three wives now liv
ing, and there are thirty-five States yet to hear
from.
The World has a column or two about tho
terrible snow storm last week under the head of
“Whoa, January!”
Snubbing air. Ball.
Butler, on Monday, sprung a joint resolution
of sympathy and welcome to the Fenians par
doned by the British government, and who have
just arrivedon the American shore, wMch passed
the House by 172 to 21—all the nays being Re
publicans. Butler sprung this resolution pri
marily to snub John Bull, and, secondarily, as a
sop to tho Irish and Fenian voters, and subsid
iary to the great Canada annexation movement,
wMch is designed as a sort of radical drag net
to catch the support of the whole body of Irish
malcontents. The Democrats voted for the res
olution to checkmate this scheme to carry off
the same votes from the Democratic party. The
whole transaction illustrates how easily anytiiing
regarded as an affront to Great Britain may be
pushed through the House of Representatives;
and is a warning to prudent men to stand from
under.
The resolution was excused on the ground
that a similar resolution had been passed for
Kossuth, and this plea of justification was per
haps a worse insult than the resolution itself.
It was comparing the Irish Union with England
to the atrocious domination of Austria over
conquered Hungary, and the series of futile in
surrections which had not a single condition of
success in them—wMch could promise nothing
but defeat and disaster to everybody concerned—
to a well organized, deliberate, gallant, and pro
tracted struggle for deliverance from a foreign
yoke.
Without a rational hope Of success the peace
of the United Kingdom has been victimised for
years, at homo and abroad by the Fenians. If
wo admit their cause to bo just in the abstract,
the Fenian efforts to advance it under the cir
cumstances are none the less a crime. There
must be some reasonable conditions of success
about any plan of insurrection or rebellion to
justify men in subverting civil order andexpos-
inga people to the horrors of war and the penal
ties of treason. The Fenians had none on eith
er continent and their insurrections were, there
fore, crimes—wanton trifling with human life
and the peace of society. And the English press
charge that they were also attended and supple
mented with atrocious attempts at arson and
explosion on British soil, wMch have given the
Fenians a very infamous name and reputation
in that country.
Nevertheless, the English Government par
doned these men and set them at liberty, and
their arrival in the United States is made the
occasion of a joint resolution of honor and fe
licitation by Congress. We may well imagine
how Mr. John Bull will feel about that. The
North never will forgive the English people for
a divided opinion on the merits of the American
civil war. A large majority of the English sym-
patMzed with the North, but they did not all do
so.' Some prominent men were there who hoped
the South would win her independence; and
this fact rankles in the Northern heart to tins
day. The North will never forget or forgive it.
But what would she have done or thought if the
British Parliament had passed a joint resolution
of sympathy for the South on the occasion of
Jefferson Davis’ arrival in London, after Ms
release on bail from imprisonment for treason?
Probably it would have been accepted as nearly
tantamount to a declaration of war. It would
at least have been claimed as tho exMbition of an
animus which must sooner or later culminate
in war, and It would have tempered all subse
quent negotiations of unsettled questions be
tween the two countries with the leaven of a
deadly malice—an unatoned insult.
Just so this resolution in respect to the pend
ing questions and projects of indemnity and
annexation. Butlen’s resolution will poison the
negotiations with affront, and doubtless were
intended to do so. We believe that man in
tends to provoke a war in order to save Radi
calism. American history shows that no mat
ter-how a war may come, no party can safely
oppose it, and the war party leads the ring.
Butler wants a war with England so that the
Radicals can lead the ring, and fire the popular
heart to new deeds of blood and carnage. Wo
are sorry that the Democrats in Congress stoop
ed to play bob to Butler’s war kite.
Morals of Shaving and Pruning.
The Journal of Commerce has an article in
response to a “conscientious reader,” who ob
jects to the practice of shearing horses—a thing
wMch is done to fancy stock in that city to
lighten the heavy winter coat and improve health
and appearance. Upon this point the Journal
dips slightly into the moral question involved
in pruning trees, shearing sheep, docking
horses’ tails, plucking geese, and shaving and
trimming beards, as well as shortening one’s
hair.
A few years ago it was a clencher in favor of
going unshorn, as to hair and beard, that God
evidently intended the hair and beard to grow,
and he who cut them flouted Providence in the
face. The consequence either of this hirsute
morality or a vitiated taste, was that mankind
seemed to borrow their ideas of style from a
Norwegian bear. Little men with spindle
shanks grew so top-heavy with the weight of
hair upon their faces, that it would seem if they
toppled over they would be as helpless as a
green turtle on his back, and anything beyond
a smart breeze was liable to upset their centre
of gravity. We once heard a colloquy between
one of these hairy apostles and a neighbor who
went clean shaved. Says Hairy, “I don’t know
where I am going to get my fertilizers this
year.” “Shave/” growled Smoothfac?, “and
yon will find them just between the skin and
hair.” 9
All the high moralists went it strong on hair.
It was part of their creed—a practical illustra
tion of an anti-combative and anti-destructive
philosophy. The vegetarian carried his sworn
hostility to taking life outside, as well as inside
of his head. A woman’s rights advocate rival
ed the subject of Ms benevolence in the length
of his tresses, and carried a beard wMch would
shame the oldest billy-goat. The man who
swore the deepest pity, love and veneration for
the African “man and brother,” lost all sight of
Ms model in strutting about with locks hanging
down beMnd and swinging after Mm at every
stride, like an old-fashioned clock pendulum;
and a goatee in front wMch shaded his waist
band. In short, hair, dirt, vermin, philosophy
and philanthropy were inseparable as boon com
panions.
We once set an ancient son of Ham to grub
bing up a forest of suckers wMch had sprung up
in an old apple-orchard. The old man struck
a feeble lick or two with his hoe and then, look
ing up with a puzzled and reproachful air, said
“Massa, don’t you ’bleeve God Almighty know
how a tree ought to grow better than yon do?”
That question put the whole philosophy in a
nutshell, and was more easily asked than an
swered. However, we tried to calm the old
man’s scruples by some observations upon the
economy of Divine and human co-operation,
wMch was established at the creation and has
been necessary to the production of crops ever
since “tho Lord God took the man, and put him
into tho garden of Eden, to dress and to keep
it,” as set forth in the 2d chapter of Genesis.
But tho disposition of the human race to set up
a false conscience about trifles, and at the same
time to neglect the teachings of a sound one
upon vital matters, we have no doubt is very
nearly as old as the creation, and it is about as
miacMevoas in some cases and ludicrous in
others.
Once in our observation, a venerable Deacon,
who had subscribed liberally for building a
church, was appealed to, to subscribe a little
more in order to attach a lightning-rod to the
tower thereof. On that proposition there was
an outpouring of most as much bogus theology
as there is between tho lids of a Mormon Bible.
It was in vain to represent that the church was
in an exposed position—the tower Mgh—strokes
of lightning vory common—the day of miracles
past, and the Almighty could not be reverently
invited to suspend the laws of Nature in order
to save that church! Two points were settled
in the old man’s mind, to-wit: That the church
had been built to the honor of God, and if He
chose to knock it down or burn it up with a
stroke of lightning, that fact made it clear that
He did not accept the tender, and the people
ought to let it go. In vain it was shown that
the same argument would rest, with equal force,
against the slow process of decay. The old Dea
con could not “see it in that light.”
^?he fact that the Journal of Commerce has,
in these days, to plead at length in favor of a
man’s moral right to shear or dock his horse,
crop Ms own beard or prune his trees, speaks
strongly to the amount of this false conscience
abroad in the land. And a false -popular or
religious conscience is no light matter. False
conscience, worked in the interests of human
rascality, has covered the earth with blood and
slaughter from the times of early history, and
who shall say it is not primarily responsible for
all the numberless woes of the Amsrican Civil
War. _
Negro Government in South Caro*
Una.
A Columbia correspondent of the New York
World begins a picture of negro rule in South
Carolina with tho following statement:
The Auditor’s exMbit shows that only 41,000
persons paid the poll-tax last year. These, of
course, were the wMte property-owners, (Dem
ocrats,) who had real estate to return, and from
whom this tax, in addition to the other taxes,
was easily collected. But the last election shows,
by official return, 130,000 votes polled—an ex
cess of some ninety thousand over the number
paying the poll-tax. Here, then, wo have tho
evidence of an official report that' tho 00,000
Radical voters in this State who fill this Legis
lature with tho piebald company now sitting
here, and send men to WasMngton as represent
atives of South Carolina, pay no taxes whatever.
A state of affairs in harmony with such a
basis as this is easily anticipated. The Legis
lature is simply a band of tMeves sitting for
their per diem, and whatever they can make
over and above it by selling -their votes to the
Mghest bidder. All the State appointees are
the worthy offspring of such a legislative parent,
and the law and its administration are of a
piece.
TMs condition of things has been inaugurated
under the idea that the blacks, owning no prop
erty and paying no taxes, cannot feel the mis-
cMefs of public waste and bad government, and
will escape all the penalties of tMs wretched
misrule. But tMs ridiculous mistake is exposed
by the correspondent. He says the public bur
dens and disorders are daily driving away capi
talists from the State, and discouraging all in
vestment. The lands being, for the most part,
naturally poor, are valueless except under the
hand of careful and systematic culture. In the
hands of the negroes they cannot support life.
Business is prostrate. Real property, in many
instances, affords no income above tho taxes as
sessed upon it. Every year the wMtes are be
coming fewer and poorer, and, of course, every
year the subsistence of the negroes is more and
more meagre and hazardous. The result must
ultimately be, unless a material change takes
place in the condition, that the negroo3 must
immigrate or lapse into a condition of barbar
ism and draw their subsistence from the woods
and the waters.
The Census-Cities with over 20,000
Population.
The FhiladelpMa Press publishes a list of
cities in the United States with more than 20,-
000 inhabitants, in wMoh, strange to say, At
lanta is not found. There are only fourteen
cities with populations of 100,000 and upwards,
and they stand in the following order:
Population Population Inc,
in 1870.
New York 926,341
Philadelphia G74,022
Brooklyn
St. Louis
OMoago
...399,600
...310,864
....298,983
Baltimore.'
Boston
...267,354
....250,526
Cincinnati
New Orleans
San Francisco...
■RnflPalo
....216,239
....191,322
....149,482
....117,715
Washington
Newark
....109",204
...105,078
Louisville
...'.1001744
inl8G0. perct.
805,658
565,629
266,661
160,773
109,260
212,418
177,840’
161,044
168,675
50,802
81,129
61,122
71,941
68,233
15
20
50
94
175
26
41
34
13
165
45
80
46
48
The greatest per centage of gain since 1860,
is seen in the cities of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
and Kansas Gity, Missouri—the former running
up from 9,228 in 1860 to 35,093 in 1870, an in
crease of 280 per cent., and the latter from
4,418 in 1860 to 32,260 in 1870, an increase of
633 peroent. According to the table in the
Press, only two cities in the Union show an
actual decrease since 1860, viz: New Bedford,
Massachusetts, and Savannah—the first being
credited with a decrease of four, and the latter
of ten per cent.
In all there are sixty-seven cities in the Uni
ted States with over 20,000 population. Wash
ington, wMch in 1860 stood number fourteen on
the list, now stands number twelve—Louisville,
Albany and Newark having been outstripped,
wMle San Francisco has outstripped the four,
and taken its position tenth on the list. St.
Louis and OMoago have passed Baltimore, Bos
ton, New Orleans and Cincinnati, and stand
fourth and fifth on the list; while Baltimore,
wMch stood fourth on the list in 1860, now
stands sixth. In 1860 the aggregate population
of the ten leading cities was 2,708,987. In 1870
the same cities show a population of 3,649,676,
a gain of 940,679, or an average of 34.7 per
cent; and a corresponding increase, wMch
seems more than probable, for the next decade,
would give in those cities a population of nearly
five millions.
Who are the Kn-Klnx ?
The Atlanta Era of last Saturday, has an
article on this subject wMoh, from the stand
point of a Bullock organ, states the case very
fairly. Now let the Era's friends in Congress
accept its testimony and stop their deviltry.
We quote the following paragraph:
“We regret the disposition to saddle the
crimes of the Kn-Klnx organizations upon whole
communities ie the South. The imputation is
most unfounded and unjust. So far from be
ing the work of whole communities, these Ku-
Klcx outrages are traceable to comparatively
few persons. They are those who have nothing
to lose, but everything to gain, by disorder and
lawlessness. Such men are found everywhere.
They represent no particular sect or party.
They are the offal of society—men who would
oppose any party or any government that sought
to preserve law and restrain violence. In the
South they are only formidable because their
organization is secbet. No one can sufficiently
identify them to bring them to justice: and
yet most persons of observation and intelli
gence have little doubts as to who are
privy to these lawless operations. No good cit
izen of the South, be Ms political opinions
whatever they may, can or will endorse such
outrages. Not one Democrat in twenty, proba
bly, knows anything personally of the internal
structure and material of these “Klans;” not
one in twenty but who unqualifiedly condemns^
the existence of such banditi. Intelligent Dem-~
ocrats who represent interests in oommon with
the substantial people of the State, would, we
doubt not, unite in any well digested scheme to
disperse these dens of infamy and bring the
criminals to justice. We make these remarks
in justice to all parties, and only because we
see a disposition in Congress to fasten upon the
people of the State the sins of a class who have
a complement in all communities.”
SPEECH
OF
HON. LINTON STEPHENS,
DELIVERED IN TTTfl OWN DEFENCE BEFOBE UNITED
STATES COMMISSIONED SWAYZE,
At Macon, Georgia, January 23, 1871.
May it please the Court: I know full well that
if your Honor is not superior to the average of
poor human nature, you will find it difficult, if
not impossible, to give my defense in this case
an impartial consideration, and an honest de
cision. The prosecution against me is founded
on the course which I took in the recent politi
cal election, which resulted in a victory for my
party, and a defeat for yours. It is also directly
in the line of an assault, wMch was lately made
against me in the newspapers, by the official
head of your party in the State. I therefore
recognize in this case a political prosecution,
just as distinctly as I recognize in my Judge a
most zealous and determined political opponent.
Yet, sir, there are other considerations which
encourage me to hope that I may obtain, even
from you, that decision which is demanded by
justice and by the laws. From the personal knowl
edge of you, wMch I have acquired since the
beginning of this trial, I have discovered that
you are a man of decidedintelligence; and I am
told that you are a man of courage. I am also
told that yon, yourself, have been in some in
stances, a victim to political persecution, and
an object of unjust obloquy. Surely, such a
man, with snch an experience, ought to give a
fair hearing to one whose only fault is not any
wrong which he has committed against the laws,
bnt tno damage which he has inflicted upon a
political party. My greatest encouragement,
however, is derived from my confidence in the
lawfulness of my conduct, and the power of
truth. To truth, bravely upheld, belongs a
triumph which cannot be defeated, nor long
delayed, not even liy the intensest prejudices of
partisan strife. I am strengthened, too, in the
advocacy of truth on this occasion, by the con
sciousness that, in defending myself, I shall but
be defending principles wMoh are dear to every
American, because they lie at the foundation of
the whole fabric of American constitutional
liberty. Nor, sir, unless I am much mistaken
in the estimate whioh I have formed of your
character, will you listeh to my defense any the
less favorably, because of the frankness and
boldness with wMch I shall present it.
I am acoosed under the Enforcement Act of
Congress.
My first position is, that this whole act is not
a law, but a mere legal nullity.
It was passed with the professed object of
carrying into effect what are called the 14ih and
15th Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and depends on their validity for
its own.
These so-called Amendments are, as I shall
now proceed to show, not true Amendments of
the Constitution, and do not form any part of
that sacred instrument. They are nothing but
usurpations and anilities, having no validity
themselves, and therefore incapable of impart
ing any to the Enforcement Act or to any other
act whatsoever.
I take occasion to say, that I regard the 13th
Amendment, abolisMng slavery, as clearly dis
tinguishable from the 14th and 15th so-called
Amendments, in the manner both of its propo
sal and of its ratification. The contrast be
tween it and them will contribnte to make their
invalidity all the more apparent. It is true,
that when the 13th Amendment was proposed,
ten States of tho Union were absent from Con
gress; bnt their absence was voluntary, and
therefore did not affect the validity of tho pro
posal. It is trne, also, that the Legislatures
wMch ratified it for these ten States had their
initiation in a palpable usurpation of power on
the part of the President of the United States;
yet it is also unquestionably true, that they
were elected and sustained by overwhelming
majorities of the trno constitutional constitu
encies of the States for which they acted; they
rested on the consent of the people, or consti
tutional constituencies of the States, and were
therefore truly “Legislatures of the States.”
TMs Amendment was ratified by theso Legisla
tures of the States in good faith, and in con
formity with the almost unanimous wish of the
constitutional “ peoples.”
How different is the case of the 14th and 15th
so-oalled Amendments! If these are parts of the
Constitution, I ask, how did they become so ?
Were they proposed by Congress in a constitu
tional manner?
In framing and proposing them every State
of the Union was entitled, by the express terms
of the Constitution, to be represented in speech
and vote by “two Senators” and “at least one
Representative.” Bat ten States of the Union
were absent. This time their absence was not
volantary bnt compelled. When they were
claiming a hearing through their constitutional
representatives they were driven away, and de
nied all participation in framing and proposing
these so-called Amendments! Was this a con
stitutional mode of proposal ? I say, that it was
an unconstitutional mode, and that the proposal
was, ab initio, null and void.
But how stands the ratification of these so-
called amendments ? To say nothing about the
dnress of bayonets and congressional dictation,
nnder which the ratification was fdreed through
the ratifying bodies in the ten Southern States,
the great question is, who were these ratifying
bodies ? ‘Were they Legislatures of tho States ?
They were not. They were the creatures of
notorious and avowed congressional nsurpation.
They were elected not by the constitutional
constituencies of the States, bnt by constitu
encies created by Congress, not only “outside”
of the Constitution, but in palpable violation of
one of its express provisions. The suffrage or
political power of the States is not delegated
to the General Government by the Constitution;
bnt on the contrary, its reservation to the States
is rendered exceedingly emphatic by that pro
vision of the Constitution which, instead of
croating a constituency to elect its own officers—
President, Vice President and members of Con
gress—adopts the constituencies of the States,
as regulated by the States themselves, for the
election of the most numerous branch of their
own Legislatures.
Ten of the ratifications, which were falsely
oonntedin favor of these miscalled Amendments
as ratifications by Legislatures of States, were
only ratifications by bodies wMch had their ori
gin in Congressional usurpation, were elected
by illegal constituencies unknown to the Con
stitntion of the United States or the Constitu
tions of the States, and were organized and man
ipulated nnder the control of military command
ers who claimed and exercised the jurisdiction
of passing npon the eleotion and qualification
of their members. Can these joint prodnots of
usurpation, fraud and force be palmed off as
Legislatures of States? Can ratifications by
them be accepted as ratifications by Legisla
tures of States? Can falsehood thus be con
verted into truth by the thimble-rigging of
Presidential proclamations? These bodies were,
indeed, set up by their nsnrping creators as
Legislatures and over States; bnt, until the
known trnth of recent history can he blotted
ont by the mere power of shameless assertion,
they cannot be recognized as Legislatures of
States. The Parliament of Great Britain is a
Legislature for and over poor, down-trodden
Ireland; bnt what Irishman will ever recognize
it as the Legislature of Ireland! .
The false, spnrions, and revolutionary charac
ter of these ratifying bodies is rendered still
more glaring by the fact that, snpported by the
bayonet, they subverted or rather repressed the
true, legitimate Legislatures of all the States
where reconstruction was applied. That snch
Legislatures existed in these States, and are in
deed still existing, is demonstrable from the
facts viewed in th6 light of either of the two
theories of secession—that of its validity or
that of its invalidity. On either theory tho
seceding States remained States. On tho one
theory, they were States ont of the Union; on
the other, they have remained all the wMle
States in ihe Union. The Supreme Court of the
United States in the recent case of White vs.
Texas, speaking through Mr. CMef Justice
Chose, held that secession was invalid, and that
tho States wMoh had attempted it remained and
still are States in the Union.
A State is not a disorganized mass of people.
It is an organized political body. It must have
a_ Constitntion of some sort, written or tradi
tional. Being an organized.body, it must have
a law of organization or composition or consti
tution, defining the depositary of its political
power. Where there is no such constitutional
or constituting or organizing or fundamental
law, there- can be no organization—no State.
These ten States then, wMch seceded or at
tempted to secede (as the one theory or the
other may be held,) have all the while had con
stitutions. In point of fact each of these has
ever been a written constitution, giving the bal
lot to defined classes of citizens who are known
as the constitutional constituency of the State.
This constitutional constituency is entrusted by
each of these constitutions, with power over the
constitntion itself in modifying or changing it,
and.of course, in modifying or changing the or
ganization or compositions of the constitutional
constituency. TMs constitutional constitaency
is the depositary of the Mghest political power
of the State. Any change made in the constitu
tion or organization of tho State or in the com
position of the constitutional constituency, as it
may exist at any time, without the concurrent
action of the constitutional constituency itself,
is Revolution. It is disorganization.^ It is the
subversion or suppression (as it may prove per
manent or temporary) of ono organization, and
the substitution of another. It is tho abolition
(permanent or temporary) of the old State, and
the introduction of a new ono.
Each of these ten States, in 18G5, at the close
of the war, being then a State, had a constitu
tion and a constitutional constituency linked
back by unbroken succession to the constitntion
and constitutional constituency as they existed
before seqwsion. Secession made no break in
the chain. 'The provision wMch waB put into
tho constitntion at the time of secession, con
necting tho State with the Confederate States in
stead of with the United States as its Federal
head, is wholly immaterial to tho present pur
pose. In the one theory, it was simply void,
and left the organization of the Slate, the con
stitution and the constitutional constituency
intact. On the other theory, being valid, it
modified but did not impair the integrity of the
State organization. All this follows from, or
rather is comprehended in, the one proposition,
that these ten States have never lost their char
acter as States.
Each of these ten States being a State at. the
close of the war in 1865, stands now de jure
just as it stood then; unless it has since that
time been changed by the action of its consti
tutional constituency. I think eaoh of them
teas so changed in the latter part of that same
year. In each of them a convention was elected
by a large and unquestionable majority of the
constitntional constituency (although a portion
of them wero excluded from voting) for the
purpose of modifying the constitution. These
conventions repealed the ordinances of seces
sion, abolished slavery, and made some other
changes in the several constitutions, but (in
most of the States) left, tho constitutional con
stituencies just as they stood before. In con
formity with the constitutions, as last modified
by these conventions, eaoh of the States was
speedily provided with a complete government,
consisting of a Legislative, Executive and Judi
cial department. It was by the Legislatures
thus formed that the 13th Amendment to the
constitution of the United States, abolisMng
slavery, was ratified.
Since that time no change has been made in
the organization of any of these States, with the
co-operation or concurrence of the constitntional
constituencies. Only very small minorities of
tho constitntional constituencies havo co-oper
ated in the work of reconstruction. It is a no
torious and unquestionable fact, that an over
whelming majority of them in each of the
States have been steadily and unswervingly op
posed to it, and havo voted against it, whenever
they voted at all. . • -
The clear result in my judgment is, that each
of these States now stands de jure just as she
was left by the action of her convention in
1865, with a complete government, formed un
der the constitution of that year, including a
Legislature wMoh still constitutionally exists,
and is capable of assembling any day, if it wero
only allowed to do so by the withdrawal of the
baypnet. But she stands de facto suppressed,
by a government originated and imposed on her
by an external power, and snpported alone by
tho bayonet. Snch a government is the em
bodiment of anti-repnblicanism and despotism.
Under just suoh a government Ireland is
writMng, and Poland is crushed.
_ Is it not now demonstrated that the bodies
which ratified the so-called 14th and 15th Amend
ments in the name of these ten States, were the
revolutionary products of external force and
fraud, displacing the true Legislatures which
alone could have given a constitutional ratifica
tion!
These so-called Amendments, then, have been
neither constitutionally proposed, nor constitu
tionally ratified. How can they form parts of
the constitntion?
-A successful answer to tMs question would
long ago have brought that peace and harmony,
wMch can never come from might overbearing
right. Instead of giving snch an answer, the au
thors of these measures have sought to drown
reason and argument in olamorons oharges of
violence, and revolution against the victims—
not the perpetrators of those crimes.
Bat an answer has at last been attempted
from an unexpected quarter. Strangely enough,
it comes from one who has greatly distinguished
himself by the vigor and ability with which he
has denounced the whole scheme of Reconstruc
tion as a revolutionary usurpation and nullity.
And, still more strangely, he adheres to that
dennnoiation, while now arguing that these so-
called amendments, the creatures and culmin
ating points of that Reconstruction scheme, are
valid points of the Constitntion. Snch a con
clusion from such a beginning! And yet he is
hailed by Ms new allies, as a very Daniel come
onto judgment. They were in a sore strait for
an argument.
lie says these so-called amendments have be
come parts of the Constitution, because they
have been proclaimed as such, by the power
wMch, nnder the Constitution, has the “juris
diction” to proclaim amendments.
There has been much said, sir, about issues
that are “deadsurely here is one that is not
only alive but very lively. Let Americans .hear
and mark it! The Constitntion of the United
States can be changed, can be subverted by
Presidential proclamation!!! I once knew a
man whose motto was that a lie was better than
the trnth, because, he said, trnth was a stub
born, unmanageable thing, bnt a lie in the
hands of a genius conld be fitted exactly to the
exigencies of the case. Bnt even he admitted
that the lie most be well told or it would not
serve. If it should appear to be a lie it would
be turned from a tiring of power into a tiring of
contempt. There has been progress, sir, since
that man taught. It is now discovered that a
known, proven lie is as good as the truth, pro
vided, it can only get “proclaimed” by a power
having “jurisdiction” to proclaim it!! I, air,
know of no power—either on the earth, or above
it, or under it—that has “jurisdiction” to “pro
claim” lies! ! Nay, sir, I know of no power
wMohhas jurisdiction to proclaim amendments
to the Constitntion. According to my reading
of that instrument, amendments constitution
ally proposed “shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of the Constitution, when rat
ified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three-
fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode
of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”
The ratification by three-fourths of the States
acting through their Legislatures or the jr Con
ventions, sets the seal of validity upon the
amendment and makes it a part of the Consti
tution. Nothing else oan do it. It must be a
true ratification, by a true Legislature, or a true
Convention of the State. A false ratification by
a trne Legislature of the State, will not do. A
trne ratification by a spnrions Legislature, will
not do. Tho validity of the amendment, and
its authority as a part of the Constitution, are
made to depend npon the historic truth of its
ratification as required by the Constitution.
Froelamations of falsehoods, from Presidents
or from anybody else, have nothing to do with
the subjeot. This is plain doctrine drawn from
the Constitntion itself. The validity, of. the
Constitution in all its parts depends upon the
facts of their history.
But, according to this new discovery, the
President of the United States can subvert the
whole constitution, and make himself a legal
and valid autoorat, by simply “proclaiming,”
that an amondment of the constitution to that
effect has been proposed by two-thirds of each
House of Congress, and ratified by the Legisla
tures cf three-fourths of the States; although it
may he known of all men that there is not one
word of truth in the proclamation!! The Presi
dent of the United States can legally converc
himself into an autoorat by Ms own proclama
tion. Theories are qniokly pnt into practioe in
these days. Let the country beware! I
We are also told by this new Daniel, not only
that the nsurpation has become obligatory by
its success, bnt that there is no hope of getting
rid of it; for he says, it oannot be changed with
out another amendment, ratified by three-fourths
of tho States, and that there is no prospect of
jetting these three-fonrths. Wonderful! Why,
ie himself has taught ns, that the whole tMng
may be accomplished by a Presidential procla
mation. We have only to eleot a Democratic
President, and let Mm “proclaim” that a new
amendment, abolishing the 14th and 15th, has
been duly proposed and duly ratified; and the
thing is done. That, Sir, would be the way
taught by this new light; bnt it would never be
my way. I do not propose to walk in the ways
of falsehood. I prefer trnth; because it is no
bler, grander. I believe also that, when it is
snpported bv true and bold men, it is always
more powerful. My way would bo to elect a
Democratic President; and let Mm treat the
usurpation as a nsurpation and a nullity; and
let Mm withdraw the bayonet; and “proclaim”
that the Revolutionary governments in these ten
States would not be supported by him; but that
the constitutional Republican governments,
wMch now exist here, would be left free to rise
from their state of foroible repression, and do
their natural and legitimate work of true restor
ation, real peaoe, sinoere and oordiai fraternity.
The whole pboblem is solved bv the stmtt.v.
WITHDRAWAL OF THE BAYONET.
I have now shown, that the 14th and 15th
Amendments do not form any part of the con
stitution ; and thus have made good my first po
sition, that the whole Enforcement Act, wMch
depends solely npon them for its validity, is net
a law, but a mere legal nullity.
My second position is, that, even if the so-
called 14th and 15th Amendments were valid,
yet all those parts of the Enforcement Act
claimed ns applicable to my case are. utterly
“ outside” of them, and (being confessedly out
side of tho constitution apart from them) are
nnconstitntional and not binding as law.
The 14th Amendment and the^ small part
the Enforcement Act relating to it have no rele-
vanoy to this prosecution, and I shall say no
thing farther about them.
Those parts of tho act claimed as applicable
to my case rest solely upon the 15th for their
validity; and, in order to see whether they are
ontside of it or not, it becomes necessary to
know what are tho terms and extent of that
Amendment.
The effect of its terms is strangely misap
prehended. It seems to be regarded 03 a tiring
wMch, by its terms, secures the right of suf
frage to the negro, and empowers Congress to
enforce that right. This is a total and most
dangerous mistake. Hero is the Amendment.
It is not longer than the first joint of my little
finger:
“Section 1. The right of "citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States, or by any State,
on account of race, color or previous condition
of servitude.
* ‘Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to en-
forco this article by appropriate legislation.”
TMs is tho whole of it. Now, sir, I defy
refutation, when I affirm that, by these terms,
the right of suffrage is not conferred upon nor
secured to any person or olassof persons whom
soever. The whole is simply a prohibition on
the United States and the several States. The
United States in legislating for the District of
Colnmbia or a Territory, and the several States
in regulating their suffrage, eaoh for herself,
are prohibited from denying it to anybody or
abridging its exercise on either one .of three
grounds—race, color, or previous condition of
servitude—but are left perfectly free to abridge
it or deny it on any other ground whatsoever—
say female or male, ignorance or intelligence,
poverty or wealth, crime or virtue, or any other
of an innumerable multitude of other grounds.
In point of fact the right is denied, both by the
United States and by each one of the several
States, on many of these other grounds; and
the denial is enforced under heavy penalties,
not only by the laws of the States, bnt by this
very Enforcement Act itself. To say that the
right is conferred on or secured to anybody,
because it cannot bo denied for any one or all
of three reasons out of an indefinite number of
possible and usual reasons, is simply absurd.
As well say that a plat of ground is fenced or
secured from intrusion by putting a wall on one
of its many sides, leaving all the. other sides
perfectly open. A right is not conferred or
secured by law, when it can be denied without
a violation of law.
This brings mo to the crucial test of my sec
ond position. Whether I have violated any
provision of tho Enforcement Act or not, it is
at least certain that I have not violated the 15th
Amendment. It is affirmatively proven, by the
testimony of the two pro3ecntors in this case—
the two negro managers of election—that I did
not object to or in any manner interfere with
any vote on the ground of either race, color or
previous condition of servitude. It is manifest,
then, that if I have violated any part or parts
of the Enforcement Act, snch part or parts are
“ontside” of the Amendment and unauthorized
by it; since I have nor violated the Amendment,
itself. I have not violated the Amendment,
even if its prohibition reached private citizens,
instead of being confined, as it plainly is, to the
United States and the States severally.
The truth is, that far the greater part of the
Enforcement Act is “ontside" of the Amend
ments wMch it professes to enforce. This act
presents another live and very lively issue to
the people of this country; and already are the
thunders of opposition heard from Republican
a3 well as from Democratic quarters. Under
pretense of restraining the United States and
the several States from denying or abridging
the right of suffrage on account of raco, color,
or previous condition of servitude, this act takes
control of the general and local elections in all
the States—seizing the whole political power of
the country, and wielding it by the bayonet;
and fills up pagesof- the statnto book with
new offenses and heavy penalties levelled, not
against the United States or the several States,
or their officers by whom aloud the 15th Amend
ment can possibly be violated, bnt against private
citizens. The Alien and Sedition Acts, wMch,
by’the power of their recoil exterminated their
authors, were not equal to tMs act either in the
nakedness or the danger of their nsurpation. If
tMs act shall prevail and abide as law, then our
heritage of Iocaleelf-government, lost to ns, will
pass into history, and there stand ont forever a
glory to the noble sires who wrong it from one
tyrranny, and a shame to tho degenerate sons
who surrendered it to another.
My tirird and last position is, thRt, even if
the Enforcement Act were valid in all its parts,
yet I have not violated any one cf them. I am
accnsed nnder its 5th and 19th sections.
The 5th provides a penalty against “prevent
ing, hindering, controlling or intimidating, or
attempting to prevent, hinder, control or intim
idate” any person from voting “to whom the
right of suffrage is secured or guaranteed by
the 15th Amendment.” I have already demon
strated that the 15th Amendment secures or
guarantees the right of suffrage' to nobody
whomsoever. It is impossible.-therefore, that
I am, or that anybody ever oan be, guilty under
that section.
But again; the testimony utterly fails to
show that I interfered in any \yay with the
voting of any person legally entitled to vote, or
indeed, with the voting of any person whomso
ever. It was inoumbent on the prosecution to
show what persons, if any; and that they were
persons entitled to vote. The Enforcement
Act itself inflicts a penalty on all persons who
vote illegally; and, of course, oannot intend to
punish the prevention or hindrance of illegal
voting. -The attempted proof, as to my inter
ference with voters, relates to four persons
only. It fails to show that either one of the
four was a person entitled to vote. It fails to
show that three of them did not actually vote.
It fails to show that any one of them "offered to
vote, or even desired to do so. It fails to show
that any one of them heard me make a single
remark, saw me do a single act, or was even in
my presence from the beginning to the end of
the three days’ election.
As to the remark wMch I made to a small
crowd, about prosecuting all who should vote
without having paid their taxes, I have this to
say. In the first place, it is not shown who
composed that orowd, nor that one single one
of them was a person entitled to vote. In the
next case, tho remark was a lawful one; for it
was simply tho declaration of an intention, not
to interfere with legal voters, bnt to proBeonte
criminals; • and therefore oannot be tortured
into a threat, in any legal or criminal sense of
that word. A threat, to he criminal, must be
the declaration of an intention to do some un
lawful act; and it never can be unlawful to ap
peal to the laws.
I pass to the chaTge, under the 19th section,
that I interfered with the managers of eleotion
in the disoharge of their duties, by causing
their arrest under judicial warrant. That part
of the 19 th section wMoh is invoked against
me ia in these words: “Or interfere in any
manner with any officer of said elections in the
discharge of Ms duties.”
My first answer to tMs charge is, that the
managers were arrested, not. in the disoharge of
their duties, but in the violation of one of the
most important of them—one prescribed not
only by the Constitution of the State, but by
this very Enforcement Act itself; for the act
made it their dnty to reject ail illegal votes,
and provided a penalty for receiving them.
These managers had reoeived and were still re
ceiving the votes of persons who had not paid
their taxes of the year next preceding the eleo
tion, .as required by the Constitution of the
State. The testimony shows that tMs fact was
fully proven, and not denied by them, on the
commitment trial before the magistrate. The
reply to it then was, and now is, not a denial,
bnt a justification, on two grounds. One of
these grounds was, that the oath whioh they had
taken, nnder the Akerman Election Act, re
quired them to let every person vote, who was
of apparent full age, was a resident of the
.county, and had not previously voted in that
election. They stud then, and it is now stud
again here, that they could not inquire into the
non-payment of taxes or any other constitutional
disqualification for voting, exoept only non-age,
non-residenoe and previous voting in that elec
tion. And yet, a man who was of full age, and
a resident of the county, and who had not pre
viously voted, was excluded by these same man
agers, on the ground that he was a oonvioted
felon. Their own action in exoluding the felon
is utterly inconsistent with their construction of
the obligation of their oath. The oath, as con
strued by them, and now construed hT-TT''''
prosecuting attorney, is in plain C onfl*i y ^
the constitution, and is therefore
could not relieve them from their coni?!?’ *«4
dnty to exclude all who had notpaM fh
The first ground of the manager.’
therefore fails. K K
Their other ground was, that the
of those whom they hadallowed to^„ P , aid ^
out payment of taxes, was only roll
that the poll tax had been declaredbi.*3***
the Legislature to bo illegal and
by the Constitution, and its fnrih«
suspended. Action
.The fact that it was only poll tax dr...
pear from the evidence before ytur It!?,, ° l *P-
I admit it to bo true. I did not com? b «
quibble. I- am here to justify mv
under the law, on the troth as it exist!
proven here or not. My answer i?tt! T®*
declaratory act of the Legislature SaM ^
constitutional, null and void. The af?’® l -
the opinion of the Legislature, concer!,;? 3 ^
constitutionality of a previous act of
posing the poll tax for that year Th»f ’>
before me, imposing a poll tax of one doS?
head “for educational purposes” usiBeth# 1 ®*
words wMcii are used by the'ConstitutionfoS
m defining the purpose for which roll»
may be imposed. Now, sir, the question *15
I ask is, what it is that makes this act ‘SiT^?
or unwarranted by the Constitution? Snr?.r“
is not made so by the subsequent de'cW; ’’ 51
the Legislature, put forth just before
tion, to serve a palpable, fraudulent, party p^"
The Legislature is not a Court; baton ik.
contrary it is expressly prohibited by th« r
stitution from exercising judicial functions.V?!
its declarations, concerning tho constitut-'o-M*:
of Legislative acts, have no more authoritvnT
those of private citizens. The single on««
then is whether the declaration in this ^
true. The Legislature assigned its reasonf
tho opinion it gave. What is that reason s n
is, that the Constitution limits the imposition^
poll taxes to oducational purposes; and fiat
the poll tax in question was imposed, there*7
no system of common schools or education,!
purpose to which it could be applied, qw
fore, they said its imposition was “illegal aS
unwarranted by the Constitution." The-
it was unwarranted by the Constitution to m?
vide the money before organizing tho school,
to wMch tho money was to be applied; that!!
to say, the only constitntional way to organin
the schools, was to go in debt for them! Had
words, sir, to properly characterize the affinu.
of tMs reason.
But, curiously enough, the Constitution itself
took the very course, which these sapient Imj.
lators declared to be “illegal and nnwarrantedb
the Constitution.” It provided money and &
voted it to these very Common Schools, vtijj
were still in tho womb of the future at the tint
of its adoption. It dedicated to that pup®
the whole educational fond which was then a
hand. Therefore, I say, this declaratory Act ii
not only false, but is in the very teeth of ft>
Constitution itself. Mark you, sir, it did net
repeal nor attempt to repeal the poll-tax; it
only suspended its collection. But, I say, if it
had been a repeal in terms, instead of a men
suspension, it conld not change the case, as to
the right of a person to. vote without having
paid the tax. The Constitutional requirenett
is, that “he shall have paid all taxes, which
may have been required of him, and whichbs
may have had an opportunity of paying agree-
ably to law for the year next preceding the dec-
tion.” The poll-tax was “required” in Apia,
1869, and continued to be required, up to lia
passage of the aforesaid false declaratory Ad,
in October, 1870—a year and a half. During
all that period tax-payers had “opportunity” to
pay it. They had 547 opportunities, counting
each day as one opportunity. On the day of fie
election, then, any man who had not paid Ids
poll-tax for 1869, stood in tho position of not
having paid a tax, which had been reqnired cf
him, and wMch he had had very many oppor
tunities of paying agreeably to law. He stood
clearly within the letter of the Constitutional
disqualification for voting. He stood, also,
witton its reason and spirit,, for its tree
intention was to discriminate against tbs
citizen who should not have discharged, a
publio dnty for the year next preceding
the eleotion. Nothing bnt payment conld re
move from Mm the character of a public delin
quent. Legislative remission of the tax cannot
serve the purpose, for ho still stands after tilt
as a man who has failed in a public duty. The
most that can be said for him is, that after the
repeal, the tax ceased to be required of idn;
but tho only material facts—that it had J:n
required, and conld have been paid, but til
not been paid—remain unaltered.
The managers, then, in receiving the votes of
persons who had not paid their poll-tax, were sol
u “the discharge of their duties.” 'Whether
they thoughtfio, is not the question. If they
were really wrong, then 1 was right; and surely
I am not to be punished for being right. Thera
was no interference with them in the discharge
of their duties.
But againeven if I were wrong in the opin
ion wMch I entertained of their duty, yet I did
not interfere with them unlawfully. The whole
context of that danse, in the 19th section nnder
wMch I am accnsed, shows that the interference
contemplated is an unlawful interference; es
pecially the words which come immediately af
ter it—“or by any of suoh means or other un
lawful means,” etc. ' This word “other” show,
conclusively, that all the means contemplate!
were only such as were of sen unlawful charK*
ter. This would be implied in construing any
penal statnto, even if it were not expressed:
for the universal rule of construction for
penal statutes is, to construe strictly against
the prosecution, and liberally in favor of the
accused. Is it possible that any Judge can
have the hardihood to hold, that it was !--
intention of tMs Enforcement Act to impari
to managers of eleotion tho sacred charac«er
of Eastern Brahmins, making them too ho.y
to be touched even for their crimes? Surely
it was not intended to give them greater sarfr
tity than belongs to peers of the British Parlia
ment, or to legislators of our own country wmtt
engaged in legislation. Notwithstanding all us
Mgh privileges aocorded to them, all of i*«
axe subject to arrest, in any place, at anymo-
meat, nnder a warrant charging breach of me
peace or felony. Was it intended to
these managers from immediate accountaoim.
for all felonies wMch they might commit duMj
three whole days ? Until this shall be hem*
the intention of the Enforcement Act, “ 13 .jd:
possible to maintain that I have violated «
any particular whatever.
The constitntion declares, that “the ngP*
the citizen to appeal to the courts shaUna
be impaired.” My whole offense, sir, is “j?’
that I appealed to a court of competent J-j®’
diction. I devoutly believed I was rigai
my opinion of the law. I believe bo n '
But, whether I was right or wrong in my l i
ion, who will dare to say that I wa3 wroBg
testing that opinion, not by the strong n®-
but by appealing to a court appointed oy
constitution, for the very purp ose of de< L--'“°
the question? That court decided
right; and the “interference” which fob1
sir, was the interference, not of v T>
the late, as expounded and administere .
judicial tribunal. Moreover, sir, the dec •
of that tribunal stands as the law of tae ^
until it shall be reversed according to ^
These managers were charged with few I
der the laws of this State. Was it a on or
me to seek a judicial inquiry into the roau
probability of such a charge? I
that my real crime,in the rotimationo .
prosecutors, is, that the judicial mterpos
invoked by me, had the effect of P r !V 0I jd
numerous repetitions of a crime, wMcn *>
have done signal service to their pohtwaP
If angry power demands a ^g.
those who have thwarted its fraudulent P
poses, I feel honored, Sir, in being seiec
the victim. If my suffering
countrymen to a just and lofty
against the despotism whioh, in attao J,-5onal
is bnt assailing law, order and constit .
government, I would not shrink from tn = ,
flee, though my blood should bo required
of my Hberty.
A distinguished, practical and scientifleP^®
ter,in an-adress to an Agricultural Society,
use of this forcible language: “It 3S i *
obvious to every one, who thinks on tbesu
that fertilizers are now a neoesity for tw*
try. The system of planting Mtherto
of exhausting the ground and returning® ^
ing to it, has necessitated a change ia ^ af y 1
reotion, and more especially is this neo&r^
if we are to get the Mghest truth
of wMch they are capable. This is ^
Then it becomes important to the w
he should buy the best and cheapest ^
Bead the advertisement of tho Rangoon
izer in another column.
A. West Virginia paper reports fjSjjS
pie of that State are emigrating to tne '
“a fearful extent,’’and that everybody 36 ^ j t
wish to go ont because nobody is coming ^
appeals to the Legislature to take 1®®
measures to attract immigrants.