Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.