Newspaper Page Text
Chiding- a.Friend—lnteresting to Foreign
ers, Catholics, and Jews.
A writer in the Chronicle and Sentinel , assum
ing, with ridiculous gravity, the character of a
friend to Gen. Pierce, addresses him in rather j
more than a column, in censure of his adminis- '
tration. We do not know the writer, hut the j
.article has some of the ear marks of Mr. j
'Toombs, as a few extracts will show. Our
readers doubtless recollect his denunciations
• of “Red Republicans, infidel Scotch, and German
► .Jews,” in his convention speech at Milledgeville.
" ,At least the fact of this language being used was
brought to public attention at the time Now
we find in this phillipic, signed Examiner, an
amplification of that spirit of animosity and
contempt for those portions of our population
then anathematised by the honorable gentleman.
.Here is one extract:
“To insult the pride of native Americans, you
search for foreigners to fill the offices. In utter
.contempt of the comity which should exist be
tween nations, you have insulted Spain by send
ing to her punctilious court as Minister, pending
a delicate question, a French emigro, whose
greatest merit is that he is more than charged
with Jacobitisrn and fitiibusterism.”
Here is the intolerant spirit of native Ameri
canism peeping out from behind this insidious
mask. One might know, from this one passage,
' that no democrat, no irue friend of Gen. Pierce
penned it. The Democratic Party have never
had any sympathy with that hostility to fo
reigners which has aimed to deprive, or great
ly curtail them of the rights of suffrage and
of holding office. It is among the Whigs
alone that native Americanism has receiv»d
countenance and sympathy. It was from the
old Federal, now' Whig party, the Alien
and Sedition laws took their origin, and this
antipathy to foreigners holding office in our
Republican Government, is in a kindred spirit.
Whigs may feel their dignity insulted by the
President bestowing office upon citizens of fo
reign birth : but Democrats welcome the votary
of Republicanism as a friend and a brother, and
feel it no insult that men of intellect, of virtue,
and of patriotism, should hold office among us,
though Providence may have cast their lot, in
eatly life, amidst the despotic institutions of the
Old World.
Democrats do not forget that LaFayette was a
foreigner. So was Kosciusko. So weie Pulaski
and Steuben. So was the gallant Montgomery,
one of old Ireland’s most chivalric sons.
They fought for the cause of America—for
freedom and popular rights. They aided to lay
the foundations of a Republic which was des
tined to be, and has become, the home of the
exile, and the asylum of the oppressed of all
countries—a Republic which has been proud to
honor such men as Albert Gallatin with high
positions in her service.
But the wrath of this chiding friend of the
President is especially excited because the latter
has entrusted to a Frenchman—the intellectual
and accomplished Soule—the delicate mission to
Spain. He is more than charged, says this wri
ter, with Jackobitism. This implies that he has
been proved a Jacobite. This is not true. Such
proof has never been, and cannot now be, pro
duced. He was driven from France by a des
potic Bourbon dynasty because of his Republi
can principles as expressed through the public
press. Since he has been a citizen of this coun
try he has been a pure and patriotic citizen—an
aminent lawyer, who stood second to no man at
the brilliant Louisiana bar. He was sent by
that gallant State to represent her sovereignty
and interests in the United States Senate. There
he shone distinguished among the ablest men of
the Union.
As to his fillibusterism, if sympathy for the
oppressed Cubans, and a spirit of manly indig
nation at the cold blooded massacre of Critten
den and his martyr band of enthusiasts for liber
ty, a spirit of indignation at the pusillanimous
character of the Fillmore administration, which
encouraged Concha to the atrocity which he
would not have dared to perpetrate had Geu.
eral Pierce been President—constitute fillibus
terism, Mr. Souls would be proud to plead
guilly to the charge. Beyond this, no act or
speech of his can be produced which would jus
tify Spanish pride and insolence in taking official
cognizance of and offence at. He is much
better suited to represent Americun feeling and
opinion at the Spanish Court, than any willow
backed toady of royalty and aristocracy that
would have been more in conformity to a Fill
more dynasty. The former represents the Ame
rican people as embodied in the Administration.
The other would have represented that sort of
conservatism which sides with power and privi
lege, and is distrustful of the popular will and
the popular sympathies.
Another charge against the President is thus
expressed:
“A member of the rigid Presbyterian School,
which in time of the Scotch Covenanters de
tested policy, you have placed at the disposal of
the Catholic Bishop a man-of-war of the navy,
at the very time, too, when they are attacking
the freedom of our educational system.”
This assault upon the Catholics is as wanton
as it is unjust and uncalled for. We challenge
the proof of the allegation that the Catholics aie
attacking the freedom of our educational system.
That denomination of Christians have their own
system ot education, under their own teachers,
and it is to their great credit that theirs are
•among the most thorough and valuable schools
-and seminaries of the country ; so much so that
thousands of protestant youth are sent to them
by their parents as a matter of free choice. In
Maryland, the Catholics, who pay a large share
of the taxes, are claiming their pro rata share of
"the common school fund, to he appropriated to
their schools. They ask, as a matter of right,
' that they be allowed this, and not be compelled
to send their children to protestant schools in
-order to get the benefit of this educational fund.
•Beyond this, we know of no shadow of pretext
tor this assault on the Catholics.
The courtesy offered a Catholic Bishop, of a
passage onboard a man-of-war. is magnified into
a grave offence on the part of the President.
But the people will not countenance thaj secta
rian intolerance or political demagogneism which
would find in this a ground of warfare against
the Administration.
But not foreigners alone are to be proscribed—
not Catholics alone are to be denounced—but the
Jews aie to be scoffed at and placed under the
bann by the President’s assailants.
Here is another offence for which the Presi
dent is chi ed:
A Puritan in politics, you openly reward a
■ Jew for using foreign money to advance your
election.”
Now here the gravamen of the offence is not
that the President has rewarded a partizan
friend for using money to advance his election,
but that he rewarded a Jew for doing so. This
is the offence that smells to heaven in the nos
trils of this Whig puritan.
The sarcasm thus pointed at the President and
the Jews, has special reference to Mr. Auguste
Belmont, a gentleman of the Hebrew blood and
faith, of fine abilities, enlarged commercial intel
ligence, and liberal fortune, whom the President,
scorning narrow prejudices, sect, and race, has
appointed Charge to Belgium.
We do not propose to offer a eulogy upon the
Jews, or to defend them against aspersions or
proscription. It is unnecessary. The native
Jews are citizens of our great country, on terms
of perfect equality with other native citizens.
The naturalized Jew citizens are on equal terms
with other naturalized loreigners. They have
equal rights, and they are capable of maintain
ing them. The laws of the land, and the jus
tice and good sense of the country, will combine
to protect and vindicate them. They have their
objectionabl etraits. What nation of people has
not ? But whtrt race of men is more temperate,
more industrious, more regardful of the value of
education, more charitable to the poor and the
sick of their own people ? How many Jew
drunkards, or Jew paupers are seen in our
streets, or our poor houses ? Temperance, indus
try, frugality, and thrift, mark their course,
wherever the legal disabilities, which in Europe
j have bowed them down almost to the dust, have
i been removed. They have, in Europe, in spite
iof oppression, furnished many great men to
I fill high places in statesmanship, in war, in let
j ters. and the aits. While in this country Jews
| are found occupying some of the highest walks
lin professional and political life. D’lsraeli, a
Jew, one of England’s ablest of living states
men, has expressed wonder that the Jews should
be repudiated and sneered at by Christians,
when he whom they hail as the Saviour of man
kind, whose life was the sublimest example of
purity and virtue, and his precepts the most per
fect code ol morality vouchsafed to man, was of
the Jewish race.
We profess no special admiration for the Jews
as a people—no special sympathy for the Catho
lics—but we are clearly in favor of repub
lican equality among all citizens of every
religious faith, and opposed to all narrow preju
dices against men because they happened to
have been born in foreign lands. Their coming
here and being naturalized among us, is itself,
evidence they prefer republican institutions, and
is some guarantee of their fidelity to them
Let them freely enjoy every right secured to
them by our Constitution.
Gen. John A. Dix.
As a matter of strict justice to this gentleman,
who has been denounced unsparingly, by South
ern whig papers as an abolitionist, we lay be
fore the public a letter from him defining his po
sition, and giving a history of bis past course on
the slavery and territorial questions. It will be
seen from this, that his sentiments were not as
obnoxious to the South, as either those of Mr.'
Webster or Mr. Fillmore. Mr. Webster took ■
especial pains to say, in a very solemn’manner,
that he never had consented, and never would
consent to the admission of one foot of addition
al slave territory into the Union. This declara
tion was made even after the passage of the
compromise measures. Mr. Fillmore opposed
the admission of Texas—declared in a message
to Congress his opposition to the acquisition of
Cuba under any circumstances. He pledged
himself to an abolition society, in favor of im
mediate action for at>olishing slavery in the Dis
trict of Columbia, and for the interdiction of
traffic in slaves, between the Southern States.
Yet, under these circumstances, Mr. Webster
was supported in Georgia, for President, by the
Jenkins wing of the Whig party, and Mr. Fill
more had only a few months previous been the
favorite candidate in the Baltimore Whig Con
vention, of these very whigs for the same office.
Mr. Dix has never taken ground in opposition
to the acqusition of territory, because it was
slave territory, and has long since, been pledged
not to oppose the acquisition of Cuba on any
such ground. His opinions are less objection
able to the South than those of either Mr. Webster
or Mr. Fillmore : Yet, the Georgia whigs, who
were willing to trust the whole government in
the hands of either of these Northern men, are
denouncing the Presiaent, foi p'acing Mr. Dix
in a subordinate office, and declare that the ap
pointment of such men, places the country and
the rights of the South “ in great and imminent
danger.'”
Can there be any effrontery or hypocrisy
equal to this ?
Letter of Gen. John A. Dix.
New York, Sept. 21, 1853.
Dr. I. P. Garvin—
Dear Sir: —ln my letter of the 31st alt., I in
timated that I might, in a few days, write you
more fully on the subject to which it related.—
My objects were, Ist, to show, by what I have
said on former occasions, that I was not, in that
letter, expressing any new views on the points
referred to, and 2d, to sustain,by references to the
past, the representations of political friends in
your State. I should have written you at an
earlier day but for my inability to procure some
of the materials I required.
1. ABOLITIONISM.
The first great movements of the abolitionists
in this. State were made in 1835. To counteract
them a meeting was called in September of that
year, at Albany, without distinction of party.
Hon. Win. L. Marcy, then Governor of the
State, presided, and I, then Secretary of State,
addressed the meeting and offered the
all of which, with a single exception, were
drawn by myself Among them were the fol
lowing :
“ Resolved , That, under the constitution of the
United States, the relation of master and slave
is a matter belonging exclusively to the people
of each State within its own boundaries; that
the general government has no control over it,
that it is subject only to the respective arrange
ments of the several States, within which it ex
ists ; and that any attempt by the people or
government of any other State, or by the gen
eral government, to interfere w'ith or disturb it
would violate the spirit of the compromise,
which lies at the basis of the federal compact.
“ Resolved, That the Union ot the States,
which under Providence has confeired the rich
est blessing on the people, was the result of com
promise and conciliation, that we can only hope i
to maintain it by abstaining from all interference
with the laws, domestic policy and peculiar in
terests of every other State ; and that all such in
terference, which tends to alienate one portion
of our countrymen irora the rest, deserves to lie
frowned upon with indignation by all who
cherish the principles of our revolutionary fa
thers, and who desire to preserve the constitu
tion by the exercise of that spirit of amity, which
animated its framers.
* Resolved. That we deproaa i ely|j
any portion of our fellow citizens, the conduct of
individuals, who are attempting to coerce our
brethren in other States, into the abolition of
slavery by appeals to the fears of the master
arid the passions of the slave; that we cannot
but consider them as disturbers of the public
peace ; and that we will, by all constitutional
and lawful means, exert our influence to arrest
the progress of measures tending to loosen the
bonds ol Union and to create between us and
our Southern brethren feelings of alienation and
distrust, from which the most fatal consequences
are to be apprehended.
Resolved, That while we impute no criminal '■
design to the greater part of those, who have:
united themselves to abolition societies, we feel
it our duty to conjure them, as brethren of the 1
same great political family, to abandon the asso
ciations into which they have entered, and to
prove the purity of their motives by discontinu
ing a course of conduct, which they cannot now
but see must lead to disorders and crimes of the
darkest dye..
“ Resolved, ThatJ while we would maintain
inviolate the liberty of speech and the freedom
of the press, we consider discussions, which from
their nature tend to inflame the public mind
and put in jeopardy the lives and property of our
fellow citizens, at war with every rule of moral
duty and every suggestion ol humanity ; and we
shall be constrained, moreover, to regard those,
who, with full knowledge of their pernicious
tendency, continue to carry them on, as disloyal
to the Union, the integuty of which can only
be maintained by a forbearance on the part ol
all from every species of intrusion into the do
mestic concerns of others.
“ Resolved, That the inevitable consequence of
the unconstitutional and incendiary proceedings
in relation to slavery in the South must be to
aggravate the condition of the blacks by exci
ting distrust and alarm among the white popu
lation, who, for their own protection and securi
ty will be compelled to multiply restraints upon
their slaves and thus increase the rigors of slave
ry.
“ Resolved, That the people of the South will
do us great injustice if they allow them
selves to believe that the few among us who
are interfering with the question of slavery, are
acting in accordance with the sentiment of the
north on this subject; and we do not hesitate to
assure them that the great body of the northern
people entertain opinions similar to those ex
pressed in these resolutions.
“Finally Resolved, That we make these dec
larations to our Southern brethren in the same
spirit of amity, which hound together their fa
thers and ours during a long and eventful strug
gle for independence, and that we do, in lull re
membrance of that common association, plight
them our faith to maintain in practice, so tar as
ties in our power, what we have thus solemnly
declared.”
These resolutions, which I offered as chairman
of a committee, appointed on my motion, were
enforced by a speech from myself sustaining the
several positions assumed in them, as a matter of
obligation and duty, aiising under the political
compact between the States. My sentiments
are unchanged; and I have no hesitation in
saying that nothing, inconsistent with
will be found in anything I have said since that
time.
2.— FREESOII.ISM.
In August, 184 C, when President Polk asked
of Congress two millions ot dollars (afterwards
increased to three millions.) with a view to ter
minate the war with Mexico, a proviso was
proposed by Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, and
adopted by the House of Representatives, pro
hibiting the introduction of slavery into any ter
ritory which might be acquired. It was sent to
the Senate on the last day of the session, but
was not acted on. In 1847 it was renewed, and
in the mean time a large number of the non
slavebolding States had passed resolutions, in
structing their Senators, and requesting their
Representatives in Congress to sustain it. New
Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Penn
sylvania, in the order in which they are named,
preceded New York in their action on this sub
ject. The ground taken in Congress and in
most of the States was, that, as slavery had been
abolished in Mexico, it ought not to be revived
or allowed to be introduced into any territory
she might cede to us, as long as the latter con
tinued in the territorial condition. The light of
j a State, on coming into the Union, to establish
| or legalize slavery, as a local institution wasgen
j erally conceded. I have always considered it
j above all control or interference by the federal
I government; and on the Ist of March 1847, in
| my first speech in the Senate, on this subject, I
made the following propositions with a view
to the settlement of the whole question :
“1. All external interference with slavery in
I the State, is a violation of the Compromises of
the Constitution, and dangerous to the harmonv
and perpetuity of the Federal Union.
“2. If territory is acquired by the United
States, it should, in respect to slavery, be left as
it is found. If slavery exists therein, at the
time of the acquisition, it should not be the sub
ject of legislation by Congress. On the other
hand, if slavery does not exist therein, at the
time of the acquisition, its introduction ought to
be prohibited while the territory continues to be
governed as such.
“3. All legislation by Congress in respect to
slavery in the territory belonging to the United
States, ceases to be operative, when the inhabit
ants are permitted to form a State government;
and the admission of a State into the Union,
carries with it, by virtue of the sovereignty such
admission confers, the right to dispose of the
whole question of slavery without external in
terference.”
These propositions, I considered in substantial
accordance with the resolutions of the legisla
ture of the State I represented, and they were
in conformity to my own opinions.
It did not, of course, escape my notice, at the
time I made these propositions, which were re
iterated in 1848, in the words in which they
are above given, (and I think I so stated to
some ot my associates in the Senate.) that their
adoption as a final adjustment of the dis; ute
would bring Cuba into the Union, when the
proper time should arrive, as a territory first, and
a State afterwards, without any question as to
the existence of slavery in that Island.
This, then, was the position of fourteen of the
thirty States in 1848—that if any territory was
acquired from Mexico (slavery having been
abolished) it should continue free from slavery
as long as it was governed as a territory, leaving
to the people, when they should organize a State,
to decide for themselves what their condition in
this respect should be. This position I sustain
ed from 1847 to 1849. My convictions of its
justice were, I trust, as sincere as the opinions
of those from whom I differed. I have never
attempted any explanation of my action on this
question, otherwise than as my recorded speeches
in the Senate explain it; and lam sure that no
thing will be found in them which can be justly
considered offensive by those who disagreed with
me. To the people of the State of New York,
whose instructions, given through the Legisla
ture, I obeyed and defended, I have always been
ready to account.
Some of the State Legislatures in 184 S went
further, and passed resolutions against the ad
mission of any future slaveholding State into
the Union. I never assented to such a proposi
tion. On the contrary, I believed it to be irre
concilable with our obligations to others—cer
tainly to Texas, and it was inconsistent with
my own views of State sovereignty.
Toe long-pending controversy was settled af
ter my term of service in the Senate had ex
pired— Ist, by the admission of California into
the Union, with a constitution, formed by her
self, prohibiting slavery; and 2d by the organiza
tion of territorial governments for Mexico and
Utah without such a prohibition. These acts
were regarded, and generally acquiesced in, as a
settlement ot the whole question. This was
my view ol the subject, and I have so treated it
on all occasions.
3-— fugitive slaves.
I have always acknowledged the right of the
slaveholding States to demand the surrender of
fugitive slaves under that provision of the con
stitution which requires the surrender of persons
held to service or labor, the right of Congress to
legislate on the subject, and the obligation to
pass an effective law.
In a debate in the Senate of the United
States, on the 26th July, IS-IS, I made the fol
lowing remarks :
Ihe Northern States have been repeatedly
chaiged in this debate, and on many previous
occasions, with aggression and violations of the
constitutional compact in their action on the
subject of slavery. With regard to the surren
der ot fugitive slaves—-tne case most frequently
cited it is possible that there may have been
some action, or inaction, in particular States, not
in strict accordance with the good faith they
ought to observe in this respect I know not
how it is, but we know there is an effective
(lower to legislate on this subject in Congress,
and I am sure there will be no want of co-ope
ration on our part in carrying out the require
ments of tne constitution, by providing all rea
sonable means for executing them.”
Siuce the aw ol 1850 passed, I have uniform
ly declared rnyselt in favor of carrying it into
execution, like every other law ot the land.—
My views with regard to this and all cther;obli
gations ol a kindred character, are clearly ex
pressed in the following extract from an address
delivered at Boston, in November, 1852, repeat
ed on several occasions in New Kngland, and
this State, and published in January last:
“ And Ist, Let it be distinctly understood, that
the law must be inflexibly maintained. I use
the term law, in its largest sense, not only as
including what has been specifically decreed,
but as comprehending the general order, on the
preservation of which the inviolability of all
public authority depends. The law is the will
of the people, constitutionally expressed. Who
ever arrays himselt against it, excepting to pro
cure its repeal, in the mode prescribed by the
fundamental compact, commits an act of treach
ery to the people themselves.
“I he law is the basis of all popular supremacy.
It is the very feature by which free government
is distinguished from despotism. To uphold it is
one of the highest duties which is devolved on
us as freemen. It is always possible that those,
who are intrusted with its execution, may err
in the performance of their duty. They may
employ unnecessary, arbitrary or even wanton
severity in enforcing it. For all this they rnay
be held to a rigid account. But no error in the
execution can impair the obligation to uphold it.
It must be understood, and without reservation,
that.tbe law is to be inflexibly maintained.”
4.— THE HIGHER LAW.
In July, 1850, shortly after the promulgation
of Gov. Seward’s higher law doctrine; I referred
to it in an address to the democracy of Herkimer
county in this State,published immediately after,
in the following terms :
“ In the maintenance of principles, which we
believe to be vital to our honor and prosperity,
let us not forget that we have duties to perform
in a two fold relation, to ourselves, and others
to our sister States as members of a common
union, which we are pledged to maintain under
all its cop4f't"iiona! forms, and to our democratic
brethen in this ttate, with whom we have been
associated in numberless contests and trials.
Our first duty is fidelity to the Constitution. If
we fail in the observance of any one of require
ments, how can we call on the people of other
States to be faithful to it? If. as has been said
there is power above the Constitution, his will,,
so far as it has been revealed to us, inculcates
obedience to the government under which we
live, whiie.it is administered in accordance with
the fundamental compact, submission to the
laws, fidelity to duties arising under the Consti
tution, and a spirit of justice to our political as
sociates. lam in lavor of conforming to all its
requirements and of carrying them out fully and
in good taith, no matter what they may be.
No one ol our obligations under the Constitution
can be less imperative than another. Disobedi
ence to one is infidelity to all.”
I believe I have in the foregoing remarks and
extracts from speeches heretofore delivered, cov
ered all the ground of imputation against me,
including the proceedings of the Baltimore Con
vention of 1852, which contained nothing ofirn
portance not asserted in previous Conventions
except an endorsement of the compromise mea
sures as a settlement of the slavery question,and
a deprecation of all future agitation of it “ here
or elsewhere. In these proceedings I expressed
at the first meeting held in this city to ratify
them, my cordial concurrence; and I was, during
the greater part of the late canvass for the Pre
sidency, in the field in this and other States.
It is with great regret that I have, for the first
time in my life, felt constrained to vindicate
myself from the imputation of sentiments I have
never entertained or utttered. I had heard, pre
viously to the receipt of your favor, that I was
assailed by whig speakers in the South as an
abolitionist; and I was willing to leave my vin
dication to time and events as the best correc
ters of all such misrepresentation and error. But
when told by you that they were used as instru
ments of assault upon the President and the De
mocracy of Georgia, I felt that no personal con
sideration should induce me to remain silent.—
In connexion with the subject, I deem it due to
myself to say, that before my letter to you of the
31st ult., was written, I had expressed to the
President a desire to be relieved, as soon as the
public convenience would permit, from the of
fice I now hold—an office which nothing but
the hope of being useful to the Democratic cause
in this State, would have induced me to accept
—and that lam not, and have never been by
any act of my own, a candidate for any other.
I am, dear sir,very respectfuly yours,
John A. Dix.
Putting on the Jenkins Uniform.
We republish an interesting letter of Mr. Jen
kins’, addressed last year to Mr. P. W. Alexan
der, for the benefit especially, the Scott Whigs.
Some of these, at whom Mr. Jenkins so con
temptuously sneered at, may now be hesitating
whether they will on Monday next, put on the
Jenkins uniform, and fall into ranks. If they do
it will prove that they have had this year, at least
a good drilling, under drill seargent Stephens
and have a just appreciation of “ Toombs tac
tics.”
Proud men among the Scott Whigs may con
clude not to vote at alt—better this than vote
wrong—better this than vote for one who gross
ly insulted them last year.
Property Qualification for Governor.
Mr. Jenkins did not deny, in his speech at the
City Hall Park, on Friday night, having des
cended from the Speaker’s Chair and made a
speech in opposition to the bill of James Jackson,
of Walton, repealing the property qualification
clause prescribed in the State Constitution of
1798 to the office of Governor. Mr. Jenkins
simply stated that he did not recollect having made
any such speech. It was in effect nothing more
or less than the celebrated answer of Bergami
in the Queen Caroline trial, non mi rccordo—l do
not remember. But in the face ot this plea, which
is perfectly compatible with the truth of the al
legation that Mr. Jenkins did make the speech,
the Macon Telegraph, edited by gentlemen of
high character, asserts positively in the issue
of September 20th, that Mr. Jenkins did make
the speech charged against him.
The following is the editorial:
“ It is said by the Jenkins men that the Al
gerine Law was purely local, and that we have
no right to criticize nor condemn it. Be it so—
but, at least, we have the right to express our
opinion upon the following.
“ Once upon a time, no man could be elected
Governor of Georgia who did not possess real es
tate to the value of Jive thousand dollars. James
Jackson, of Walton, moved to repeal the provi
sion, as it excluded many of our best and purest
men from office. At this time Mr. Jenkins was
Speaker of the House of Representatives. He
could not remain silent—he felt compelled to
come down to the assistance ot the great touch
stone of merit—real estate. He left the Chair,
and made a speech against the repeal of the act.
The record does not contain his vote, for he was
Speaker of the House, but nobody will deny that
he took an active part in opposing the motion ot
Judge Jackson. Now, what does this mean ? Is
this a local question * Was there any memorial
from Augusta'# No! There is no defence for
Mr. Jenkins, unless it be his honest belief, that
no man is fit to be Governor, unless he is worth
live thousand dollars. Here, then, is an issue
that cannot be evaded. Mr. Jenkins upheld a
law which excluded from the Executive Chair, alt
mew who were not worth Jive thousand dollars
This is not local—it applied to all Georgia—and
all Georgia will remember it. There was a lit
tle conscience visible in the Algerine. There,
the qualification was only a thousand dollars,
but here, Mr. Jenkins went up in the figures
and fought for five thousand. He fought in vain
of course, and the law was repealed. Mr. Jen
kins says that he has no wish to limit popular
suffrage in general elections, but we are bound
to believe that he has a monomania on the sub
ject of real estate. In the name of common sense,
what is there in lands and houses that endows a
man with a capacity for office, which is denied
to us poorer mortals, who thank God if Christ
mas finds us with our debts paid,and credit good.”
The Chronicle $f Sentinel of the 25tb, gives the
following account of what Mr. Jenkins said on
Friday night on this point:
“Mr. Jenkins— Property Qualification. —
Within the last few days the Secessionists and
their oigans, seeing that their cause was despe
rate, trumped up a new falsehood, in which they
charges Mr. Jenkins with opposing the amend
ment to the Constitution pioposing to abolish the
the property qualification for the office of Gov
ernor. In other wards, that he was in favor of
retaining in the Constitution that clause which
required the Governor of the State to be worth
$5,000.
All amendments to the Constitution, made by
the Legislature, require to pass two consecutive
sessions ol that body by the requisite majority.
This amendment passed during the sessions o!
the year 1845 and 1847, of both ot which Mr.
Jenkins was Speaker. Knowing that the narr •
of the presiding officer did not appear among the
yeas and nays, and that their charge could not
be disproved by the journals of that body, they
asserted that he left the Chair and made a speech
against the bill, which proposed to abolish the
property qualification.
In his speech on Friday night, Mr. Jenkins
nailed the falsehood to the counter as base coin,
thus leaving the Federal Union and its associates
to excuse themselves as best they may. He said
be did not recollect having ever entertained the
slightest feeling of opposition to the bill, .rid that
he could never have made a speech against it
without recollecting it. Besides, he had search
ed the files of the Chronicle If Snlinel, and as
certained from the letters of its correspondent
that the bill passed both years without debate !!
“ What will the Federal Union say to this?”
There are two misstatements here of what
Mr. Jenkins said. First. Mr. Jenkins did not
say, that he could never have made a speech against
it, icilhout recollecting it. This would amount to
a denial of having made the speech. He did not
deny having made it. He gave it as his opin
ion merely that he would have remembered the
speech if he had made it. But people do some
times forget things that they do and say—politi
cians especially. Second. Mr. Jenkins did not
say that he ascertained from the letters ol the
Chronicle's correspondent that the bill passed both
years without debate. He simply stated that
he examined the files, and found that the
correspondent did not mention that there was
any debate, but simply that the bill passed. He
presumed from this that the bill passed without
debate. This presumption is of no value in the
face of a positive assertion to the contrary. Nor
does it follow of course that the correspondent of
the Chronicle, a paper friendly to Mr. Jen
kins, would take pleasure in noting down
and recording against him a political step
like this, so unpopular, so anti-Democratic, and
which met so little countenance or sympathy at
the time.
The Chonicle is rather fast in announcing that
this is a new* falsehood , trumped up. He is also,
rather fast , in asserting that Mr. Jenkins has
nailed it to the counter, as base coin. He has
done no such thing. He only pleads, non mi re
cordo—l do not remember. It seems others are
possessed of better memories.
We see nothing unreasonable or improbable
in the supposition of such a speech by Mr. Jen
kins. There is a congeniality in the sentiments
that w’ould approve the Algerine Law, and that
would insist on retaining the properly qualifica
tion to the office of Governor.
Nor is it at all remarkable, that Mr. Jenkins’
should have forgotten one of the innumeiable
speeches, that in the course of years, he has
made. It is certain that Judge Jackson's bill
met wtihsome opposition. Who more likely to
be among its opponents, than one who consider
the Algerine Law just and right. *
The Chronicle &r Sentinel and Telegraph, are
both in error as to the amount of the property
qualification, tor Governor, by the old Constitu
tion. That provision! was—
“ And who does not possess 500 acre s of land »»
his oivn right, within the State , anti other property
to Use amount of $>4,000 ; and whose estate shall not
on a reasonable estimation be lompaent to the dis
charge of his fust debts, over and above that sum."
This is the clause that was repealed.
We understand, says the Charleston Courier, of
the 2Gth inst., that white frost was observed in
the vicinity of Aiken, yesterdayjmoming.
The Mobile papers of the 23d inst. announce
the death of Dr. J. C. Nott, and Dr. Thomas G.
Randolph physieians of that city. Both died of
fellow fever.
Cheering Froapecta.
Our accounts from every District in the State,
in reference to the approaching election, are en
couraging to the Democratic cause. We feel
strong confidence in the election oi the Hon.
Herschel V. Johnson. The Democrats have only
to continue their efforts to the close of the p< lls
on Monday next, and the day is ours. The vic
tory will be on the side of the Democracy, the
Administration and the peace ot the country.
Agitation will be put down, the scheme of sec
tional warfare upon the national administration
will be nipped in the bud, and Gen. Pierce will
receive the assurance that Democratic Georgia
has not lost confidence in his integrity and pa
triotism.
Democrats!— friends of the President!—stand
by him who has never, in the darkest hours of
Congressional strifes, failed to stand by the
South. Democrats, stand by your Standard
Bearei, the pure, and able, and patriotic Johnson,
who has ever been imbued with the principles,
and devoted to the cause, which you all have at
heart.
Hon. Daniel S. Dickinson.
A great deal of pretended sympathy is de
clared in the Whig papers, for the above gentle
man, on the ground of alleged hostility towards
him on the part of the Administration. That
there is any such hostility, or unkind feeling o(
any sort, is wholy untrue, and the evidence of it
is to be found in the fact that the most influen
tial and responsible office in its gift—that of
Collector of Custom, for the Port of New York,
wa6 offered to that gentleman, and pressed upon
his acceptance. After due deliberation, Mr.
Dickinson declined it and it was not until then
it was bestowed on Judge Bronson, one of Mr.
Dickinson’s friends in full sympathy with him.
The President, very wisely and patriotically
ignored the local divisions in the Democratic
ranks, and offered and bestowed office to patri
otic and capable men without reference to their
having been hard shell or soft shell democrats.—
All he required, was that they should stand on
the same platform of principles with himself—
acquiesce in the compromise—advocate the faith
ful execution of the fugitive slave law, and
throw the weight of their influence against re
opening the slavery agitation.
Nothing would have pleased the opponents of
his Administration better than for him to have
identified himself, with either wing of the
Democracy of New York, and made war upon
tfce other. This would have thrown the Ad
ministration in a minority, and given the Em
pire State up to the control of Wm. H. Seward,
and his whig associates. But he has preferred
so to shape his policy, as to retain that great
State on the side of the National Democracy,
which is the party of the Constitution—of do
mestic peace, and sectional harmony.
More of the Buzzard Story.
The following communication was received,
by us yesterday. The signers are among the
most respectable citizens of Georgia. The gen
tleman who furnishes this communication, as
sures us that many more signers could have
been obtained, had he had time to visit persona
residing in different parts of the county, who
were at the meeting.
Cumming, Sept. 20, 1803.
Ma. Gardner: —We, the undersigned citi
zens ot Cherokee county, have noticed with
surprise, the charge made over the signature of
“ Cherokee ” against Judge Johnson, in regard
to language, said to have been used by him, in a
speech delivered at Canton, in the month of Au
gust, 1852.
We were present, and listened attentively to
his address on the occasion referred to, and do
positively assert, that he did not use the lan
guage ascribed to him by “ Cherokee. 0 The
Judge’s main object, was to induce the Union
Democrats to unite with their Southern Rights
Brethren, in the election of Gen. Pierce. In
Cherokee county, there was, at that time, an
effort on the part ot the Whigs, to sustain the
Union party.
Judge Johnson had shown from Jenkins’ let
ter, from the Southern Banner, then conducted
by Col. Holsey, and from other sources, that the
Great Union Party had been abandoned by ite
leaders, and that it was in vain for the people of
Cherokee county to attempt to give it vitality.
He then used the following language, which has
been so strangely construed : “ The Union par
ty is dead, and before the dog-days are out, the
buzzards will be preying upon its carcass.” The
Union Democrats, instead of being abused, as
charged, were urged to leave the sinking ship
and join themselves,to theirold allies, who would
receive them, as friends of one faith, and one re
ward.
They were told that both wings of the dem
mocracy having united at Baltimore, in the
nomination of Gen. Pierce, and having subscrib
ed to the same platform of principles, there was
no good reason for not being united in their fa
ture action.
HunaARD Barker,
Talbot Strickland,
John W. li.nuhek,
Stmon F. Willcox,
Elijah C. McAfee,
Our Prospects.
The following letter, from a friend who is
well posted up on political matters, will be read
with interest. He is a Union Democrat, and
one of the most intelligent men in all Chero
kee Georgia. The Democracy of the moun
tains are wide awake, and up and doing, and
will give a good account of themselves on
Monday next:
Dahlonjega, Sept. 21, 1853.
Dear Friend: —I was in attendance at the
Mass meeting in Jefferson, Jackson county, on
ihe 15th in6t. The number present was a boat
1,500, including between 200 and 300 ladies. A
most bountiful baibccue was provided. A flu*
band of music was in attendance, from Franklin
countv. Speeches were made by Judge John
son, Got. Cobb, and Gen. Wofford, all of which
was bound to have a happ> effect upon the De
mocracy of Jackson county, where there was
more disaffection in the Democratic ranks, than
any other section of this district. I havesir.ee
understood, that the minds of many had under
gone a favorable change, after hearing the argu
ments used by the above named gentlemen.
You may safely calculate ou 5,000 majority
for Johnson, in the sth and Cth distiicte; osr
more sanguine friends, say 6.000.
Health of Charleston.
The Board of Health report the deaths of
twenty seven persons in that city, during the
week ending 17th inst —7 white* and 12 black*
and selorai.