Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.