Newspaper Page Text
CAN A NEGRO HOLD OFFICE
IN GEORGIA?
ItrrUion and Opinion* of the .1 natter* of the Supreme
Court of the State.
The ease of Richard W. White, plain
tift in error, against the State of Georgia
on the relation ofWm. J. Clements, de
fendant in error, comes before this
Court on the following state of facts:
AV'm. J. Clements applied to the Judge
of the Superior Court of Chatham coun
ty alleging thatat an election which had
been held in that county for a Clerk of
the Superior Court, he and Richard W.
White were the sole candidates. That
Richard W. White had got a majority
of the votes, hut that he, Clements, had
also got a good many votes, and that
no other persons were running. The
petition further stated that Richard W.
White had been declared elected, and
had been commissioned and was in the
actual performance ofthe duties of the
office, and that Richard W. White was
a person of color, having one-eighth or
more of African blood in his veins.—
That therefore under the laws of Georgia
he was ineligible to office, and further,
that under the laws of Georgians White,
the person having the majority of votes,
was ineligible he (Clements) having re
ceived the next highest number of votes
was entitled to the position. He prayed
the Court for leave to tile an informa
tion for a quo warranto. To that peti
tion of which White was notified he
(White)filed a demurrer. Subsequently,
however, he withdrew the demurrer to
that petition, and the information is
sued in the nameof the Stateof Georgia.
The Court passed an order directing
the Solicitor General for that Circuit
to make out an information in the name
ofthe State, reciting in effect the facts
which had been recited in Clement’s
petition, and calling upon White to
show cause why a mandamus absolute
should not issue against him, depriving
him ofthe office and putting Clement’s
in. White, at the proper time fixed by
the information for answering, filed a
demurrer to the information and at the
same time filed an answer denying that
he was a person of color, or that he
had one-eighth or more of African blood
in his veins.
On this the Court summoned a jury
for the purpose of trying the issue.—
When the jury had been sworn, the de
fendant below—the plaintiff here—
called up his demurrer to the informa
tion. It is stilted in the record that
the plaintiff in the information made
no objection to taking up the demurrer
at that time, but consented; and the
Court heard the motion as an independ
ent motion before the case was sub-
mitted to the jury. The Court decided
that in the argument upon that motion
--that demurrer—Clements, the movant
in the general proceeding was entitled
to open and conclude the argument —
that the matter being before the jury
the general rule which gives to the
party moving in a demurrer the right
to open and conclude did not apply.
The Court heard the argument on the
demurrer and overruled the demurrer.
The case then went to the jury on the
issue ot fact whether or not White had
one-eighth or more of African blood in
his veins. On the trial there were va
rious questions made as to the testimo
ny. One witness testified that the de
fendant, White, was reputed in the
neighborhood to be a colored person.
Another witness testified that he, (the
witness,) was a registrar, of voters; that
when White registered he, the registrar,
had affixed opposite White’s name the
letter “C,” to denoto that lie was a per
son of color; that he subsequently post
ed the lists in a public place, and that
they had remained there two or three
weeks without any application having
been made to him to have that letter
"C” erased or changed. It did not ap
pear,however, that there was any notice
to White that this letter “ C” had been
placed opposite to his name, nor did it
appear that it was tho law or the prac
tice that if he had applied to have it cor
rected, that they would have corrected
it; in other words that it was the part
or the duty of the officer at all to make
that entry. At least it has not so been
made to appear to us.
This evidence was objected to by the
defence hut admitted by the Court. The
Court also admitted as evidence the
statement by a physician, an examin
ing physician of an Insurance Compa
ny, that at a previous time he had ex
amined White and had pronounced him
a mulatto. There was no testimony
by the physician of what his opinion
was at the time of the trial. The tes
timony was that at some previous time
he had examined him and was at that
previous time, of opinion that he was a
mulatto.
In the further progress of the trial
they proposed to introduce a copy of an
application for a Life Insurance on the
life of White in favor of his wife, which
application purported to be signed by
White. The application does not seem
to have had a word in it as to whether
White was a white man or black man,
it gave no indication as to his color, but
on the back of it there was an entry by
a person who purported to be an exam
ining physician, that White was a mu
latto. The witness swore at first that
he thought White signed the paper, but
swore afterwards that he didn’t know
whether White had signed it or wheth
er his wife had signed it for him. Ob
jection was made to this paper on three
grounds; one, that it was a copy-paper,
though it was proven that the original
was in New York ; the other that there
was no proof that the original had been
executed; and third that in any event
the paper amounted to nothing.
Another witness, also a physician, swore
that he was a practicing physician, and
that he had studied the science of ethnolo
gy ; that that science taught men the rules
by which the race of man was ascertained,
and this witness gave his opinion upon
the point. The Court admitted his opin
ion, that White was a person of color, as
being the opinion of an expert. The case
went to the jury on this testimony. There
were some objections to the charge of the
Court, which we, however, have not no
ticed, because we didn’t think the point
very material. The jury found for the
plaintiff in the information. Thereupon
the Court passed judgment, deposing
White from his position as Clerk of the
Superior Court, and declaring that Cle
myut« was entitled to hold that office.
1 his case has been argued before us with
a great deal of learning and ability.
This court has agreed upon the judg
ment which it will deliver in this case,
but not upon the reasons upon which this
judgment is founded. The court all agree
that the judgment in the court below
ought to be reversed; this court being
unanimously of opinion that the court be
low erred in various of its ruliugs on the
trial anti on the question of the argument
on the demurrer.
A majority of the court, the Chief Jus
tice and myself, agree in the judgment
that the court below erred in overruling
thedemurrer.it being our opiuion that
under the Code of Georgia a person of
color is eligible to office in Georgia.
My brother Brown, however, and my
self do not exactly agree upon the
grounds upon which we base that judg
ment. The statutes of the State of
Georgia require that the court shall agree
in the decision which it makes—the prin
ciple upon which it puts the case which it
decides, and as my brother Warner—
whilst be agrees to tbe general judgment
—put his opinion upon one set of grounds,
and my brother the Chief Justice puts his
upon another, while I put mine upon a
third, we are unable to agree upon a state
ment of the general principles upon which
we put our judgment. Hence, under the
statute, we shall each give a statement of
the ground upon which we assent to the
judgment of this court.
I will, therefore, now read the grounds
upon which the whole Court bases its de
cision ; the ground upon which the ma
jority of the Court basis its decision, and
I shall also aunounce the principles upon
which, I myself, hold that the Court be
low erred.
As this is a case of a good deal of public
importance, involving not only the rights
ofthe defendant, and this plaintiff in er
ror, but of a very large poition of the peo
ple of this State, and one in which there
is a great deal of interest taken, I have re
duced to writing, in detail, my opinion ;
and I will preface the reading of the judg
ment of the whole Court, and ofthe ma
jority of the Court, with some written re
maps—preferring to do that rather than
make a parole introduction.
Whatever may have been under the
Constitution of the United States, the ab
stract truth as to the political condition
and status of the people of Georgia at the
close of the late war, from the stand-point
of a mere observer, it seems to me perfect
ly conclusive that the several branches ot
the present State Government are shut up
to the doctrine that the Constitution and
frame of civil government in existence in
this State on the lstof January, 1861, with
all its disabilities and restrictions, was to
tally submerged in the great revolution
which trom 1861 to 186-5 swept over the
State. Early in June, 186-5, the Governor
of 1860 was in prison at Washington, and
there was not, in the whole State, a civil
officer in the exercise of the functions of
his office.
The whole body lately acting had been
chosen under the laws of the Confederate
States, and the incumbeuts of 1860 had ail
either died or resigned or renounced their
positions as officers under the Constitu
tion of the United States, by swearing
fealty to the Confederacy aud repudiating
the government of the union.
The people of the State were, in tiie lan
guage of the President, without civil gov
ernment of auy kind—in auarchy. The
State, as a State of the Federal Union,
still existed, but without auy frame of
civil government, regulating, restraining
and directing the exercise of its functions.
From that time until the present State
Government went into operation, the
government of the State was with more or
less completeness in the hands of the
military authorities of the United States,
aud the entire ancient civil polity of the
State was totally ignored. Directly in the
teeth of the oid Constitution, the people of
color were recognized as freemen, and as
entitled to equal, legal aud political rights
with the whites. The Convention of 1867
met under the laws of the United States,
and was elected aud composed iu total dis
regard of all the provisions and presump
tions, qualifications, disqualifications aud
distinctions of the old organization.
The black people participated in its
election and its composition, on equal
terms, in theory at least, with the white,
aud nothing can to my mind be plainer
than that,by the whole theory then acted
upon, they were recognized as forming an
integral partof the sovereign people,then
assembled in convention to form for their
common benefit a constitution and frame
of civil government.
Such being the facts of the case, it ap
pears to me that this court, deriving its
whole authority from the constitution
then framed, aud sworn to support it, is,
from tiie very nature of the case, absolute
ly prohibited from recognizing as then or
now, in force, either the Constitution of
1860 or 1865, or any of the legal or political
disabilities or distinctions among the peo
ple, dependent upon them or either of
them.
The convention met under the laws of
the United States, to form a constitution
for a people without civil government.
It had nothing to repeal, uotbing to
modify, uotbing to grant. None of the
old Constitutions of the State, were at the
time in operation—the Convention met
under entirely new ideas and new pre
sumptions. It represented anew people
—a people among whom slavery had
ceased, and among whom black people as
well as white were recognized as forming
part of the political society, aud entitled
to equal participation in its rights, privi
leges aud immunities.
It is not necessary, for the purposes of
tliis argument, that this theory shall be
proven to have been a legal one under the
Constitution of the United States. It is
sufficient to state, that it is true as a fact,
aud that the present State Government, is
based upon it.
If, when the Convention met in Decem
ber, 1867, the ancieut Constitution of the
State, or any of its legal or political disa
bilities or disqualifying distinctions upon
persons of color were of force, then the
Convention was itself illegal, the present
State Government is illegal, tiiis Court is
illegal? His Honor, the Chief Justice,
has his proper place in the Executive
Chair, my respected associate and myself
are private citizens, the plaintiff iu error
is a slave, aud the whole political history
of the State since the imprisonment of
Governor Brown lu June, 1865, a gigantic
illegality.
I am aware that a very large class of our
most intelligent people, so, at this mo
ment, honestly, believe: to them this ar
gument is not directed: but it seems to
me, that to a Judge holding bis office un
der tiie present State government, forming
an essential part of its machinery, these
views must be of overwhelming force. If
he assumes the power to decide at all, he
must, it seems to me, base his judgment
upon principles which do not, if adopted
in his own case, utterly subvert his own
authority.
I make these remarks with the greatest
deference to the integrity and to the sound
legal aceumen of my associates. Honest
men see things in different lights, and it
is as presumptuous as it is uncharitable,
for one man to set up his convictions as
the necessary guide of the conscience of
another. These are my convictions, and
as a matter of course, I must act upon
them, aud accordingly, under the rules
prescribed by the Statute; lauuounce, as
the general principles, controliug my
judgmeut in this case, the following :
By the whole court.
First. The statement of a registrar of
voters that he had marked a registered
person’s name with a “C” to denote that
he was colored aud had posted his lists for
some time in a public place, and that no
application had been made to have the
said “C” erased, is no evidence that the
person is a colored person, it not being
shown that the person knew of the entry,
and that it was the subject of correction.’
Second. Although a copy of a paper
proven to be beyond the jurisdiction of the
court is good secondary evidence of its
contents, yet it must be shown that the
original was duly executed.
3d. An application for a life insurance,
though signed by the applicant, upon tbe
back of which was an entry by the exam
ining physician that the applicant was a
mulatto, is no evidence unless it be proven
that the person sigued the paper after the
eu try on it was made l»y the pby'siciau aud
with the knowledge of theeutry and with
intent to adopt it, or that he used the pa
per after the entry was made with a knowl
edge that such entry was there.
4th. The statement by an examining
physieiau, that he had at a certain timeex
amined a person and had then been of the
opiuion that the person was a mulatto, is
not evidence. If the physician is an ex
pert he must give his present opinion, aud
if not he must state the facts upon which
he bases his opiuion. Whether or not one
is a person of color, that is, has African
blood in his veins, is matter of opinion,
aud a witness may give bis opinion if he
states the facts upon which it is based.
But whether the fact that he has one
eighth or more of such blood, be matter
of opinion or not—Query ?
sth. One who testifies that he has stud
ied the science of ethnology may give his
opinion as an expert on the question of
race. Its weight is for the jury.
Pedigree, relationship aud race may be
proven by evidence of reputation among
those who know the person whose pedigree
or race is in question.
The whole Court agree upon those prop
ositions.
The majority of the Court agree upon
this proposition. \Y here a quo warranto
was issued charging that a person holding
an office was ineligible, when chosen,
cause of bis having in his veins one-eighth
or more of African blood, and there was a
demurrer to the information as well as an
answer denying tbe fact, upon which
deuial there was an issue and a trial before
the jury: Held that by the Code of Geor
gia, a person having oue eighth of more of
African blood in his veins is not ineligible
to office in this State, aud it was error in
the Court to overrule the demurrer and to
charge the jury that if the plaintiff proved
the defendant to have one-eighth or more
of African blood he was ineligible to office
in this State.
DECISION OF COURT AS RENDERED BY JUS
TICE M’CAW
Whilst I agree that the Code of Georgia
—the law of Georgia, as separate from the
Constitution—does make persons of color
eleigible to office, my opinion is that eligi
bility is guaranteed by the Constitution of
the State, and I announce these proposi
tions as the general principles upon»which
my opinion is based:
Ist. The Constitution of Georgia known
as the Constitution of 1868 is anew Con- ,
stitutiou, made by, and formed for, a peo- J
pie who at the time were, by the facts o
the case, and by the laws of the United !
States, without any legal civil government; :
aud as the people of Georgia, without re
gard to past political distinctions, and with
out regard distinctions of color, participa
ted on equal terms in the election for the
Convention, and iu its composition and de
liberations, as well as iu the final ratifica
tion of the Constitution it framed—in the
construction of that Constition, and in the
investigation of what rights it guarantees
or denies, such distinctions are equally to
be ignored.
2d. The rights of the people of this
State, white aud black, are not granted to
them by the Constitution thereof. The
object and effect of that instrument is not
to give, but to restrain, deny, regulate and
guarantee rights ; and ail persons recog
nized by that Constitution as citizens of
tbe State have equal legal and political
rights, except as otherwise expressly de
clared.
3d. It is the settled and uniform sense of
the word “citizen,” when used in refer
ence to the citizens of the separate States
of the United States, and to their rights as
such citizeus, that it describes a person
entitled to every right, legal and political,
epjoyed by any person in that State, un
less there be some express exception, made
by positive law, covering tbe particular
person, or class of persons, whose rights
are in question.
4tb. Words used in a statute, or Consti
tution, have their ordinary signification,
unless they be words of art, when they
have the sense placed upon them by those
skilled iu the art, or unless their meaning
be defined aud fixed by law—in which
latter case the legal meaning must pre
vail.
sth. By the 1648th and 1649th sections of
Irwin’s Revised Code, it is expressly de
clared that among the rights of citizens is
the right to hold office, and that all citi
zeus are entitled to exercise all their rights
assuch, unlessexpressly prohibited by law;
and as tiie Constitution of 1868 expressly
adopted said Code as tiie law of the State,
when that Constitution uses tbe word
"citizen,” it uses it in tiie sense put upon
it by the express definition of the Code it
adopted.
6th, Article Ist aud section 2d of the
Constitution of 1868 expressly declares
that all persous born in tiie United States,
or naturalized therein, resident in this
State, are citizeus of this State, and as the
Code adopted by the convention, in ex
press terms, declares that among the
rights of citizens is the right to bold
office, a colored person born in the United
States and resident iu this State, is, by
that section of the Constitution, guaran
teed eligibibility to office, except when
otherwise prohibited.
7th. Nor would the repeal of those sec
tions of the code, or their alteration, de
prive a colored person of the right thus
guaranteed. Since it is a settled rule that
it is not in the power of the Legislature to
divest a right or change a constitutional
guarantee by altering the legal meaning
of the word by which that guarantee was
made.
Bth. The right to vote involves the right
to be voted for, unless otherwise expressly
provided, since it is not to be presumed
without an express enactment that the
principalis ofless dignity or rights than
the agent.
9th. Tliere being in the Constitution of
1868 various special disqualifications of
electors for particular offices, aud four sep
arate sections detailing disqualifications
for any office, aud a black skin not being
mentioned as one of these disqualifica
tions, under the rule that the expression,
etc., of one tiling is the exclusion of oth
ers, persons of color, electors, are not dis
qualified from holding office.
10th. There never has been in this State,
at auy period of its history, any denial iu
terms of the right, to vote or to hold office,
to colored persons as such. By the old
law, they were eitherslaves or free persons
of color, and these rights were denied them
by declaring that they were not, aud could
not be citizens of tiie State, and when Ar
ticle Ist, Section 2d of the Constitution of
1868, recognized them as citizens, the right
to vote and to hold office, except as other
wise provided by the Constiiutiou, was,
ex vi termini, also guaranteed to them.
11th. Ineligibility to office involves not
only the denial to the person claiming the
place the right to be chosen, but, what is
of far greater moment, the right of the se
lectiug power to choose ; aud to make out
a case of ineligibility tbere must be such a
state of affairs as established not only the
want of power to be chosen, but a denial
of power in the selecting power to choose.
12th. The people of a State, iu their col
lective capacity, have every right a politi
cal society can have, except such as they
have conferred upon the United States, or
on some department of the State Govern
ment, or have expressly denied to them
selves by their Constitution; and as the
right to select a public officer is a political
right, the people of that branch of the
Government clothed by the Constitution,
with the power to choose, may select
whomsoever it will, unless the right to
choose a particular person or class of per
sons, is expressly taken away by the Con
stitution.
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE BROWN.
The view which I take of the rights of
the parties litigant in this case, under the
Code of Georgia, renders it unnecessary
for me to enter into an investigation of
the question—whether the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, or the Second Section of
the First Article of the Constitution of
Georgia, which in substance is identical
with the Fourteenth Amendment, confers
upon colored citizens the right to hold
office. If the respondent in this case ac
quires the right by grant found in either
of the said Constitutions, or in the Code
of this State, it is sufficient for all the
purposes of the case at bar, and entitles
him to a reversal of the judgment of the
Court below, which was adverse to his
right.
The third paragraph of the 9th Article
of the Constitution of this State adopts,
in subordination to theConstitutiou of the
United States, and the laws and treaties
made in pursuance thereof, and in subor
dination to the said Constitution of this
State, the “body of laws known as the
Code of Georgia, and the acts amendatory
hereof, which said Code and acts are em
bodied in the printed book known as
Irwin’s Code,” “except so much of the
said several statutes, Code and laws as
may be inconsistent with tbe supreme law
herein recognized.”
The Code, Section 1646. classifies natu
ral persons into four classes: Ist. citizens,
2d. residents, 3d. aliens, 4th. persons of
color.
Section 46 of the Code declares that, All
white persons born in tbis State, or in any
other State of this Union, who are or may
become residents of this State, with the
intention of remaining herein ; all white
persons naturalized under the laws of the
United States, and who are, or maybe
come, residents of this State, with the in
tention of remaining herein ; all persons
who have obtained a right to citizenship
under former laws, and all children,
wherever born, whose father was a citizen
of this State at the time of the birth of
such children ;or in case of posthumous
children at the time of his death, are held
and deemed citizens of this State.
By the Code the distinction is therefore
clearly drawn between citizens who are
white persons aud persons of color.
In other words, none are citizens under
the “printed book known as Irwin’s
Code” but white persons. Having speci
fied the class of persons who are citizens,
the Code proceeds, in Section 1648, to de
fine some of the rights of eitizens, as fol
lows :
“Among the rights of citizens are
the enjoyment of personal security, of
personal liberty, private property aud the
disposition thereof, the elective franchise,
the right to hold office, to appeal to the
Courts, to testify as a witness, to perform
any civil function, and to keep and bear
arms ”
Section 1649 declares that u All citizens
are entitled to exercise all their rights as
such unless specially prohibited by Jaw.”
Section 1650 prohibits females from ex
ercising the elective franchise, or holding
civil office.
Section 1651 prohibits minors from the
exercise of civil functions, till they are of
legal age.
Sections 1652 and 1653 prohibits certain
criminals, and persons non compos mentis,
from exercising certain rights of citizens.
Article 3, chapter 1, title 1, part 2, of tbe
Code defines the rights of the 4th class of
natural persons, designated as persons of
color ; giving them tbe right to make con
tracts ; sue aud be sued, give evidence, in
herit, purchase and sell property ; and to
have marital rights, security of persons,
estate, <stc., embracing the usual civil
rights of citizens, but does not confer citi
zenship. Thus the Code stood prior to its
adoption by the new Constitution.
As already shown, it was adopted, in
subordination to the constitution, and
must yield to the fundamental law, when
ever in conflict with it. In so far as the
code had conferred rights on] the colored
ace there is no conflict and no repeal. The
constitution took away no right then pos
sessed by them under the code, but it en
larged their rights as defined in the code,
by conferring upon them the right of citi
GEORGIA JOURNAL AND MESSENGER.
zensbip. It transferred them from the
4th class of natural persons, under the
above classification, who were denied citi
zenship by the code, to the Ist class, as
citizens.
The 46th Section of the Code limited cit
izenship to white persons. The Constitu
tion struck out the word white, aud made
all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, aud resident in this State,
citizens, without regard to race or color.
It so amended Section 46 of tbe Code.as
greatly to enlarge the class of citizens. But
it repealed no part of nection 1648, which
defines the rights of citizens.
It did not undertake to define the rights
of a citizen. It left that to the Legisla
ture, subject to such guarantees as are con
tained in the Constitution itself, wbicli
the Legislature cannot take away. It de
clares expressly, that no law shall be made,
or enforced, which shall "abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States, or of this State.” It is not
necessary to the decision of this case to
inquire, what are the “privileges and im
munities” of a citizeu ? which are guar
anteed by tbe 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, and by
the Constitution of this State. Whatever
they may be, 1 bey are protected against all
abridgement by legislation. This is the
full extent of tbe Coustitutional guarantee.
All rights of the citizen, not embraced
within these terms, if they do not embrace
all, are subject to the control of the Legis
lature.
Whether the "privileges and immuni
ties” of lhe citizen embrace political
rights, including the right to hold office,
I need not now inquire. If they do-,-tfoil
right is guaranteed alike by the Constitu
tion of the United States, and the Consti
tution of Georgja; and is beyond the con
trol of legislation. If not, that right is
subject to the control of the Legislature as
tbe popular voice may dictate; and iu
that case the Legislature would have pow
er to grant or restrict it at pleasure, in case
of white persons as well as of persons of
color. The Constitution of Georgia has
gone as far as the Fourteenth Amendment
has gone, but no further. An authoritative
construction of the Fourteenth Araend
mend by the Supreme Court of the United
States upon this point, would be equally
binding as a construction of the Constitu
tion of the State of Georgia, which is in
the same words.
Georgia has complied’ fully with the
terms dictated by Congress iu tbe forma
tion of her Constitution. She has stopped
nothing short, and gone nothing beyoud.
The highest judicial tribunal of tbe Union
will no doubt finally settle the meaning of
tbe terms "privileges aud immunities” of
the citizen, which legislation cannot
abridge; and tbe people of Georgia, as
well as those of all tbe other States, must
conform to, and in good faith abide by
and carry out, the decision. All the rights
of alt tiie citizeus of every State, which
are included in the phrase "privileges and
immunities,” are protected against legis
lative abridgement by tbe fundamental
law of the Union. Those not so embraced,
unless included within some other consti
tutional guarantee, are subject to legisla
tive action. The same rights which the
Fourteentli Amendment to the Constitu
tion of the United States confers upon
aud guarantees to a colored citizen of
Ohio, are conferred upon and guaranteed
to every colored citizen of Georgia by the
same amendment, and by tbe Constitu
tion of this State, made in conformity to
the reconstruction acts of Congress.
W hatever may or may not be the privi
leges and immunities guaranteed to the
colored race, by the Constitution of the
United States, and of this State; it can
not be questioned that both Constitutions
make them citizens. Aud I think it very
clear that the Code of Georgia upon which
air ne I base this opinion, which is bind
ing upon all her inhabitants while of
force, confers upon all her citizens tbe
right to hold office, unless they are pro
hibited by some provision found iu the
Code itself. I find no such prohibition in
tiie Code, affecting the rights of this re
spondent. I am, therefore, ofthe opinion
that the judgment of the court below is
erroneous, and I concur in the judgment
of reversal.
Warner, J., dissenting.
The defendant is a color,
having, as the record states; one-eighth
of negro or African blood iu his veins,
who claims to be lawfully entitled lo hold
and exercise tbe duties of the office of
Clerk of the Superior Court of Chatham
county, aud tiie question presented for our
consideration aud judgment, is whether a
person of color, of tbe description men
tioned iu the record, is legally entitled to
hold office in this State, under the Con
stitution aud laws thereof?
Tiie Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of tiie United States declares
that, "All persons born or naturalized in
tbe United States and subject to tbe juris
diction thereof, are citizeus of the United
States, and tbe State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or euforce any law
which shall abridge tbe privileges or im
munities of citizens of the United States.”
Tbe Constitution of this State declares
that, "All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, aud resident in this
State, are hereby declared citizens of this
State, and no laws shall be made or en
forced which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States, or of this State.”
From the time of the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, aud the adoption
and ratification of the Constitution of this
State, in 1868, the defendant became, (not
withstanding his color and African blood,)
a citizen of the United States, and of this
State, and is entitled to have all the priv
llges or immunities of a citizen.
Does the fact that the defendant was
made a citizen of the State with all the
privileges or immunities of acitizeu there
of, confer upon him the legal right to hold
office iu this State as such citizen? When
we take into consideration the definition
aud object of creating an office, and bv
what authority it is conferred upon a citf
zen, the distinction between the privileges
aud immunities of a citizen as such, and
hi 9 right to hold office, will be at once ap
parent. It will be seen that the privileges
and immunities of a citizen as such, i9one
thing, and that his legal right to hold
office as such citizen under the authority
of the State, is another and quite a differ
ent question. What is an office? “An
office,” says Bacon, “is a right to exercise a
public function,or employment,and to take
the fees and emoluments belonging to it.
Au officer is oue who is lawfully invested
with an office. It issaid that the word ojffici
um principally implies a duty, and in the
next place the chargeof such duty; and that
it is a rule, that where one man hath to do
with another’s attairs against his will,
and without his leave, that this is an
office, and he who is in It is an officer.
By the ancient common law, officers ought
to be honest men, legal and sage, et qui
melius sciant et possint offi&ui illi intendtre:
and this says my Lord (Joke, was the pol
icy of prudent antiquity, that officers did
even give grace to the place, and uot the
place only to grace the officer.” 7th Ba
con’s Ab. 279—title offices and officers.
Blackstone says the King, in England, is
the fountain of honor and of office and
the reason given is that the law supposes,
that no one can be so good a judge of an
officers merits, and services, as the King
who employs him.
“ From the same principal also arises
the prerogative of creating and disposing
of offices; for honors aud offices are in
their nature convertible and synonymous.
All officers under the Crown carry in the
eye of the law an honor along with them;
because they imply a superiority of parts’
and abilities, being supposed to be always
filled with those that are most able to ex
ecute them.” Ist B 1 Com. 271, 2. Offi
ces (says Blackstone) are a right to exer
cise a public or private employment and
to take the fees aud emoluments thereunto
belonging, aud are also iccorporeal hera
dilaments. 2d 81. Com. 36. All citizens
of the State, whether white or colored,
male or female, minors or adults, idiots or
lunatics, are eutitled to have all the privi
leges aud immunities of citizens, but it
does not follow that all of these different
classes of citizens are entitied to hold
office under the public authority of the
State, because the privileges and immunU,
ties of citizens are secured to them. The
State iu this country, as the Crown in
England, is the fountain of honor and of
office, and she who desires to employ any
class of her citizens in her service is the
best judge of their fituess and qualifica
tions therefor. An officer of the State, as
we have shown, “ hath to do with anoth
er’s affaire against his will and without
his leave.” and snch officer must have the
authority of the State to perform these
public duties against the will of the citi
zen and without his leave. This authority
must be conferred upon the citizen by
some public law of the State, from that
class of her citizens which, in her judg
ment, will best promote tbe general wel
fare of the State. Tbe right to have and
enjoy the privileges aud immunities of a
citizen of the State does not confer upon
him the right to serve the State in any
official capacity, until that right is ex
pressly granted to him by law.
Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opin
ion in the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford
(19th Howard’s Rep. 5 and 3) says: “So
iu all the States, numerous persons,
though citizens, canuot .vote, or canuot
hold office, either on account of their age,
or sex, or the want of the necessary legal
qualifications.” Corfield vs. Corvell 4th
Washington C. C. Rep. 3 aud 1 to the
same point.
The defendant, therefore,cannot legally
claim any right to hold office, either
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States or the
Constitution of this State, which make
him a citizen, and guarantee unto him
the privileges or immunities of a citizeu ;
for he may well have and enjoy all the
privileges aud immunities of a citizen, in
the State, without holding any office, or
exercising auy public or official duty
uuder the authority of tiie State. The
privileges and immunities of a citizeu of
the State do not confer tiie legal right to
hold office under the public authority of
the State, and receive the emoluments
thereof. Does the public law of the State,
recognized and adopted by the Constitu
tion of IS6B, (known as Irwiu’s Code,)
confer upon the defendant the legal right
to hold office iu this State? Ttie Code
took effect, as the public law of this State,
on the first day of January, 1863. By the
46th section thereof, it is declared, “All
white persons horn in this State, or iu
any other State of this Union, who are or
may become residents of this State, with
the intentiou of remaining herein , all
white persons naturalized under the laws
of tiie United Slates, aud who are or may
become residents of this State, with tiie
intention of remaining herein ; all per
sons who have obtained aright to citizen
ship uuder former laws, aud all children
wherever born, whose father was a citizen
of this State at the time of tiie birth of
such children, or in case of posthumous
children at tbe time of his death, are held
and deemed citizens of this State. Per
sons having one-eighth or more of negro
or African blood in their veins are not
‘white persons in the meaning of this
Code.’ ” The 1646th section declares that
"Natural persons are distinguished accord
ing to their rights and status into—lst,
citizens; 2d, residents, not citizens; 3d,
aliens; 4th, persons of color. The per
sous to whom belong the rights of citizen
ship, aud the mode of acquiring and
losing the same, have been specified jn a
former article, (referring to article 46,* be
fore cited.) Among the rights of citizens
are the enjoyment of personal security of
personal liberty, private property, and the
disposition thereof; the elective franchise,
the right to hold office, to appeal to the
Courts, to testify as a witness, to perform
any civil functions, and to keep and bear
arms. All citizens are entitled to exercise
all these rights, as sfleh, unless specially
prohibited bv law.” Sections 1647, 1648,
1649. 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, of the Code.
It will be remembered that at the time
of the adoption of the Code, in 1863, the
defendant was not a citizen of this State,
aud was not recognized by the Code as a
citizen thereof. By the 1646 section, the
status of tiie defendant is defined lo be
that of a person of color, and not that of
a citizen. The Revised Code, adopted by
the Constitution of 1868, includes the Act
of 1866, which declares that "All negroes,
mulattoes. mustizoes aud their descend
ants, having one-eighth of negro or Afri
can blood in their veins, shall be known,
in this State, as persous of color,” and es
pecially defines their legal rights, but the
light to hold office is not one of them.
Revised Code,(Section 1661.
It is true that since the adoption of tiie
Code, tiie defendant has been made a citi
zen, but all the legal rights conferred up
on citizens by the Code, were conferred
upon that class of persons only, who were
declared and recognized by the Code, as
citizens of the State at the time of its
adoption when the Code declares. that§it
shall be the right of a citizen to hold of
fice, such right is coufiued to that class of
persons who were recognized and declared
therein, to be citizeus of the Slate, aud
not to any other class of persous, who
might thereafter become citizeus. So
where the Code declares, that "All citizens
are entitled to exercise all their rights as
such, uuless prohibited by law,” it is ap
plicable to that class of persons only, who
were declared to be citizeus of the State
at that time, and not to any other class of
persous who might thereafter be majte
citizens of tLe Slate: such as Chine Te,
Africans, or persous of color. The truth
is, that the public will of the State has
never been expressed by any Legislative
enactments in favor of tbe right of color
ed citizens to hold office in this State siuce
they became citizens thereof. Although
these several classes of persons might be
made citizens of the State, with the privi
leges and immunities of citizens, still,
they could not legally hold office under
the authority of the State uutil that right
shall be conferred upon them by some
public law of the State, subsequent to the
time at which they became citizens, so as
to include them in its provisions.
The public will ;of the State, as to the
legal right of that class of her citizens to
hold office, has never been affirmatively
expressed; but on the contrary, when
the proposition was distinctly made in the
Convention, which formed the present
Constitution, to confer the right upon
colored citizens to hold office iu this State,
it was voted down by a large majority.
See Journal of Convention, page 312. So
far as there has been any expression of the
public will of the State as to the legal
right of that class of citizens, known as
colored citizens, and siuce they became
such, to hold office in this State, it is
against that right now claimed by the de
fendant. The insurmountable obstacle in
the way of the defendant claiming a legal
right to hold office in this State under the
provisions of the Code, is the fact, that he
was not a citizen of the State at the time
of its adoption. The class of persons to
which he belongs were not recognized by
it as citizens, and, therefore, he is not in
cluded in any of its provisions which con
fer the right to hold office upon the class
of citizens specified in the Code. The
Code makes no provision whatever for
colored citizens to hold office in this State ;
all its provisions apply exclusively to
white citizens, and to no other class of cit
izens. The Convention which framed the
present State Constitution and declared
persons of color to be citizens, could have
conferred the right upon them to hold
office, but declined to do so by a very de
cided vote of that body, and went before
the people claiming its ratification, upon
the ground that colored citizens were not
entitled to hold office under it. and there
can be no doubt that the people of the
State voted for its ratification at the ballot
box with that understanding.
But now it is contended that the de
fendant, though a colored person, is made
a citizen of the State and of the United
States, and that no enabling Act has ever
been passed to allow a naturalized citizen
to hold office in this State, when he pos
sessed the other requisite qualifications
prescribed by law; that the defendant,
having been made a citizen of the State, is
entitled to hold office in the same manner
as a naturalized citizen could do. The re
ply is, that naturalized citizens were white
persons, and as such, had a common law
right to hold office, a right founded upon
immemorial usage and custom, which has
existed so long that the memory of man
runneth not to the contrary. The 1644th
section of the Code simply affirms the
common law, as to the right of a white
citizen to hold office in this State.
No such common law right,' however,
c«n be claimed in this State, in favor of
persons oi color, to hold office. They have
but recently become entitled to citizen
ship, and have never held office in this
State. In 1848, in the case of Cooper and
Worsham, vs. the Mayor and Aldermen
of the city of Savannah. (4th Geo. Rep.,
72,) it was unanimously held and decided
by this Court, that free persons of color
were not entitled to hold any civil office in
this State. The naturalized white citizen
can claim his common law right to hold
office in this State. The colored citizen
cannot claim any such common law right,
for the reason that he has never exercised
and enjoyed it, and that constitutes
the difference between the legal right of
a naturalized white citizen to hold office
in this State, and a person of color, w'ho
has recently been made a citizen “since
the adoption of the Code, and, who is not
embraced within its provisions. The one
can claim his common law right to hold
office in the State, the other cannot, and
until the State shall declare, by some leg
islative enactment that it is her will, and
desire, that her colored citizens shall hold
office under her authority, they cannot
claim the legal right to do so—for we must
not forget that the State is the fountain
and parent of office, and may confer or re
fuse to confer the right to hold office, up
on any class of her citizens she may think
proper and expedient.
When anew class of persons are intro
duced into the body politic of the State
and made citizens thereof who cannot
claim a common law right, to hold office
therein, it is incumbent on them to show,
affirmatively, that such right has been
conferred upon them by some public law
of the State since they were made citizens
thereof, to entitle them to have and enjoy
such right. In other words, they must
show the public law of the State, enacted
since they became citizens thereof, which
confers the legal right claimed before they
can demand the judgment of the Court, in
favor of such legal right.
All male white citizens of the State,
whether native born ot naturalized citi
zeuß (having the necessary legal qualifica
tions,) have a common law right h> hold
office in this State; and in order to deprive
them of that common law right, a prohib
itory statute is necessary. A naturalized
citizen had a common law right to hold
theolficeof President of the Uuited States;
hence, the prohibition iu tbe Constitution
of tbe United States. But as colored citi
zens of the State who have reeeutly
been made such, cannot claim a com
mon law right to hold office iu the
State, as uo prohibitory statute is nec
essary to deprive them of a light
which they never had under the common
or statute law of the State when, therefore,
it is said that colored citizens have the
right to hold office in the State, unless
specially prohibited by law, it must be
shown, affirmatively, that they had pre
viously enjoyed that right. If they cannot
show their right to hold office iu the State,
either under the common law, the Con
stitution, or statutes of the State the fact,
that they are not specially prohibited from
exercisiug a right which they never had,
amounts to uothiug, so far as investing
them with the right to hold office is con
cerned. When, and where, and by what
public law of the State was the legal right
to Lold office therein conferred ou the col
ored citizens thereof? If this question
cannot be answered in the affirmative,
and the legal authority under which the
r ght is claimed cannot be shown, then
t .e argument, that inasmuch as there is
-no special prohibition in the law against
the right of colored citizens to 1o and
office, falls to the ground. If there was
no existing legal right to bold office to be
prohibited, the fact that is no pro
hibition does not confer such legal right.
There was no legal necessity to prohibit
that which did not exist.
It Is not the business or duty of Courts
to make the laws, but simply to expound
and enforce existing laws, which have
been prescribed by the supreme power of
the State. After the most careful exami
nation of this question, I am clearly of the
opinion that there is no existing law of
this State which confers the right upon
tlie colored citizens there to hold office
therein; and, consequently, that the de
fendant lias no legal right to hold and ex
ercise the duties of the office which lie
claims under her authority; and that the
judgment of ttie C ourt below overruling
ttie demurrer should be affirmed.
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS.
8188 COUNTY.
MARSHAL’S SALE.
WILT, be sold ou tbe first Tuesday in July
next, the following properly : I.ots a and 4,
block 29. and lot 7, block 51. Levied on as the
property of W. H. Moughon, to satisfy bis city
taxes for 1807 and 1888.
J. B. CUMING,
Jnnel-w4t _ Marshal.
CT EORGIA—bIBB UOUNTY.— Whereas, Patrick H.
T Carroll, administrator of the estate of Elizabeth
and William D. Tucker, deceased, applies to me for
letters of dismissi in : These are therefore to cite and
admonish all and singular the kyidred and creditors
of said deceased to lie and appear at my office on or
before the first Monday in June, 1809, to show cause,
if any they have, why letters should not be granted.
Given under my hand officially,
del2-m6t* C. T. WARD, Ordinary.
CRAWFOKI) COUNTY.
Crawford County Sheriff’s Sales.
the SHERIFF’S SALES OK CRAWFORD
1 County will hereafter be published in the
Journal and Messenger, Macon, Ga. This No
vember 21, 1808. ANDREW' J. PRESTON,
nv24-d«ftw-tf Sheri 11
CRAWFORD SHERIFF'S SALE.
IXTJ LL be sold before tbe Court House door in
TV the town of Knoxville, on the first Tuesday
in July next, lots of Land numbers 239, 211,206,
179, 180, 172, 149, 181 and 238, lying in the Seventh
District of originally Houston, now Crawford
County, or so much thereof as will satisfy a tax
fi fa due for the year 1868, viz : Crawford County
vs. Brown, Lany & Cos. Tax due, $59; tax fi fa, 50
cents ; levy and advertising fee. / evy made by-
Adam H. Hortanan, Constable, and returned to
me, this June 4, 1869.
JAMES N. MATHEWS,
june7-tds Deputy Sheriff, *
Gs EORGIA —CKA WFORI) COUNTY—Whereas,
T Allen R.Davis,adrninlstraloron theestateof
Solomon W. Davis, deceased, applies for letters
of dismission from said administration: These
are therefore to cite and admonish all persons
Interested to be and appear at my office within
the time prescribed by law, and show cause, if
any they have, why said letters dismlssory
should not he granted' the applicant. Given
under my hand and official signature, February
20th, 1869. JAMES J. RAY,
1 eb24-6m—pi $7 . Ordinary.
4 1 EOKOIA—CKAWIOKD COUN l'Y.— loall wuoin it
n-* may concern—Whereas, Lewis O. Chapman, ad
ministrator upon the estate of Giles M. Chapman, late
of said county, deceased, applies for letters of di-nns
sion from toe administration of said estate : There
fore, the kindred and creditors of said deceased, are
hereby cited and admonished to tile their objeciions,
if any they have, in my office in terms of the law.
Otherwise, letters dismissory will be granted the ap
plicant at the August term next of the Court of Ordi
nary for said county-
Given under my hand and official signature, this Jan
uary 6th, 1869- JAMES J. RAY,
ja!B 6m Ordinary.
CR A W FOR I) HH ERI FF’H HALE.
WILL be sold before the Court House door in
the town of Knoxville, Crawford County,
on tbe first Tuesday In July next, lo sos Land
numbers 51, 83, 78, 45, and 35 acres of lot number
46, and 100 acres of lot number 79, containing, in
the aggregate, nine hundred and forty five (915)
acres, more or less, to satisfy a tax fi fa. Levied
on as the property of C. A. Hawkins. Said tax
due for the year 1867. The said lands lying in
the Seventh District of originally Houston, now
Crawford county. Tax $128; fi fa 50 cents. This
May 28, 1869. A. J. PReSTON,
Junel-tds She-iff.
HOUSTON COUNTY.
77T NOTICE.
A LL persons indebted to tne .-state of William
l\. G. Gordon, deceased, of Houston county, are
hereby notified to come forward and settle the
same immediately; and all persons having
claims against the estate will bring them for
ward and prove them according to law.
JAS. W. HARDISON,
MARI HA GORDON,
Administrator and Admlnlsiralrlx
ma6w4od of Wm G. Gordon, dec'd
ADMINISTRATOR’S SAUK.
YU he sold on the first, Tuesday in Angnst
TT next, oefore the Court House door In the
town oi ferry, and county of Houston, Georgia,
to the highest bidder, lot of I,and number one
hundred and seventy-eight, (17S) and wrst half of
lot number two hundred and seven, (2071 In the
Tenth (10th) District of said county of Houston.
Sold as Die property of the late Williams. Moore,
under an order ol the Court of Ordinary of said
county. Terms of sale cash. June 1,1869.
AMILY MOORE,
Administratrix de bonis non of
jnneo tds Wm. 8. Moore, deceased.
houstonsheriff’^sale:
WILL be sold before the Court House door In
the town of Perry, in said county, on the
first Tuesday In July next, two Mules, one a dark
bay and the other a mouse-colored mule, (Brute
and Polly), levied on tosatisfv atl fa from Bibb
Superior Court ir favor of 8.8. Dunlap vs. Y oung
Johnson. Property pointed oat by E. W
Jackson.
Also, at the same time and place will be sold
one-hall ()-£) interest In a bay Mule. Levied on
as the property of J. M. Tooiney, to satisfy an at
tachment from Houston Superior Court In favor
of simmons A Stripling vs. said .1. M. Toornev
Property pointed out by J. H. Hose. May3l.
JNO. R. COOK.
jnne3-tds__ Sheriff.
Georgia —Houston county-—Whereas, wm
D. Pierce has applied for permanent letters of
administration on estate of Arthur Watson, late of
Houston County, deceased : These are, therefore, to
cite all persons interested to be and appear at my
office on or before the first Monday in July next, to
show cnnse, ifany. why the app ieation should not he
granted Given under my hand and official signature
of office, this 12th May, 1869.
malß-30.1 ' W.T. SWIFT, O. H. C.*3
/ 1 EOKGIA—HOUSTON COUN J Y . —Notice is hereoy
Vj given to all persons having demands againts Wat
kins Laidler, late of said county, deceased, to present
them to us properly made out, within the time pre
scribed by Gw, so as to show their character and
amount. And all persons indebted to said deceased
are hereby required to make immediate payment
May 15,1869. MARGARET A. LAIDLER,
JOHN H. La IDLER.
ma!B-Aod Executrix and Executor.
r IE tKGI A—HOUSTON COUNTY-Whereas, Edwin
" 7 Greene, Administrator of James Parker, deceased,
represents to the Court, in his petition duly filed and
entered on record, that he has fullv admim-tered -aid
James Parker’s estate : This is, therefore, to cite
and admonish all persons concerned, kindred and
creditors, to show cause, if any they can, why said
administrator should not be discharged from his ad
ministration and receive letters of dismission on the
first Monday in September, 18%. Tnis May 15, 18%
_malß-m6m W. T. SWIFT, 0. H. C.
Georgia—Houston <_• :> i, wr,erSa»7 v r:"J
Bazemore, adminisirrator of C.J. Uazemore, de
ceased, respectfully showeth that he has fully dis
chirged his duties as such, and now asks to be dis--
missed : These are therefore to cite ail persons inter
ested to be and appear at my office on or before the
first Monday in July next, to show cause, if any they
have, why tne request should not be granted. Given
under my hand and official signature, this 21st Decem
ber, 1868. W. T. SWIFT,
dc2B-mtd —pfsß o. H. C.
GIEORGIA— HOUSTON COUNTY.—George iTuO-
I lam, Sr., and John C. Rumph, administrators of
Mis- Euphronia C. Rumph, lately deceased, having
applied for dismission from said trust: These are
therefore to cite and admonish all persons interested
to oe and appear at my office on or before the first
Monday in July, 18%, and show cause, if any they
have, why said letters dismissorv should not be
granted said applicants. Given under my hand and
official signature, this December 4th, 18%.
dc2B mid—pf #8 W. T SWIFT, O. H. C.
GEORGIA-HOL'STON CO UN iY— ordinary >s
Office for said County—Whereas. Patrick H
Carroll, administrator de boms non cum testa
menu annexo of James Vinson, deceased peti
tions the undersigned for letters of dismission
from said trust: Tnese are therefore to cite and
admonish all persons interested to be and appear
at my office on or before the Ist Monday in Sep
tember next, to show cause, If any they have,
why said letters of dismissron should not lie
granted. Given nndermy official signature, this
28th February, 1869. W. T. SWIFT.
mr2-td—pf *8 O. H. C.
CT EORGIA—HOUSTON COUNTY.—Forasmuch “as
t Ezekiel H. Ezell, Guardian of Penelope M
Holme-, minor orphan of Wm. H. Holmes, late of
sal 1 county, deceased, ha.- petitiened the Court for
leave to resign his said trust, and having suggested
the name of John W. Clarke as a suitable person
willing to accept said trust and comply with the pro
visions of law in such cases : These are, therefore to
cite the said John W. Clarke, and ali others of kin to
said ward, or otherwise interested, to appear at the
next July Term of this Court, to show cause, if any
exists, why said Ezekiel H. Ezell should, not be al
lowed to resign his said trust, and said John W.
Clarke be appointed in his stead. Given under my
official signature, this May 15.18%.
mal»-m6in W. TANARUS, SWIFT, O. H, C.
i t K i^. K WA—HOO»TON( COUNTY- Whereas,
VA David J. I ermiuier. Administrator Naomln
* e H?. lDte L’ i* 1 ® Houston county, deceased, has
petitioned this Court for Letters of DismtH&ion
troin said estate. These are, therefore, t > cite all
persons Interested to be and appear at my office
on, or betore the first Monday iu September next,
te show cause. If any, why the petition should
not be granted. Given under mv hand and offi
cial signature of office this, 21st May, 1869
W. T. SWIFT, O. H. C.
may2s-m6m _
/ A BORGIA—HOUSTON COUNTY.-Thlrty days
VJT alter date I shall apply to the Court of Ordi
nary of said county for leave to sell the lands be
longing to theestateof Floyd Sawyer, late ol this
county, deceased. June 1,1869.
WM. BRUNSON,
junes 3kl Administrator.
EORGIA—HOUSTON COUN TV. Whereas,
Alfred Hoy makes application for letters ol
administration ou the estate o( Reddick Buze
more. late of Houston County, deceased: These
are, therefore, to cite all persons Interested to be
find appear at my office on or betore the first
Monday in July next, to show cause, If any, whi
ttle application should not he grauted. Given
under my hand and seal of office, this 18th May,
1869. W. T. SWIFT, O. H. C.
ina22-30d
GEORGIA —HOUSTON COUNTY.—Notice is herebn
given to all person- having demands again-1 John
G. Woodard, late of said county, deceased, to present
them to me properly made out, within the time pre
scribed by law, so as to show their character and
amount. And all persons indebted to said deceased
are hereby required to make muni .bate payment.
May IS, 1869. ASA WOODARD,
malß-40d Administrator.
MACON COUNTY.
and 1 EORGIA —MACON COUNTY.— WhareM, . a
l T leb F. Hill, administrator on the estate or l .
J. Bryan, late ot said county, deceased, applies
tome for letters ot dismission from said admin
istration: This is therefore to cite and admonish
all persons concerned to be and appear ut my
office on or betore the first Monday In July next,
uud show cause, if any they have, why said let
ters dismlssory should not be granted. Given
under uiy hand and official signature. Decembei
22.1868. JNO. L. PARKER,
dc24-m6t—pf $7 Ordinary.
M.M )N SUPERIOR COURT, M ARCH
ADJOURNED TERM, 1809.
John F. Williams) Rule ni. si,
vs. k to
John Kelly. j Forech se Mortgage.
IT appearing to the Court by the petition of
Jolm K. Williams that on the seventh day ol
November, In the year eighteen hundred and
sixty-seven, the defendant made and delivered
to plaintiff his promissory note, hearing date the
day and year aloresaid, whereby tbe and« tendaut
promised, on or before tlie first day of January,
1869, to pay to the plaiutifi oue hundred dollars
for value received, and that afterwards, on the
day and year first aforesaid, the defendant moi t
gaged to plaint iff 5o acres of land on the northeast
corner of lot No. i3O. In the 2d District ol Macon
County, the better to secure the payment ol said
note; and it further appearing that said note re
maii.s due ami unpaid, it is therefore
Ordered, That the said defendant do pay inio
this Court, ou or before the first day of the next
term thereof, the principal and Interest and cost
due ou said note, or show <ause to the contrary,
if any hecan; and that upon tlie failure ol tlie
defendant to do so. the equity of redemption iu
aud to said mortgaged premises be lorever there
after barred and foreclosed ; aud It is further
Ordered, That a copy of this order he published
In the Georgia Journal and Messenger once a
month for four months, previous to the next
term of this Court. PHIL. COOK,
. Petitioners’ Attorney.
A true extract from the minutes of Macon su
perior Court. JNO. M. GREER.
April 20th, 1869. Deputy Clerk.
an2l mil
MACON SUPERIOR COURT. MARCH
ADJOURNED TERM, 18G9,
Mlttie Wise 4
vs. y Libel for Divorce.
Robert Wise.)
IT apfft-arlng to tlie Court by tlie return of tlie
Sheriff that the defendant is not to he found,
it Is therefore ordered by the Court that service
be perfected by publication In the Journal and
Messenger iu terms of the law.
PHIL COOK,
Attorney for Libellant.
A true extract from the minutes of Macon Su
perior Court, April 20tli, 18®).
JNO. M. GREEK,
ap2l-lam4m Deputy Clerk.
Georgia— macon count y.—two - months
after date application will he made to the
Ordinary of Macon county for leave to sell a part
of the real estate of Win. T. Brantley, late of said
county, deceased, for the benefit of the heirs and
treditorsof said estate. m *
LUCY A. BRANTLEY, Adm’rx. -
may 29 60d • V q
macon superior court, *ia/u¥i
• ADJOURNED TERM, 18G9. .
John M. Greer. Administrator |
of David L. Wicker, deceased, Bill to Marshal
VS. Assets,
Francis Lennard, Wm. W. Injunction, etc.
McLendon, et al.
IT appearing to the Court that Thomas F. Tar
rant, in right of his wife, Lou F. Tarrant, and
Henry Coon, two of the defendants in the above
bill, reside without the Htate of Georgia, it is
therefore ordered by tlie Court that service lie per
fected upon the defendants by th- publication of
this order for four months next before the next
term of this Court iu ttie Journal and Messenger,
published In the city of Macon, In said State.
ROBINSON A ROBINSON,
Complainants' Solicitors.
A true extract from the minutes of Macon Su
perior Court, this the 20th day ot April, 1869.
JNO, M. GREER,
ap2l-m4t Deputy Clerk.
GEORGIA— MACON COUNTY —Where .s, Fran
els D. Scarlett, administrator ou the estate of
i Frvnklin P. Holcomb, dec’tl, applies for letters of
dismission from thesalfl adm.nlstrai'oD : Tins is
therefore to cite and admonish all persons con
cerned to be and appear at my office by ttie Hist
Monday in September next, to sliaw cause, il
any they have, why said letters of dismission
should not be granted as prayed for. Given un
der my hand and official signature, March 1, 1869.
JNO. L. PARKER,
ms3-td—pf $7 Ordinary.
4"A EORGIA MACON COUNTY.“~Whereas,
YX Lucy Halliburton, administratrix on ttie es
tate of David Halliburton, deceased, applies to
me for letters ot dismission from said adminis
tration: This is therelore lo cite amt admonish
all persons Interested to be and appear at my
office on or before the first Monday in July next,
and show cause, if any they have, why said let
ters dlotnissory should not be granted to said at>
piicant. Given under my hand and official sig
nature, December 22,1868.
. ... JNO - L ■ PARKER,
dc-f.piflt pfs, Ordinary.
( GEORGIA—MACON COUfl'l Y— w hereas. j„.,.
‘ J Causey. Administrator on the estate of
Charles M. Dinkins, deceased, applying for dis
mission from said trust: This is, therefore, to
cite and admonish all persons interested to lie
and appear at my office on or before the first
Monday iu August next, and show cause, it any
they have, why letters of dismission should not
be granted to said applicant. Given under my
hand and official signature, April 20,1809.
JNO. L. PARKER,
ap27-mGm Ordinary.
/" t BORGIA—MACON COUNTY—Whereas J*s»e“B,
\JT Barfield, executor of the estate of Je-si- Hatfield
deceased, applies for letters of dismission from his
said trust, he having settled up the estate of his tes
tator in lull with the legatees: This is therefore to
cite all persons concerned to be and appear at uiy
office on or before the first Monday in August nextjto
show cause, if any they have, why le.teis of dismis
sion should not be granted as prayed for. Givenhin
iler my hand and official signature, ibis April 22, is%
ap23-3m JNO, L. PARKER, Ordinary
Gi EOKGIA—M Act IN < OUNTY—Whereas, /no. f.
Y M. Harrell, administrator on the estate of P. A.
Waddell, deceased, applies for letters of dismission
from said adrninislration : These are therefore to cite
a'l and sirgular, the part es interested, to be and ap
pear at my office on or before the first Monday in
August next, and show cause, if any they have, why
saiil letters of dismission should’ not lie granted.
Given under my hand and official s gnsture, January
28th.' 1869. JNu. L. PARKER,
ja29-m6t—pfs7 Ordinary.
TELFAIR COUNTY.
TELFAIR SHERIFF’S SALES.
Y\ J be sold before tlie Court House door, In
*v the town of Jacksonville, Telfair county,
within the legal hours of sale, on the FIKHT
TUESDAY in July next, the following property,
I Aits of I-and, Nos. 4,6, 7,8, 49 60, 52, S3, and one
halt of No 8, and ail of No. 2, known as tbe place
whereon Henry L. Wells now lives—ail lying in
the town of Jacksonville. Levied upon under a
fi. fa. In favor of M. N. Mcßae, administrator vs.
W.T. Wells; property pointed out by plaintiff.
Also, at the same time and place, will be sold
tbe following property, 10-wit: Lot No. 182, con
taining 202)4 acres, and 130 acres of Lot No. 309
lying on the southeast of the Shaw road—all in’
the Bth district of Telfair county. This Mav 29
1869- JOHN LARKEY.Sheriff. ’
rnay2s-tds
TELFAIR BHERI FF’S SALE.
\\[ ILL be sold before the Court House door in
TT the town of Jacksonville, within the hgal
hours of sale, on the first Tuesday iu July next
the following lots of land, 10-wit: Number 197,
In the Seventh District, number 179 in tbe
Kighlb District, number 291. In the Thirteenth
District—all In the county of Telfair—to satisfy a
fi la. in favor of John McLean, obtained in Coflee
County Superior Court, against Archibald Mc-
Lean, Executor on the estate of Frank Mcßae,
deceased. Property pointed out by A. McLean,
Executor. May 24,1869.
ma3l-tds JNO. LARKEY, Sheriff.
TWIGGS COUNT Y.
TWIGGS SHERIFF’S BALES.
YU ILL be sold before the Court House door. In
T ? the town of Jeffersonville, oouutv
on the first Tuesday in July next, between the
legal hours ol sale, one lot of Land, with some
ordinary buildings thereon, lying and being in
he County of Twiggs and 23 1 distiict ther-of
being lot No. 54—tut better known as the old
Vicker’s Place. Tbe same now being in the pos
session of J. B. Prescott. Levied on to satisfy a
Superior Court fi. fa. in favor of M. H. Trapt vs.
Thos. H. Holliday, principal, and Haywood
Thompson security. Hold as property of sa-d
Holliday. Property pointed out by plaintiff sat
torney. JNO. RENFRO,
Deputy Sheriff of Twiggs co.
mayZS-tds
Georg u-twiggs countY^YTiTp. mc Wil
liams, administrator on tne estate ofJa obW
Collins, having petitioned to lie diseha-ged from -aid
administration; all persons who are concerned are
required, within thq,time fixed bv law. to -how cause,
if any they have, why said A. B. 11.I 1 . McWilliams should
not be discharged, according to the prayer of his pe
tition. Given under my hand, this 11th dav of Jan
uary, 18%. WM. S. KELf.Y,
j a-'l-brn—pf $7 Ordinary.
f1 EG RGIA-T WIG GS CO UN T Y.- Whereas, Jas
VT H. Averett, minor ot said county, is without
a guardian, the letters ol guardian-hip of the
person and property of said Jauses H. Averett
having been revoked from Robert F. Averett,
who has been acting as Ms guardian, and the
said Robert K. Averett removed, for waste and
mismanagement, from tils office ; This is, there
fore, to cite and admonish all persons concerned
lo be and appear at my office within the time
prescribed by law. to show cause why the guard
ianship of the said James H. Averett should not
be devolved upon tne Clerk of the Superior
Court, as provided by law In such cases.
Given under mv band and official signature,
this May 31st, 1869.
WM. 8. KELLY,
Jnnt2-80d Ordinary. !
y^FOROIA—TWIGGH COUNTY—John H. Den
®°n having applied to be appointed guardian
or the persons and property of Joel J. Denson
and John B. Denson, minors under fourteen
F***? °< age, tesidents of said county, minor
children of one John M. Denson, late of said
county deceased : This i« to cite all persons eon-
? n iLV P l e i‘ r at ttie tfcrm o f the Court
U, , be fie and next mtt *r th e expiration
of thirty days from the first publication of this
DC m C ?’ *how cause, If any they can, why
“‘4 - ‘f )hn H Denson should not be Intrusted
t i’«v l T^ l^ r r lanß h lp of the persons and prop
erty of Joel J. Denson and John B. Denson Wlt
nes®—my official signature, this June 12. 18%
IWM. 8. KELLY,
Jttnel6-30d Ordinary,
/iKOKGi A— TWIGGs - -
I < * eor **‘ ®*>d Kenedy fSni>s’ N ’ r V
edy Bollard, late - Boll kr(J,
without a guardian W m£' a .? l L ,1*1?' s!
the guardianship of a" 1
moved without the iiJ*?, 1 1 ■nln„ nt jr J . «
fore atl person, « the * > 1
shed to be and appear w. l “ re ''lter .*' 7*'
time presort tied bviaw . uy <*• . “L -d 1
guardianship of the -an."
Bullard should not dev. i * « 1 r-. t
superior Court, Is pruyfikY!" “ J
Given under rny hami n > q
this May 31st. 1869 UAnd *£'l 'v'
June2-30d M. s K; • * 3
YT concern Wh-rc, ■ 1 -1 . *'
upon the estate of i ‘ m
for letter- of distn . n'2\ £3
said estate: thereto that ~ h« M- <3
tneir object ons, if any ,h. * od ai ;
terms of the law. otherwise 7. h,t *. ir ’
granted the applicant »i th. , t '“ r " and
Court of Ordinary of-• s ' ' >
hand and official signature' Ul -7- ■. - ’ »
ja?l-6m— pf*7 ' c?
JAMES GLOVI ,
DaniolW. Shine, g, ce»rej j
COLUMBU3L REDWINp
Legate sand Cred i- rs , V ’ 11
D. W. Shine, decea.-. j ‘ ' kl i
I 1 appearing m the Court ..
1 wife, Mary J. ne* ai .1 1 , ~—
legatees of -sid D. w sh 1* Sr «a» » . ,' c
Florida, and are in»*r ste l ' i
tor. aud are defendants *
It is tiierclire, on
fendants, Jones and ‘ r '»er.-d -
Shine appear » ( the next " :
held on m - fourth M,,n.t»r , ni ‘• '• h
answer, plead or lemur to .1 • .
of said bill be perfected on « 1 : l
lication oi this ord. r r-n.-e NUI
in the Jocixti am. M*sß«»,-. n .° U
the city of Macon, l.eore.. i
Court "•IPa, Before
Uy the Court:
A true copy of th» ‘ , '‘ i< ’i , or fori-
Twi-.-gs Superior Don't 1 ! r " n '*
Hpl4-m4.ii ‘Pl'Skll, ■ |
' * " °'SK ••teou) rof ti .
F>(o th- n
hoT> 1 r ' «
. • *
y
tembrr j ' ° n V «
my hand officially t ; .. : f) ’* *
fehl 8-tim—|.f •: *K k Ye; ! r
/ 1 KUKGI '-I A i UI . ,
* 1 estate of lhe ..-h ;-.- . j, 11 . -
county, dereased is .. 1 . 1
therefoie. tocite'in i • r,s »- 1
lcreated to l>e «n,i !
time prescrilHil }.L ‘. " ■- -
administration -u» , ■)
upon the Clerk ot • i,..' V” U ‘ i ; -1 r; •' *
vltled by law in cases o, ‘ r
Given under iov i ,- ,
tilts May 3ls|, im!9. “ ‘ * 111111 »*rUt w s M
Jon *'l-3 *d Wq a K
( ; Gli'.u—' TUl.i -C, Nn ,
YJI concern- Wii- ,j
tile estate of iMuiei Massey kl , l,n . Uske.
ceastd. app'ies for Ini, , „) i■" '
editorship of said o-tat. i
creditors of said decea- i ” *■ ]
monished to fi,« th. ir and .
BBT office, in terms of the a* ’[**•
missorv will ls> gr j j’,. •; "- .-.
t«nn. next, of the c.-uri «f ' r *’
Given under my hau l olli ■ -.'!>", rv " *:■ *
ja3l-6m—pf $7 Wi|V" K .Vi*? Uar ? *'4
upson cor.viv^
administkatkixYsu 4
Wf 1 LL be sold lit (tic Court H I
ton, Upson c..,tnty, on n, f ~ . '
•Inly next, tor o.iisii, the s..mi, W e,."
Os 1.11.1 unmber 211, iii ih. |j.( t H
nally Houston, n<.w Upson eotmiv
fifty acres, more .>r less, t„.i,
of J ohu Barker, deceased. Ma- j? ® 1 *
110121-1.1 H AU.A I
/ KG lA—Ul’s.iN cut \ j y _.
' J ter .late a .plication », '
(Xiurt of Ordinary ol Said connh :■
thirty-acres of land, more or ... .
the estate of Thomas Nelson B
1869 • 'out r * ■
_uia2l_;iw A. lin|ii |si r-i., ■...
WILCOX CMI Si'. I
AD MINI "TJ; ATOJ(> jjii; fl
w Abbeville, Wilcox miun. tl . t£ ' B
first Tuesday in July next |
Mtrty belonging to lhe estat.-.ii |. k \
.Udxc.l : Five (5) acres of Lm ■
a.-rcs in lot nnmi.: ’*
I ol original :y Iry > . : » \. »
and 150 acres in lot number 23 n. is
trict of originally Irwin, t:n\i JB
together with the House Ur.. » \| L-fJ*
Bowen’s Mills Terms mad. k .
sale. May 14, 1869, KLIAs
malß-tds Ailinaug^B
< ’id *i:<.i a— wi! i
and Jane Kean.-y, a
Itcarey, and -ccased, apply ... m-f. r .-.
sion 'rum said admini-ti':.’ .-.
cite and admonish nil p.••
appear at mv i.ffi.'i* mi il BB
show cause," if any they csn.»
not i)« granted. Liven under n v tv ;
office, this 3d dsv of be.-cm Per,
dcl6-m6i—pffT I». c. MANN *:^^B
Cl EORGIA WILuu.X I"'
* David ('ason, ad in 11. ■
Willis- Uason, deceased, v I I up
lor let (era of .1 Ism ■" •
of tlie esi ite of said >|. ••■ a-.-l i-... -
fore to cite nod adnn i.
to In' -lid hp|>< ar al mv offi ew:
allov.ci t; , law, and sl.ow m
lmvi , why said lei 'ers sli u.l-l : •
applicant. Given undir my ' an-: r
signature, tills January Mli,"w Kgf
11. c. mavs^B
fel)2l-6m—pf $7 B
LIBEL FOR DIVORCE
APR lb TERM SUPERIOR <"
. COUNTY—Thomas W. bill- v- .-I,
appearing to the Court by die retur:, 1 I
that the Defendant doe- not re-I T in 1
Dooly, and it further appealing that 1 • -I
not reside in this State It
Attorney, ordered that aerv ce l«e jn-rb
cation in the Journal and Me—eager,up
published in Macon Georgia.
IK A. till
Libelant 1 ) 9
The above is a true extract from tbe M <
Court. 1 i.
ap3o-w6m Clerk Supe
NOTICE TO HUM
WILD LAND
|)ERHONS owning Wild Iju I
-1 districts of old Wilkin-on co '
fair, Pulaski, Laurens and M • .
find it to their inlerc-t to -
the undersigned, who. lor a sruab '•* '
sired,make examination of lac.-
report as to value, etc.
Special attention given to the 1 . . 1
ing of lands on commission.
References—George 11. Hazt
Maco and Brunswick Kalin
Rev. J. W. Burke, Macon, Ga.
WALTER I M
ma2o-d<few)m. Jacksonv ;. >
SCIENCE OF HEAUi
EVERY MAN HIS OWN PHY*
$ ' &M*
®*/ y§ * if*
f i
\§M • 'iuM
HOLLOWAY’S I’H‘
HOLLOWAY’S OINTME 1 '
I>IS<)HDKR.SOF T/IFyi'iMA'.H.
Ill) II ELF
r|’llE STOMACH Istliegreal
L fioencea Ihe health • ... ..
abused, or debilitated by exc—f. -
leastve breath, and pnycca
na nral consequence-. Ail)-*!
the source of beailachex. i/.h-UJ •' ,
vous complaints, aii'i urn
Lr ver be<x>nues arid 1 :
orders, pains in the aid*, ch
pathise Ly costive ness, diatr.vr *■ -.-
The principal action ol li.e* _• t.l
sch, and tbe Liver, Lungs, re
participate in their recupc*
ti vo oti ration.
ERYSIPELAS ASD n
Are two of the most cornu , ' , - _ t - *
orders prevalent on tiiis coot
Ointment is especially
opera-’Uli is first to eradlcah: Uw •
complete the cure.
BAD LEGS, OLD SORBS. •
Gases of many years' stare-'— . g
nacrousiy relust and to yield to**:
treatment, have invariably, - ■
applications of this powerfu.
ERUPTIONS O. V ,
I Arising from a bad state oi *■“,
I diseases are eradicated, a U J “ •, .
parent surface regained by t‘- . B *
Os this Ointment. It -urpa--
metics and other toilet
I disirei rashes and other
face. .ri/US
FEMALE COHI . -
Whether In the young "t -
| at the dawn of womahtio -
these tonic medicines
1 ence that a marked iruj ro\e‘j
tible in the health of the Pf;-' '“j.
vegetable preparation, tnej ;• e , jt f
remedy for all classesol r-ar
tlon of health and station ‘ JV a
FILES ABO V.iier ’g
Every form and lea' ire 1 ‘ 1
stubborn disorders Is erao- •;,
tlrely by the use of this
tattoos should precede).- r
ing qualities will be founu
Invariable. i*h»PiJ‘ : '*T
Both the Oineinent aD<l lae* h V
In the following case-; 1
Hands, Chilblain-, ris-n-a- -
Legs, sprains. Tetter*
of all kinks, Mercuiiu I- “., -
atism. Ringworm, -• ;
Diseases, Sweile»l G.ar • w r
Breasts, Sore Heaos, » en
all kinds. tAVTIOS'- .-A
I None are genuine . - rs
I way, Njcw YokK and to 0 ; iD
as a water-mark in every TANARUS" J
rectlons around each rsr- 1e ... _,y
be plainly seen by ho. .; n* v «o
I A handsome reward Ml ‘ ' "V’ r *. J
dering such intprrß*Uon
tection of any party or P a ( |J , - alo e Y
medlcines, or vending lne 1
to be spnrioas. rv of U
«**Sold at themanulfc. s> ,4
way, 80 Maiden i-ane. •-
stiectable Druggists an**
throughout the civilized '-
***Tl.ere is considerani
larger sizes. , , h .
N. B. Direct ons a
In eveiy disorder are amae-i a
.•.Dealers in mv we ”’i' eK.. ' r l.<
have Show Cards, circular*' jj
pense, by ng Tb^ llo .> i "
en Lane, New York. n
For sale by
aug4-ly