Newspaper Page Text
i-UOQi J BAH l> BIBA© „
The most perfect Government would be that which, emanatin' directly from the People, Governs least —Costs least —Dispenses Justiceto all, and confers Privileges on None. BENTHAM.
BY T. S. REYNOLDS.
AIERICAX democrat,
PUBLISHED WEEKLY
OVER OLD DARIEN B ANK,
MULBERRY STREET, MACON, GA.
AT $2,50 PER ANNUM,
fcJ-Invariabljr Paid in Advance.^
Rates of Advertising, Ac.
One square, of 100 Words, or less, in small type, 75 rents
for the first insertion, and 50 cents for each subsequent meer
lion.
All Advertisements containing more than 100 and less than
200 words, will be charged as two squares.
To Yearly Advertisers, a liberal deduction will be made.
n |3, Sales of UjiD, by Administrators, Executors.
Guardians, are required, by law, to be held on the first
Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10 in the fore
noon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court-House in the Coun
in which the property is situated. Notice of these must
•i«,iveA«apaWic Gateue, SIXTY BAYS, previous to the
(i ay of sale.
Sales of PERSONAL PROPERTY, must be advertised in
the same manner, FORTY BAYS previous to the day of sale.
Notice to Debtors and Creditors of an Estate, must be pub
lished FORTY Days.
Notice that application will be made to the Court of Ordi
tary, for leave to sell LAND, must be published FOUR
MONTHS.
Sales of NEGROES, must be made at public auction, on
the first Tuesday of the month, between the legal hours of
sale, at the place of public sales in tile county where the let
ters testamentary, of Administration or Guardianship, shall
have been granted, SIXTY DAYS notice being previously
iriven in one of the public gazettes of this State, and at the door
of the Court-House, where such sales aro to be held.
Notice for leave to sell NEGROES, must be published for
FOUR MONTHS, before any order absolute shall be made
thereon by ihe Court.
All business of this nature, will receive prompt attention, a
the Office of the AMERICAN DEMOCRAT.
REMITTANCES BY MAIL. —“A Postmaster may en
close money in a letter to the publisher of a newspaper, to
pay ihe subscription of a third person, and frank the letter, if
written by himself.” —Amos Kendall, P. M. G.
All Letters of business mustbeaddiesscd to the Pujushßr,
Post-Paid.
Letter of the Hon. Dixon 11. Lewis,
To his constituents of the T/iir and Con
gressional District oj Alabama.
Senate of the United States, P
May 18, 1844. \
(concluded.)
But, fellow-citizens, as a Southern
man, I do not regret seeing abolition as
suming its true position in opposition to
the re-annexation of Texas, though I am
far from saying it constitutes the only, or
even the largest amount of that opposi
tion. On the contrary, while many, I
doubt not, oppose annexation on most
conscientious grounds, larger portions
find their course controlled by party con
siderations. Os this I complain, and
have attributed it in the above remarks
to the too great force of party organiza
tion, as separate and distinct from aboli
tion. Still the great mass of opposition
to rc-annexation, now or in future, is
founded in the Abolition sentiment of
the country; and I rejoice that for the
first time it has distinctly taken its posi
tion on a great measure of foreign policy
and must, to a great extent, share the for
tunes of this question. In this contest
between British and American annexa
tion. true to its instincts, Abolition stretch
es its hand forward to aid a loreign coun
try by opposing its own ; and that oil a
question which is but a Southern one,
confined in its benefits to the slavehold
ing States, but promising in its results
more to the North than to the South.
The ultimate analysis of the Texian con
troversy resolves itself into a question of
the preponderance of American or Brit
ish feeling. This is a fearful issue for
Abolition to meet. It is one which ar
rays the Abolitionists, not against the
South, but against their own countrymen
at the North; against all who prefer
Texas to constitute a part of our free in
stitutions. rather than the point from
which those institutions aro. to be assail
ed. It was this American feeling which
sustained the last war, and prostrated
New England Federalism, and which
will now trample New England Aboli
tion into the dust, while it bears the T. cx-
ian cause aloft in triumph.
But, fellow-citizens, we are told that,
as Mexico has neveracknowledged the in
dependence of Texas, we cannot treat
for Texas without the consent ot Mexi
co. The argument may be used as
'strongly against Mexico. At the time
Texas achieved her independence, and
was so acknowledged by ns, Mexico her
fcelf bad not been acknowledged as inde
pendent by Spain. If, therefore, Texas
Cannot be a sovereign power; without the
consent of Mexico, she, in her turn, could
hot have been independent of Spain ; and
Spain is, in fact, the mother government
which must acknowledge Texus. In
the recognition by Spain, Texas was, in
fact, acknowledged as one of the free
States of Mexico. Spain recognised the
independence of the Mexican States, and
not of each State separately.
If, however, the recognition by Spain
be not good for Texas, as well as the
other free States of Mexico, whence
comes the doctrine that recognition by
the mother country is at all necessary to
constitute sovereignty, when it is only
the evidence of it, and but one evidence,
which is not conclusive, except between
the parties themselves ? For I hold, that
a State may be recognised as sovereign
by the mother country, possessing so few
of the requisites to maintain her authori
ty at home or abroad, that other nations
might be compelled to treat her as a snb
ject. On the other hand, a State may
have achieved its independence, and, in
point of fact, be more able to protect its
rights than the mother country ; and, for
want of this evidence, is she to be treated
as a dependent ? If so, the glorious right
BAI72TSF.—“ jFrr* ITraie, loto Sutfrs, aio Scbt, Separation from Ranks, ISconomg, Hctrcnchmcnt, anb a strict ft* her nice to the Constitution.”
of revolution, by which we achieved our
independence, is at an end, and can nev
er be perfected, except by the permission
of tyrants.
In every other respect than the assent
of Mexico, Texas is now and has been
for the last eight years as independent as
Mexico. Our government determined
that question as early cs March 1837;
and determined it with no qualifications
which now authorize her to bring it into
question. She then sent to Texas a
minister resident, as she did to other Gov
ernments, and has received and accredit
ed one in return. She has negotiated
and ratified with hei two treaties, both
during the administration of Mr. Van
Buren, and one a treaty of limits fixing
the eastern boundary line of Texas, and
reciprocally guarantying the same, with
out any reference to the authority of
Mexico. Now, at the end of more than
seven years of diplomatic intercourse
with her as a sovereign State, in which
we have been sustained in our recogni
tion of her independence by Great Brit
ain, France, Holland, and most of the
principal Governments of Europe, with
several of whom she has made important
treaties, can we question the fact of her
independence, to which we all along as
sented, without the grossest breach of
faith to her, and an insult which would
be just ground of war ? In the face of
the world, it would look more like a con
spiracy against Texas, and a collusion
with Mexico, than its recognition would
be an act of injustice of which the latter
could complain.
But it may be said, that though Texas
has so long maintained her independence,
it is not out of the reach of reversal by
Mexico—nor can it ever be; and in re
cognising the independence of a country,
we do it upon her present supposed abili
ty to protect herself against the parent
country, without guarantying that ability
through all time. Like all other States,
she shares the danger of subjugation by
the parent country as well as by all oth
ers; and a successful attempt again to
reduce her to subjection is anew subju
gation of her power.
But, if maintaining her authority for
more than seven years against Mexico,
uninterrupted except by predatory at
tacks on the frontier, be not a sufficient
guarantee of her ability to continue to do
so, I ask what will 1 And as a descend
ant of the rebel Mood which achieved
our independence, l should like to know
how much longer time are we to allow a
tyrant to recapture his revolted provin
ces, and what particular indulgence is
due to one who has been remarkable for
nothing so much as the cruelty and per
fidy with which he butchered his disarm
ed prisoners.
But, fellow-citizens, it has been said,
from a source entitled to every respect,
that our acknowledgment of the indepen
dence of Texas, de facto , is not an ac
knowledgment of its independence de
jure ; and hence it is inferred there is a
distinction between sovereignty in fart
and sovereignty in right, disparaging to
the authority of Texas to make a treaty
of annexation without the consent of
Mexico.
With due respect, it seems to me, fel
low-citizens, the distinction is one not
applicable to our American conception of
the question. In the Declaration of onr
Independence it is asserted, that the peo
ple have the right, whenever government
becomes destructive of the ends for which
it was established, to “ alter or abolish”
such government; atld it is further as
serted, that “governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the gov
erned.” These cardinal conceptions of
the authority of the people over govern
ments, make all governments established
by the popular will, and sustained by it
without any foreign aid, control, or dicta
tion, governments de jure, while, lrom
their very description, they are equally
governments de facto. Acknowledging
no right of government beyond the as
sent of the governed, we look to the fact,
that the people are able, willing, and ac
tually do, sustain the government, as
making it, in all respects, a government
both de facto and de jure —nor have we
a right to go a step further, and to inquire
whether any government is or is not
de jure. Bv the law of nations, all sov
ereignties are equal. It follows that no
nation can exercise any supervision on
the rightfulness of the authority which
is exercised by another over her own cit
izens. To admit this, would be to give
to all nations a control over the govern
ment of each, and to make the will of all
instead of the will of each, the only foun
dation of legitimate government. The
utmost power, consistent with equality
and perfect independence among gov
ernments, is to judge whether a govern
ment in fact exists already, sustaining,
and likely to continue to sustain, its au
thority for such a length of time as to
make it responsible for its engagements.
This much is indispensable to make par
ties to the necessary negotiations between
nations. All inquiries beyond it into the
legitimacy 6f government, or into their
rightful or wrongful existence, is to in
vite interference from other nations into
those daiises of domestic commotion
which led to the first breach of regular
government among its own citizens.
MACON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1844.
In laying down these principles, fel
low-citizens,. I do so upon a purely Amer
ican question, and applicable to Ameri
can republics. I speak upon the author
ity of no writer on the law of nations,
and can well imagine that upon a Euro
pean question, in a Congress pledged to
sustain the holy alliance, the doctrines of
legitimacy, and the divine right of kings,
the question “de jure” becomes different
from, and often more important to deter
mine, than the question “defacto”
By act of March 3, 1837, an appro
priation was made for “the outfit and sal
ary of a diplomatic agent to be sent to the
republic of Texas, whenever the Presi
dent of the United States may receive
satisfactory evideneethat Texas is an in
dependent power, and shall deeih it ex
pedient to appoint such minister.” Oil
the same day, Mr. Vail Buren, satisfied
no doubt of the requirement of the law,
that Texas was an independent power,
nominated a minister to that Government.
The act of Congress required no proof
of the right of Texas to become an in
dependent power, but proceeded on the
principles 1 have laid down, that the fact
that the people had achieved their inde
pendence carries with it necessarily the
right. In this manner it may be said
we have passed upon the independence
of Texas “de jure” as decisively, and as
long since, as we have upon her inde
pendence “de facto.”
In thus passing on the independence
of Texas, we acknowledged her right to
do whatever a free State may rightfully
do. If she is an independent power, she
is capable of forming contracts in the
shape of treaties, and of course a treaty
of cession and annexation. Whatever
offence this may be to Mexico* has long
since been given by the act of recognition,
and is surely now no new cause of quar
rel.
But, fellow-citizens, we are neverthe
less told by those who profess great an
xiety for the annexation of Texas, at the
proper time, that we must wait for the
consent of Mexico, or until she recogni
ses the independence of Texas. Why *his
hopeless assurance, except to disguise the
real issue, which is not between this
country and Mexico, but between us and
Great Britain ? Mexico has long de
spaired of conquering Texas, and is now
no longer a party in inteiest to this con
troversy, except as the willing and de
pendent instrument of Great Britain; con;
sidering tier indebtedness to England, her
own independence may be more readily
questioned than that of Texas. Her
claim to Texas is the shelter behind
which Great Britain screens herself from
a more open and manly interference be
tween us and Texas; and if she can break
off the bargain by parading the title of
Mexico, she knows that at any moment
she can make that title her own. To
ask, then, for the consent of Mexico, is
as hopeless ns to require the consent of
Great Britain herself.
To alarm us, however, into some re
cognition of Mexico’s rights, we are told
that her war with Texas still continues,
and until, by inability or other cause, she
ceases to prosecute it, we cannot annex-
Texas without making ourselves a party
to that war. That open, manly, civiliz
ed, sustained, and regular war, would
give her the rights of a belligerent pow
er, is not more certain than that secret
expiditions, predatory irruptions, and
marauding assaults upon an enemy’s
country, repeated at long intervals, and
continued no longer than a force should
Ixj collected to putit down, would deprive
her of those rights. Such assaults, then,
as Mexico has made upon Texas since
the memorable battle of St. Jacinto, so far
from constituting war, are in fact excep
tions to it; and il for these, and her well
known cruelty and disregard of all the
rules ol civilized warfare, the U. States
were now to make war on her, she would
have no just tause of complaint. Should
she choose, however, in consequence of
Texas annexation, to continue or to
make war on us, I know no enemy whose
atrocities would more unite the spirit of
our people, unless it be one, who, by aid
ing Mexico, should disclose a present and.
past participation in enslaving Texas
and defrauding us.
Having availed myself, fellow-citizens,
of this opportunity of addressing you on
a subject of such vital interest to you, 1
should be wanting in candor not to state
the real difficulty attending its successful
termination. Long in advance of the
treaty, I gave my opinion in a private let
ter to a friend in Texas, that the question
was stronger than either candidate for the
Presidency, and stronger than even both.
I think so still. It is not to be disguised,
however, that while the opinions of Mr.
Clay and Mr. Van Buren, singularly
coincident in alt the main features of the
question, have hardly produced a ripple
on the wave of popular sentiment which
is rolling oti in favor of re-annexation,
most of the friends of the former gentle
man, and many of the most influential of
the latter, have avowed themselves in fa
vor of tile measure, but are anxious to
postpone its determination to some more
propitious period. I question no man’s
sincerity or patriotism in taking this
cours&, nor do I complain of it. I state
it, however, tfs a most unfortunate divis
ion among the friends of re-annexation
leading to the charge, on one side, that
the measure has been hastened with a
view to its effects on the Presidential
question, and on the other, that it is de
layed in reference to the same cause.—
If, however, the people cannot elevate
this great question into an atmosphere
higher and purer than that of mere party
politics—if they cannot take the mea
sure without reference to its effects on
aspirants to power, and are willing to de
lay it to avert those effects from individ
uals—the phoper time will never ar
rive. The tjelay will enure to the suc
'cess of Great Britain.
What, then, should be done to insure
the success *f a measure, before which
the petty policy of party sinks into in
aitgiuficßnee / I answer: meet as the
friends of immediate annexation in ev
ery tovvnand village throughout the land,
petition in favor of immediate annexa
tion, and send your petitions to this body.
Let it no longer be doubtful whether the
public opinion of the country is for or a
gainst immediate action. Instruct your
public agents to support the measure;
and to convince them that you are in
earnest, and that you consider it para
mount to all questions of party, declare
that you will vote for no man for any
office not in favor of it; and my life on
the result, the question succeeds, and
succeeds as soon as this shall be general
ly done in five or six of the Southern
and Western States most unanimous tor
re-annexation.
Thus, fellow citizens, you will have
added many new links to be bright chain
of that Confederacy which is to encircle
the large portion of a continent, every
inch of which has been won by the vulor
of a race worthy to win and worthy to
hold in perpetuity this great Heritage of
Freedom, in defiance of that power which
has well nigh enslaved the world.
Allow me, in conclusion, fellow-citi
zens, togive utterance to that sentiment,
not only of gratitude, but of affectionate
regard, which an uninterrupted relation
of fifteen years’ service has given me to
wards tny constituents. Like all other
strong attachments, it has been the
growth of years devoted to your service,
while I have been sustained by your
confidence. If time and circumstances
should cut me off from every other hand
of sympathy, and I should meet in a dis
tant land the humblest freeman I have
the honor to represent, the fact that he
once was my constituent, would give
him a brother’s claims oq my affections.
1 am, vrby respectfully, fcllow-citizerts
your obedient servant,
DIXON H. LEWIS.
Area of Texas.
In their correspondence with Mr. Cal
houn, on the treaty of annexation, Gen.
Henderson and Mr. Van Zaudt, saysthat
the Commissioner of the General Land
Office of Texas, estimates the limits of
the Republic to contain 203,520,000 a
cres, of which 07,408,673 have been np
preprinted, leaving 136,111,326 subject
to disposition by the Government.
Reduce the aggregate to square miles,
and the result As 318,000—more than
equal to the united territory of the fol
lowing six States.
Square miles. Population. 1840.
liOiiisiana 48,000 352,411
Mississippi 49,000 375.651
Alabama 50,000 500,756
Georgia 62.000 691,302
S. Carolina 33,000 504.308
Virginia 70,000 1,239,707
Total 311,000 3,844,405
To render the population of Texas as
dense as that in the States named, there
ought to be four millions of inhabitants,
at least twenty times the present num
ber.— Tuscaloosa Monitor .
Hon. George M. Bibb, chancellor of
Kentucky, has Written an able letter in
favor of re-annexation, which appears in
the Richmond Enquirer. He concludes
by saying that:
“ My judgment is, that Texas ought to
lie annexed to this Union. She is ours
by position : she is part and parcel of us;
kindred in blood; kindred in spirit;
kindred in glory—a gallant co-worker in
the great causeof free Government. She
is a cast off child of the Union—she de
serves to be recalled in the bosom of the
family. I should rejoice to see “the
lone” star of Texas added to our glorious
six-and-twenty, together forming a con
stellation, which will diffuse the light
and knowledge of human Government
amongst the ignorant and oppressed.—
And if for this annexation Banta Anna,
or the people of Mexico shall make war
upon the United States, then it will not
belong before the Star Spangled Banner
will waive in triumph over the palace of
the Montezuuins.”
Nature's Nobleman.
The New Orleans 1 leraid relates an
anecdote of one of their wealtv citizens.
“A gentlemaninformed us yesterday, that
after he was burned out on Saturday, he
went to Job;. Hagan, Esq. and asked
him to rent him a house. The replay
was “No, sir, I have no houses to rent to
the sufferers; but go to my agent, and ask
him for the key of any house I have va
cant, and take possession of it.” Such
acts of kindness and generosity redeem
the whole race.”
MISCELLANY.
Robert tfudie.
A truly remarkable man was Mudie !
Born in one of the obscure corners of
Scotland, and trained, literally, at the
anvil, he was destined to become the
schoolmaster, the author, and an editor
of the newspaper press; and to furnish
delight to more classes of society, per
haps, than any other man of his day.—
He was always ready to receive an or
der to write on ativ subject, whether he
understood it or not. I have heard him
say, that if he understood it, so much the
better, for then he had no trouble at all
about it; but if he did not understand it,
why, then he must give a week’s reading
to k, and anybody with a shadow es a
mind might write a quarto on a week’s
“cramming.” Governed by this prin
ciple, when it was necessary that he
should learn Latin, he began in the mid
dle of Virgil, and by the help of his dic
tionary worked his Way to the end, never
reading the grammar till he could write
the language. Now, it was literally the
case with Mudie that he had to till him
self with matter for everything he under
took. He has more than once told me,
that tVhen the celebrated Dr. Chalmers
applied to him to devote three or four
hours every Saturday afternoon “to give
him some astronomy,” that he might he
qualified to deliver his popular lectures
on that subject, the pereeptor knew no
more than the pupil; “and yet,” he would
say, “be it always remembered, I am not
responsible for the Doctor’s horrid mis
takes about the matter.”
I know not vvliat Mudie did m Scot
land before he commenced his English
career; but l have heard him tell not a
few of his freaks, often scattering con
sternation around him. He edited, 1 be
lieve in Edinburgh, a weekly newspaper.
A piece of scandal occupied the attention
of the whole city, and Mudie resolved on
both exciting curiosity, and on disap
pointing it. The paper one day profes
sed to contain a review of a recently
published pamphlet on the all-exciting
topic. The review gave an account of
the size of the publication, its price, the
manner in which it was “got up,” and
the name of its publisher—a man, I re
member, the most unlikely of all others
to publish such a hook. The review,
moreover, carefully criticised the stylo,
pointing out its excellencies and defects,
correcting some slight typographical
blunders, gave some piquant extracts,
and closed by giving “coutchts” of its
various chapters. The wltolb city was
roused; the people ran by thousands to
purchase the extraordinary book, the
advertised publisher of which had noth
ing to do for many hours but to declare
that he had published no such Work, and
knew nothing about it. The hook had
never been written—the night before
publishing day, the printer had wanted
"copy;” and the editor thought that this
sort of thing would sell as well as any
thing else—nor was he mistaken.
After his removal to London, his pen
was prolific and profitable; and yet, ul
terly ignorant of the value of mdney,
Mudie was always miserably poor.—
“The Results of Machinery,” published
by Knight, and attributed to Lord Brou
gham—“ Modern Babylon,” “Readings
in Science,” and “Practical Agriculture,”
all came from hispen within a few weeks,
and were all equally acceptable. He
would write in the same month, “The
Young Female Servant’s Guide,” ail
“Almanac,” “Thesistrical Criticisms,”
and “Letters on the Use Os the Plough
in the North of England.” I have
known him conduct “The Mechanics’
Magazine” in the metropolis, .and spend
a large portion of the month at Winches
ter, preparing “The History and Topo
graphy of Hampshire.” But it is impos
sible to tell what Mudie could do, or
wllat he did.
Dr. Johnson use to say, ‘that an auth
or could only work ns he was driven to
it by the want of money. Certainly this
want of money would at anytime call
forth the faculties of Robert Mudie.—
The series of his works have been pop
ular in the United States, and it may
gratify the reader to know somewhat of
their history. Having formed An idea
that the titles, “The . Heaven,” “The
Earth,” “The Air,” and “The Sea,”
might, if well wrought out, form useful
and acceptable hooks, 1 was authorised
to obtain such works. I sent for Mudie;
it was about my first interview with him;
I explained to him what 1 wanted; and
offered him forty guineas per volume,
payable on delivery of the copy. He ac
cepted the terms, and in four daysbrought
the manuscript of the first volume; say
ing, he was “much iu want of cash.” I
was scarcely prepared for such prompti
tude, and was half disposed to read be
fore 1 paid. He very truly ass”T°d ine,
however, that none could read his writ
ing but printers, and that they had to
guess at half of it. He took away his
money—the book turned out a good one,
and 1 soon discovered that all his works,
and the style and matter of some of them
are exquisitely beautiful, and were pro
duced in the same rapid manner. The
same things were substantially true ot
his “Spring,” “Summer,” “Autumn,” and
“Winter.”
VOL. 11-NO 5:
The appearance of the author by no
means corresponded with the. character
of his productions. He was tall, tony,
stout, and rough—just like a Scottish
blacksmith. His dress and coarse stick
corresponded with his person, and no
stranger would imagine that so rough an
exterior contained so much intelligence
or such fine taste. His sensibility was
equal to either of his other excellencies.
I have heard him descant on the beauty
of a blade of grass, and on the wisdom of
Deity as apparent in its formation, till he
wept like a child. lam afraid however,
that he would mistake this senlimentali
ty for religion—an error sometimes fal
len in to by others, as well as by Mudie.
On one subject 1 firmly believe that
Mudi» wrote con amove , nor do 1 think
that tile wealth of India would have in
duced him, on that subject, to take the
wrong side. He was the unyielding
friend of liberty. Strong representations
of facts, withering sarcasms, and irresis
tible appeals to the higher principles of
human nature, would pass lrom his pen
whenever the sanctuary of liberty was
invaded. His papers, oil this subject,
when connected with “the daily press,”
would lie copied and extended to every
comer of the land; judges in their ermin
ed robes have trembled at his rebukes;
and senators have been compelled to “ex
plain” when they smarted under his lash.
Alas ! that Mudie should have died in
poverty, and have left a wife and family
in almost hopeless distress!
Editors.
Captain Marry alt, writing on the man
tier in which newspapers and magazines
are got up thus alludes to their editors
“ What a life ol toil, what an unnatural
life, must theirs be, who thus cater thro’
the hours of darkness lor the information
and amusement of those who have slept
through the night, and rise to he instruev
ted by the labor of their vigils ! The
editors of these must have a most oner
ous task. It is not the writing of the
lending article itself, but obligation of
writing that article every day, whether
inclined or not; in sickness or in health,
in affliction, distress of mind, winter or
slimmer, year alter year, tied down to
one task, remaining on one spot, it is
something like walking a thousand miles
ill a thousand hours, 1 have a fellow
feeling forthem, for I know how a month
ly periodical will wear down one’s ex
istence. In itself it appears nothing—
the labor is not manifest—nor is it the
labbr—it is the continual attention it re
quires. Yoilr life becomes, ns it were,
the magazine. One is no sooner eorrec
ted and printed, than on comes another.
It is tlie stone of Sisyphus—an endless
repetition of toil a constant weight ti|K>ti
the inind—a continual wearing upon the
intellect and spirits, demanding all the
exertion of your (acuities at the same
time you are compelled to do the sever
cst drudgery.”
Advice to votin" l.ndics.
Addison says: “ I have found that mm
who are really most fond of the society
of ladies, who cherish for them a high
respect are seldom the most popular wiilt
the sc*. Men of great assurance, whose
tongues arc lightly hit tig, who make
words supply the place of ideas; and
place compliment in the room of senti
ment, arc the favorites. A true respect
for women leads tri respectful action to
ward them; and respectful is usually dis
tant action; and this great distance is
mistaken by them for neglect, Or want of
interest.”
Olu Chaucer, describing one ot bis
heroines, ijays
“Hevlliule feet seeped in and otlt,
I.ike little mice, beneath her robe.”
Delightful illustration ! In this case;
the mice turn the tables upon us. In
stead of being caught, they catch us.
No javelin was ever more fatal than the
little white kid slipper. In our youth,our
school-maam Was wont to .apply her shoe
to our tingling bars ; but we IraVe smar
ted more since our maturity by having
little slippers applied to »ur eyes. Wo
have winked like toads under cabbage
leaves in a thundershower, when those
little slippers have flashed upon our en
tranced vision.
Or : ginof the Flower “Forget-rae-Not.**
Mills, in his work on chivalry, men
tions that beautiful little flower “Forget
me-not,” was known in England as ear
ly as Edward the Fourth, and in a note
gives the following pretty incident: —
“Two lovers were loitering along the
margin of a lake on a fine summer’s eve
ning. when the maiden discovered some
flowers growing in the water close to the.
bank of an island at some distauce from
the shore, Site expressed a desire to
possess them, when her knight, in the
true spirit of chivalry, plunged into the
water and swimming to the spot, cropped
the wished-for plant; but his strength was
unable to fulfil the object of his achieve
ment; and feeling that he could not re
gain the shore, although very near it, he
threw the flowers on the bank, ahfl cast
ing a last affectionate look on his Indy
love, said, “Forget-me-not,” and was
buried iu the water.”