Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.”