Newspaper Page Text
r A
■sasxaaaBara^mecr.*
—A '
«< 'V*lriY^ l ?Sl'iSSi^‘irV , ^4 |l tfiiii MTi t , , , ,. . Aflpg
VOLUHB IV—MT 'ISJirj |6.
EDITED in
J. A. CFTHBERT & WILKINS HUNT.
ggggjjPBBMBaiBaWI
KK ALB
JIILLEDGEVILLE, (GA.) WEDNESDAY, MAY,21, 1831.
,, , . 'jHERlFF’S NALE.—On the first
„ ., .* i? ‘■’ Ua J ,n Jun ‘ «««, will, within the legal hours, be
k’ it UF 113 court 'l 10Uii “ tloor in the town of Decatur,
iJ-‘Kalo county,
„.^®'’ enty * fiv « ? crPS "Hand more or less, lying onthe north-
fifty-eight in the • ighteenth dis-
,, _ 4 ori gtna|ly Henry now DeKalb county—levied on as
i property of John J innings, to .satisfy sundry fi fas issu-
r J 1 ^ °j a Juatace's court of paid county in favor of Jesse
• leveland and Clarke & Willard vs john J innings; lev
ied on and returned to me by a constable.
One gray horse horse, about six years old—levied.cn as
the property of Joel Chandler, to satisfy a fi fa in (avor of
I ' ' ,St T . Sullivan vs Joel Chandler; property pointed out by
1 the defendant. April 19, 1334.
, .. , ISAAGN. JOHNSON, sheriff.
wSsr »“•»! tgj? In ,h * <!»«« <t o»g«,„i?y _ „„„ ff
Sales of real estate by Executors, Administrators and Guar.lians | o , a !2i C0llnty .’. SHppos " d t0 „ h f ninety acres inure-or less—
roust lx: potiJi-shed SIXTY IlAY.S Uefore the dny of sale. these , V “' '** property of Jos ‘pit Gill, to satisfy a fi fa in
i.ales mu« *!«“*“* ** the ■court-house door between the houts of to * avor of John P. Huchins vs said Gill: nronertv nointed out
Ordersof Court ot Ordinary, (accompanied with a copv af tlie ■ - UA.Mtl, JOHNSO -, deputy sheriff.
hcnii, or itdreehient) to make titles to land, must be advertised
The UNION ispublishcd every Wednesday at THREE DOLLA R
j »r annum, in advance, or FOUR, if not paid before the end cf the
,\ear. The Office is on Wape Street, opposite the State Bank.
All ADVERTISEMENTS published at the usual rates
N. ti. Each Citation by the Clerks of the Courts of Oidinary tha
triplication has been made for Letters of Administration, must be
published THIRTY DAYS at least.
Notice by Executors and Administrators for Debtors and Credi
tor? to render in their accounts, must be published SIX WEEKS.
Sales of Neerocs by Executors and Administrators must i« ad
vertised SI XT1 DAI ri before the day of vale.
sales of personal property (except nesrroes) of testate and intes-
t ,- . estates by Executors and Administrators, must be advertised
FORTY DAYS.
Applications hy Executors, Administrators and Guardians to the i the defendant.
Court cf Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be published FOUR
MONTHS
aikee months at least. " “ ,m ” i^OLASWTAX-COLLECTORS SALE.-On the first
Tuesday in Jun ■ n°xt, will, within the legal hours, be
.'hcritf
roust he
Ps .-alts under executions regularly granted by the courts , * uesday in Jun - next, v
adimmed THUITY DAYS—under anortg^ge executions! • ““fib }>_"foro the^ourt-house floor in the town of Hartford,
sr i St ss% t SrstfS' - - — *
JAMES U. HORAE,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
H AVING located himself in LUMPKIN, Stewart coun
ty, tenders his services to his friends and the public
gen -rally in the PRACTICE of LAW. He will attend the
Courts of the Chattahoochee Circuit, and aft business con-
fidpd to him will be promptly attended to. r
March 1*2, 1834 13t 36
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, GA.
MSteageviUe, 12tk May, 4834. 4
“%TOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That an apportion-
i M ment lias been made, among the several Counties of
this State, of the proceeds of the funds set apart for the en
dowment of County Academies and for the support of Poor
Schools,—which several sums may be drawn by tl\e Trus
tees of said funds respectively, or their order, as provided
for by law. By order of the Governor.
45-3t R. A. GREENE, secretary.
>*.* The dm lard ofMJaion. Southern Recoftler, and Georgia
Journal, will publish the above three times.
All orders lor Advertisements will be punctually attended to " , ""j »"y “ A u, ‘" u “ 11 cost;
, • Ail letters directed to this office, or the Editors must be post- ! , .. h ' lndr ' d a[ld seventy acres of oak and hickory land,
t ni.to r.ditle them to attention lying in the neighborhood of «ebun Rozier—as th« property
nVIGGS SIIKRIFF’S SALE.—On the first Tues-
lieforc
county
_ . , .. . - r , . —... properly
ot Ad -it Scarbrough to pay his tax for the year 1832- tax du“
75 cents and cost.
Two hundred two and a half acres of oak and hickory
nil k'intr in ikn 1... ..L 1 „ 1’ it n ■ 11 . J
day in June naxt, will, within the legal hours, be sold l,„i lu “o - a , , ahal , f ac . rPS of oak ar>d hi( ' k °ry
i> t!i“ court-house door in the town of Marion, Twines nmJr.lVw lh v. t n .‘'f.' lborhwd Dr. Barkenells—as the
v. Wright Allin: to pay h® tax for the year 1832: tax
Two hundred two and 0 lit If acres of oak and hickory d 7™? an< < OS !' .
land, it being lot number ten in the twmty-fourthdistrict of T two , and a ha,f a "« of P i!lp l^d lying in
originally Wilkinson but now Twiggs county—levied on ns L. P 7 P ‘^' ^■Dima-d Ay.-rs, to pay his
the prop Tty of David 1!. Perrvmau, U> satisfy a fi fa from Uv u ,a ? d 'f S?* Cdn,s anJ cost -
the superior court of Twiggs county, in favor'of Kimberly h-,!) , h ?h ^ r vv iu f Ti, ° f ,lrst q,wllty pin?
On - thou-and two hundred Acres of oak and hickory land,
— wh^eon John G. Slappev form rly lived, lying on the road
J ASPER SHERIFF’S SALE.—On the first Tups- , ,n Hartford loth- Buzzard Roost—as the property of
day in June next, will, within the 1-gal hours, be sold, •’ ohn ( J- Slappy and given in by said Slappev, to pay his
efure th ■ court-house door, in tha town of VIonticeUo, Jasp- lax !5 ' f°* th year 1831; tax du» $14 56f c -nts and cost.
On ■ hundred one aid a (juarter acres of land lying three
nail f. mn Hawkiusvil^—levied on as th-.j prop .Tty of Bry-
ant VV. Colli r, to pay Nathani -1 .1/‘Call's lax for the years
1831 and 1S33 assum 1 by said Collier: tax due 80 cents and
cost. March 24, 1834.
80LO/1ON W. MITCHELL, tax-collector.
Hardy Durham. April 28, 1831.
JOHN FITZPATRICK, sheriff.
before th; court-house door, in tha town of VIonticeUo, Jasp
<r county,
Fifty acres ofland, more or less, known as part of number
one hundred und fitty-ninp in the tw-'lfth district of said
county—levied on as th-* properly of Samuel L. B. Lurd. tt,
t j satisfy two fi las from a justice s court of said countv in
favor of Namu-1 iJoggins vs Samuel L. B. Burdett: levy
mad. 1 and returned to ate by a constable. April 24, 1834.
J. B. SLAUGHTER, sheriff.
Ate-l, trill he sold, at the above time and place,
A negro hoy nam h1 Jonathan—levi -d on as the prop-rty
< if Thomas Robinson juu. to satisfy four fi fas from a justice’s
• ourt of Butts county, three in favor of l^wrenoe Gahagan
and one in favor of Bierpont Phillips vs said Thomas Ko-
I'insonjun. April 1, 1834.
JOSEPH C. POST, deputy sheriff. I
WARE SIIEIUiiT’S SALE.—OnThMirst Tues-
day m June next, will, within the 1 -gal hours, be
sold, b •fore the court-house door in the town of Waresbo-
rough, Ware county, ,
Four hundred anil ninety acres of pine land in the eighth
district of said county, being lot numb ....
lour—levied on a? th - property of
satisfy a fi fa from a ju.-lice's court
1*11: le vv made and returned to me by a constable. April
6,1831. _ THOMAS J. HENDERSON, sheriff.
H \ BEKS IIAM SHERIFF’S SALE.—On the iam L. Hardison, to satisfy a fi la in favor of William Cow-
first Tu-sday in June n.-x*, will, within the 1-gal | art, issued under th - foreclosure of a mortgage against said
iioars, be sold, before ilia court-house door in the town of Hardison: property pointed out in said mortgage ti fe. May
If.i 1 1 r 1^34 OUL-DWen CC^Bfixtlo _l -jr J
4 PPL1Y . -SHERIFF’S SALE.—On the first
1'oesday ia ,'uly n-xt, will, within th-1-gal hours be
sold, before th - -ourt house door of Appling county, ’
A mulatto-gii ntyn -d Rhpdy, about eight years old-
levied on as th 'properly of Solomon Cannaday, to satisfy a
fi fa in favor of fohn L. Dekel vs the said Cannaday. April
7, 1334.
Five h-ad of stock cattle—levi-d on as the property of
Richard R. G*dvvin, to satisfy the court charges, <fec. of
Appling sup-nor court at April Term, 1834, in a case
wherein th- said Godwin was convicted of the offence of
caltle-st-aling. .May 5, H34.
WILLIAM NTiTTLES, sheriff.
lumber two hundredand W V ^ I * NT l °> SHEmFF’S SALE •—Postpon-
' William G Ri—jns to y » fd.—On the first Tuesday in June next, will, within
t in favor of James Pop- t,lB 1( ‘F ai hour8 . 1,(4 sold i before the court-hous- door, at San-
1 dersville, Washington county,
Two n-gro-8, Clarissa, a auaun of first rate qualities,
and h-r child, Newton—levied on as the prop-rtv of Will-
Clarksville, Habersham county,
On -, negro-man nam d Jim—levied on as property of Al-
.*r. Bowling, to satisfy a fi fa from a magistrate’s court in
tvor of Lewis Levy, on • in favor of Joint H. Jones & Co.
and one in iavor of A. Rowland: levy made and returned
ro in : by a constable. April 1G, iS3l.
C. RITCtI, sheriff.
Also, will be sold, at the above time and place,
Lot number forty-two in the town of Clarksville, in said
i-ouaty, containing two and on--tenih aerts inor-i or Fas—
levi -d on as the prop rty of Pobert «b^;,Isolation' l«;
Mt-d from the inferior cdbrt ot Cow , , . r
Jmr-s R. vV’yly: prop-rty pointeiL. what cai tuly tn-
Eighty acres of land more ^ or to human ll'ailty?
land graiitcd to Willi*-, w. r • . «
irez ];iahsiP l )!,ens , - r 5rli*doaU) err from mistake,
Tombiin, to satisfy a %» from a ma e - bias. It is itn-
«f Hudson Moss: lewduad - and retur.W .3unon tilfi
tUib!-. April 16, l>fl.
f A. MAULDIN, deputy-sheriff."
Aten, will be /old, at the above time and place,
Lots number on? hundred and fifty-two and number one
'madreo and sixty-nine in the tenth district of said county—
-vied oa by the former sh-riff of said county, as th- pro-
p rty o! llenry Wade, to satisfy a fi fa in favor of Charles
dutch. March 25, 1334.
SAMPSON SOSEBEE, coroner.
i *,
SHERROD SESSIONS, sheriff.
JEFF12KSOS HAL If.
i A The undersigned respectfully informs his friends
j ■; r]t and the public generally, that he has opened a
i O* 1 OUSE of ENTERTAINMENT, under the a-
) bove apellation. The Jefferson Hall is situated on the
j southeast corner of the public square, in the town of MAC-
I DONOuGH, Henry county, Ga. form-rly occupied by Mr.
j F. A. 1 iu wn. The undersigned w ill always be ready to ac-
j commodate the trav-U rand the transient and regular board-
! er to th - b-.-st of his ability. Macdonoiigh, April 30, 1334.
- 43-5t , GUY W>SMITH.
CoifiT
\\ YLTON SHERIFF’S SALE.—On the first
_ ^ Tuesday in June next, will, within the I-gal hours,
sold, b.-ibre tha court-house door in tha town of .Monroe,
IValton county*,
Two negroes, Tom a man about sixty years of age, and
Gras- a woman sixty years of aga—levied on as the proper
ty of Epps Duke, to satisfy a fi la in favor of B. T. Russell,
' X'-nitor of the estate of B. Russell, d--ceased.
O.ie house and lot in the town of Monroe, with a splendid
nuilding, known as the Planters’Hotel, form-rly occupied
by the defendant, known inth - plan of said town by lot
number eighteen, and lot number eight, whereon the de-
kindiinfs stable now stands, on the east side of Broad stre -t
■ —all levied on as th 1 prop-rty of Jesse II. Arnold, to satisfy
a mortgage fi fo from th ■ superior court of said county in
Uxor of Stevens Thomas vs said Arnold: property pointed
oat in said mortgage fi fa.
1 orty-one acres of land more or less, with a small im-
provetn mt thereon, lii.ig the southw.-st half of lot number
- n- hundred and twenty-nine in the fourth district of Wal-
ij.'i county, adjoining lands of Ferguson and Paxson—levied
a as th • prop -rty of 1)Mila Fl-tch-*r, to satisfy one fi fa j
nmi * IFaVE HUNDRED LOTS,
MOC IN THE TOWN OF GERARD,
.Ve<*posite the town of Columbus, Georgia, for
'J sa'e.
( NilE undersigned will offer for sale, on Monday, the
*V^tL 2d day of June n-xt, five hundred LOTS in the town
of Gerard. !'h« Iwjts are situated imm -diately at the head
of steamboat navigation, rm the Chattahoochee river, and
many of th ;m contain valuable water-privileges. Also, a
vaht’ibl ■ Saw and Grist .MILL, in complete repair, together
with the LOT upon which the western abutment of the
Bridge over the Chattahoochee rests. Terms of sale made
know 1 oa the day. I). M’DOUGALD,
Ap* il 26, 1834-13 A pent for the Proprietors.
JlEDaClL CARD.
D f.. PETERS coutinu‘*s, as usual, to cure DYSPEP-
8|A ami a host of Maladies that have hitherto bafiled
the si 11 of the medical f-at.-rnity. Dr. P. can he seen at
Ui • L gle Hotel, in Miliodgeville, until the 15th of July; af
ter wv eh he expects to be absent from th? State for two or
three tonths.
ASPEPSIA AND LIVER COMPLAINT.
D. Peters has succeeded by chemical analysis and syn-
thesr, in forming a cont|xmiid fipotn several proximate t-ege-
table principles, which lias proved far more efficient than any
remedy, heretofore discovered, in curing those distressing
maladies of mind and body, which are generally comprehend
ed under the sw -eping t-rms DYSPEPSIA and LIVER
COMPLAINTS, it is likewis - an almost certain curt- for en-
largem-nts of the SPLEEN. The above Medicines consist of
thr.e different preparation; two of wliicli are to betaken
internally—th - otlc-r to le* applied externally over the parts
dis-as-d. Not th? least harm ran result from n^ing tliem,
and they are perfectly pleasant to lake, mid the same food
1 may be u»"d ml rmployin mt pursued, that would be qiro-
W ASIIINGTON SHERIFF’S SALE
, w first Tuesday in Jun- n-xt, will, within
from a justice’s court in favor of William Carr vs Delila ( per for th-patient, ,f he was not under their influence Th«y
Fletcher and Allen Fletch-r: property pointed out by James j arc put up m parcels, with full directions Jor use. From one
ik-xby Esij: levy made and returned to m? by a constable. J
All of Sarah Flanegan’s interest in lot number three hun- !
fired and seventy-five in the ninth district of formerly Hen- j
*v now Walton county—levied on to satisfy a fi fa in favor !
<1 the officers of court and one subpoena in favor of A. Stud- |
card vs Sarah FJanetran: pronerty pointed out by \. Stud-
fiard. April 23, 1834.
JOHN T. MORROW, deputy sheriff.
-On the !
the legal j
yurs, be sold, b fore th? court-house door in the town of 1
Sandersville, Washington county, j
, Four hundred and fifty acres of pine land more or less, ;
'i'ing on Cedar creek, adjoining Vann and others—levied on
u ! ! ie property of Juhn Page, to satisfy two fi fas from a
justice s court in favor of Robert Fluker vs said Page: pro-
rty pointed out by defendant: levied on and returned to
me by a constable.
I wo hundred acres of pine land, more or less, on tho wa-
•ers of th? Ohoopie, adjoining William Peacock apd others
—.e\ iixl on as the property of Nancy Hart, to satisfy three fi
V 1 ? j' rara 8 justice’s court in favor of William Fish 6t Co. vs
S ti i!"* j * edon and returned to me by a constable.
, e hundred acres of oak and hickory land more or l?ss,
cm the waters of the Ohisipie, adjoining Silas Bridges and
'Jtliers—-levied on as the property of Rebecca Barb-r, to sa-
■Jsly afi fi> from a justice’s court in favor of William Fish
* < 0. vs Rebecca Barber and William Barber: levied on and
returned to me by a constable.
1 wo negro-men, Lott and Daniel—levied on as the pro
perty ot Jonathan Lyon,to satisfy a fi fa in favor of fieorge
" . Murray vs said Lyon and others. April 22, 1834.
JAMES BOATRIGHT, deputy sheriff.
f|OOLY SHERIFF’S SALE.-On the first Tues-
day in June next,.will, within tha legal hours, be sold,
“-‘lore the court-house door in the town of Drayton, Dooly
‘ Jttnty,
All that tract or parcel of land whereon Thomas Bambry
resides, number not known, in the third district of said coun-
ty—fe vied on as the property of George Lewis, to satisfy an
execution issued from Dooly superior court in favor of John
Rawls vs George Lewis: property pointed out by plauitiff’s
attorney.
Lot ofland number twenty-six in the thirteenth district of
county—levied on as the property of William Gilmore,
G satisfy an pxecution from a justice’s court in favor of
B. M‘Carter vs William Gilmore: levied on and re
turned to me by a constable.
Lot of land number two hundred in the seventh district
,J f said county—levied on as the property of Hardy Sutton,
D satisfy an execution from a justice’s court in favor of
■Liwls Jelks vs Hardy Sutton and two other other fi fas
m favor of Daniel Roberts, administrator of David Ingram,
- ■ceased, vs llardy Sutton and William Fountain, and one
utli-r fi fa from a justice’s court in favor of Hillery Alligood
x * Hardy Sutton and William Fountain: property out by
paiintiff: 1,ivied pn and returned to me by a constable—pur
chaser to pay for titles.
One npgro-woman nam I'd Hagar, about twenty-five years
accustomed to the field, and is likely and of good eha-
r ai‘t?r—levied on as the property of Oliver T. Boulware, to
‘aiialy three fi fas from Augusta court of common pleas,
*** at the suit of John H»tfi Id, one at the suit of William
;0ckson, and the other at the suit of Henry Salm, all vs O-
“ Tp r T. Bool ware: property pointed out by Caleb Hatfield,
N!>au of foe plaintiff April 26, 1834.
RICILARD G ZIPPERER, sheriff.
BLANKS -
TOR SALE AT THIS OFFICE-
to three parcels will be necessary to complete a cure. The
price is S5 a parcel. Any person sending $5 in a letter
(post paid,) .stating where he wishes the Medicine sent, will
receive it by mail.
Among the symptoms of Dyspepsia and Liver Complaints,
are flatulency, sourness or burning in th? stomach, melan
choly, irritability, disagreeable taste in the mouth, great ir
regularity of appetite, which is sometimes voracious and
at other times greatly deficient; thirst, fetid breath, nausea,
weakness of the* stomach, acid eructations, palpitation,
drowsiness, irregularity of the bowels, pressure on the
stomach after meals, pain in the head, dizziness or vertigo,
confusionof mind attended w ith loss of memory, a gnawing
in the stomacli when empty, chilliness, affection of sighf
and hearing, pain and weakness in the beck, languor, dis
turbed sleep, cold feet and hands, tremor, uneasiness in the
throat, cough, pain in the side or breast, &c.
The above maladies lead to organic aff ections of the stom
ach, liver and heart, terminating in Dropsy, Consumption,
. Apoplexy, dtc. according to the climate, habit, age, sex, and
temperament of the patient.
The efficacy of the above Medicine has been tested by
upwards of fifteen hundred individuals within the last five
years in different sections of the Union; numbers of whom
have politely furnish 'd the pruprietor with written testimo
ny of the extraordinary cures performed by its use, several
of which accompany each bill of direction.
From Dr. James Ewelf, author of the Medical Companion,
or Family Physician.
“Nrw Orleans, Dec. 20,1831.
“7’o all whom it may concern.—This is to certify, that I
have witnessed the operation of Dr.. Peter’s Medicmte Sto
machics et llepatico: in a number of very obstinate Dyspep
tic and Liver-affections, of long standing, likewise in sever
al cases of enlargement of the Spleen; and its effects were
truly astonishing. I liave no hesitation in declaring it the
most valuable preparation for those distressing ailments
Im, ever come wi.l.in «* jHjgfWaj,
“Wilkes County, January 20, 1834.
“The Uidersigned can bear testimony to the superior ef
ficacy of lv. Peter’s Medicines Stomarhiree et Hepaticer. in
the cure of Dyspepsia and Liver-complaints from personal
experience. WILLIAM G. JOHNSON.”
The above Medicine can he had of the proprietor. Dr.
Peters, of MilledgeviUe, Tiiomas Richards, \ugusta,
Samuel Cone Sen. Decatur, DeKalb county, S. W. Boag
& Co. Charleston. South Carolina, J. P. Dawkins, Han-
cockvillo, Union District, South Carolina, Messrs. Hicks
& Maddox, Talbqtton, Talhot county, Georgia.
P. S. Editors in Georgia r *f«i South Carolina, who will
give the above one or two conspicuous insertions in their
respective papers and send one containing it to the under
signed, will iie entitled to one parcel of Medicine.
April 26, 1834.-42 J P- PETERS.
UNION HOTEL,
MONT1CELLO, Jasper County, Ga.
T HE undersigned, having opened a House of Entertain
ment, under the above name, on the west side of the
public square, at Montirello, is preiwred to accommodate
travellers, transient persons and regular boarders He has
n ‘g|ect“d no measure in fitting up his house to render it con
venient and agreeable; and as he expects to live by it, his
interest and duty are a ganranty that every exertion will be
used to give satisfactioilin regard to table, beds, cleanliness,
servants, provender and charges. "^NRy DILLON
dissolution.
T HE Copartnership, heretofore existing between the
subscribers, is lifts day dissolved bv mutual consent.
May 12, 1834. JAMES DUNCAN,
, . PLEASANT R. HIGHTOWER.
The unlersign 'd will, for the future, carry on the busi-
nes, at the old stand in Milledg-ville. Mav 12, 1834
. 45 ' 3t JAMES DUNCAN.
STRAYED OR STOLE A,
O UT of my lot, on the 1st ultimo, a bay HORSE, a-
bout On or eleven years old, a bushy tail, heavy made,
and iiis shoild-'rs much rubbed with gear, in rather'low or
der. He wai brought from near Shivers’ Mills in. Hancock
county. Any information of him would be thankfully re-
ceived r o. a suitable reward paid. Tarvers ville, Twiggs
county, Georgia, May 7, 1834.
45 ~ft R. R. TARVER.
TO LET
A valuable TAVERN STAND in the
town of L’larkegville, Habersham county,
known as th n Village Hotel, and lbrmarly
occupied by Captain T. W. A. Sumpter.—
1 he above hotel will be rented on the most
reasonable U'rms. Apply to S. A. Wales'
1 of Clarkesville,- or to the subscribers.
. , . , M STUART 4t BENT.
Augusta, April 22, 1834 It 44 .
SOUTH CAROLINA TEST-OATH.
SPEECH OF HON. THOMAS S. GRIMKE,
delivered on the 2d and 3d of April,
In the case of the State ex relatione Edward M-
Crady, against Colonel B. F. Hunt,off the con
stitutionality of the Oath in the Bill for the Mili
tary Organisation of the State, passed 19lh De
cember, 1S3L
[continued.] ,
Wc may find a seventh in the act itself, as the
act of 1 he ltgislalur% I have granted under the
preceding head, lor tie sake of argument, that the
legislature had no poverto limit the convention.—
I think it may be demonstrated that they had. In
considering the constitutionality*of the oath, in re
lation to the State Constitution, I trust that I have
established as a fundamental truth in our system,
that the creation of a written constitution assigned
permanently to the people, the department of ex
traordinary legist lion, on political subjects, and to
the General Assembly, that of ordinary legis
lation in civil matters. Now*, the calling ot a con
vention clearly belongs to t lie political, not the aVt(
department. But this power had tieen exerciser
by the legislatures, which called the conventions of
1733, and 1790. The constitution, I have said,
would have transferred it to dispeople; but instead
of this, that constitution recognizes il as still per
mitted to subsist in the general assembly* Il sub
sisted in them then, at the moment when the con
stitution was adopted. The first part of the ninth
article plainly acknowledges it as continuing to ex
ist, notwithstanding, the adoption of the constitu
tion. It does not contain a grant of power; but is
an acknowledgment, that the pre-existent power is
not intended to be taken away, and is not taken a-
way. ‘*No convention of the people shalMte c.*JI-
ed, unless by the concurrence of two-thirds of both
branches of the whole representation.” This porj
lion of political po*ver remains then with the legis
lature, by the sanction of the constitution itself.—
l'lie calling of a convention by the general assem
bly, is therefore an act of extraordinary or political,
not ol ordinary or civil legislation. They act then,
not as a.legislature, bu^as a special commission.—
They are (hepolitical, not the civil representatives
ol the people, in the exercise of this high power; as
much as the convention ‘itself. The only differ
ence is, that the legislature is a standing commit
tee, erected by the constitution to make the call;
while the convention is a special committee, sunir
moned into being by the standing committee and
the people, to answer some particular object. A
convention is then a representative assembly, ere
cted by the constitution itself. It must tljen be
subject to it, unless the contrary be somewhere de
clared, as it certainly is not any ivhere.
I liave said, that the clause of the constitution
recognizes the power ,to call a convention, as still
subsisting in the general assembly. Now observe,
that the single limitation laid on the power ac
knowledges it as unlimited io all other respects,
within it§appropriate sphere. Take away the li
mitation, as to two-thirds, will not all admit that a
majority, of each house might have called? Suppase
oilier limitations added for example: that no con
vention should be called oftener than once every
twenty years—or that no restraint should he laid on
the pmver and objects of a convention. Can any
one deny, that if to add them, takes away power, to
strike them out, restores poiver?
that the people have not power to alter old, or in
stitute new governments; that rulers do not de
rive their just po wers from the consent of the gov
erned, and that it is neither the right nor the duty
of the people, to thro v off a government, which
aims at despotism, aud to provide new guards lor
their security. In like manner they could have
iawfully annulled the Constitution of the United
States within the limits of South Carolina; have
declared war, made peace, formed treaties and sent
ambassadors. They could also have raised a stand
ing army; have provided a navy; have established
a custom-house, and laid duties on imports and ex
ports; have coined money and adopted their own
rule of naturalization; have made hank-paper a le
gal tender, and organized, armed and disciplined
militia at pleasure. Equally manitesl is it, that if
unlimited, hey could liave abolished the State
Constitution and have established an oligarchy or
a monarchy; they could have granted titles of no
bility; have >assed hills of attainder and ex post
facto, laws; tlpy could have re-established the Pro
testant as the religion of the State, and have de- !
dared the civil subordinate to the military power;
they could have decreed me to worship idols, and
have punished nu refusal with confiscation, impri
sonment and death; they could have superseded
all our courts; have irdained a code of political of
fences; have cieated a Star Chamber to try the ob
noxious among their political opponents, and have
placed on its bench, as fr ministers of their .venge
ance, could they have fouiff such men, another-in
famous Scroggs and anothei bloody Jeffries.
On the same principle of sipre’macy in power,
they could have utterly disregarded, the object of
their call; they could Jtave laid » aside, and liave
spent not a moment upon it; they could have em
ployed themselves in passing a cou> of civil or e-
clesiastical law; in giving a new destitution; in
deciding cases in chancery, or in revising tlie judg
ments of the Appeal Court. What ino'ed, could
they not.have done, if there was really tot limita
tion on their power?
But, neither theory nor practice, r.eitiie* princi
ple nor expediency, juftily the position Gat the
convention is the people, and that the convention
wields an uncontrolled irresponsible power. The
good of the people; the security and durability of
their institutions, the constituent principles of all
representative bodies, the distribution of powertin-
der our republican forms, and their harmonious ac
tum, the preservation of our State-government and
of the government of the Union; all, and many o-
ther such considerations plead eloquently, irresisti
bly, in the name and for the sake of the people a-
gainst this doctrine of despotism. A convention
is then limited b/the fundamental laws of moral
obligation by the Declaration .of Independence; by
the National and State Constitutions; by the occa
sion and object ot the’call; by the act of the legis
lature. These in fact, are the constitution of the
Convention, aud by them that body is clearly and
inflexibly bound, as the Legislature by the Constitu
tion itself. They may do any thing consistent icith
all these, they can do nothing inconsistent with
them. To entitle the convention to transcend such
a commission, and to exercise tha power of attor
ney, suspending or repealing any part of the State
or national constitution,'they must show the t^itho-
ritv. not by speculative reasoning on the powers of
a convention, but by practical proofs, and a clear,
specific delegation of such a power. Such proofs,
such a delegation, they cannot show.
I trust that I have now demonstrated, tiiat. the
convention, so lar front being unlimited, is laid un
der many very important restrictions, which curtail
its jurisdiction over subjects, and its power in the
employment of means. I proceed now to show that
the ordinance ot I81I1 March, 1833, which relates
to the Force Bill and alieginoce, is not within the
call of the convention. 1 still assume that the alle
giance qf the ordinance isexclusive allegiance, and
that it does declare none to he due to the Uni
ted States. Now, tlie convention was undeniably
called to consider the Tariff acts; to determine
their character; to devise trie.means of redress; to
consider such acts df Congress as might he substi
tuted for the existing acts, and likewise all oilier
laws an$ acts that might be passed or done for.
more eflectuallv enforcing them. The convention
met pursuant to the call, they considered the acts,
declared them unconstitutional, and provided a re-
But ttiere is-a former view. How,ca^the se
cond part of the ordinance of l8th.Mprfch,*which
defines allegiance and empowers the fegisUture to
provide oaths and punish their breach, Tie'relerred.
to the act calling the convention? None of the aols
of congress had any referencejo the subject of aV
legiance in any form. They hid never passed any
acts, or done any thing that touched or ever so re
motely related to allegianae in any form whatever.
The subject of allegiance, therefore, could not pos
tion,'hinv can it be ^djudged superior, when tried
by those tests? If it is not'consistent, and so faf
overrules that instrument, „f$!l what superiority
has it? which dues not equally belong to An amend
ment. Is an amendment superior because it can
cels and substitutes? If so/ihe amendment of an
amendment is still farther superior, and a succes
sion of amendments would present a series of suc
cessive acts, each rising above the other in dignity
and power._ Who beeves? who is willing to as-
sibly have been within the call of the convention.— sert this? Besides, the o»dinattice belongs to the
Even the President's Proclamation oflOth Decent-1 same branch of power, as the constitution, viz:
tier, 1832, did not •:hen exist; and all must admit, I political, as distinguished from civil. It stands to
that whatever it mav he worth as the opinion of an : the Constitution of the State, in the same relation
able cabinet on the question of allegiance, it neither . that a statute or a particular subject of civil legis-
was, nor could make 1 he-law on that subject.— ; lation bears toon entire code of civil law. The
Moreover, the question of allegiance, belonging to | State becomes, as a nialter of dowse, whether to
the fundamental political law of society, must he j declared or not, a coequal part of the civil code.—
referred to the jurisdiction over subjects, not to that j The ordinance heedmes, in like manner, a coequal
over means. To authorize the convention to act j part of the political code. It is, in other words, a
upon it, I therefore insist, that it must have been ! part of the constitutional, as distinguished from the
given to them either expressly, or by a clear impii- ! statute law of the State. It is, in fact, s.s well as
cation, as incident to the jurisdiction actually grant- j in law, il valid, a jmrt.ol the Constitution of Soulh
ed over subjects, not that conferred over means.— Carolina, ^f this be then the true relation of the
I have thus concluded the argument on the ques- i ordinance loilte Conststiturion-of South Carolina,
tion, whether admitting the ordinance to be valid, I «»d the Constitution of South Caiotina 'he subm
it can he regarded as within the call of the conven- ! dir.ate to the Constitution of tlie United Stales, it
tioa. I have insisted that it was not, because the | follows, that the ordinance also nn^t be suliordin-
convention vvasjictunlly a body of very limited j ate to the Constitution ol tlie United States. As
power: and that the Force Bill, and especially the i then the Constitution of the United States is still
subject of allegiance, weiy not embraced in the oh- ! th e supreme Constitution of South Carolina, the
jects of the call: aad could not possibly have been, ordinance must he adjudged as invalid, if it he rc-
Having thus shown the ordinance of iStlt March, i pugnant to tiiat supreme law.
'33, to be unauthorized, it follows, if the oath in the j Let me here dispose ol a:i objection which hr.s
Military Bill be Regarded as an execution o! that ! been seriously made, and deserves, therefore, to be
ordinance, it is a nullity as dependent on that for [ answered. \Ve have been told that this Court has
its authority. , uo authority to sit in judgment on the ordinance-—
Bui it may he said it must he Kgafded as taking ! thfft il has no jurisdiction over the act of the Con-
effect independently of tiie ordinance by virtue ol 1 i veil lion—that ihe creature must not judge of tie
legislative authority; and then I shall be told, that
I cannot refer tlie word allegiance in the act, to tlie
ordinance fora definition. How then, I am asked,
shall I avoid tlie conclusion, that the oath in the j a despot. ‘‘Judges,” says Frederick the Great,
act does not mean exclusive allegiance, hut nllegi- j “ought to know that the poorest peasant is a man,
;mce generally? And, in such case, if the ordinance { as well as the king himself; and fill tpen might to
be out of the way, how can the relator object io | obtain justice, ali men are equal, whether tlie princ
deeds of the Creator; that this Court is hut a crea
tion of the sovereign power, and cannot he tl.»-
judge of its sovereign. Let us take a lesson fren
taking such an oath? Apparently, the whole
ground of objection is taken away; but in reality it
still remains. The same convention, in their ad-
ress to the people of South Carolina, dated *24’.h
complain of a peasant or a peasant M' the prince.’’
Let us take a lesson from another despot. Ferdi
nand of Spain, was summoned by il.e son of Co-
umbus, before the Council of Indian aflitirs, whq
November, 1832, have said (Journal Convention,' heard the cause,and decided against tlie King.—
page G7.)—“We then command your obedience to j Nor let us omit The noble sentiments of Sir \Vi
the laws and the authority of the State, by a title ; font Scott, sitting under a limited monarchy. “
tie can gainsay. Wedemand it hv that | any case where the Crown is a parU, it is to 1
, which is reciprocal With the protection : observed, that the Crown can no more witliho!
. . - - ithhold
We admit of evidence of documents in its possession, than a pri
st prima-j vate person. If the Court thinks proper to ordtr
which none
allegiance
you have received from the State.
no obedience^, which shall conflict with that prima- j vate pers<
rv allegiance which every citizeu owes to the land I the production of any public instrument, that or
of his hirtb or adoption.” This, beyond ail ques- j der must be obeyed. It wants no insignia of an
tion, is a declaration of paramount allegiance. Nor! authority derived from the Crown.” These are
is this all. They expressly sav, page 68, “As for i lessons of enduring wisdom, and worthy of the In
ns its citizens are concerned, the clear right of the j dependent judiciary of a republic. The humblest
State is to declare Hhe extent of the obligation: 5 ’ j citizen of ti republic lias the rigfo, and il is not a
and the State is immediately after styled “his only | llepublinin the American sense of the word, if tire
and lawful sovereign.” Now, 1 his declaration of! right do hot exist, to take shelte^ against the will of
the solemn judgment of the (^invention, affects the j the people themselves, under the broad shield of tin
oath in question, under the tenth section of the j independent judiciary. I do not question, that the
^Military Bill; because il settles “the extent of the l people are the fountaju of power, but when I am
obligation of allegiance:” anil tlie very question be- I 'old so triumphantly, tjiaiall power is in the peo-
fore us is, what is the nature and extent of the oath He, it is forgotten, that the people themselves liave
in the tenth section? The advocates ofthe conven- J only declared, Ruit “all power is originally vested
tion, therefore, cannot hope to prevent their inter-1 in the people.” To the extent, to which they have
preta’tion of the nature and extent of the term nl- j patted with power, by the creation of tut in’dej >cti-
legiancc, from affecting their oath in the Military! dent judiciary, they have declared that while tha;
Bill. Until the State shall annul that declaration, I independent Judiciary stands, that in any -comm
it purports to declare to every man the meaning of! versy between themselves and a citizen, that court
(he oath. The legislature then have enacted and j shall be the interpreter ot their will; shall reconcile
demanded mi oath of paramount allegiance. Whe- tlie various declarations of that will, if they can If
ther that oath be (fomandable h^ virtue of, or inde- made consistent; but shall decide to be mill and
pendently of the ordinance, Still the last and the void, any declaration of that will, which iheyiliem-
great question remains—is not an act df ihe legis- selves have established as subordinate, if it conflict
lature, or an ordinance of a convention, exacting with what they have ordained as the supreme de-
sucli an oath, clearly and irreconcilably repugnant j clarationol that will. And who ever doubted, that
to the Constitution ofthe United Slates? I proceed : this court not only lias the rigljt, but is bound to
to demonstrate, as I trust I shall, that it is. j ’judge between the constitution t.f the Slate ami
We enter now on tlie most important part of our ! that ol the Union? If then lh* ordinance be, as
argument; and propost to test the Oailt by the has been demonstrated, I trosta part of the Con-
medv, in the ordinance of the 24th of November,
1832. The same convention afterwards, by their
ordinance ofthe 15th of March, 183^, accepted the
Tariffacl bf 1833 as satisfactory, and therefore re
pealed the former ordinance. Now, the ordinance
of 15th March must be considered as acknowledg
ing the Tariff act of 1833 as« institutional. The
ordinance of 1832 had declared«tII ^Tariff acts, “in
tended for the protection of domestic manufac
tures, 55 “unauthorized by the Constitution;” and
their address to the people of the United States
declares, “our resolve is fixed and unalterable, that
a protecting Tariff shall lie no longer enforced
within the limits of South Carolina. We stand on
tlie principles of everlasting justice, and no human
power shall drive us from our position.” Can the
Convention, then, or any advocate of that body,
ask us to believe the Tariff of 1833 unconstitution
al? Has the convention been driven from its posi
tion? It follows that the Tariff abt of 1833, is by
the testimony of the convention itself, not embraced
by the act, which called them together. Accord
ing to their express declarations and acknowledg-
Besjdes, the practice in calling conventions had j ments, they never would have been called, if the
been to specify Ihe object. Must not tl*e article
be read with a view to the pre-cxistent custom?—
And has not the practice ever sinc£ been the same,
in every State in the Union? This commentary of
so many legislatures, and ofthe people so often, set
tles the practice. It floes not make it obligatory
on the legislature, as an express enactment; but
does it not create a solemn duty, by a very clear
implication? Is not this strengthened by the con
sideration, that to call a convention, without some
great public cajise demanding it, and without spe
cifying its objects, could not be reconciled with any
just sense of duty to the people? * Would it not be
an arbitrary, capricious exercise of power, unwor
thy of a representative body, acting under Ihe in-
fluenceof dutyand good sense? The legislature had
then powefand were bound to prescribe the object
of the convention. The act calling Riem was there
fore a seventh limitation on the power of the con
vention.
It seems to me, then, to have been demonstrated,
that the fundamental law of morals; the Declara
tion of Independence; the Constitution of the Unit
ed States; the Constitution of South Carolina; the
occasion ol the call; the act of the people; the acts
ofthe Legislature, are all of them so many restric
tions on the power ofthe convention. Let us grant,
however, for argument’s sake, that they are not, as
has been contended on the other side. Le» us then
l *ok at the consequence of ihe doctrine which
holds that the convention was the people, and pos
sessed unlimited power. If this be sound political
doctrine, then the following may he staled with
undoubting confidence, as some of the natural, ine
vitable consequences of that fundamental law in
the constitution of the convention.
The assembly, if uncontrolled, could then have
declared that there was no God, and death an eter
nal sleep, that (he Scriptures are an imposture, and
prayer an act of mockery; that the Christian cler
gy should nevet leach or preach again; that truth
iiiid falsehood, virtue and vice, justice and injustice,
are matters of indifference; in fine, that ihere is no
such thing as inoral obligation,or naturalaflection.
They would equally have had power to falsify ihe
Declaration of Independence, by ordaining tflht
life, liberty and happiness are not inalienable rights;
aefs of 1828, and 1832 had been the act of 1833.
According to the same, they would not have adopt
ed the ordinance of November, 1832, if the only
Tariff act had been tha t rtf J 833. Unconditional
Tariff’acts of congress were then the only subject
of jurisdictioQ, and of course the power to devise
the tneans of redress could only be coextensive
with ihe subject. Congress, by their own acknow
ledgment, took away the subject by removing the
cause which called them together. Did not ifie
effect, that is the right to employ correspondent
means, instantly cease? 1 apprehend tlien that the
repealing ordinance of 15th March, 1833, closed
the duties ofthe convention, and exhausted all their
power.
Perhaps it may he said, that Ihe convention was
empowered to consider til other acts substituted
for those of’28 and ’82, and all other laws amlmcls
for enforc.ing them, But it is undeniable, that they
were called to devise remedies against unconstitu
tional, not against constitutional laws. They were
called in like manner, to resist the execution of un
constitutional laws, whether by constitutional or
unconstitutional means. Most certainly they were
not called to resist the execution of constitutional
laws, whether by constitutional or unconstitutional
means. When’substituted laws are spoken of, it
must he referred to laws of the same character, that
is unconstitutional ones. It cannot, with any re
gard to sound interpretation, or any scheme of ra
tional logic, be referred io laws of the opposite cha
racter, that is constitutional. If, then, jurisdiction
over the subject be taken away, as the convention
themselves acknowledge it to have been bv the act
of congress of 1833, if follows irresistibly, that ju
risdiction over the means must share the same fate.
Congress have power to coin money and regulate
the value thereof. Take away the first power,
does not the second go with -it? Congress have
power to organize, arm and discipline the militia.
Deprive them ofthe two first, and who would con-
lend for the continuance of the third? Is it not
ihen apparent that the whole ordinance of 18th
March, 1833, is a nullity, because jurisdiction as
to means is only given with a view to jurisdiction
Constitution of the United States. Let us grant,
for the'purposes of the argument, on this branch
of the case, #iat the Oath is not prohibited by the
State Constitution; that the Oath is an execution
of the power conferred by thy Ordinance; that the
Convention was pot controlled by the special call,
as I have insisted; and, even, if controlled, that the
stitution of South Carolina in relation to the Con
stitution of tlie United States, it must be granted,
that this court can sit in judgmenton the ordinance!
It can judge of the subordinate, because it can judge
of the supreme law. kSVhen tie people of Arragon
elected a king, they declared to him, between von
and us there is one of greater authority than you.
Ordinance of 18th March, 1833, was within the i the law. When the people (if South Carolina
scope of its call, uniter all’the limitations specified; j elected their-judges, they declared to von, tha :
stilube question remains—ate Ihe Oath, and the | while the Constitution of the United States shai
Ordinance, as its parent, consistent with the Con-! continue the constitution of South Carolina we re
stitution of thq United State*? If they be not con- j dain thatjt shall be superior to our separate will
sistent, which must yield? however the same may be‘declared; v.e have ac-
Let us first inquire, what is* the true relation j knowledged it to be supreme law of cur laud; and
subsistihg between the Ordinance and the Consti- j we have solemnly agreed that “the judges in evo
lution of th^United Slates? Until this be settled, J ry Slate, shall be bound thereby, anv llin'o- in the
we can have no satisfactory premises, from which constitution or laws of any State to the'contrary
to reason. Is the Constitution of the United ! notwithstanding. 5 ’ We exact of voii an oalh to
States*still the constitution of South Carolina? Is j support that constitution, and we ito therefore em-
the government ofthe United Stales, still the gov- ! power and command you to administer it franklv
eminent of South Carolii a? In point of fact, who j and fearlessly, sgainst any separate act of onrown
can doubt? Tlie people have elected their repre- j "ill, repugnant toils supremacy. In the spirit e£
sentatives, the legislature a senator—the custom j ihiscommissioji, the judge of this tribunal will ever
house, judiciary, and every thing else goes on as say, in tlie language of Chiefi Justice Marshall
^ * I 1 I J 1 ♦ fltlU I ^ ■! rt /In .... ... *
before. The ordinance of 24th November, 1832,
is repealed; we have no^ seceded; we have not es
tablished a separate government; the relation of
the State to the national constitution is evidently
that of a subordinate loti superior instrument. The
former is declared to be tiif supreme law of the
land. Whilst, therefore, the Constitution of the
United States shall continue of force in South Car
olina, the Suite constitution must, in point of au
thority, be ranked below that of the Union. I3
this derogatory KMlie dignity ot the State? Who
shall venture to say that it is? vv hen the people them-
selvfs have so ordained. The people then havede-
clafid, that the Constitution of the United States
is the supreme Constitution of South Carolina,
and the State constitution, the subordinate consti
tution of South Carolina. This was the separate
act of the people of the Slate; that, the joint
act of» the people of all the States. The people of
South Carolina have no power to alter the Consti
that this Court dares not usurp power is most
true. That thisCourt dares not shrink from its
duty, is not less true. It was in the da vs of Ro
man degeneracy, the age of Marius and Svlia,
the ai^e that succeeds the tumultuous scenes under.
the Gracchi, tiiat the senators were compelled to
approve under oath whatever the people enacted.
And in after years, the law was extended, as their
own historian tells us, to every .ordinance ofthe*
people, however violent and absurd. It well be
came tlie senate, in days ot deeper degeneracy
stiii, to offer under the pledge of an oath, to observe
whatever laws Augustus should enact. But it be
comes the people of South Carolina to imitate the
conduct ol the Egyptian Kings, when thev exact
ed of the judge an oath, (hat lie Would reject what
ever was unjusl; even if the King should command
it. 1 he people oj South Carotiua, have said so to
you, and while tlie Constitution of the United
Stales shall be the supreme Consritutioa- of South
tution of the United States, even as to themselves, j Carolina, I trustlhere is no judge who would not
It can only be done bv a joint act. It follows un- I go into banishment with (he noble Jtyetella or to
deniablv, that while the Constitution of tlie United ! prison with Cato of Uticp, father than sustain the
.States remains the Constitution of South Carolina, j separate will of the people, even in thi form of an
and can only be altered by a joint act, the people Ordinance, if it conflict with that supreme law.—
of South Carolina, cannot alter even their State ! The Court then has a clear, undeniable jurisdic-
constitution, inconsistently with that of the Union.! lion over the ordinance of /lie convention.
As then the Constitution of 1 lie United Slates still j Having now established therelaywu of the ordi-
is the supreme law of South Carolina, it is mani- j nanceto ihe Constitution of the United States, and
lest, that if the ordinance had been adopted in the I the authority of this court fwjm.'ge between them
usual mode, as an amendment of the constitution j we arc prepared to examine and decide the ques-
of South Carolina, it must be a nullity, if repug- J tion, do they conflict? On thp other side it is a!-
nant to the Constitution of the United States. leged,'that allegiance is indivisible, I shall un-
This conclusion leads to the question—what is! deriaketo prove, that sovereignty indivisible, aud
the relation.of the ordinance to the State Constitu- j that a dividedaliegiancl actually exists in the case
tion? Is it superior, coeqfial, or subordinate in au-j of every cfnaen ofoa State. I affirm that (lie
thority? If it be co-ordinate or inferior, its late is j sovreignfy originally vested in tlie people of the
sealed; should it not he reconcilable with the Con-1 State is been divided by their own act, and that
stitution of the United Sta.es, it is annulled bv ihe i by'heir own acknowledgment, every citizen of
supreme law. Is it superior? This is impossible.) (he-State owes allegianc^to the United Slates as
II so, in what sense? Was not each the act of tbe well as to the State. j y ,
people? granting each convention to have hee fl *b e ( I begin with the remark, tiiat the novelty cer*
people. Il a convention be not ihe people* was
not each, (tbeConstitution of South Carolina and
the Ordinance) the act of coequal representative
assemblies? Is there any difference between the
obligation Io obey each? between the pmveY to
compel obedience to ea<h? and between ihe means
that may be -°mployed? Is not (he relation of the
citizen and of the department? of Ihe State Go-
tainly is not 011 our side. It,is assumed on tbe other
side, that ire are the innovators. We shall demon
strate tha t we are not. 1 f the political history of
Europe, and of our own country be testimony', we
shall offer other irrefragable proofs, instead of as
sertion.
Divided allegiance is a thought perfeetly lamiliaA
to the feudal constitutions of Europe. The gen-
as to ends; and \fthis ceases, that, as an inevitable I vernment to each, exactly the same? If then the I era! oath of fealty on the continent was, I
consequence, ceases also. I ordinance be consistent .with Rw, Stale Constitu- t.bathenceforth, ! will he faid&Ufa r«nrojr Lori,<