Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

. Horn the Georgia Courier. HL.VSO.X'i, win the I'toccediags of the slionld not be KATIISf:!). BY RICHMOND 1 intend, if circumstances permit, to olf r, through your paper, some of the reasons, which lead ine to op|>ose the plan ol Redu tion, proposed by the late Conrcntion. And in doi ri<r so, I shill endeavor to address the undirstaidirg of your readers. “ One of the People," in the Courier of the 10th and I Ith insts. has appeared in favor of the plan—and he has discovered that no “ argument" has yet been adduced against it. Ido not know what that u riter calls, “ argument.” But 1 confess, that if the articles, which have appear ed in the Journal and Recorder, (not to speak of other papers,) do not contain “argument,” Ido not understand the meaning of the word. Let me suggest to ‘"One of the People,” that this sneering style of sovereign contempt for ati adversary, this short hand method of anstvering an argument, by denying that it. is “argument,” is in very bad taste. Some people may. peradventure, read both sides, who are as capable ol appreciating an “argu ment,” as “ One of the People;” and if they do, he and his sweeping assertions must look rather small, in the only eyes to which he can wish to appear large. My intention is to answer this writer. 1 shall do it respectfully, for very many reasons; but principally for two —1 consider any writer, who enters the lists with one, whom lie professes to despise, guilty, by his own showing, of self-degradation ; and, secondly, “ One of the People,” though wri ting in what I must be excused lor considering a very bad cause, does it in a manner to shew that he is worthy of a bett r one. My objections to the proposed plan, arc— -Ist. It docs not answer the end proposed, in calling the Convention. 2d. So lar trom removing existing evils, the proposed plan will-increase them. 3d. In both Houses ol the Legislature, under the proposed amendment, a minority of the People will elect a majority of members. 4th. The taxes will he paid by one portion of the State,and their proceeds appropriated by another, sth. The Federal basis ought to have been retained, in one house, at least; and, if it be rejected, a great and permanent injury to the State, and to the South, will he unavoidable. 1 shall consider this last subject tirsl, because “One of the People”has, thus far, confin ed himself to it. But, before proceeding to the discussion, I must be allowed to remark on two of this writer’s preliminary observations—that the plan is the best, now to be obtained : and that some ot its defects, at least, are owing to the “exorbitant demands” of its oppo nents; the Iriends of the plan (and they only, according to the writer’s inference) being “ anxious to act for the good of the Slate, regardless of either party or local interest,” and their good intentions being defeated by the “unreasonable extravagance” of the other side. As to the first remark, I have only to say, that it the time has conic, when a majority of the people cannot adopt a better plan of government, than to give all power to the minority, it is time to dissolve into our original elements; ami begin again. The only reason why on better plan “could he obtained, in the Convention was, that, a combination of various local interests had fixed upon their plan for their own purposes—and being a majority, voted down every alteration proposed, as a matter of course. But lam yet to learn, that a Con vention, in which the small counties may have their ]>roprr influence, (instead of doubling it as they did in the late one, by sending delegates in equal number to their entire repre sentation in the Legislature) will be forced to come to such a “laincand impotent conclu sion as the one bcfoip us. I submit to tin: writer biirisell, whether the other remark is lib eral or just, or worthy ol such a pen as his. It assumes that the friends of the proposed amendments were “anxious to act for the good of the State, regardless of local or party in terest,” the other side going for “local or party interest,” exclusively; when it is a well known fact, not merely that the amendments were carried by a combination of “local and party interests, hut that that combination was openly avowed and boasted of, on the lloor of the Convention ! It is well known that every testing vote, was a ‘local or party’ vote, and the yeas and nays will show it. And shall we be told, in the face of this, that the ma jority were the impartial, unbiassed, iriends of “the State,” “without regard to local or pat ty interest,’ and that the “exorbitant demands,” the “unreasonable extravagance” of the other side, drove them to extremes ? Whether these demands, in the first instance, really were ‘ exorbitant,’'unreasonable,’or ‘extravagant,’will, 1 trust, appear in the sequel of this discussion. But when it was found that the adoption, of what the minority thought right, was impossible, plan upon plan, lor compromising tlx: difficulty, was proposed in vain—-and, at last, tlx: plan ol .Mr. Hull, which was offered, only as a final effort at com promise, and with a view to mitigate an evil which was found unavoidable, was rejected; and now, we are told, forsooth, that this state-loving, party-hating, local-iutercst-despising ma jority, were driven to extremes by the unreasonable, exorbitant, extravagant demands of a known and ascertained minority ! Really, this is not only insufferable, but ridiculous. Aslant not one ol that army, who “swore so terribly in Flanders,” I shall not stop to discuss, further, the preliminary remarks of “One of the People”— nor shall I trouble myself with his remarks on the “Georgia Times.” Mr. Slade must* fight his own battles. I will proceed, therefore, to state why I consider the Federal basis the proper one for the House ot Representatives, instead of that of while population alone. Andif“Oneof the People” finds that iny remarks are “not arguments,” why lie will not have to answer them—that’s all. To the point then. Ihe question is, ought any allowance to be made, in fixing the ratio of representation, lor the number ol our slaves ! The triumphant answer to this question is, that persons, and persons only, are entitled to representation; that slaves ate only pro tarty, and that, to allow them a place in the computation, is aristocratic, givingthe rich .powerover the poor, '“and all that sort o’thing.” Let me do “One of the People” the justice to say, that ho bus had the good sense to treat this sort of slang, about aristocracy, •j-c. with the contempt it deserves. I shall not advocate here, the propriety ofgiving slaves a representation, as property —Because, merely as property, t do conceive the argument goes to show that alt other properly should he computed too; and though 1 am one of those, who believe such a plan lo be correct, on principle, yet it is unnecessary to go into j the support ol it here, as the question has nothing to do with the purposes of my discussion, j and the ground necessary to he occupied, is broad enough without it. We arc told if we go! back to first principles, persons only ar.. to be represented. Be it so. If slaves arc not persons, they have no oxistcncc. They are persons, in the strict, literal sense of the word.; They live, and move, and act, and think, and speak, and arc as much human beings as “ One I of the People,”or myself. Upon the strict abstract principle then, for which ouropponents are such sticklers, without reference to the peculiar laws of this part of the country, slaves," poor ami friendless as they may he, are entitled to be represented, not by three fifths of their, numbers, hut by the whole It happens, however, that the Jaws of this State make negroes, “chattels personal, to all intents and purposes.” Now this, it must he remarked, is not the 1 Constitution of the country,but only aslatute law under tile Constitution. And, in framing n fundamental law, 1 am yet to learn, how or why the people are to lie held bound by pre vious acts of their Legislature. It is, however, a part of the settled policy of the State ; and j though, if 1 were to follow the example ot my opponent?, in insisting oil f rst principles, without any regard to existing circumstances, ! which ivc must be governed, and which compel us, in this instance, to let these first principles give way lo this necessary policy, J i should bring them to the ueeess'ty of conceding full representation to slaves; yet 1 feel the ! necessity of admitting that this literal argument will not do, in practice. The gentlemen j on the other side w ish to disregard rireumutanres, and rely on principle, just far enough to ; suit their own purpose. But w hen wc carry out the principle of representing persons, they j bring us back to the ‘circumstance’ that these persons arc property ! This strikes me as being an unfm inode of argument. Take circumstances, from the beginning to the end, I gentlemen, or let us have principle throughout. Now ladmit, that Ido not think it either; proper or prudent, to revert to these principles, without reference to the state of facts, to j which they are to he applied. What is the state of facts? These people are a part of our j population, and likely ever to remain so, of an inferior cas/c. We arc obliged, inde pendent of all other considerations, from regard toour safety and to theirs, to keep them in servitude, and to consider them as property. But theircharacter is not, exclusively, pro perty. it is a mixed one. For certain purposes, they are property alone, and for other purposes they are only persons. “It is only under the pretext,” says James Madison,“that the laws have transformed negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied them in the computation of numbers.”!)' they are to he considered as persons, they become a part of the people, and are entitled to full representation as such. So far then, as their character of ptrsons is merged in that of property, they are not to he computed. So far as their char acter of persons remains, they ought, on every principle, to be computed. Mr. Madison in his 54th No of the Federalist,* from which 1 have quoted above, insists on this mixed character, as being the only true one. He tells us that in being bought and sold, compel led to labor for his master, and liable to punishment at his master’s caprice, the slave is property —but is a [>erson, in being protected by Jaw, against the violence even of bis mas ter, and in being subject to punishment for breaches of law. Ho is sold and controlled as property—is protected and punished as a person. So far, Mr. Madison. Now, I ask “One of the People” to tell me, ifa slave is only property, on what is founded the law for his pci sonal protection ? As property, the master only could claim the protection of law for him ; and vet, wc find him protected, even against his master. Again—ifa slave is not a jwrson, oil what is founded the law, making him amenable to the public for breaches of law—esta blishing a respectable tribunal for his trial, and for the higher offences, even giving him that most inestimable personal privilege, a trial by jury? is property amenable to law? Can a beast be punished bv law ! I shookl like to see a jury cinpannelled, lo try a mail dog for murder, and the defence of insanity set up in lus faior. Ido not know how this view of the subject will strike other minds. To mine, it is not only satisfactory, but con clusive ; and 1 have the venerable James Madison to quote, as the author of the argument. If then this be correct; if the slave is of a mixed character, of person and property; so far as his jnrsonal character remains, he ought to lie computed in fixing the ratio of represen tation. The only difficulty then, is to ascertain w hat | ro{K:rtioii of his personality docs re main. The Constitution of the United States, and that of Georgia, have fixed on three fifths; the remaining two fifths of Ins character as a man, politically, being considered as merged in that of the slave. The precisely correct mathematical proportion, it would puz zle “One of ihc People,” i*!\self, or a greater man than cither of us, to fix upon. Wc find the ratio of three filths already fixed m our existing Constitution ; ami it seems to me, be- i • We certainly will , but we gladly embrace the able advocacy of Richmond. • [Siam. » Tin- Number is, in seme edition' , rrroncou lv attributed to Mr. Jay. fore that proportion is altered, some reason should be shown for making it more or less. Be sides, we are not now disputingas to tile proportion of slaves to be computed, but whether they ought to be computed at all. ; There is another important reason for retaining this basis cl representation : and much as it has been scouted at, itdocs not seem to me to have been answered. All w ill admit the I extreme importance, not only to Georgia, hut to the entire South, cf retaining this basis in j the Federal Constitution. We are told, however, that rejecting it in our own Constitution, cannot affect that instrument in any way. If it can and will affect it, I presume the advo , antes of the free white basis will be few. It appears to me there can remain none, if that j tendency be made obvious,unless there he some politicians mad enough to sacrifice the »n --j terests, not to say the independence, of the South, to local or party views. Now, it is per fectly well known, that this feature in the Federal Constitution was the result of compro mise in the Federal Convention ; that it excited stioug opposition to the ratification of that 1 Constitution, at the North ; and that the ratification was greatly aided, to say the least, by : the publication of the Federalist, the very work from which l have borrow ed most of my : argument. It is also known to ell, who Unow any thing about the matter, that fioin the rati fication to this tlay, the Northern people have complained of this basis, as unjust and unequal, and been anxious to get rid of it. I know this is denied. But many publications have 1 ! seen from Northern pens, against this basis; many respectable northern men liau: I heard [ complain of it. It has been again and again complained of in Congress—and, during the 1 last Congress, by no less a man than John Q. Adams. One of the propositions of the Hart ford Convention (which, whatever else it may have been, was certainly composed of the I very first men in New England) was to amend this article of the Federal Constitution; and finally, repeated amendments to this article have been formally proposed by the Legislatures iof Northern States. Now really, in the face of all this, to deny that this featured the Fed eral Constitution is obnoxious to the North, and one which they would change, if they could do it peaceably and constitutionally, is perfectly ridiculous. I srall consider it then, no longer a debateabls matter, that they do desire to change this basis. And I ask the friends of our patent project of amendment, how they u ill answer their Northern brethren, when they say to them, in proposing this change, “ You admit tins basis to he wrong on principle : You were the only Southern Shite that incorporated ti in your own Constitution : You have seen your error, and have stricken it out, as radically wrong; and we only ask you for what you yourselves being judges, is mere sheer justice.” 1 suspect the Southern ■nan, to whom this is addressed, will have to answer it. after the manner of “One of tlx: Peo ple.” “Verily, brother Jonathan, all this is no akoumknt.” “One of the People” says, in deed, that there is no analogy between the Federal ami State Constitutions—that in the Federal Constitution, this basis w as adopted to protect those States, to vv hoin this ‘species of property” was “peculiar ;” whereas, in this State, the “rights of slavery are the same, in all the counties.” This ptoves too much, or it proves nothing. If these rights be “ the same in all the Counties," then why objrctto this basis? It w ill operate equally every where.— If they be not the same, then the analogy between the Federal and State Constitutions re mains in all its force, nixl “One of the People,” must go back, in answering the Northern man, to his favorite argument of “ no argument.” Having considered the rejection of the Federal basis of representation, as a reason why the amendments to the Constitution, proposed by the late Convention ought not lobe rati, lied, I come now to treat my other objections, in their order. I. My Hist was, that the plan of the Convention does not answer the end proposed, in cal ling that body: which is shown, by considering w hat was the mischief to he remedied, and what would have been an effectual remedy. “Oneof the People” rests his defence of the Convention, mainly, on the ground, that their plan will save the State a large annual expenditure. It the saving of mouey were really the object for which the Convention w as called, they have hot done hall enough, and the people ought not to bo satisfied. If expense is to be reduced, without regard to any other principle, why not reduce the Senate to twenty, and the house to fifty, at once ! This would have saved tile State some 850,000 per annum, instead of the $20,000, which, it is said, the proposed plan w ill save, and would have been economising to some purpose ; while the laws would, probably, have been as well made, as they will be now. Expense was, and ought to have been, one object. But, if the people of Georgia have really made up their minds to sacrifice substantial and permanent political interests—rights, purchased by the toil, mid consecrated by the blood of their fathers—to the paltry consideration of dollars anil cents ; they deserve to be slaves, and most certainly will lie : for, when men are in the market, they will always find purchasers. Public money is a thing to lie husbanded, and with caw: too; hut when public men sacrifice principle, to preserve public money, they for get theirduly, and betray their constituents. If the people sanction it, they betray them selves. Another object, which these gentlemen say they have attained, is tiie reduction of the house of representatives, from a disoidctly assembly, to one of suitable size, for business and for decorum. To what extent is this true ? The house is to consist of 144 members. Reject the amendment, and it will remain, as it now is, 175. The difference is 31. 1 sus pect it will be found that these few odd members —about 18 per cent, of the whole—will i make little difference in the order of the house, or the despatch of business. An assembly j of 144 men, always under more or less political excitement, must be rather mobbish : add iing3t more could make matters very little worse. To attain the object, proposed under ) tins head, the reduction should have been still greater. These objects, then, have not been j properly answered. But, if they had been, they were not the primary objects of calling the Convention. They had, it is true, their influence, but were only minor considerations, j The chief and primary object was to kqitalizk the representation, hv giving each part of 1 the State its proper proportion of power, and no more ; and to alter that iniquitous system, 1 which gave, to more than forty counties, a representation, whose annual pay fur exceeded I the amount of taxes, paid by their respective citizens to the Treasury. These were the j evils, which a exeat majority ol the people expected the Convention to remedy ; and what ; would have been a proper remedy ! Such apian, surely, as would have made a majority of j the Legislature elective bv an actual majority of the people—a plan, that would have given |to ti*: people weight, at the State House, in proportion to their weight at home. This | would have Iteen eepiatisuiioni Has such a plan been offered to us ! The answer will be J found, in my second obj'lbtion, that, 2 So far from removing existing crils, the plan proposed will increase them. \ VVliat was the inequality before ! In the Senate, the large and small Counties were pre cisely equal. In the House, every County had one representative ; and for the additional 1 members, the ratio of increase was so large, as to give tot lie small Counties a most unrea sonable advantage. Even upon the white basis, this inequality was enormous. For example, Bryan, Wayne, Glynn and Randolph, havingan average white population of less than seven hundred, were entitled to one representative each—that is, to one for every seven hundred ! inhabitants. Oglethorpe, Wilkes, Columbia, and Richmond, with an average white popu lation of more than Jive thousand, had but three members, each, or one to every one thou, , sand six hundred and sixty six inhabitants. This gave the former Counties an advantage of inoreihan seven to one, in the Senate, and more than two to one, :u the House. And i this example is onlyonc illustration of an inequality, that ran through the whole Stale, be | tween the large and small Counties. Now', how does this heautiful Convention scheme remedy such a state of things ? The Senate remains as il was, in regard to the relative in i thicnce of the Counties ; and, in the House, all the reduction is from the large Counties, i the smaller still retaining theirone member each. Thus, by way of another example, in I the Counties above referred to, the proportion, in fix or of the smaller ones, is still seven to I otic, in the Senate, while in the House, each of the large Counties losing one member, the j inequality is increased, to nearly four to one ! The effect is the same, throughout the State, though not, in every instance, so glaring; so that the result of the scheme will be, to increase the relative power of the smaller Counties, which was, already, far too great.— if, then, it be arrithmaticallv true, that, addition is the converse of substruction, surely, such apian innst aggravate the evils, which the Convention was intended to remedy. 1 3. In both Houses of the Legislature, under tlic proposed amendment, a minority of the people will elect a majority of members. This is a simple matter of fact, to be proved, not by “ argument,” but by figures. And, that my demonstration may bo unanswerable, on t lie piinciplcs of “Oiic of the l’cople” himself, I shall predicate my statements on the white basis alone. I w ill remark, here, that I shall not attempt to exhibit the Senate, arid Ihc Louse, respectively, in their w orst possible features. By making one division of the State, a monstrous inequality will be discovered in the Senate ; by another, one, about as bad, will be found in the I loose. But, in order to treat the matter fairly—(we must give even the devil his due) —and to show that the same majority of the people arc in the minority in both houses, I shall make the same division for both. 1 take the Senatorial districts proposed, from the 1 ilh lo the 30th inclusive, Tsec the annexed Table I.) ominitling the 22nd, which lies west of Flint rm r, and, if included, would make mv division too irregular, in its form. This gives me a compact body of Counties, comprising the whole centre of the State, and containing a free mlii.tc population of 163,176 persons. All the other Counties of the State contain 146.659 free white per sons. Os these two divisions, the majority arc to elect sixteen Senators, and sixty seven Representatives; the minority, twenty nine Senators and seventy seven Representatives. On this basis, then, Counties, which aro nearly 17,000 in (lie minority of the whole people, will have a majority of thirteen in the Senate, of len in the House, and of twenty three on joint ballot. Jt it also to be remarked, that this power of the minority must and will in crease. For, by a glance at the map, it will he seen, that all ni «* Counties, hereafter to be formed, will unquestionably belaid out, in that region, not included in my division. It will be recollected that, on the plan proposed by the Convention, every new County is to have one representative ; and that one is to be taken from the County, lowest in population, of those electing three. Now the five lowest Counties, having three representatives, on the plan proposed, are Jasper, Elbert, Jones, Washington, and Houston—all of them included fa the majority district. Without allowing, therefore, for the probable increase of the Cherokee country, which, it is generally supposed, will, in a very tew years, still farther curtail the consequence of the centre of the State ; every new Countv formed will takeone member of the house from the majority, and add one to the minority ; thus increase the re. lative power of the latter, two votes. If five new Counties are formed, then, the five last mentioned each losing ono representative, the majority, in the House, of a minority of the people, will he increased to twenty, that identical minority already having a majority of thirteen, in the Senate ! And this, “ God save the mark” !!—is EQUALIZATION !!!! set me mmark, once Or all, that, in mv calculations in regard to taxes, I. |, iV e rcic-ttd oil ! faetiwis of n delta. It saves much treublr, .nd dues not alter the gvneial result I 4. The Tuxes will be paid, by one portion of the State, and their proceeds by another. wpnti 1 do not, of course, mean by this, that all the taxes are paid by one portion of tl, and the whole power of appropriation vested in another : hut that the portion U far the larger amount of taxes, is in the minority in both houses. From the'st t" 5 made by the Comptroller General, to the late Convention, it appears that the san» Senatorial districts, referred to under the last objection, pay taxes, to the amount and all the rest of the State pays but $56,258.* A district of country, then n / ,S ' round numbers, 876,000, has thirteen less Senators, and ten less Representative I?' district paying but 856,000, and on joint ballot, is in a minority of twenty-three, n • marked, also, that, of this sum, paid by the minority Counties, Chatham alone pav s spi and Chatham is to he deprived, tinder the new system, of one of her three repres • ' 4 ' The annexed Table 1. taken from official documents, w ill show mv statement?'" correct. The result of mv preceding calculations is— a region of country, lyi ns * lO pact form, through the centre of the Stale, from the Savannah, to the Flint RivJr a majority of 17,000 of the free white population of Georgia ; pays, in taxes' (H? more than all the rest of ihe Stale, and is lobe in a minority, in both Houses of the / f ture—a fixed minority of thirteen, in the Senate, and a minority of ten, in the which will be added two more, on the formation of every new County. ° Ust ' This brings me to the conclusion of the objections, w ith which 1 began. M'hethc “( of the People” will be able io find “argument” in them, 1 cannot say; but one • certain, so far as my objections rest on statements and calculations, they belom- t " n -' class of ° u ' “ cliiels that winna ding, “ And munna be disputed,” called facts —things that may, sometimes, be evaded, hut can never lie denied. There is one more view of the subject, which I wish to take before leaving it • a i object is, to show that, whatever division may be made, the small Counties a re t 0 , U 1 most decided, and most unreasonable advantage, on the adoption of the propustd a "' nients. I have already -shown the relative weakness, in the Legislature, of t|, e IWI strength of the State, lying in one compact body. 1 now remark (and the annexed T 11. proves me correct) that the twenty-six most populous Counties, without reftn/ location, have a great majority of the free white population of the State, and nrr minority, in both Houses. These Counties, as the Table shows, have a white ixpulai'l 176,139, wi'.h hut sixty-seven Representatives, and a weight in the Senate, equil i 0 J teen Senators. The remaining Counties, with a population of 133,696, bavin; (bin,- Senators, ur.d twenty-seven Representatives; thus gifing to Counties, which connin' j nority of the people, by more than 40,0U0, a majority of ten in the House, and two thirds of the Senate !!! If freemen w ill not listen to facts like these, of what use can it be, to address them, all ! Has the spirit of party, like Aaron’s rod, so swallowed up every otherTcelinu (| w j language is loud enough, no appeal strong enough, to break tiie wizard spell? ls a ’ s jj ment lost its force, or truth its omnipotence ? I will not say, in the language of a resnj hie ami intelligent man, who represented an adjoining County in the Convention that] these amendments prevail, we are “ bound hand and foot, and delivered to our eiieaiJ but I w ill say, and l do believe, that, by adopting them, wo shall abandon, not onlv «•] true principle of Southern policy, but the only principle, on which a free government J did, or ever call exist — the principle, that the will or THE PEOPLE, is the u J ;tius land. im iUKnjy Sole. The foregoing remarks were addressed to the (leorgiu Courier, in reply to two communications in that paper, under the signature of “One of Ihc People." With one or I two slight verbal corrections, they are the same that appeared in the Courier of the 15th I and 21st instants. June, 1833. Showing tin: free white Population, and amount of Taxes, in Kill the proposed Senatorial Districts. So. of District. Counties. White Pop'll. 'Pairs. So. of lUy\ 1 , , r Henry, 8,387 1,566 3 I y Newton, 8,101 1 565 3 ■ .. Walton, 7,078 1,793 3 ’ ? Clark, 5,134 2.419 a Oglethorpe, 5,313 2,776 a ' l Elbert, 6,389 1,854 3 j ~ 5 Greene, 4,865 2,589 2 f Taliaferro, 3,105 1,070 1 C Wilkes, 5,210 3,219 a l Lincoln, 2,785 1,258 1 S Morgan, 5,093 2,357 2 *' ’ t Putnam, 5,294 2,257 2 20 S Butts, 3,367 847 1 ) Jasper, 6,531 6,658 3 .>, s Pike, 4J13 1,118 2 ' l Upson, 3,921 1,361 2 2;i <, Crawford, 2,761 1,041 I ’ ?. Monroe, 9,723 3,250 3 I f Bibb, 4,475 8,271 2 } Houston, 5,601 1,304 3 „„ ) Jones, 6,196 2,654 3 fl ( Baldwin, . 3,123 2,397 1 •>« v Twiggs, 4,548 1,618 2 l Wilkinson, 1,785 964 2 B ) Warren, 5,013 1,987 2 ’ ( Hancock, 5,022 2,361 2 S Columbia, 4.317 2,806 2 ) Richmond, 5,558 10,666 2 .jo ) Burke, 5,193 2,738 2 * ’ i Scriven, 2,216 1,093 1 'JO f Washington, 5,812 1,375 3 L Jefferson, 3,514 1,710 2 163,176 $76,971 67 Remaining Counties, 146,659 56,258 77 Total of the State, 309,835 $133,232 HI f ti I Shoxi ing the Ires' white Papulation of the lift most populous CoiliUM So. Counties. Popula'n. So. of lips. 1. Hall, 11,177 3 2. Gwinnett, 10,721 3 3. Habersham, 10.262 3 4. Monroe, 9,923 3 5. Delvalb, 9,020 3 6. Henry, 8,387 3 7. Newton, 8,101 3 8. Franklin, 7,517 3 9. Walton, 7,078 3 10. Jackson, 6,734 3 11. Jasper, 6,531 3 12. Elbert, 6,389 3 13. Jones, 6,196 3 11. Washington, 5,812 3 15. Houston, 5,601 3 16. Richmond, 5,558 2 " © mmr Ware-House and Commission Merchants. MACON, GEORGIA. § 9 LANTON & SMITH, H are-House and Com- V mission Merchants, Macon, make liberal ad vances on Ccttou instore, and on shipments; also on NOTES and other property deposited in their hands. , Their Ware-Houses are more convenient (o the business part of town than any other, possessing Ihe advantages of a Wharf, and are more exempt from danger by lire than any other in Macon. rjMIE SUBSCRIBER continues to make inks and gudgeons for tub-mills at ten dollars a set, and other castings for saw or griss mills, at sixty-five cents per pound.—He also repairs 1 guns and pistols at very high prices, and shorsj horses at $1 00 if the cash is paid down, or if done in payment of a debt, but if charged, $F 50. He also sells new scooters at 14 cents per) pound, or makes theta w hen the iron is found atj 374 each. I. T. CUSHING ! February, 1833. ts j H Ji'lUtnoii Jones, ATTORNEY AT I,AW, tiVJLL still continue to practice Law. Any * v business confided to his management will br promptly and faithfully attended to. Millrdgevillr, Match 22, 1833. I So. Counties. Popula'n. So. o/S 17. Oglethorpe, 5,313 .1 18. Putnam, 5,204 ■■ 19. Wilkes, 5,210 ■■ 20. Burke, 5,198 21. Clarke, 5,131 1 H 22. Mcrg-.11, 5,093 2 ■ 23. Warren, 5,043 5 B 24. Troup, 5,026 »H 25. Hancock, 5,022 2 B 26. Chatham, 5,004 ® B 176.139 I Remaining Counties, 133,1.9 b" B Total of Ihe Slate, 309,835 Bf B W. I*. 11l SOU E ATE of Milledgeville, and hi* " in;l ' pr 'B I i taken the establishment in Mai'o", kept l)j CharlesWilliMiisou, Esq-known WASHINGTON HALL. M (The house lias undergone a thorough | with "iher improvements, a Dining l'y feet in length, lias been added to the I wing of the building. The ■ j been re-paiiited.aud the furniture is en lire particularly beds. His servants, in* were employed in his house at .Milh From the central situation ot his * s rnent and his long experience in tho nn»i | ' ; confidently looks lo the public lor a haw* *B| | of patronage. | Macon, Oct. 29, 1832. IV VT( 1111 AKE r § rfiUlK subscriber r. spectliiilymtorins hit l and the public, that lie has ta ihe store occupied by James M. ,r p where lie will attend to \V ateb-repa » its branches—ilso, Engraving o scrintion. Ladies and Gentleman cards, neatly engraved— door plains CUIS, tie. , . N. U.—.lohhir,garni copper-P ,aU \P" ly executed—Gold melting P Hp piibiiu IS rs ipecii'iillysohciied. [[OOFE p ■: Macon, May 12. ■