Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by the R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation in partnership with the Atlanta History Center.
About Weekly constitutionalist. (Augusta, Ga.) 185?-1877 | View Entire Issue (July 1, 1874)
sition, (and which ended in the Hamp ton Road Conference) was the fact that Mr. Hill had himself told me a night or two before Mr. Davis sent for me, on his first taking this matter under con sideration, that he was going to Geor gia, and took leave of me accordingly, and that I had not seen him there afterwards. If a man takes leave of me at my house, and says he is going on the next train to Augusta, and I do not see him afterwards, I should not hesitate to say, if the inquiry was made for him, that he had gone to Augusta ; nor should I thereby subject myself to the just charge of falsehood, even though he did not go, as he said he intended to do. No turpitude either in law or morals attaches to any one for any such act or statement, unless he persists in his statement, after it clearly appears j to him, from any subsequent develop- • ment, that the probabilities are, that 1 the fact was not as he thought it to be. | But whether a party, who attempts to fix “ falsehood” upon another, who I frankly admits in such a case, that the j fact may be otherwise than he thought it to be at first, and expressly refrains j from a re-affirmance of it, is free himself from turpitude of some sort, I leave to j the public to judge. Now this is just what I did, when I saw Mr. Hill's “ unwritten history of the Hampton BorvOa. j>omt»Waion,” and his open avotyaV double dealing and me in j the matter of theXorSkjpt#! Com mission, which I l his bold announcement same, of what he styled the “ flank movement ” made by him and the Georgia delega tion. in conjunction with Mr.. Davis in reference to the proposed Congression al Commission, in order to “ circum vent ” me, and “ stop ” mv “ tongue,” by giving the “Negotiators’" and “Peace movement men their own medicine mixed to suit themselves.” I readily saw that his taking leave of me, and telling me he was going to stait to Georgia the next morning, when he had no idea of doing so, was in perfect ac cord with his other deceitful and dou ble-dealing conduct towards me on this entire subject, so openly proclaimed by him. It was when this new, but baleful, glare of light was thus thrown upon this whole transaction, that I “ frank ly confessed ” that “ the probabilities ” were that he was in Richmond, when I supposed he was in Georgia; and stated with equal frankness that I would not “ reaffirm ” that he was absent from Richmond at the time stated. It was no “sickly admission” after I was “over whelmed ” by the evidence of his wit nesses. It was before one word of his testimony, so-called, on this point, was given to the public. It was made most promptly, and in the most manly and truth-bearing manner, upon his own most infamous disclosure. It is not my purpose now, nor has it been at any time, to discuss the merits of his testimony, nor to show how far short it comes of sustaining him in making good his pledge “on pain of infamy " to prove, not only that he was an Richmond at the time, but that I knew he was there; and that he had insisted upon my acceptance of the ap pointment as one of these commission ers iu the presentee of a number of gen tlemen. I will sky, however, that the statement of the Hon. Hiram P. Bell, that he and other members of the Georgia delegation, Miff-Hill included, were in my room in consultation upon my proposed Congressional Commis sion, the night before Mr. Davis sent for me, and that Mr. Hill said on that occasion that he intended to go to Georgia at an early day ; and that Mr. Bell did not remember meeting him in Richmond again after they parted that night at my room, is quite confirma tory in its character of what I said about Mr. Hill’s telling me in my room, either that night or the night before, that he was going to Georgia, and tak ing leave of me with that declared ob ject, vvhA we parted. - But all this has nothing to do with the j merits of the real issue between Mr. Hill ! and myself on the Hampton Roads affair. His presence at or absence from Rich- j mond at that time does notin the least ! affect that issue. It is true I stated his absence as one of the reasons of the impossibility of his knowing what he said he knew. But other reasons of the impossibility of his knowing what he said he knew, equally conclusive with this, if the fact had been as I supposed it to be, were given by me in the same connection. How, for instance, | was it possible for him to know and i assert that what I had written and pub-! 1 lisbed, as a history of the conference, was not true, when the conference was held hundreds of miles from where he ; was,' whether he was in Richmond or Georgia ? And how was it possible ' that lie could have known the reasons why each of the commissioners had been selected, if what Mr. Davis had ] told me was true ? So this question of his presence or absence is a perfectly immaterial point. It does not at all cover the merits of the real issue between us. In this con nection I further state, that I did not intend to charge the Georgia delegation as being “ accomplices ” with Mr. Hill. I only said they were “ accomplices ” “ according to his accountof their join ing him in his flank-movement ” in conjunction with Mr. Davis to “ circum vent me 1” That account I did not be lieve to be true. I believe they were as much imposed upon as I was. I be lieve when they heard that the com missioners were appointed, they be lieved it was an honest bona fide move ment, for negotiations for Peace, They little dreamed that it was nothing but a response to Mr. Blair’s proposition for a secret Military Convention, with out any reference whatever to ultimate • Peace on any terms. I will here also add that what Mr. Hill says in his third letter about the rumors touching Mr. Davis’ instruc tions to the Commissioners, and w'hat he had heard of my private conversa tions, as to the limitations of the in structions of Mr. Davis to the Commis sioners, as to the terms on which they should make Peace is the veriest bosh that was ever written. I have never in private or public said anything on this subject different from what is published in the “War between the States.” I have told everybody with whom I con | versed on this subject, from the time I returned from Fortress Monroe, that it | was no Peace Commission at all, in any | proper sense of the word, and there | were no instructions whatever given by I Mr. Davis to the Commissioners as to ! the terms on which they should agree i to treat upon the subject of Peace, j 4th. Mr. Hill says that I claim in my article No. 5 that the Confederate cause | was lost because my plan of buying up | cotton was not adopted. In this he i errs. In No. 5 I only maintained that j Mr. Davis had said that our failure was owing to a very different cause | from that asserted by Mr, Hill in his | “ Historical Address.” Mr. Davis had said that the failure of our finances was the failure of our cause, and that this failure might have been prevent ed if a proper plan had been adopted for the purchase by the Government of cotton, and rushing it out to Europe before the blockade was closed. I did assert that I had urged upon Mr. Davis the plan of purchasing the cotton, by giving eight, per cent. Confederate bonds for it, and so rushing it out, and that he referred me to Mr. Memminger, who obstinately opposed it. I said also that thousands of people in this Dis trict knew that this was the plan advo cated by me in canvassing for the cot ton loan in th.e summer of 1861. Mr. Hill says I did not offer it in the Pro visional Congress. This is true. It was not until the meeting of Congress in Richmond that I had any opportu nity to do so. It was then I urged my views upon Mr. Davis and Mr. Mem minger ; and I did not offer my plan in Congress because I could not get the Administration to agree with me. I knew nothing could be done without its concurrence. It was to avoid divis ions and avoid subjecting myself to the charge of heading a party in opposition to the Administration. This was well kno >vn to many members of the Provis ional Congress, whether to Mr. Hill or not. Mr. Brooks’ plan was entire ly different from mine. Its avowed object was the relief of planters by issuing Hreasury notes for cot ton, and thus inflating the curren cy. This was the scheme which Gen. Toombs opposed and defeated. But my plan was to buy the cotton with eight per cent, bonds, with several years to run, and by which the curren cy would not have been increased a dime. But I told Mr. Brooks and other friends of using cotton in any way pro posed, and especially Col. R. W. John son, of Arkansas, who was a most zealous advocate of the cotton policy, in some shape or other, that it was utterly useless for us to attempt to do anything on this line, unless we could first get the approval and co-operation of the Administration. These are the facts of the case, and if anybody has the curiosity to investigate them further, I refer him "to Cleve land’s compilation of my speeches, page TC6. Mr. Hill’s remark about this compilation is in char acter with himself. I simply fur nished Mr. Cleveland with copies of my speeches as they had been previously published. This speech was published at the time it was made from no rea son except a vindication of myself against unjust attacks in the newspa pers for factious opposition to the Ad ministration. No fact stated in this speech has ever been questioned from that day to this so far as I have heard. In my opinion, the blunder of the Ad ministration in not using cotton, as they might and could, before it was too late, was only one of the many like blunders, both in our internal and ex ternal policy which led to the ultimate failure of the cause. Mr. Hill says in his new chapter, that from the begin ning he always kept before him the “ great overshadowing conviction that Independence was certain, if our peo ple could be kept resolutely united,” &c. Avery strange conviction this for any one pretending to be a statesman.. Did not Cortes with less, perhaps, than a thousand men, subjugate Mexico and deprive millions of resolutely united men of their Independence ? History teaches that brains—wise counsels—are as essential iu the civil as well as the military department, for the success ful conduct of war. My convictions at the beginning, as to the result of the issues presented by the Secession of the Southern States were expressed in that celebrated “cor ner stone ” speech, (to which Mr. Hill refers), in the following words : “ Will every thing, commenced so well, continue ns it has begun ? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all de pends upon ouivdvos. A young man start ing out iu life on Ins majority, witii health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Provi dence, may lie said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, lie can not fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the archi tects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and Statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelli gence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail—if wo become divided—if schisms arise—if dis sensions spring up—if factions are engen dered—if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you.” * * * Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we . resent to the world, as I trust we shall, a better Government than that to which neighboring States belong.” No man ever made greater “sacri fices of personal feeling upon the altar of the public good,” to avoid dissen sions, and keep down discontents among the people, by keeping the Ad ministration on a right line of policy, than I did during the whole war. When I warned the authorities personally of what I deemed the fatal tendency of their omissions, as w T eil as commissions, I remained perfectly silent until driven in a few instances to address the public in self-vindication. Now a few words in reply to Mr. Hill’s remarks' in reference to this speech. He says it did a great deal in alienating foreign sympathy from our cause, because I had declared that the subordination of the inferior to the su perior race among us was the corner stone of the Confederacy. How could this have effected our interest, as ar gued by Mr. Hill ? In using this figure of speech on that occasion I b.ut re peated what Judge Baldwin, of the Su preme Court of the United States, had long before judicially announced in re ference to the Federal Constitution. He had said, and judicially proclaimed, that “slavery” as it existed in this country, was “ the corner stone of the Constitution of the United States.” This was known to all foreign nations, whose sympathy we sought. How, then, could my announcement of the ! same truth in reference to the Confed erate Constitution have aflected their sympathies against us in this respect ? Mr. Hill’s remarks, therefore, about my lunacy in making such a declaration merits no further notice.. sth. Mr. Hill says I perverted his letter by the manner in which I pub lished it, and by injecting my com ments upon the separate parts as given to the public. In illustration of this he says, that his approval of Gov. Brown’s message of March, 1864, was confined to that portion which -treats of the causes of the war, how conducted and who responsible. “ Now, ” says he, “what will the people think of Mr. Ste phens when I tell them that this por tion of the message thus approved re lates exclusively to Mr. Lincoln and his party,” &c. The only reply I make to this is, what will the people think of Mr. Hill when they refer, as I ask them to do, to bis own language as published in these words: “Beginning with that portion of the mes sage which treats of ‘the causes of the war, how conducted, and who responsible’— from that po ,it to the end, I must say I have not read anything during the revolution with half so much pleasure and satisfaction. I know I must thank you for it. The whole country will owe you an everlasting debt for it. Gov. Brown can never pay you in kind for the great benefit you have be stowed upon him. You have given him a grandeur of conception, an enlargement of views, and a perspicuity and power of style to which he never could have reached. His only trouble can be the footprints are too plain not to bo recognized.” The italics in the above quotation embercing the words, from that point to the end, I make in this republicatiou, in older to call special attention to the fact, that he had not confined his high commendation to that portion of the message, which ho thus attempts to make the people believe he had! What, again, will the people think of such a device to extricate himself, and that, too, by charging me with a per version of the record ? Such a Parthian shot is too amusing, (in its Johnsonian sense), for farther notice. But I ask again, with emphasis, what act of the Legislature—what, part of Gov. Brown’s message—what part of the Resolutions by my brother, Hon. Linton Stephens, on Conscription, Impressments, suspension of Habeas Corpus, or what part of my speech de livered on that occasion, had he not previously substantially aud cordially approved in principle, in his letter of the 14th of March ? I had called upon him to specify any portion of either of these that he had not thus approved. He responds to this call only so far as the speech is concerned. This, in general terms, he characterizes as “ a most vindictive tirade, against every leading measure of the Congress adopted to carry on the war.” His Specifications, however, are confined to the following quotations from the speech : »* “ Without liberty—l would not turn yarn. Imy heels for independence. I scorn all in dependence which does not secure liberty. “I warn you also against another fatal delusion, commonly dressed up in ihc fas cinating language of, if we are to have a master, who would not prefer to have a Southern one to a Northern one ? Use no such language. Countenance none such.** I would not turn on my heel to choose mas ters. 1 was not born to acknowledge a master from either the North or the South!” On these, amongst other like com ments, he indulges in the following lan guage : What was the effect of this message and speech, and the “ gandeloering” between the Vice President, the Governor and the ex-judge of the Supreme Court at the State Capitol against the Confederate Adminis tration and laws ? The “ horrible ” portion of the message and this speech were circu lated by the Republicans in the Northern Presidential campaign of 18«4, to prove that the Confederacy was collapsing! It was written and spread over the North that “ Gov. Brown, of Georgia, sent a message to the Legislature against the Confederate laws which rallied in its support every dis affected and disappointed man in the Con federacy. Ihis message was supported by Vke-Presidmt Stephens.'’ Now on these points, what had he said to me in his letter? Hero are his exact words : 1. To tli ■ legal principles you announce, I agree. 1 intimate as much in my speech. I will never agree that the military, as such, from the commander-in-chief down, can take charge of and control the citizen. Civilians i ust be governed, and governed only by cix<l tribunals. Persons in noway attached to, or connected with, or within the lines of the army, cannot, ought not, and must net be governed by mijitary law, or military officers. The suspension of the writ of habeas cor pus does not and cannot annul, repeal or modify the citizens’ Constitutional bill of rights. Here lies, deep imbedded, the cor ner stone of Freedom’s Temple, and I will never consent to its removal. The act of Congress, if carried out, does infringe in this respect, and, therefore, I voted against it. If there was anything “ horrible ” in the message of Gov. Brown on Habeas Corpus, or the resolutions of Hon. Lin ton Stephens, in arraying the people of Georgia in hostility to Confederate laws, which was spread over the North to the injury of our cause, was not Mr. Hili as responsible for it as any or all of us? Now, I will venture the opin ion that the extract quoted from a Northern paper was taken from a Rich mond paper, and that the message of Gov. Brown and my speech were never republished in any paper at the North. But why, let me ask, did Mr. Hill not quote the passages in my speech, which immediately preceded* the parts he picked out, and which fit them in due connection? As the public may feel some interest in the subject, in judging of the justice of these com ments. I, in self-vindication, repro duce them. They are in these words : “ Never for a moment permit yourselves to look upon liberty, that constitutional liberty which you inherited as a birth right, as subordinate to independence. The one was resorted to to secure the other. Let them ever be held and cherished as objects co-ordinate, co-cxistent, co-equal, co-eval; and forever inseparable. Let them stand together ‘through -weal and through woe,’ and if such bo our fate, let them and us, all go down together in a common ruin. WittaC out liberty I would not turn upon my heel for independence. I scorn all independent" that does not secure liberty.” Iff. Who but Mr. Hill can see in thege sentiments anything hut the strongest devotion to those principles, and that cause, far which the people of the Southdfw States were struggling ? Who but Mr.'Hill can see in them anything I like a denunciation of Mr. Davis? I should have thought infinitely less of [ Mr. Davis than I then did. if I had sup posed that he would have been offend ed atrtiiuai. TheSdifference between Mr. Hill and myseX was, that when the Richmond paper#, and others which were clamor ing fofadictatorship, which I was as loth tfo believe Mr. Davis favored, as Mr. H|l himself was, when he was with me, raised their denunciations against this a<£ion of Georgia ; and when Mr. Davislgave no public utterance in opposition to these denunciations, Mr. Hill grew weak in his spinal column, and crime to the conclusion in pursu ance of his natural inclinations to seek favor at eourt, “ And crO ik the pregnant hinges of the knee, Where thrift may follow fawning.” I vfas indeed enough to show that I was’made of sterner stuff. I adhered to the principles, on which he bad so agreed with me “with all” his “peart.” Byjthese principles I then stood, now stands and will die, aud never will choose between masters. Mr. Hill’s stafeijieu' that I have been the apolo gisrftr any Radical usurpations at any time, js in perfect accord with his char acter. It is utterly without the slight est fjMKdation in fact to rest upon. Nothing is better known, than that in 1872, while I was still obstinate enough to withhold my assent to any of the usurpations in the Reconstruction Mens arcs, he was the champion of those in Georgia, who were urging upon the Southern people to give their full sanction to all these abominations. In 1804 I stood by the Constitution of the Confederate Government, which was the constitution of our fathers; while the only feat of statesmanship which Mr. Hill claims for himself in the pa per now before me, was his substituted Habeks Corpus bill in the Confederate Senate,.which by his admissions*to me in his letter of the 14th March, did vio late that sacred instrument. The char acter of oue occupying such position, I will notgiortray. I will not even resort to or any of the English standard classical writers for a proper characterization. In this instance I shalitofbear, not only from using any epithets myself, but from resorting to any other source for them, except to Mr. Hill's own words on a former occa sion tjso that he can take the “ physic ” prepared for such a patient according to “ his Own mixture.” In his notes No. 10 on the situation in 1807, lie used this language : “ I ask again ar.d again, and I beseech all men to ask—it is the earnest, anxious, piercing appoalof the dying hope of liberty: Are you uniting to violate the Constitution ? Are you willing, first, to swear to support it, with, the intent, at the same time, of swear ing tP violate it ? Then, I proclaim—all posterity will proclaim—your hell-mort gage# conscience will never cease to pro claim! you are perjured, and perjury is not half yp,ur crime—you commit perjury in order to beffljite (i traitor!" this as applicable to Mr. Hill t-. bis ' sr,7 ' J ‘ , ‘ 7«'>r flic gOOSo ip.si is Isauee Tor the gander now. Filf-conin(■ nts are unnecessary. ic ifiis nest extravagant em dctnHwi'ii of himself, as one of those traitor*, who touched the ark of our covenant, from which come all *he dis content and crushing out of the spirit of liberty in our country, ending in our ruin, what care I for his anathemas against me (one of the fullest loads his ink battery ever before discharged) contained iu the concluding paragraph of his letter now before me? No more than Rden’s guardian angel did for the archfiend’s defiant denunciations of him on his “bold retreat,” when “ he looked up,” and “read his lot” in “the celestial sign,” where lie was “ weighed” in Heaven’s “scales,” and saw how “light, how weak” he was. if he persisted in the- combat! Mr. Hill was evidently mad —I will not say “insanely mad,” but rather Satanically enraged, when he penned those lines. On me their effect was nothing but a most serene smile in my inflexible integrity, and “unapproachable” equanimity of tem per, even in the highest excitement. 6th. Mr. Hill says I made a “ savage attempt to ruin ’’him, “and if it has ruined ” me “ the punishment is j list.” This is among his fulminary denuncia tions uttered as he was retreating. If his premises were correct, his conclu sion would be right. But in his state ment he perverted the facts. It was he, who in his “ Historical Address,” attempted to ruin me and others, and not I by vindicating my own honor and integrity, who attempted to ruin him! Let the proposition, therefore, be en tirely reversed, and the truth will be fully maintained. But Mr. Hill must recollect that I was not the aggressor in this controversy. I never in my life gave,an unprovoked offense to any human being. \ye are, however, told by the highest authority that; “it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by -whom the offence cometh.” While by nature I am utterly adverse to all such personal controversies as this, yet in reference to them, I have been governed through life by the counsel of Polonius : “ Beware Os entrance to a quarrel: but being in, Bear it, that the opposer may beivare of thee.” Mr. Hill’s present torture, if he pro vokes the issue, may be greatly inten sified, by a full exposure of that won derful “strategy,” (not “trick;” he plays “ tricks ’Vupon no body) but that wonderful strategy by which he be came the savior of Georgia in driving out Radical rulers, and in rescuing the property of the State from the hands of robbers. There is a great deal of unwritten history on the secret negoti ations between him and “the robbers,” besides that which be gave to the New York Sun interviewer. If any portion he thus gave made him “sick as a dog,” perhaps when the facts attending liis earlier meetings at later hours of the night than that at the Kimball House banquet with those, whom he now styles “skunks,” shall be brought out, he may be seized with a sudden inclina tion to make another retreat, or “ re tirement.” But no more at present on that subject. As I have said, Mr. Hill was intense ly enraged when he poured forth that volley of ink curses against me in his concluding paragraph. He was evi dently in as great a fury as Cassius was in his quarrel with Brutus, when he exclaimed: “ Oh gods ! ye gods ! must I endure all this?” My reply is that of Brutus: “All this? aye, and more! * * * You shall digest the venom of your spleen, Though it do split you; for, from this day forth. I’ll use you for my mirth, yea, for my laughter, When you are waspish.” Alexander H. Stephens. Full Text of the Currency Bill as Signed by the President. Section 1. The act entitled “An act to provide a national’ currency, secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and re demption thereof, approved June 3, 1864,” shall be hereafter known as the national bank act. Sec. 2. That section 31 of the na tional bank act be so amended that the several associations therein provided for shall not hereafter be required to keep on hand any amount of money whatever by reason of the amount of their respective circulations ; but the moneys required by. said section to be kept at all times on hand shall be de termined by the amount of deposits in all respects as provided for in the said section. Sec. 3. That every association organ ized or to bo organized under the pro visions of the said act, and of the, several acts amendatory thereof, slig'.l at.all times keep and have on deposit in the Treasury of the United States, in lawful money of the United States, a sum equal to five per centum of i‘s circulation, to be held and used for the redemption of such circulation, which sum shall be counted as a part of its lawful reserve as provided in section 2 of this act; and when the circulating notes of any such associations, assort ed or unassorted, shall be presented for redemption in sums of 81,000 or any multiple thereof to the Treasurer of tlie United States, the same shall be re deemed in United States notes. All notes so redeemed shall bo charged li\’ the Treasurer of the United States to the respective associations issuing the same, and he shall notify them severally on the first day of each month or oftener, at his discretion, of the amount of such redemp tions, and whenever such redemptions for any association shall amount to the sum of §SOO such association so noti fied shall forthwith deposit with the Treasurer of the United States a sum in United States notes equal to the j amount of its circulating mates so re- j deemed ; and all notes 4>f national banks worn, defaced, mutilated, or otherwise unfit for circulation, shall, j when received by any Assistant Treas urer, or at any designated depository ; df the United States, be forwarded to i the Treasurer of the United States for j redemption, as provided herein ; and j when such redemptions have been so j reimbursed, the circulation notes so re- j deemed shall be forwarded to the re- | spectiveassociations by which they were j issued ; but if any such notes are worn, ' mutilated, defaced, or rendered other wise unfit for use, they shall be for warded to the Comptroller of the Cur rency, and destroyed and replaced as now provided by law. Provided, that each of said associations shall reim burse to tlic Treasury the charges for transportation and the costs for assort ing such notes, and the associations hereafter organized shall also severally reimburse to the Treasury the cost of engraving such plate3 as shall be or dered by each association respectively, and the amount assessed upon each association shall be in proportion to the circulation redeemed, and be charged to the fund on deposit with the Treasurer ; and provided further, that so much of section 32 of said Na tional Bank act requiring or permitting the redemption of its circulating notes elsewhere than at its own counter, ex cept as provided for in this section, is hereby repealed. Sec. 4. That any association organiz ed under this act, or any of the acts of which this is an amendment, desiring to withdraw its circulating notes, in whole or in part, may, upon the deposit of lawful money with the Treasurer of the United States, in sums of not less than 89,000, take up the bonds which said association has on deposit with the Treasurer for the security of such circulating notes, which bonds shall be assigned to the bank in the manner specified in the 19th section of the Na tional Bank act; and the outstanding notes of said association, to an amount equal to the legal tender notes deposit ed, shall be redeemed at ttie Treasury of the United States and destroyed, as now provided by Jaw ; provided that the amount of the bonds on deposit for circulation shall not be reduced below 850,000. Sec. 5. That the Comptroller of the Currency shall, under such rules aud regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, cause the charter members of the association to bo printed upon ail national bank notes which may be hereafter issued by him. Sec. 6. That the amount of United States notes outstanding and to be issued as a part of tho circulating me dium, shall not exceed the sum of §382,000,000, which said sum Shall ap pear in each monthly statement of the public debt, and no part thereof shall be held or used as a reserve. Sec. 7. That so much of the act enti tled “An act to provide for the redemp tion of the three per centum temporary loan certificates and for an increase of national bank notes” as provides that no circulation shall be withdrawn under the provisions of section 6 of said act until after the 854,000,000 granted in section 1 of said act shall have been taken up, is hereby repealed; and it shall be the duty of the Comptroller of the Currency, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to pro ceed forthwith, and he is hereby au thorized and required, from time to time, as application shall be duly made therefor, and until the full amount of the 854,000,000 shall 'be withdrawn, to make a requisition on each of the na tional banks described in said section, and in the manner therein provided, organized in States having an excess of circulation, to withdraw and return so much of this circulation ■ as by said act may be apportioned to be withdrawn from them, or in lieu thereof to deposit in the Treasury of the United States lawful money sufficient to redeem such circulation, and upon the return of the circulation required, or the deposit of lawful moneyas herein provided, a pro portionate amount of the bonds held to secure the circulation of such associa tion as shall make such return or de posit shall be surrendered to it. Sec. 8. That upon the failure of the national banks upon which requisitions foe circulation shall be made, or of any of them, to return the amount requir ed, or to deposit in the Treasury law ful money to redeem the circulation required within thirty days, the Comp troller of the Currency shall at once sell, as provided in section 49 of the Na tional 'Currency act, approved June 3, 1864, bonds held to secure the redemp tion of the circulation of the association or associations which shall so fail, to an amount sufficient to redeem the circu )a* ’on required of such association or associations, and with the proceeds, which shall be deposited in the Treas uiy of the United States, so much of the circulation of said association or asso ciations shall be redeemed as will equal the amount required and not returned; and if there be any excess of proceeds over the amount required for such re demption it shall be returned to the_ association or associations whose bonds shall have been sold ; and it shall be the duty of the T”tasurer, Assistant Treas urer, designated depositories, and Na tic)f»al Bank depositories of the United dilates, who shall be kept informed by the Comptroller of the Currency of such associations as shall fail to return e’r. ulation as required, to assort anfl return to tlic Treasurer for redemp tion the notes of such associations as shall come into their hands until the amount required shall be redeemed, and in like manner to assort and re turn to the Treasury for redemption the notes of such national banks as have failed or gone into voluntary liquidation for the purpose of winding up their affairs, of such as shall here after so fail or go into liquidation. Sec. 9. That from and after the pass age of this act it shall be lawful for the Comptroller of the Currency, and lie is hereby ordered to issue circulating notes without delay as applications therefor are made, not to exceed tho sum of 855,000,000, to associations or ganized or to be organized in those .states and Territories having less than their proportion of circulation under an apportionment made on the basis of population and of wealth, as shown by tho returns of the census of 1870, and every association hereafter organ ized shall be subject to and governed I by the rules,, restrictions and limita ! tions, and possess the rights, privi [ leges and franchises now or hereafter to be prescribed by law as national banking associations, with the same power to amend, alter, and repeal pro vided by the National Bank act, pro vided that the whole amount of circu lation withdrawn and removed from the banks transacting business shall not exceed 855,000,000, and that such, circulation shall be withdrawn and re deemed as shall be necessary t d sup -1 ply the circulation .b * '-a to the hanks in having less than their apportionment; and provid ed further that not more than 83 0,000,- 000 sliao.be withdrawn and redeemed as herein contemplated during the fis cal year ending June 30,1875. The title of the bill is amended to read as follows: “An Act to fix the amount of United States notes, provid ed for the redistribution of the Na tional Bank Currency, and for other purposes.” The report is signed by all the mem bers of the committee. [New York World. Another Prince of Wals3. It is rather startling, is it not, to hear that “the Prince of Wales was married on the 15th of last month to Lady Alice Hay, a daughter of the late Earl of Erroll, at the Roman Catholic Church in Spanish Place, London ?” Such, however, is the fact. And yet tho hus band of Alexandria, “sea king’s daugh ter from over the sea,” has not com mitted bigamy. The “Prince of Wales,” who has just wedded a young Scottish lady of old cavalier and Jacobite blood is the wrong “Prince of Wales.” He is commonly known as “Col. Count Chas. Edward d’Albany, the only sou of Count Charles Edward Stuart and of Anna, daughter of the Right Hon. John de la l’oer Beresford, and niece of the first Marquis of Waterford.” Wnen the right Prince of Wales last year went to the Vienna Exhibition, he had the pleasure of seeing this great-grand nephew, or whatever he may be, of tho Pretenders of the last century figuring in a Highland dress among the officers of the Austrian army. It is rather doubtful after all whether .tlu> “Count Charles Edward” is so nearly the direct representative of the royal Stuarts as to deserve even in that way the complimentary title of the wrong •‘Prince of Wales.” Asa matter of fact we believe the direct heir of the English crown in the Stuart fine to-day is Francis V., ex-Duke of Modena, “by right divine” Francis I. of Great Bri tain and Ireland, King. But the Count is conceded to be a Stuart, and his re appearance in England to marry a Scottish noblewoman is at least a "cu rious incident of the day worth bring ing to the notice of the lovers of his torical romance. Life Witnout Enjoyment. No human being whose stomach and liver are disordered can enjoy life.— Business is a fatigue and a bore, and all amusements “ flat and unprofitable,” to the victim of indigestion, biliousness, and disturbances of the bowels and the nerves which always accompany them. The shoitest, surest, safest way to get rid of these evils, and of the mental despondency which grows out of them, is to tone and regulate the system with Hostetter’s Stomach Bitters. Os all stimulants it is the purest, of all vege table tonics the most active, of all cathartics the mildest, of all anti-bilious preparations the most swift and certain in its operation. During the twenty odd years that it has been in use it has lived down professional prejudices, dis tanced competition, and taken rank as the standard restorative of the age.
