Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE VOLUME III- ATLAOTA, GA., THURSDAY MORNING, JANUARY 27, i 870. NUMBER 45 , . . | | y\/\ /4*J ^ 'V' , *>J r “The Georgia Bill" w»i P»««ed. fClt 11 ilCllj I Congress passed the Georgia bill because the I reconstruction Acts had been complied -■ * ■ ' r ■».■" = 1 With, and thence because there was no legal TERMS OK „„ State Government in Georgia. Had the Acts of * A-b-1 lixtBita da... -igV-yJy. • • 5 oo j March and May, *G7, and the Admission Act u.p*e tao^tas......./—i S » f ^ ane » *C8» been complied with, the ’State Vflki r.**i Sn o a A... s i j would have been admitted to representation, yoar...«»♦ ;••••. “ and “reconstruction” done with, so far as this State is concerned. The failure upon the part ot the persons Jy« .<p> -ftK ItATKS OF IrOAL ADVKUTISIXO. rievybfSidUl r^.lL.fa. Halm, peri T*x QollectonT hales,p«*Vi> Citation*for Letters of * Ciutlonsfor Letters of— — Cetceraof AppUe*tionforDi*mi*rionfrom Admin- ^ LettcriofAppikauioo for Dianluton 'froin'Onsr- dtsnsbto i- *0®. Application for leave to Bell Land *00 N )ti res to Debtors and Creditors................3 00 h ilss of Land, Ac., per square « oo Hues of ParUhabU Property, 10 days, per square. 1 50 KstrayNotices,so Jays Foreclosure of Mortgage, per •juste, each time Salt-9 of land, kc., by sdmfatiatrsUirs Axecntors of cusrdians. *rer»<iuired by law to be bsld on the fir»t Tuesday in the month* between the hours of 10 in tue forenoon and 3 taihe afternoon, *tthe court house MitM :i the county iu which the properly Is situated. Notires of iheae Mies must bo Riven In a public ga- satte 40 days previous to the day <A Notices for the sale of personal property nrnst be given in like manner, 10 days pwylous to «■*•££• Notires tu the debtoi* and creditors of an esUto must b ^Eti* uSt appU.-ation will b« made to tbo Oonrt of Or.lins'.vforleaYe to sell land, ke. $ muat bo published ,n- far letters of administrati-in. jriar.lianfcup. i;,, mastoe publish. d30 days; far dismiMkmfromad- ministration, monthly 6 months; for dismission from ^SSSwtaSsnn of mortgage must bepabUahed.| monthly for four months; for establishing lost papers, forth# full space of 3 months; for oompotttog titles from esecutors or sdministrstorsi. «*•«• bond.has -Tiiora or KUUUMBiraiui r, ~— miHPVli by the deceMrd, the full space of 3 months. ▲ limited number of advertisements will bo inserted on the weekly. Special contracts for such made at our evils; Wo lire under obligations to Hon. Wm. D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, for a copy of his able speech on Secretary Well** Report, de livered in the House of Representatives Jan uary ilth,' 1870. The Animus. The affairs of the State Road wfll not bear scrutiny, and he (Gov. Bullock) must have a • majority to prevent an investigation into the conduct of the officers of the road for the past year, and particularly of the last few months. —JSTu Klvx paper. In view of the statements repeatedly made by Superintendent Blodgett and Treasurer Harris, and the repeated invitations of the officers of the Road to submit the books and records of their offices to investigation, the above eUtomoot is decidedly cook It simply >*u *vu a .deliberate purpose not to give the ,(>eoplf» tbof.icU, bat to feed them upon mere .H»*c»dou- at* r lions that would honor the -devil himself. ' % . ./ 1 A Tornado In Tennessee. On Monday morning last, between fonr and (five o'clock, a tornado parsed over Nashville, the extent of the damage done we have not yet learned, aaour informant left Nashville on the same day at9:45 a. m. No papers or tele grams have been received from Nashville giv ing details. The steeple of Elm street Metho dist chnrcb, the roof of the passenger depot of tho Nashville and Decatur Railroad, the roof of Dr. Martin's house and of Ward’s Female Seminary, wsib badly damaged. West of gterenson much limber was blown down, and it i. rumored that St a fetation (name not ro* memberod) on the Memphis ,t JUilroad, a nmubtr of freight •*!»' named in Gen. Meade’s proclamation of July, '68, (the members elect to the Provisional Legislature) to organize a Legislature os pro vided in the law, left the question of restora tion in abeyance. Ineligible persons Were permitted to take port in the organization of a Legislature, which, for that very reason was illegal; and, os if to leave Congress and the authorities no room to donbt the illegitimacy of that body, it afterward", in the face of the Stato Constitution, and in viola tion of the spirit of the Congressional en actments, expelled from their seats all the colored members. These members secured the ratification of the XIVth Amendment; and, as that action, upon the port of the Pro visional Legislature, was one of the condi tions precedent to the admission of the State, it was, to all practical purposes, rescinded by the revolutionary scheme of expalsion, and the political atatns of the State lapsed to the period of th-. ■ .-iginal convocation of the members elect, July 4tb, 1SGS. Hence, in point of fact, there has never been a legally constituted sovereign Legisla ture In Georgia since tbs postage of the Ordi nance ot Secession. The nets of the Legisla ture daring the war were subject to the ap proval of the national authority after the eon quest of the rebellion; and tho illegal body set up by Mr. Johnson in 1865, was set aside by the Beconstruction Acts of Congress. Those sets provided for the establishment of a legal State government; and, of course, until they were complied with, there ooald be no legal government. It is a rale among business' men, estab lished both by law and precedent, that a proposition is not binding upon the con science of him who makes it, longer than it may be necessary for the party of tbe second part either to accept or reject it. It is a rule based npon tbe principles of equity and eom- mon sense, and applies os well to persons in their collective, os to men in their individual capacity. Congress proposed, in the sets of March, '67, and tbe sets supplemental thereto, a plan for the establishment of a legal State Government in Georgia. Up to the passage of the present law, the people of Georgia had not acceded to the proposition; but, on the contrary, had arrayed themselves, coder the dictum of insane leaders, in open hostility to the essential features of the plan proposed. Under these circumstances, the present law was passed for the “perfection of reconstruc tion in Georgia." Tbo law simply lapses the reconstruction of the State bock to tbe date of our departure from tho law of 1867— to-wit, the organization of a Legislature as provided in those acts; and hence the present proceed ing. on the port of those charged with the ex- ecntioa of tbe law, looks only to tbe organiza tion of a Legislature. Upon this organization, I, pends; because, if not bad in with the will of Congress, _j_t .will , and will,"therefore, atUount injured. Conscience a. a Guide, • Tile Bov. Horace Cook, of recent elopement fame, has disappeared. He it reported on tho way to Dial). Perhaps bn is only on bis way to the Bev. Joo. H. Noyes’ Communioniat Settlement in Western New York, He is a lean—a “Bevercnd gentleman"—of very de cided uxorius proclivities; nod for ought anybody seems’to know to the contrary. '• » believer in Spiritual Wifehood. In that caso he can plead a religions conviction for his disgustingly licentious conduct and his criminal betrayal of an eccleslastioal trust. Half tbo crimes of Middle Ages were perpetra ted in tho name of “religion”; and, in the present day, hilf tbe Decalogue is piously violated uiider the same flimsy subterfuge. Conscience is a wonderfoliy convenient jasti- her of an action nulea en see. There should be a remedy. A Storm Brewing. Decent events scorn to portend a gathering political storm in Paris. “The disorders at. the faucial of Victor Noir, altbongh of no immediate significance . plainly shows the existence of a dangerous / and daily increasing clement of dissatisfaction, t ready to break out'at every oflering opportn- nity. The conduct of Napoleon in permitting « malcontent, like. Boohefort, not only to;be . a* targe, bnt to dally utter and publish treason, in, to some extent incomprehanrtble. “The amnesty bo is permitted to enjoy if dne , either to soparioi wisdom on the part ot the t Emperor, or to a fear of precipitating a con test. the issue ot which ho considers nr least dnobUab: One thing is certain—he cannot iMg maintain bis prestige with affiairs in ths present condition, and news of a stirring na ture from Pro nee may shortly be looked tor.' Dcmorratlc Impudence. It has been a matter of nslonisbment to loany. that tbe Committee of Democrats, ap- ,. ..s — i ,i“neonl, s’ meeting. The ratification of tbeXYth Amendment by the Georgia Legisiotare, is desirable only when a Legislature shall be organizad in ac cordance with the letter and spirit of the Be- oonstruction Acts. Its ratification by an ille gal body, whose members are ineligible un der tho late law, would be but a repetition of the faroe perpetrated in the ratification of the XIVth Article; and would fall as far short of restoring the State to her constitutional rights in the Union now, as that act did in 1868. Its ratification should be hod from other motives than as a means to ah end. Infidels and skeptics sometimes embrace Christianity es a means to some specific end; Democrats and rewetionists may vote for Re publican measures from the same motives. It is not charged that the better class of the Opposition would do this. That would per haps be an uncharitable conclusion. And yet tbe recent action of Mr. Tift and bis followers, seem to plainly indicate a purpose of this kind. They seem disposed to com promise npon anything that will secure party ascendancy in the Legislature ; and when that la accomplished, they would doubtless not scrapie to use their power to. violate tbe XVtk, as they did tha XIVth Arliele. Furthermore, it ought to be well under stood by this time that the evasion oi a lew of t ongress by appearing to comply with its outward form, can never succeed in lestoring Georgia to her place in the Union. The re- constroetlon law was adroitly evaded, in tbe organization ot tbe Legislature, eighteen months ago; and in order to prevent a similar occurrence now, the Board of officers was ap pointed by the General Commanding, charg ed with the doty of investigating tbe record of thoso gentlemen who seem disposed to act upon a partisan construction of the Act. Suppose ineligible persons should take this oath under a partisan construction of its pro visions, and be permitted to participate in the organization of the Hooae. They might, in deed, ratify the XVtb Amendment, and give renewed pledges of a purpose to not again vio late the XIVth Arttcle;',bul that fact would not, in the least, alter the illegal manner of tbe organization;"nor wonld a prosecution for pnijury before the civil Courts, legalize a body which bad beeh illegally organized. It wonld not induce Congress to go back npon its own reeord, and accept the acts of a Legislature whoso status would be as illegal as that of ita predecessor. A proper understanding of tho present re lations of the State to the General Govern ment, will, we feel confident, tally justify the establishment of this Board oi inquiry. Of course, designing politicians will attempt to impugn the motive for its existence; but when tbe real people of tbe State—men who have material interests at stake—are made to com prehend tbe fact that Congress will never re cognize the existence ot a body that is ille gally organized, they will applaud, rather than condemn, the efforts of the authorities to procure an organization that will meet the approval of Congress. After this organization is bad, the ratifica tion of the XVth Amendment is imposed; but its ratification in the manner in which its pre decessor—the XIVth—was ratified in July, 1868, to-wit, by an illegal and revolutionary body cidling itself a Lcgielatoro, will not ful fill the. demands of the law, nor insure tbe State to representation in Congress. Henee arises tbe necessity for the present proceeding on tbe part of General Terry and the Admin istration, looking to a legal organization of a Legldalurc. Ansarz, January 19 k 1870. The board of officers composing this Court assembled, pursuant to adjournment, in room No. 21, at tbe Capitol, at 10:30 a. if. Chief Justice Brown, by consent of the Board, mads the fallowing addition to his testimony: “I cannot pretend to know all the officers appointed by me during the war,. Since hearing the testimony of Col. Wright; I am satisfied that Mr. Welbom did act as quarter master, and I suppose that I may haV? issued the commission.” By request of the counsel for tho^espon- dents, farther time wss allowed them^o com plete their answers to the Attorney General’s argoments. Attorney General Farrow announced that he was ready to proceed with Anderson'e ease, and entered a certified copy of the oaths he took as Notary Public for Houston county, which was received as evidence and filed with the Becorder. The Board, after consultation, and hearing’ arguments pro. and con., decided to adjourn until 10 o’clock to-morrow morning to allow the Attorney General farther time to prepare the charges against the membets of tha House of Representatives. I*riuted of the so-called “peoples' meeting,' held at the City Hall lost week, should have the temerity to address a letter to General Terry, asking that ho wonld “submit the question of eligibility of members of the Gen- '' \ whose right to seats in that to tbe Judges of tbe Sa fe State ;| when it is well known 1-ports tbs’ nearly every one of those ciiid to appear before the Board M officers, bad consulted with, and received tho opinion of Judges Brown and Warner, several days before this request was made to the General Commanding. In fart, the Constitution of yesterday, pub- j;,Ues the request of the Democratic Commit- towund the letter of the Chief Justice, giving Us opinion “npon the question of eligibility ad membets." in the sarno issue; and takes rtpecial paisa to leave the date, in both cases, tfaidt—thus indicating that tbe committee al- ‘ v» dy haJ.tao (pinion of the Chief Justice, When the requist was made to General Terry f< r change of tribunal! ' Thu cool impudence or ths proceeding, is <uily aaguailsd Vy the distress of the “Democ- *o*j" to get into office. A Transparent Trick. The extreme faction, calling itself “Demo- erotic,” havo apparently yielded tho only point at issue'Sn national politics, in order to thwart the authorities in the execution of the law of Congress providing for the organization of the Legislature. They are quite willing, ft seems, to accept a pari of the late law, and act npon it in order to gain ascendanoy in the Legislature. For instance, they would reseat the colored members who were expelled, cigli teen months ego, by their advice and direc tion! They are quite willing to ratify the XVtb Amendment, and thereby concede the main issno between tho Republican and D. m oeratic parties 1 But they are not willing thnt tho Legislature should be legally organized, and thereby placed npon a footing acceptable to Congress. Thst is to say, they would ratify the XVth Amendment, as they did tho XIVth— with a deliberate and pro-determined purpose to violate it upon the first opportunity. They well know that an illegal organisation would nullify both these proposed acts, and result in the rejection of tho new State government by Congress. Henco they can very well afford, from their standpoint of hostility to tbe law, to accept this method of nullifying it. It wonld serve their purposes quits os well in 187D, as a simi lar action did in 1868. The remit wonld be tho same. They wonld seenro a perpetuation of the strife and unsettlement which has pre vailed in Georgia fortbepast eighteen months, and thereby save themselves from relapsing into that obscurity which tho interest of tho country so much demands, aud which the peo ple of the Btate so much desire. Misconception of the situation. The extreme faction still harp upon what they term the “usnrpalive interference with the Legislature of a great State.” They al lude, ~of course, to the efforts of General Ter ry and the Administration to execute the law which provides for the organization of a Leg islature. They fail to make the distinction—a distinction which, it seems to us, requires very little critical acumen to comprehend, Tbc'proposition—-mildly drawn—to submit the '‘question ot eligibility to the Judges of a State tribunal, where it U patent to every body that the law makes no possible room for such a reference; and in tbe face of the fact that, 1st present, there is no legal State govern ment, is preposterous in the extreme. It is singular that men of intelligence should en tertain iu Do they not know that the politi cal states of Georgia is precisely - tbe same to-day that it was previous to the organization of the Legislature in July, 1868? What would have been thought of a proposi tion made iu July, 1868, to refer the qnestion of eligibility of ; rtaiu parties to participate in tho organisation of the Legislature, to the Judges of the-State Courts—men holding posi tions under tbe Jenkins-Johnson government? A little sober reflection upon this matter, and a tittlopatient study of the late law,, woold save an amazing amount of useless and idle talk about ‘ interference with tbe Legislature. 1 There is, ns yet, no Legislature to be inter fered with. The trouble grows out of the efforts to organize ona, under the provisions of a taw of Congress—a law which makes the inistration tbe proper interpreter of its provisions. THE MILITARY COMMISSION. r THE OASES OF SENATORS, ■ A -FLOTTdVIElTJTg. BY ATTOBNEY GEN. FARROW, FOR THE PJtOSECVTTON. AND COL GEORGE N. LESTER, FOR THE DEFENSE, Cases of Members of the House Continued. A Party in Search of a Name. The Democratic party, am represented by its selfcoustituted leaders in Georgia, has abandoned ita principles. It retains only the s; and now they are even becoming ashamed of that; for they propose calling it the “People’s party 1” First, after its resur rection iu 1865, it was the “Conservative party." That trick failed. Next, it was the White Man’s partybut, as many of its prominent leaders saw their way to office through negro suffrage, this noma wss aban doned. At tbe opening of the campaign of 1868, they resumed tbe old name, in order, as they said, to place themselves in harmony with the parly North. . And now they attempt to marshal their hosts under a new name. That ia excellent for ita irony, but it will be short-lived. Inasmuch, therefore, as principles bsve been abandoned, and traditions ignored; and inaamnch as there is, by their own confession. The Board of Ofllcera. Gradually the Opposition begin to under stand something of tho object and duties of this Board. They seemed, at one time, to have the impression that the mere hearing of evidence, in order to determine whether an applicant was eligible under the provisions of the law, implied « reproach of the personal character of men who propose taking the oath upon their own constraction of tbe law! That point yielded, they next stumbled into the be lief that the Board assumed authority to compel the candidates to attend its sittings, in order that their claims to eligibility might be passed upon! But the proceedings of yesterday, dis pelled this delnaion also; the Commission churned authority only to compel the attend ance of witnesses. And now, the Opposition jump to the eonclnsion that this failure to claim power to compel the attendance of can didates, is an admission that the Board has no legal authority 1 These conclusions involve a species of logical deductions that are as novel as they are opportune! The Iow a s,».i»tiliip. no such thing as a Democratic parly; and as hea dated Dee Moines, on tbe 13:b.! ,htir ! “ ro 8Bl‘* proceed entirely from an over- *' weaning lust fer office, would it not be well to v -i 1 .... ..beta of tbe lows Jela- , , . u . , : adopt a title that wonld convey some idea of aiolinoing that toe Itr-- * , , ..initialed Judge ngl.:, tu r ’“‘ u V cl au<i of the . °r6»niz.tion ' *Ve will not, however, be so impolite uggest tbo name moet appropriate ! Tho XVth Amendment. Ohio lias ratified the XVth Amendment, and Kansas has perfeated her previous legis lation looking to the same end. It will require the approval of twenty- eight of the thirty-seven States to make this Amendment part of the fundamental law of the nation. Twenty-three havo ratified it already—three have rejected it- Of the re maining eleven, four ware good for ratifica tion. This gives twenty-seven—within one of the requisite number. Mississippi and Texas may be surely counted. This makes twenty-nine—one more than is necessary. Hence Georgia becomes superfluous—her vote either way amounting to nothing, and New York can do her worst. The issue is practically settled. The XVth Amendment will become & part of the Constitution. Atiahta. January 20,1870. Court met in session at 10:30, a. m. The argument in the cose of the Senators was postponed on account of the absence of Mr. Lester, one of the counsel for the re spondents, end counsel on both sides consent ing, the coses against tha members of tbe House were continued. Attorney General Farrow read the eVirges and specifications against Isham RaJdish, member for Appling, oharging him witli bav^ ing been a member of tho Georgia Legislature in the years 1853 and 1854, and afterward with being a member of the Georgia State tro'ops engaged in war against the United States. * A statement, on the part of the respondent, as read by his counsel, admitting thAt he as a member of the Legislature in the years 1853,1854, 1855 and 185G; acknowledges hav ing been enrolled in tbe State militia, but not a member of tbe State troops; served only on hospital duty, and was foroed into the service against his will, having always been a strong Union man—to each an extent that ho incar. red ths censure and odium of those in his county, and was from hence looked npon with distrait by the rebels. Jao. W. O'Neal having been called as a wit ness, testified that be was a member of a com mittee of the House in 1868, when Baddish admitted before the committee that i? bad joined Governor Brown's militia to avoiycou- scription. ■ Thos. F. Rainey, of Schley, was charged with having held ths office of Justice of the Inferior (Court, of the county of Schley, in tbe early part of 1E61, end subsequently af fording aid and comfort to rebel troops. He denied baring held any office prior to the breaking ont of tbe war. Was elected to the office of Jndge of tho Inferior Court, as charged, in January, 1862. Again held office in 1865, nntil elected to tbe State Legialnlnre in 1868. Attorney General -Farrow .. ‘-nitted the facta, haring found them to be correct; Mr. Rainey'e case was dismissed. L N. Harris, of Murray county, was oharged with holding tbe office of Road Commission. ', by appointment of the Inferior Court of Murray county, at the term in 1849, tor the 874th District Georgia IMlitio, and thereafter gave aid and comfort to rebels in ths organi zation and equipment of Captain Beck’s com pany, for the Confederate army,{in said coun ty, in 1862. ’ ‘■ In answer to the charge, Mr. Harris, by his counsel, stated that it ho was ever appointed to theoffice of Road Commissioner he had no' knowledge of it. Denied ever haring acted Road Commissioner prior to 1866. Stated that he never, in any way, assisted to raise troops, but, aided by others, he paid $40 to get his son out of the army. No evidence being offered by the respond ent, the ease was closed. R. W. Phillips, of Echols county, was charg ed with haring held the position of Mayor of the city of Valdosta, In Lowndes county, and was Notary Public in Brooks county in the the early part of 1861, and afterwards was Ad jutant of a regiment in the Confederate ser- vice. ' ’ ' He admitted having been elected Mayor of Valdosta, in January, 1861, and took the oath of office on the 10th of February, following, and resigned on June the 1st, of the same year. Was appointed Notary Public far Lowndes connty. and was qualified in Febru ary Term, 1861. That he favored the l'ebel cause. No defense being offered, tbe case wsb closed. B. A. Donaldson, of Gordon, was charged with being a Bosd Commissioner in the Sixth District of Gcrdon county, in 1855 and 1862, and subsequently acted as Ordinance Sergeant In Cob W. H. Dabney’s Begiment—1st Regi ment Georgia State troops. The charges were fully admitted and the esse closed. L. C. A. Warren, of Quitman, was charged with haring held the office of Justice of the Inferior Court oi said county in January, 1861, and held the same office during tbe war. Admitted that he held the office till 1865, bat when qualified, remembers that that part of the oath to support the Constitntion of the United States, was stricken ont, and swore only to support tho Constitution of Georgia. A certificate of Mr. R. Paul Lester, Secre tary of the Executive Department, was then entered as evidence by the Attorney General, certifying that Mr. Warren's commission w&s issued January 10th, 1861. The Board ad mitted the certificate as evidence, and ordered it to be filed as such. then in arms against tbe United Sates; that be held the office of Justice of the In ferior Court of Fulton county in tho early part of 1861, and that be occupied the sama position under tho rebel government in 1863. In reply be admits that he was elected to the said office in March, 1861, and held that office until it was abolished by tho adoption of the Constitntion of the State of Georgia. That when he took the official oath, he only eworo to support tbo Constitntion of Geor gia, and denies having given aid to those at war with tbe United States.' Never held any office bofere the war except that of Deputy Postmaster of Stookbridge, in 1847-48 and ’49. No fnrther evidence being offered, the case was closed. The Bqard then adjourned until 2:30 r. sr. Mr. Walthall was charged with having held the position of Boad Commissioner for tbe District Georgia Militia, in Polk county in 1855, or about that time, and thereafter gave aid to those in rebellion against tbe United States; that he held the office of postmaster in said connty in 1850, or about then; that after holding the above named office, he openly ad vocated and supported the insurgents, and urged persons to volunteer for the rebel ser vice. Mr. Walthall, in reply, admits having held the office of Boad Commissioner about 1855, and deputy postmaster in Polk couuty (exact date not remembered), but took no oaths of office. He adds that be fed both Rebel and Union soldiers daring tho war. Several witnesses were examined as to bis supporting or giving aid to those in rebellion, bat nothing important was adduced, and tbe ease closed. Geo. B. Thomas was charged with being a member of the Georgia State Legislature in 1856, and afterwards, in 1863 or 1864, did vol untarily famish a horse for a rebel cavalry man, and that he entered tbe rebel Berrice against the United States. He admitted that he was a member of tbe Legislature in 1856, but stated, that he had never rendered any service to the Confederate forces except in famishing material to his sons-who were in the service. That he was obliged to go with the jnititis, but being in a weak state of health, procured a certificate from two physicians stating that he was nnfit for duly, which was presented to the officer in command, who refused to recognize it; was af terwards assigned to light duty, which did not involve the bearing of arms. Wsb always op posed to secession and well known as a strong Union man. Denies ever haring famished a horse to the cavalry, as he had no son in that department of the service. J. H. Nunn, of Glasscock, was charged with haring held the position of Justice of the Peace of the 1116th District of Georgia Mili tia, -in 1858, and held the same office when Georgia was in war against the United States; thafhe entered and became a member of Cap tain Neal’s company of 2d regiment of Geor gia State troops. * He admitted having held the .ffico of Jus tice of the Peace for four years; the commis sion was sent him in 1858; never held any of fice under the Confederate Government; was ordered'out with the militin by Gov. Brown, and was a member of Capt. Neal’s company; was opposed to the War prior to tbo breaking ont and while it lasted. C. Humber, of Stewart county, was charged with holding the position of Boad Commissioner of District of Georgia Militia in tbe county of daring tho year ; afterward voluntarily giviug aid to tbe Bebels, and entered a Confederate regiment and held office under the Georgia Stato Gov ernment at war with the United Statee. In reply, Mr. Humber states that he has no recollection of having been Bo&d Commis sioner, or ever having served as such, any where. He admits a participation in the re bellion, sufficient to disqualify him, under Congressional legislation on that ground. Major-General Huger, President of the Board, announced that a farther hearing of caeca in hand would bo had to-morow; if not ready, the Senate cases would bo taken up; he then adjonraed till to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. Fornax, January 21,1870. Tho Board met pursuant to adjournment this morning, at 11, x. m. The first case inquired into was that of Mr. \V. P. Price, member elect from Lumpkin connty. Mr. Price appeared in bis own defense, as sociated with Mr. T. Stobo Farrow. Tbe Attorney General read the charges and specifications, which alleged thatMr. Price was member of the Legislature of South Caro lina in 1856; was Warden of Greenville, S. C., in 1858; gave aid and comfort to tbe rebel lion, and was member of the Honse of Rep resentatives of the State of Sontn Carolina in 1863. Mr. Price, in his answer, denied that be had been in tbe Legislatnre of- South Carolina be fore the war, but was a member thereof in 1864; ho had never held any judicial office, and had never resided in Greenville, South Carolina, after it was incorporated as a city; he had been in the army; was wouDded; was elected to the State Legislature in 1864, and was exempt from that time until the war closed; had held no commission under Confederate or State authority. The Attorney General celled Judge Joseph E. Brown, who stated ho had no knowledge that Mr. Price held the office of Justice of the Peace, in Greenville. South Carolina, or of his having been a member of the Assembly of that State, or of bis having held the office of Warden, or intendent of Greenville, Sonth Carolina. Mr. Tweedy was next called. He stated Mr. Price had informed him that he was Town Warden of Greenville, Sonth Carolina, before tbe war, and member of the Legislatnre of South Carolina, in 1864; did not think he mentioned any particular time, bnt before the war. Examined by Mr. Price.—Witness never thought tbe conversation would be referred to again; to tbe best of bis recollection, Mr. Price stated that at the time he held the office of Warden, ho never acted in a judicial ca pacity; did not have power to fine; bnt when a fine or assessment for a breach of the peace bad been made, it was collected by the Ward en. Mr. Price stated that he had had the opinion pf Governor Perry on tbo question, and that tbe question had t>een before General Sibley, who bad decided that he could be reg- cd be knew nothing of Mr. Price having been a member of tbe South Carolina Legislature before the war, or ot bis having held any of fice iu tbe city government of Greenville, ex cept what bad been told him by Mr. Price as counsel; outside of that he knew nothing. In answer to Mr. Price, ho said his opportuni ties of knowing that Mr. Price was not in the Legislatnre of South Carolina daring the war consisted in tbe fact that he (Mr. Farrow,) at tended the Legislature every winter. For twenty years previous to the war ho was Master in Equity, which necessitated his can vassing the Legislature every fonr years as the office was in their gift, aud also keeping up his acquaintance with them. Mr. Price was not a member, or he would have known it; he had a list ofthe members; he resided at Spartanabnrg, in the adjoining county to Mr, Price, and w&s practicing law. Had a knowl edge of the duties of Warden. The Attorney General said the Statutes wonld show that;and also when the town of Greenville was incorporated a city. Witness continued—Mr. Price resigned his seat in tbe Legislature of South Carolina on moving to Geoigia, in 1865 or 1866. Tho Attorney General explained that the name of Mr. Stobo Farrow was handed him with a list of the other witnesses in the esse, and he was not aware of the relation of Mr. Farrow and the respondent, and that the fact that he had been called, was not in conse- quence of anything Mr. Farrow had said to him. Mr. T. P. Westmoreland testified ho was not at Greenville at the time mentioned in the specifications. Greenville was incorporat ed as a city last year. Mr. Friae left in 1866, I believe. This closed the case for the State. For the defense, Mr. Stobo Farrow was re called, and at the request of Mr. Pries, related such of the conversation referred to os he re collected, waiving his objection as Associate Counsel, but nothing new was elicited. The Court gave Mr. Price permission to bring forward any fnrther testimony ho wish ed during tbeir setting. The case closed. The case of Mr. John B. Sorrels, of Walton connty, was next inquired into. The charge and specifications alleged that Mr. Sorrels was appointed tax Collector early in 1861, was elected Sheriff during the war, and also held the office of Lieutenant in Captain Grant’s Georgia Cavalry, in 1862. Mr. Geo. Hillyer, who appeared as Mr. Sorrels’counsel, read his response. He admit ted having been appointed Tax Collector; but he did not quality nntil May 3d, after the war had commenced and the ordinance of secession had passed. Ho did not exercise the duties of the office nntil August He was a Union man and w&s compelled to join the army to keep from arrest; went into Grant’s cavalry after conscription law had come into operation. In December, 1862, he put in a substitute and accepted the office of Sheriff to keep out of the army. Tho Attorney General handed in a certerfi- cate from the State Department that Mr. Sorrels was commissioned as Tax Collector January 10, 1861, and Sheriff in January, 1864, and called Mr, A. ff. Nun::ally, who testified that Mr. Sorrels was elected Tax Collector in January, 1861. It is the custom not to collect the tax nntil fall. He knew nothing of Mr. Sorrels acting early in January. In answer to Mr. Hiliyer, Mr. Nnnnally stated Mr. Sorrels was considered a Union man by the citizens. Mr. J. N. Smith testified that Sorrels was eleeted Tax Collector in January, 1861. He collected in the fall; did not know when he qualified, or filed bis bond, but believed it must have been in May. After some disenssion between the Oonrt and attorneys on each side as to the nse that wonld be made of the admissions made and filed in each case by the Respondents, the Court took a recess until 2:30 p. m. Upon the reassembling of the Oonrt, Mr. Thomas, the associate of the Attorney Gen eral, read the arguments in the cases of the members of tbe Senate, all of which had been completed. The following are the arguments in the cases of Messrs. Hinton, Wellborn, Holcombe and Anderson; Furor grribendl* bt .ich of tlint Stat^ f ' - **' f llie Suited States Seustefrom f March next. Tho vote sto-ji , 'itson ii. on tbe first ballot. J- | keoki;,-, wi» nominated i r th, , j fill ti. v.-ixu - v caused Rev. J. i\ Duncan, says the Griffin Star, city miseionsry. iu ocnseqnence of the death Ui ’ - ot R-v. J. W. Reynolds, has been appointed the j his successor on the Pike Circuit, in conner- j tion with his m-ssion here. Mr. Warren here stated that at tbo time of tbe election he was from home; was in Charles- 1 istered as a voter. ton during tbo bombardment of Fort Sumter; To tbe Court.—This conversation took place does not remember if it was before or after I on Monday or Toesday last - this be took tbe oath of office. He applied to Mr. T. Ejtobo Farrow was called, but ob f the Secretary of State for information as toijected, tliat as he was associate counsel in tbo date, but was informed that it could not 1 ihe case he could not be compelled togiveauy bo ascertained. With this tbe case closed. ! evidence. E. M. Talliaforo, of Fulton county, was j The Attorney General wishod Mr. Farrow charged by tbo Attorney General with having sworn, to give testimony aa to facts which be Mr. Barbour is an old member of the press, j been Postmaster at Stockbridge, Camden gained r knowledge of before ho was engaged »nd was at one time 'loading editor Pf the ! county, in the year 1848-19 and ’50, amli-mb-1 in the caae. 'Richmond Whig. | , quently gavo aid and subsistence to trliops I Mr. Stobo Farrow wss thou sworn, ho atat- somewhat surprising, the number to ! ex-Confedera:es who have betaken themed j to journalism since the termination of the “onpleasantness." Tho latestuccossioofl to the i are Hon. James Barbour and A. H. II. I — .V. 1". Advertiser. Atlanta, Ga., Jan. 18,1870. To Brevet Major-General Ream, Brevet Brig adier General Hvines. Major Henbt Good- fellow, Board to inquire into the eligibility of B. B. Hinton, of Marion county. In tho case of Mr. B. B. Hinton, of Marion county, who claims to be eligible to a seat in the Senate, it appears from his own evidence before tbe Oonrt that be held a judicial office— Justice of tbe Inferior Court of Marion coun- from January, 1861, for a series of years, to which office, as appears from a certificate under tbe seal of the Executive Department, be was commissioned on the 10th day of Jan uary, 1861. It is not denied that the office he held is one for the administration of general laws and for the administration of justice, as it was created by the Constitution of the State, nor is it denied that the said Hinton, after be ing so commissioned and qualified, gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, bnt upon the contrary, it is conceded that such was the character of tho office, and that, after entering npon tbe duties of said of fice, he aided tbe rebellion. The ground npon which the said Hinton claims to be eligible, is that he held no office prior to January, 1861, and was elected early in January of said year, and did not qualify and enter npon the duties of said office nntU the latter part of said month, alleging that the insurrection or re bellion or war already existed by virtue of the passage of an ordinance styled An Ordinance of Secession; on the 19th of January, 1861, by a convention called a Convention oi the People of Georgia. It is claimed that persons who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, eto., and who held certain offices in the State of Georgia, subsequent to the so-called seoession of Georgia, (January 19tb, .1861,) but prior to the proclamation of President Lincoln, of the dato of April 15th, 1861, end the call for troops therein," are not within the provisions of tbe act, can truthfully take the oath presented therein, and ore not disquali fied as members of the General Assembly, for the reason that the word “thereafter" in said oath does not apply to them. It is Admitted ip tbe case in question that tbo nature of tbe office held is such as fall within tbe provisions of the act, so that no qnestion is raised on that point, and we therefore only to consider, fitsl, wbat is tbe force, meaning, and limitation of tbo word “thereafter,'' as used in said oath—audio what period of time does it allude; aud second, we are to consider (if indeed it should bo needed, and which doeB not appear to be tbe case) at wbat time did the insurrection, rebellion or war, by whichever name it may bo called, bcgiu to have a legally recognised existence ? In relation t the mind with not find any direct or indirect allusion to any dato whatever—eitherjof tbe c ommenccment or the rebellion, or the so-called secession of the State of Georgia, or any other State which attempted to withdraw from the Union. In truth and in fact, the act, in both its letter and spirit, totally ignores the secession of the Stato of Georgia from tbo Union; it speaks only oi insurrection and rebellion, and the giving of aid and comfort to ths enemies of the United States. The language of the act is as follows: “ Nor been a member of the Legislature or any State of the United States,” etc. Any State "of i. e. belonging to, and forming one of the United States. Cer tainly here is no recognition of any time, or period of time, when the State of Georgia, or any other State, did not belong to and form one of the United States. It ia therefore clear, that since the said act does not anywhere allnde to any date, either of the secession of the State, or the commence ment of the rebellion, that any argument founded upon any assumed date of that nature must fall to the ground. The word “there after," in ita strict grammatical and legal con struction, refers as far back only aa tbe time the offices enumerated were “held,” or the parties “exercised the duties thereof,” with out any reference either to the act of secession or commencement of the rebellion. To have held any of the said offices, and after such holding to have engaged in insurrection, etc. is sufficient to bring the (party within the scope of the not. It i* in this eonneotion, also, worthy of es pecial note, that the said art does not even stop to enquire whether the parties in ques tion were legally appointed, or were legally elected to such offices, or whether they legally held such offices, either in accordance with tha laws of the United States, or of any State. It is suffieient'if they but assumed and “exercised the duties” ot tbe specified offices, and thereafter engaged in “insurrection,” Ac. But it has been serionaly argued, as a legal proposition, apart from the foregoing considerations, that as tha aot usea the words “of any State of the United States," and Georgia having seceded on the 19th day of January, 1861, she there* fore ceased then to be a “State ofthe United States;” and persons holding such offices after that dato are not included in tbe act In or der to successfully maintain this proposition, it becomes necessary to affirm that the eo- called “Ordinance of Secession” was legal and valid, and not noli and void. Bnt that idea cannot be for one moment entertained. It was never so held by any court, and it has been finally decided by the “ wager of battle,” appealed to by both parties. That decision cannot now bt reversed. But to advance to the second point Admit ting for the sake of the argument that the dato of the breaking out ofthe rebellion mast govern in this case, Jet ns proceed to enquire, when did the rebellion first have a legally recognized existence. It is evident that in trying to fix this date we are not to be led into a wild and prolonged examination os to which particnlar act of vio lence and disloyalty among so many, has chronological precedence. For a period of considerable duration pre ceding the inauguration of the war, isolated acts of insubordination and violence—acta of hostility to the General Government—took place, not only in Georgia, but various parts of tho Union, North and Sonth—at various times and in divers States, and in looalities far removed from each othor. To go into a long and tedious search as to which one of oil these was first in order, would olearly be both idle and unreasonable. In determining this point certainty is absolutely necessary. All these various acta of violence were bnt tho “fore runners” of the war which was yet to be—not the war itself. The question is, when did this stream of concurrent acts of hostility to the General Government cnlminate, and the tido rise to tho bight of insurrection, rebellion and war? It is evident that we cannot fix that date from the so called secession acts of the several rebellions States, for tbeir attempted with drawal from the Union had different dates; and though shortly followed by “overt acts’ of treason, they were, in themselves, mere dec larations of illegal and treasonable intentions. As legislative enactments, they were null and void; in and of themselves, they were neither insurrection, rebellion or war. (See, on this point, Story on the Constitu tion, voL 1, sec. 1800 and 1801; Cnrtis, vol. 2, page 385; Bishop, Criminal Law, vol 2, sec. L036, 1037; Wharton, voL 3, sec. 2725, and following factions. Also, the Constitution itself.) Tbe rebellion was a rebellion against the authority of the General Government, and it was only when it had assumed snob a degree of “overt action” as to force itself npon the notice of the General Government, and to call for the action of the General Government tor its suppression, by reason of the inability of the ordinary civil powers to do so; that it can be said to have assumed the dimensions of a rebellion, and began to have a legally recog nize existence as sneh. To determine that period we most look to the action of the General Government in the premises—the legal expression of which is to be tonnd in the proclamation of President Lincoln, dated April 16th, 1861. Up to that time, whether certain overt acts of treasona ble violence were to he considered merely the acts of a few misguided individuals, for which they were alone responsible, or whether an insurrection, rebellion and war had broken ont, was an open question. The proclamation of April 15tb, 1861, settled that qnestion. It was an anthoritativs.act of the Government de claring that those concurrent acts had at length swollen into o stream of sneh magni tude os to assume tho character of a rebellion, and constituted an insurrection requiring the military power of the Government for its sup- preoeion. In this connection it will also he useful to inquire how the matter was regarded at the lime, not only by Ihe South itself, but by all parties concerned. It wss on the 12th day of March, 1861, that Mr. Forsyth, ot Alabama, and Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, came to Washington, and assnm ed themselves as Representatives of a (so called) Confederate government, which had instructed them to make overtures to tbe government of the United States, for the opening of negotiations with a view of u peace (Me solution of any qnestiona and disputes, and requested a day on which they might pre sent their credentials to tho President Mr. Seward declined to receive them, and it was in tho course oi this negotiation that said Com- mifesiom-rs affirmed and declared that a ref to euteriain their proposition lot solution, and r.uy attempt to pr- Buniptei', would bo consul-red a - tcar. (Drapers History Civil W ice, Yol. 2, pages 21, 22 and 23.) It is therefore clear, that up to Of M- authority upon this subject We also find that the so-callad Congress of the Confederate States, by a formal act, passed May 6th, 18G1, declared that tear existed in consequence ot snoh refusal to reciva said Commissioners far a peaceful solution, and also the proclamation of President Lincoln. Thus it is dearly shown that at the very time of the breaking ont of the war of the re bellion, both parties thereto, recognize, de clare and affirm, by official acts, the procla mation of April 16tb, 1861, as the date of the breaking out of actual hostilities, and the in auguration of the rebellion. The whole question, therefore, reduces it self dawn to this point: Did Mr. Hinton boid any of the specifisd offices, or exercise the duties thereof, prior to the 15th day of April, 1861, and “thereafter” engaged in insurrection “ or rebellion against the United States, or gave aid and comfort,” Ao, except “in conse quence of direct physical force?” If oo, ho tails within the provisions of the act; he ought not to have taken the oath; is disquali fied from sitting in the General Assembly of Georgia, and should be deemed ineligible. Therefore, as it has been proven by Mr. Hinton’s own evidence that be held a judicial office, created by the Constitntion of Georgia, for the administration of justice and of gener al laws, previous to the insurrection, rebellion or war, as it may be termed, and did also, thereafter, hold said office nnder a govern ment organized and acting in hostility to the United States, he should, nnder the law, ap proved December 22,'1869,and nnder the Con stitution of the United States, be deemed in eligible to a seat in the Senate of the State of Georgia. Respectfully submitted. Hznbt P. Fassow, Attorney General, and Gzosas S. Thomas. Attorneys for Contestant. Atlanta, Ga., Jan. 18, 1870. To Brevet Major General Brazil, Brevet Brigadier General Hatnzs, Major Hznbt Goodfellow, Board to inquire into the eligi bility oi C. J. Wellbohn, of the connty of Union, to a soat in tbe Senate of the State of Georgia. The certificate of the Executive Department and the evidence of J. E. Brown, in tbe ease of Mr. C. J. Wellborn, who claims a seat in the Senate of Georgia, from the 46th Senato rial District, show that said Wellborn was State Librarian daring the years 1858, 1859, 1860, and 1861; that he held office before the rebellion, and that thereafter, nzder a govern ment in arms against the United States. The evidence of Wm. F. Wright also shows thst said Wellborn was a quartermaster,daring the war, of a regiment organised in hostility to, and called into the (field to resist and over throw the United States Government; that he accepted office nnder a government in no tire hostility to the Government of the United States. It is denied that he held “any civil office created by law for the administration of any general law ot a State.” What are we to understand by the term ■administration ?” The office of State Librarian is clsarly with in tho scope of the art. It ia such an office Wag of which etaoriy disnnalifi— -nr-a person holding the same, and who “thereaf ter” engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or gave aid and comfort, Ao. It ia true that, tike many other offices within the purview of the act, it is not mentioned by name, bat it falls, witbont donbt, nndsr the general clause whioh speaks of “civil offices” created by law “for the ad ministration of any general law of a State.” Let ns proceed to analyze this clause of the aot, in order that we may clearly understand its tail force and meaning. First. It mnst be an “office”—an “office" being “a particnlar dnty, charge, or trust con ferred by pnblic authority for a public par- pose." Therefore, the State Librarian is an office. Second. The office mast bo a civil office; i. o., not of a military nature—a class of offi ces provided for nnder a different clause. Now, that tbe office of State Librarian is a civil office, is too plain for argument, and it is presumed no question will be raised on that point. Next, it must be an office “created by law.” The office of State Librarian was created by law as will be seen by reference to tbe law, approved December 17th, 1847. Cobb's Digest, page 1036. The office must be for the ■administration” of a general taw. Lastly, it must be the law of a State, and it is in regard to these last particulars that a controversy, if any, may arise. Let as then proceed to enquire what is implied by the administra tion of a law. Next, what is a general law. The administration of a law may be de fined as the process of applying ita prov- visions to the matters specified in the law, and the carrying them oot and patting them into practical operation. The doing of my -1 ministerial set prescribed by statute, is the administration of that statue. Boavier says that administration as ap plied to Government, means ••the manage ment of the affairs of the Government.” Wbat are we to understand by the terms “general law."? The term is issuod in contradis tinction to the terms “special laws” and “local laws.” Laws are general, or they ate special or locaL A general law, is a law that applies generally to all the people efthe State, or generally to all persons of a specified classs, directing what they may or may not do, shall or shall cot receive, or regulating their con duct in any general and uniform way. Thus, a law which provides for the printing of tho statutes, or the journals of the Legislatnre, providing for their general dictribation among the people of the State, and .ucci ty ing what proper officer in each county o Stato shall sign receipts therefor, is a grV«d law, and any person designate ! to superhj tend such general distribution, and take th, proper receipts therefor, is the person who administers sneh general law. No w, tl u . 1VlV in relation to, and defining the duties > > State Librarian, is full and explicit <-u t -; s point It lays; "Andhoi-hai! be ,, quired to receiys from the State Printer the J taws and journals of each session of the Legfojt Isture, and that tho distribution ofthe saui,. to the various counties shall be under hi. direction, and all receipts of Cicrks ot Courts shall be given to said Librarian for such law and journals, as well aa other books distribu ted,' and that he shall be rcqnir-d to file J receipts.” (Sec acta 1S51 and 1S52, page 17 ' I II there i« any tiling thnt should be yenn c fui in a republican government, it is the Fort | tion and diffusion of the laws, in order that'* )tt of all the people may enmo to a knowledge mer-1 them and govern themselves accordingly. : Any law that provides for sneh pablicatit diffusion and distribution, must from ita j3G(, neither Mr. Forsyth, of 21- nature be a qenfr l law—general in its action the first point, it will strike j ,bams, nor Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, eoj- , ,; eterui ia its provisions, aud ge t • il ia tuch force that after h careful j sulered that eiilitr insurrection, rebellion, | feels, in order that<,cknowle<b»( and critioiii roadipg of the entire act, wo do or war jxiuted, and they \ CL-rtnioly good ' [(Ynfihxcd on Jovrlh page.] x2 ■M