Georgia Historic Newspapers

    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