Newspaper Page Text
fN consequence of Capt. Tamil’s having withheld the name of
. iny accuser, in answer to a demand which he lias since admit
ted that I made in my own proper person, and in consequence of
his having persevered in a premeditated and assassin-like course
of injustice towards me, by giving origin to a report that he had
certificates proving me a liar ; I was reluctantly compelled in my
own defence to appeal to the public. In his handbill in reply,
Parish has refuted nothing which I alledged against him. I had
asserted that he had charged me with having said that he, Parish,
had voted against the land-bill; in reference to this, he says in his
hand-bill, “see the injustice which he has done me in charging me
with an accusation which in the honesty and candour of my heart,
1 never made against him.” In all this, nothing more is seen than
his bare assertion opposed to mine; and as no other person was
present at the time he accused me, neither has a witness. It is
therefore not altogether inappropriate briefly to weigh probabili
ties. On reference to his hand-bill it will be seen by his own ad
missions, that this accusation against me had been present to his
mind; that it was an impression derived from Lewis, and had evi
dently been the leading subject of his thoughts. Then, as it was
present to his mind, he was so far prepared to express it; accord
ingly hy his own showing, it was exhibited against me in a ready
made certificate, presented hy him to Cockrum, who found it there
alleged against me upon the authority of another, not upon his.
Moreover, we gather from his hand-bill, that Lewis from whom
he now seems to have received this impression, either had Lightfoot
for authority, or had no authority at all ; therefore when Lewis
♦mile I on Lightfoot, & found that he would certify nothing relative
to the land hill as coining either directly or indirectly from me, he
had certainly arrived at a point beyond which it was neither fair or
honorable to go. Here justice <v generosity would have stopped; and
so would Parish & Lewis, had there not been an imperious necessity
t j establish this accusation against me, apart from their simple de
sire to prove me a liar; then, in what did this necessity lie? in noth
ing more than the fact, that Parish having made this charge against
me. and being pressed for authority, had to support it by testimo
ny of some sort or another, or be exposed to scorn and contempt
Urged hy such weighty considerations, Lewis leaves Lightfoot,
not with authority from him to call on Cockrum to testify that I
had used words relative to the Land Bill; hut upon the authority
of himself, or himself and Parish only ; and waiting on Cockrum
with a ready made certificate in w hich they fraudulently insert this
accusation relative to the land bill, confessedly without leave from
any one, were knowingly willing that Cockrum should testify
to a falsehood, not of his, hut according to Parish’s hand bill of
Lewis’s fabrication. And wherefore all this violence to the moral
sentiments of such worthy men as Parish represents himself and
Lewis to be ! c ertainly not merely to prove me a liar, but for the
additional and more important purpose of escaping from the em
barrassment of having slanderously accused me without testimony
to sustain them.
In further evidence of the great anxiety to fix upon me these
Words relative to the land hill, Lightfoot is a second time seen, for
the purpose of asking him if he could not say that he had heard
rne say, or heard somebody else say, that l had said something a
buiit Parish’s vote on the land bill, and this too, after both he and
Cockrum had certified w hat Parish now pretends to consider the
only matter of importance, and for which in reality he needed
no certificates.
Hy his own showing, this land bill was uppermost in his head
w hen he availed himself of the first opportunity to question me, and,
if it was really the subject of a question instead of a specific charge
w here is my answer ? he does not give it; and certainly such a
highininded and honorable man as he modestly claims to he, could
never have suppressed it. The complaint made by him before oth
ers, of having been accused of voting against the Land Bill, may
be alluded to as a corroborating circumstance, w hile the illiberal
spirit of censure and detract ion w hich marked his conduct as well
toward a religious conference, as towards individuals, maybe
taken as grounds of probability, that in this case I have not escaped
a direct charge.
Ilia obtaining of certificates relative to the operation of our laws
o\ er the Cherokces, is a mere subterfuge—a trick designed for the
two fold purpose of entrapping a witness to support his main point,
unci for shifting his ground in the event of failure. Cockrum,
like myself, being incapable of distinguishing the nicer shades in
the signification of terms, was easily imposed on in this respect;
and having testified for me as well as for Parish, his testimony
can pass only for what it is worth. But in order to show how lit
tle has been gained by attempting to pervert my meaning in regard
to the Tassel’s resolution, 1 now submit my views on that sub
ject, as before expressed in substance, as well in Parish’s presence
or elsewhere, and for which, consequently, as far as regards any
honorable purpose, he needed no certificates. By reference to the
Journals of the Senate, page 377, w ill he seen the Governor’s
communication, and at page 381, the resulting report and resolu
tions.—This report asserts the right of this state, “to punish
crimes against the peace and good order ofthis state in accord
ance with the existing law's of the state.” Now, the assertion ol
this right, is an affirmative proposition; the negative of which
necessarily denies this right in the State. Parish’s vote is recorded
in the negative, consequently the Journal shews that he denies this
right in the State. But it is obvious from the nature of the occa
sion, that this general right as a necessary part of sovereignty,
with which the state has never parted, was here laid down as a
fundamental principle, w ith a particular reference to the exten
sion of our laws over the Cherokee Indians. Consequently, by his
negative vote, Parish denies this general right, with a particu
lar reference to the extension of our laws over the Cherokee In
dians. Beingthcn against the principles upon which our laws are
extended over the Cherokces, he i? of course against the act itsell,
in its practical exercise. Accordingly he votes against the reso
lution founded upon these principles; and proposing measures to
insure the execution ol‘ Tassels, in disregard ol the injnn: tion
from the Supreme Court. Is it not clear then, If the records be
true,that he was against the hanging of Tassels, and of any other
Indian, when against the will of Wirt and the Cherokces, as
made known through the Supreme Court? If there be an error in
any thing which I have ever said in relation to this subject, that
error lies in the authentic journals, not in me. Others have seen
the same document, and are w eak enough to view it in the same,
light with myself; yet no certificates have been exhibited against
them.
I am aware that Parish has successively taken different grounds
to justify this vote of his, which so far as it goes, surrenders up to
federal usurpation the constitutional right of the state to punish
crimes within her own limits. Among other grounds, 1 have seen
the substitue in his hand-bill, which he admits was not journalised;
yet certainly not because the hour was too late; for if voted on at all
it must have been before the vote was taken on the principal reso
lutions; which though subsequently acted on, were regularly ic
cordcd. Hut suppose his substitute had been recorded, w luit. are its
merits? Nothing! It says in substance that the state has rights,
and says further, that “the State of Georgia w ill with firmness yet
temperately support her rightsyet how will it. support these
rights? What measures does this hand-bill substitute propose in this
conjuncture, by way of supporting these rights? None, no not even
to hang Tassels by way of practically supporting our right of
Jurisdiction ; for Georgia is enjoined in regard to this right, and
cited to appear before the Supreme Court. To have taken mea
sures to ensure the execution of Tassels, w ould have been danger
ously particular. The doctrine of Parish’s substitute, is to speak
of rights in general terms, hut never practically enforce them in
particular cases; more especially if the federal government he
the party, or giv e countenance to the party disputing the right—
It might be alledged, that the resolutions contain some things to
w hich Parish would not ob ject; but this was not for me toknow; his
vote is recorded against the whole; consequently against all the
parts. It has been intimated that this hand-bill substitute, is the
same in principle with the recorded resolutions ; but there is
at least this obvious difference; that while Parish’s substitute
speaks of rights, the recorded resolutions enforce them : and it is
the exercising or enforcing principle in regard to state rights, to
which Parish’s doctrines have the greatest aversion. But if the
same in principle, why did he vote against the recorded resolu
tions ? We arc told for no other reason than that the language
is harsh. Now, if his ear is so critically delicate as to surrender
up fundamental principles, and to stay the exercise of constitution
al rights, rather than assert them in harsh sounding words, what
would he do, were it necessary to defend our own rights amidst
sounds still more terrible then these?
It has been intimated that the law would have been carried into execu
tion, in Tassel’s case, without the action of the Legislature. There was no
certainty of this. Tile injunction was out, and Georgia was cited as a
government, to appear before the Supreme Court. The legislature is tin?
principal department of that government; it was in session, and in it re
sided the sovereign legislative authority; it had extended its laws over
the Cherokee Indians ; its authority was disputed,and the execution of ita
laws enjoined. In this juncture, the Legislature had tamely to ucquiescu
in having its authority called in question, to shrink from responsibility,
and, abandoning fundamental principles to federal usurpation, give up
constitutional rights on the first summons, or, like devoted patriots, firm
and fearless, to take measures for communicating to. subordinate officers,
in suitable orders, the necessary pledge of countenance and support, in ex
ecuting the laws, by hanging the Indian, regardless of all other authority.
It was the authority of the Legislature that was disputed; and it behooved
the Legislature in w hich the responsibility properly lies, tu. be the first de
partment of government to declare its determination to support that au.
thority by its own action. It was for the members of the Legislature to
sav to the Sheriff of Hall county, hang Tassels at our peril! Yet, Parish
in his hand-bill substitute, sheltering himself under general terms, and
leaving the laws of Georgia to iloat on the tide of chance, does not once
intimate to the Sheriff of Hull county, that he is willing to share with him
the dangers of executing Tassels against the will of Wirt and his Cheio
kees. By his negative vote, he seems to be willing to comproniit the so
vereignty of Georgia as an independent state, so far, as that she should be
come a party to the case sought to be made before the Supreme Court of
the United States, by the writ in question.
Although Parish denies having accused me of having said he voted a
gainst. the land bill, yet he cannot deny having told others he was accus
ed of it; and, according to Ins hand-bill, he derived this impression from
Lewis, who depended alone on Lightfoot as authority for what Cockrum
had said ; yet, when Lewis called on Lightfoot, (lie refused, as appears
by his certificate.) to certify any thing as coining from Cockruin, relative
to the land bill. But Lewis, hereupon defamation, and meanly resolving
to throw the odium of his own vice upon an innocent individual proceeds
from Lightfoot to Cockrum, who now, under the fear of contradict ion from
Lightfoot, might possibly be induced to certify what lie had never heard;
particularly, when artfully blended with other topicks,in relation to which
he could recollect to have heard something. But Lewis’s arlifice failed
him. He could not abuse Cockrum’s ignorance of tbe different senses
and application of terms, on a subject, in relation to which, he had never
heard a word. He, therefore, according to Parish’s showing, wa3 left tlio
author of the falsehood.
Presuming that it was not without the coment and assistance of Lewi?,
that he was held up, in Parish’s hand bill, to public admiration; it may not
be improper for me publicly to say, that the reputation ascribed to him he
has yet to acquire; and by way of atonement for having called him out of
his name, if indeed I have done so, I promise for the future, to call him
Esuuiue ; and by way of excuse, beg leave to say, that I have known him
as my neighbor’s child, have called him hy the name by w hich he has been
longest and best known, and that I now know him as a grown-up boy,
who has neither the moral sentiment, or the good manners, to keep him
from disturbing an old man at Church.
That Parish should attribute my defence against his calumnies to poli
tical motives was to he expected—to similar motives lie feigns to attribute
some proceedings recently had in a certain religious association ; and in
assuming to himself the right to judge between us, he leaves nothing log
public opinion to do cither in praise of himself, or blame of me.
August 10, Iff’!. I’ETEB CLOWfiH.