Newspaper Page Text
tDccklp JntfUigturrr.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
Wednesday, June 12, I860.
•• The Tree Phyilclan.”
Tins is Uic title of a pamphlet of some filteen
page*, which baa been laid on our table, embra
cing the “address delivered before the gradua
ting class of the Medical College of Georgia,” at
1 ts annual commencement in Augusta in March
last, by the Rev. Henry IL Tucker, D. D.,
President of Mercer University at Pcnfield in
this State, and which has been published by re
quest, we presume, of the graduating class be
fore whom it was delivered. But for the length
of this most excellent address, we would take
great pleasure in laying it before our readers,
especially, too, lor the benefit of the class of medi
cal students, now iq attendance upon the course
of medical lectures being delivered at the At
lanta Medical College in this city. Dr. Tucker,
it appears, is one of the Trustees of the “Medi
cal College of Georgia,” and was appointed to
deliver the address to the graduating class.—
Those who know the reverend gentleman,
know the earnestness and zeal with which he
discharges every duty imposed upon him, as
well as the ability which characterizes his efforts,
let them emanate from the sacred desk, the liter
ary or scienti fic forum. Into the address belore
us he has diffused his chief characteristics—there
is earnestness, and zeal, and ability, displayed in
it, as well as scientific and scholarly attainments,
which cannot fail to make a most favorable im
pression upon the minds of the medical student
or other reader. We make some extracts from
it for the benefit of our readers.
The Doctor’s appreciation of the “Physi
cian,” is thus eloquently expressed :
When I first saw the light, it was the hand ol
a physician that received me, and welcomed me
to life. Can 1 ever forget that humane profes
sion which was my earliest friend? In my child
hood I was guided through tearful perils by its
wise counsels; it watched by my bedside, and
more than once rescued me from the jaws of
death. Iu my earlier manhood, when smitten
to the vitals and apparently not far from the
grave, I called lor relief on the medical profes
sion, the friend of my childhood, and to it I sup
pose I am indebted, under God, for the breath I
now draw, and for the power that enables me to
address you. Can I ever forget my obligations
to medical science as long as I have a heart-throb,
when I know that, in the Providence of God,
every throb is its gift?
I have bccd oue of my little ones paling under
disease, and just ready to tail into the embrace
of death, when the man of science came and put
roses on the cheek of my cherub, and brightness
iu bis eye, and restored him I had almost said to
life, certainly to health and to me. Can I ever
cease to honor and love that profession which
gave me back my boy when 1 thought he was
gone ?
On the use of books, the learned gentleman
thus discourses:
All human knowledge is in books. To repeat
the same thought iu other words—a man who
knows all that there is in books, knows all that
is known to the human race. When there arc-
such treasures on our shelves, how preposterous
are the pretensions of those who ignore them
or claim to be above them. Think ef a man
perhaps of shallow attainments, of course of
shallow attainments, and of shallow brain, set
ting up his narrow observation and his worthless
judgment against the combined wisdom of the
world. When I speak of books I refer to the
standards, to those that have become classic, and
are regarded by the profession as authorities.—
Many of them are old, but in some respects they
will never be out of date. Yield not, gentlemen,
to the temptation of all times, to look down with
supercilious eye on the wisdom of the past.
Having said this, it is necessary to make a coun
ter remark to guard against the opposite error.
Let not the old authorities be regarded as infalli
ble, nor let them be the only objects 6f your
study. There is always iu every science, and
particularly iu medicine, a current literature,
without lainiliarily with which a man can not
keep abreast of the limes nor fully up with his
profession. If you were even masters of all that
is in the books now in print, and were to learn
no more, you would find yourselves iu twenty
years, or even in ten years, or in five, practicing
on plans Which by that time will be inferior to
those which the world will then have discovered.
Iu short you uever can succeed as true physicians
without a knowledge of things both new and
old, which can he found only iu the current and
in the classic literature of your profession. Here
too, 1 must put in another caveat. While it is
necessary that you should use books, you must be
careful not to let books use you. Books are in
tended to aid yonr judgment, not to supersede
it If we tic ourselves to what is written, we
shall never rise above what is written ; aud iu
that case no more can ever be written; progress
will cease, and our attainments in knowledge
while very limited will still be concluded, and
coming generations will be in the hands of men
long dead and forgotten. This is not the use of
books; it is the abuse of them. They were
never intended to destroy independence of
thought, but tostimulate it. We must remember
that books contain, for the most part, only gene
ral principles; not the application ot them.—
Each case must be judged of on its merits, and
by its own idiosyncracies; hence, a man who
attempts to practice medicine by a book, as some
so-called doctors do, is not worthy the name ol n
physician. A good book is a great thing, but it
is no substitute for a living, human brain. Gentle
men, you can never succeed as mere book doctors.
This leads me to remark, in addition, that there
can be no true success without the study of things.
With book in hand to aid yon, let your eyes be
turned to the tacts of nature; investigate the
phenomena themselves—not merely what others
have said about them, and make yourselves mas
ters of the present situation. Thus only can you
hkve any opinions which can properly be called
your own. There can be no genuine success
without original research.
On (he “dignity” of the profession, we extract
the following :
Be eycr-mindful aiso, gentlemen, of the dignity
of your profession. Dignified because ot the
objieeta which it proposes—the alleviation of
human suffering and the lengthening of human
life. Health and life are the two great blessiugs
without which all other temporal gifts cease to
be blessings, and of these two greatest treasures
of the human race, you are the conservators. Dig
nified, because ot the motives in which it bad
its origin, and in which lies its life. Benevo
lence Is the fountain-head from which the stream
of medical science Sows; if there had been no
suck thing as a loving heart in the world—a
heart that throbbed for humanity, -the healing
art would have been forever unknown. And to
the honor of the profession be it said, that the
pure, the noble, the god-like motive which gave
it existence, has ever been kept in lively exercise
by its members. There is Done so poor but that
he can command, as indeed he ought, the very
best medical attention. The miserable mendi
cant in squalid cabin, needing surgical aid, cau
secure it from the same skillful hand, or needing
medical advice, can have it from the same ac
complished sources as the wealthiest men in
yonr city. Freely aud without price are bless
ings thus doubly priceless bestowed by the pro
fession on the poor. And even where poverty
is not extreme, and where practice on the mere
ground of charity would scarcely be acceptable,
there are few of the honorable aud humane
profession who do not know how, delicately and
generously, to diminish the bill and accept the
semblance of payment for what is virtually a
gratuity, thus enacting a double benevolence—
first In conferiog the favor, and afterwards iu
accepting insufficient remuneration as if it were
sufficient, to save the feelings of the beneficiary.
Gentlemen, I trust that you will keep up the
honor of your profession in this regard, and
while, as already said, you should never under
value your services for the sake of extending
your practice, on the other hand be mindful of
the necessities of your patients—give no place
to cupidity, remembering that the emoluments or'
your profession are only its incidents, and not
its objects—that its great object is to do good, and
nottopsfit. Remember this dignified, this ex-
alted position ot the profession and ever main
tain it.
Dignified is yonr profession, also, because iu
deeds are like those of the Savior of mankind.
He came to save life, not to destroy it. He went
about doing good; doing good to tbe bodies of
men as well as to their souls. There were
brought unto Hint all sick people, anil those that
were taken with divers diseases and tomienU,
and He healed them all
walked away with firm step as well as light
heart; the poor leprous wretch was made sound
and whole; the emaciated form of smitten child
hood was restored to iu plumpness—its blanch
ed check to iu bloom; tbe hearts of the
afflicted were made glad by the Great Bene
factor, by the Great Physician who scattered
blessings with a hand as generous as it was
omnipotent. It is a great thing to be en
gaged in the same work with Jesus of Nazareth.
Remember, gentlemen, who it is that stands at
the head of your profession; and I would that
whifo yonr work is like His, your motiv* a m glu
be as noble, as disinterested, and as pure. Your
proJkcatonal IHe requires you, that far, at &st> to
be like Jesus. I would that you might be like
Him in all yonr inner life.
We regret that we have no more space to de-’ article which appeared recently in a Jackson-
vote to this able and interesting address. The
medical student who may desire to procure it,
can doubtless do so, by applying for it at the
Book and Job Printing Office of E. H. Pughe, at
Augusta, from whence it was issued.
United State* Court at Raleigh.
The United States Court met at Raleigh on
the 6th. A large number of members of the bar
were in attendance. Before proceeding to busi
ness Chief Justice Chase made some extended
remarks, which we find among the telegraph
dispatches in our Macon exchanges of ynsterday.
We believe the report did not reach Atlanta—
how or why we are not prepared to say.
The Chief Justice, after a cursory glance at
the peculiar condition of things during that pe
riod when civil law stood silent in the presence
of military authority, and referring to the restora
tion of suspended powers, said:
“ It is the first Circuit Court held in any dis
trict within the insurgent States at which a Jus
tice of the Supreme Court could be present with
out disregard of superior duties at the seat of
government, or usurpation of jurisdiction.
“ The associate justices allotted to tbe other
Southern circuits will join in holding tbe courts
at tbe regular terms prescribed by law, and thus
the national civil jurisdiction will be fully re
stored throughout the Union.
“It is true that military authority is still ex
ercised within these Southern circuits ; but now,
as formerly, in consequence of the disappear
ance of local authority and in supervision or
control of all tribunals whether state or national,
it is used, under acts ot Congress, and only to
prevent illegal violence to persons and property,
and facilitate the restoration of every State to
equal rights and benefits in the Union. This
military authority does not extend in any re
spect, to the courts of the United States.
“Let ns hope that henceforth neither rebellion,
nor any other occasion for the association of
military authority over courts of justice, will
hereafter suspend the due course of judicial
administration by the national tribunals in any
part of the republic.”
Southern Radicals.
Emerson Etheridge, who was a decided and
consistent Union man throughout the war, and
who is now the Conservative candidate for
Governor in Tennessee, occasionally deals a
heavy blow at those nondescripts called South
ern Radicals. In a recent speech, iu referring to
Brownlow and bis benchmeu, he said :
“ And who are tbe men who surround this
shining light—this mob chieftain—this destroy
ing angel ? Who are they that do his will, echo
his commands, give an appearance of strength
to his power, and in all things sustain him as
Easteru satraps and janissaries sustained their
masters in Oriental times and lands? Who are
they that seek in the name of loyalty to root out
the seed, to kill the fruitful blossoms of liberty,
affecting to hate and despise a great rebellion at
the moment that they are arraying themselves
on tbe side of a greater, a rebellion against soci
ety, peace, humanity, love, and all the precedents
ol good government? Who are they ? I answer
—Apostate Rebels! Not repentant rebels, not
paidoued rebels, but recreant, base, cowardly,
malignant, apostate rebels! The last and the
greatest of earthly infamy has been reserved for
those who have been false to every principle,
truant to every party, faithless to every promise
and engagement, because no other class of men
could do the work that they have done—could
sink so low or grapple so foully.”
The Gold Excitement In Pensacola.
It was recently announced that a large amount
of gold had been found, by some negroes, about
Pensacola. A late number of the Observer con
tains the following additional particulars con
nected with the exciting rumors:
“ The excitement about the 34 or 340,000 dol
lars in gold which is supposed to have been found
remains unabated. Instead of “ good morning”
or “how do you do,” we hear of no salutations
except inquiries regarding this mysterious qhest
of gold. For three days past the woods and
swamp adjoining the grave yard have been pa
trolled night and day by negroes, who demand
an interest in tbe treasure which they claim to
have been spirited away from them by tbe boy
Moses and some five or six others. Some fifty
or sixty negroes have given up their daily avoca
tions and are fed in the swamps by their triends.
This morning the farce assumed a very serious
turn. This reconnoiteriug army entered the city
in a state of discipline, numbering about twenty-
five guns, in search of ‘ Moses,’ the drayman,
who they claimed drayed the chest which was
stolen from them to the woods. When they
found him he battered their heads and guns
about at a great rate with the dray pin, and would
have cleaned the whole part}'out if they had not.
‘ground arms ’ and seized him. They fastened
him down on the dray and were taking him to
the woods to lynch him, when sheriff Roberts
interposed and rescued him. The city is now
filled with gangs of idle negroes, discussing the
great issue. If Kelley or Wilson were here they
would have a good opportunity of placing their
precious lives in danger for the good of the par
ty, on the gold question.”
A Warning.—A Quebec pai>er warns us that
“ as surely as ever the sun shone, if Maximilian
die at the hands of, or through the order of
Juarez, his blood will be avenged, and if the
Americans then become his allies, they may be
made to feel the force of that retribution which
awaits them yet at the bands of the splendid
Southerners.” We greatly fear that no European
government will ever undertake to aveDge the
wrongs of Maximilian in Mexico.- If he has
slipped up, there will be a good deal of talk and
some threatenings for a brief season, and the
matter will then be lost sight of in the presence
of greater and more startling events. A Wash
ington letter says it is suggested in diplomatic
circles that Juarez may determine to keep him
for a high ransom. Maximilian’s mother, the
Dowager Empress Sophia, of Austria, is im
mensely rich, and as much as $50,000,000 could
be paid if it were demanded. At the same time
it is argued it would be politic as well as profita
ble for Juarez to reconcile the clerical party and
Imperialists iu this way, but ho is said .to be
stem and impracticable, aud to care as little
about money as be does about tbe feelings of his
opponents.
Kelley Done up Artistically.—A Mobile
paper has the following pleasant painting of a
pencil sketch of Mr. Kelley at Mobile. The
Philadelphia humbug should sue, not the Mobile
editor, but tbe Harpers, for ffe-bel:
The proprietors of that very truthful and
candid sheet, Harper's Weekly, have adorned
their last issue with a picture ot Win. D. Kelley,
formerly kuown as Bill Kelley, standing before
an angry mob at Mobile, ready to offer up his
unsavory body as a sacrifice. Calmness and re
signation arc pictured -on liis countenance, his
eyes are upturned to heaven, while his hands
are extended as though he was in the act of be
stowing upon the public a loving benediction.
This may be very dramatic to look upon, aud
serve to round out an artistic fancy, but the facts
in the case spoil the romance entirely. Kelley
did not stand up calm and dignified, but on the
contrary, at the first intimation of a riot, jumped
from the platform and took to his heels, bare
headed and fleet-footed. He never paused until
he had reached a hotel, and having locked and
bolted himself in a room, finally ventured to
thrust his massive head out of the* window aud
inquire if there was anybody hurt.”
~^The Viatiire of Atlanta. ~ " '
Our attention has bees called to the following
ville (Ala.) paper, and which, embracing as it
does. Bancb yklnabie information, connected with
progressing railroad enterprises, in which iite in
terests ot Atlanta are materially concerned, we
comply with the request that has been made to
mrvmrmm
[special to the nrrzu.ittn*cxRg|
Crop*—Politics Bank of Columbus-Interesting Legal gently made by the presiding Judge of this judi
J*-
Argumjpt, etc.
Columbus,-Ga., June G.
The accounts from all parts of th« country
tribatary Co this city, are highly favorable to tbe
publish the same, though we incline to think the. growing oops. Not only is the wheatjnore pro
mising than it has been for many years, but tbe
importance of the Western & Atlantic Railroad,
and its ability, when a double track is construct
ed upon it, as it auicly .will be, despite
terminable curves” is not properly appreciated.^^
lie this, however, as it may, the article embraces
most valuable inlormatiou, and is from the pen
of oue of the most accomplished civil engineers
iu the'South. We commend its perusal t o our
readers as indicative somewhat of the future of
the “ Gate City ” of the South:
MEMPHIS AND ATLANTIC SEABOARD BV WAY
OF ATLANTA AND DECATUR DIRECT.
The position of Atlanta as a railway center
of tbe South is not fully appreciated, aud is of
far more importance as such than would at first
sight appear. Railroads have made Atlanta
what she is to-day, and when her system is
complete, with the prosperity which we may at
no far distant day reasonably anticipate for the
whole South, Atlanta will rank as tbe great
interior city—the metropolis. By reference to
tbe accompanying map or any railroad map, it
is seen that all tbe principal seaports have lines
already running in the direction of Atlanta,
while there is but one, the Western & Atlantic,
an outlet to the North and West. The W. <fc A.
R. R. will always be a trunk line, but it is not
adequate to the prospective business in that di
rection ; and a double track upon this road, as
has been suggested, with its inleriuiuable curves,
would not seein to be good policy in these days
of air line communication.
Atlanta and Decatur are very nearly in the
direct line of Memphis and Charleston, and this
hiatus should be filled up at an early day by a
railroad as direct as the topography will admit,
which will shorten the present route via Chat
tanooga between the Mississippi, at Memphis,
and tide water at Charleston, some 60 to 75
miles.
Now there are four rentes or partial routes
suggested, to close this gap between Atlanta
anil Decatur, some 150 miles as the bird flies.
The shortest line and that one which would
give the least number of miles to build, is by
way of Rome and- Guntersville, thence down
tbe Tennessee valley to Decatur, about 110
miles—188 in all from Atlanta to Decatur.
This route would pass near tbe Round Moun
tain Iron Works, whose ore is distinguished for
superior qualities and also the facility with
which it is mined.
Auother route leaves the Western & Atlantic
R. R. at Marietta aud running through the
excellent valleys of Eiiharlee and Cedor Town,
comes to the Ala. State Line at the head ot
Little Cedar and Hurricane Creeks, and thence
would be a common line with the Selma, Rome
& Dalton Road to Jacksonville, thence by the
Ala. & Teiin. R. R. to Gadsden and - Gunters-
ville. From Marietta to tbe State Line is some
53 miles, a part ot which was graded under tbe
charter of “Polk Slate Quarry li. ltd.” to Jack
sonville 26f; to Gadsden 22.84, nearly 10 riffles
of which is graded (the heaviest of the work;)
to Guntersville 364, (nearly all of which road
has been prepared for the superstructure.) This
might be shortened a few miles, making the
whole distance from Atlanta to Decatur about
200 miles. ‘
Tbe third route, called the “Georgia Western
R. Rd., for which surveys were made belore the
war, is direct from Atlanta to Jacksonville,
about 90 miles; tbence by the Roads as above,
to Decatur, over Roads partially graded, say 190
miles. ■
The fourth would be a modification ot the
latter, and in case the mountain range east of
Jacksonville is not easily passed-, the line might
lead further to the -North, coming in at Cross
Plains upon the location of S. R. & D. R. R.”
thenee as by the second route aboVe. Its length
would be probably not far from 195 miles.
However important some other lines may
seem to be to- the prosperity of Atlanta, it is
undoubtedly true that more may be accom
plished with a limited amount of expenditure,
|)y the completion of this road to Decatur, 'than
in any other way. Next- comes the “air line”
which will develops tbe Northern part of Geor
gia, and give direct communication with the
Carolines- and Easteru Virginia. Tbe “web”
would then seem to be complete. -
If the lines which we wilfnow indicate, be
drawn across a map of the United States, they
will all • be found to pass very near Atlanta:
From Richmond to New Orleans, within five
miles—Richmond is-about 425,- and New Orleans
375. Memphis and Charleston ; within ten miles
—Memphis is 310^ and Charleston $50. Cairo
and Savannah; within five miles—Cairo 325
and Savannah 240.. Cincinnati and the Gulf of
Mexico at St. Marks; within five miles—Cincin
nati 830, and -Gulf of Mexieo 240. 'Mobile and
Baltimore; within five miles—Mobile2*75, and
Baltimore 527. Vicksburg and Beaufort Har
bor;.within five miles'ngain^-Vicksburg 350,
Beaufort Harbor >410.
Auother interesting fact with r^pird to tbe
centrality of Atlanta is shown- by-sweeping a
Circle of some 335- miles raditts. It will face the
great valleys of the Mississippiand Ohio, from
Vicksburg to the Virginia line, more than 150
miles. Another concentric line of 250 miles
radius* traces the sea eoast from Charleston to
Pensacola:
Atlanta is thus demonstrated to he not only
the grand railway focus of the Southeast, but she
is also the grand summit between tbe Mississippi
Valley and the Atlantic ocean.
The current of commerce (and Commerce is
Wing,) will be'very 1 much changed In the course
of a few years; and the “great West?! will find
its outlet upon the Southern Jcoast. There are
already several lines and others in construction,
which may be called North aud South lines, and
the Memphis and Charleston road will, crossing
them a3 it does, gather in business from them fill.
Its extension to Little Rock and : Fort Worth and
ultimately to a junction with the Pacific Rail
road is only a matter of time.
Gfco. - WAD9WORTH; Civ. Eng’r.
Jacksonville, Ala. May 25tb 1867.
prospects of a good corn and cotton crop are ex
ceedingly. flattering^ .This is_especially tme .of 1
fhe crons in Southwestern Georgia, and South-
Alabama—the finest corn and cotton re-
things considered, this side of the Mis-
'1 he Forlbcuiulug Opinion.
The Washington correspondent of the Balti
more Sun has this’ to say of the forthcoming
opinion of the Attorney General on the powers
of.the military commanders, which we give for
what it is worth, and nothing more:
There is no doubt about the character of that
opinion, nor that the President wiil promptly act
upon it. Assuming his decision to.. be ot tbe
character'anticipated, we may look for an order
trom the* President setting aside the order de
posing Messrs. Herron, Abell and Monroe in
Louisiana, the removal of tbe levee commission
ers in Uiat State, the order ot General Griffin de
fining the qualification of jurors iu Texas, the
removal of the Mayor of Mobile, tkesuppression
of the Republican newspaper in' that city, and
the several acts of like character on the part of
General j?iekcls and other commanders—in brief,
these commanders vyll be instructed to confine
themselves within the legitimate'authority con
ferred upon them by the reconstruction acts,
which, it is argued, do not iu civil matteis confer
upon them power to; remove or appoint State
civil officers, their .authority being merely sup
plemental to tbe tivil officers, and to be exercised
only in aid : of those authorities; or Where the
latter fail, in police manors, or criminal offenses,
to execute the law, then the military command
ers may organize military commissions, etc.,'to
perform the duties u'cglected by the State or tnn-
nicipal officers.
Rumor.—An exchange says it is generally un
derstood at Washington that the President has
at last decided to interfere in this case,‘and will
revoke the order ot Gen. Swayne, deposing the
municipal government of Mobile, and will in
struct Swayne to reinstate the Mayor and all
other officers who have been interfered with by
military edict The President also maintains
that his construction of the law is judicially sus
tained, lor the Supreme Couit of tbe United *
States, in the Mississippi injunction case, held !
that the duties ol the generals commanding the j
several military districts “ must necessarily be t
performed under the supervision of the President, j
as Commander-in-Chicf, tor the duties thus irn-
The palsied trembler posed on the President is in no just
terial—it is purely executive and political.
South Carolina.—A letter from the interior
of South Carolina says :
The freed men show no inclination to dabble
is polities. The great topics of registration and
voting, wldch agitate the colored people in the
cities, and towns, receive only a passing notice
when broached to the ears of our common field
hands. The inconipeteucy of the latter to ap
preciate These questions have destroyed the in
terest which they might otherwise feel, and
caused them to settle down upon the wiser policy
ot making com and cotton.
It is only about the cities aud towns where
white loafers and bummers most do congregate,
that there is any trouble about negro suffrage.
Why isn’t the vagrant laws enforced against the
mendicants who are running round begging
votes and dimes of the poor freedmen ?
JnValiey, if not in the whole South. With
the exception of 'this immediate vicinity, 'the
rains within the past week have"been abundant,
without thus tar affecting injuriously the wheat
and oat crops. There has already been a veiy
decided fall in the price of corn in this market.
In regard to politics, the people, without losing
their interest in public affairs, are giving but lit
tle attention to newspaper discussions and public
meetings. Their greatest desire just now seems
to be to restore their private fortunes, and ac
commodate themselves as well as they may to
the present disagreeable state of things. Nearly
all the whites are earnestly opposed to the recent
acts of Congress, and yet a decided majority of
those of the two races who are permitted to
vote will register and vote for a convention, un
less some important change take place between
this time and next falL It is not considered ad
visable to agitate the public mind by political
meetings and intemperate harangues. Sensible
men see that tbe greatest misiortnnes that can
befall the South at this time, is the separation of
our people, of whatever color, into parties upon
the issues presented by tjie late Congressional
enactments. Snch a result, in the end, will
prove more disastrous to the peace and welfare
of the ten excluded States than the radical legis
lation against which our people complain with
so much justice.
The Superior Court of. this county adjourned
a few days ago, after a long and laborious ses
sion. One of the most interesting cases that
came up for trial was that brought by one of the
bill-holders of the Columbus Bank against one of
the stockholders. The charter of the bank is a
little singular in some of-its provisions. It ap
pears that in the event of a failure to redeem its
bills, or a forfeiture of charter by the bank, or if
the bank should cease to do business, then each
stockholder is liable individually, without suit
against the bank, for the payment of its bills in
the hands of any billholder, in the proportion
that his stock bears to the whole amount of the
stock of the bank. Suits had been brought by
certain bill-holders against some ot the stock
holders of the bank under this provision of the
charter. Only one of these cases was considered.
The defense mainly relied upon by the stock
holders, is the action of the Legislature in 1862,
in the statute making the stay law applicable to
banks contingent upon the bank taking Confed
erate States and State Treasury notes at par in
payment of all dues to the hank. The stock
holders allege that the operation of this law Was
to convert all the assets of the Bank'into these
classes of notes, whieji, by the result of the war,
and the action of the Convention ol the State,
became utterly worthless. It is contended by
the bill-holders, on the contrary, that the act in
question was not coriipulsory. on the Bank; that
the act left the Bank free to accept Or reject its
.provisions. In case the Bank rejected the relief
ofFered^it could have been forced into liquida
tion. . It is further insisted that the condition of
the Bank at that time was such as to render it
able to have redeemed all its bills without touch
ing the capital stock.
The Bank has made an assignment of its as
sets, which amount to near $110,0(15. Some of
stockholders, it is alleged, bought up, at .a large
discount, as many pf the bills.qf the Bank as
they could get, with the hope and expectation of
being allowed to share in these assets. The pre
vailing "opinion is, however, that they will be
disappointed in this desire, as well as in their ef
fort to relieve themselves of theii - individual lia
bility to bill-holders. Bujt one of the, cases was
argued, and your correspondent heard only a
part of the argument in that one, to wU : Qeri.
Henry L. Benning, for the stockholders, and the
Hon. James M. Smith, of the firm of’Smith <fe Al
exander, for the billrholders. It seemed to be the
general opinion that Col. Sinitli got the better of
his distinguished opponent. His argument was
certainly one' of the tersest and most conclusive
legal efforts I have heard in a long time, arid ev :
fdenfly produced a profound impression 'upon
the court, the bar, arid! visitors. So apparent
was this, that counsel for the stockholders asked
that the case might be continued, Until the next
term, winch was'finally done.
It Is said that Messre. Smith & Alexander are
collecting up such of the bills of the Bank as
are still in the hands of the people.
........ , ,. ; .^I)isqqGEE.
Washington Goaalp. '
The Washington correspondent ot the Charles
ton Courier learns that Senator Snmner despairs
of a July session, though he still urges ft as ne
cessary for the‘purpose of carrying his measure
fof forcing negro siiffhige and negro education
upon all the States ot the Union. Judge Kelley
also insists upon a July session', for tlfe purpose
of exacting from the ten excluded Southern
States constitutional guarantees for the educa
tion ot the negro population within their re
spective limits. -
We gather through the same source that At
torney General Stanberry hasuot yet announced
his opinion as to the construction ot the Military
acts in relation to the authority of military com
manders over the appointment of civil and mu
nicipal officers. The action of General Sheridan
and: General Pope, in this respect, has not yet
been disapproved. This question causes some
concern in Virginia, as there are many county
and borough officers in the State who may be
subject to removal. The suggestion has been
made that the Attorney General defer his opinion
upon that branch of the inquiries referred to
him, until it. shall be known whether Congress
wilt hold a session in July. If that body should
proceed to legislation, an opportunity will be
afforded to it for the explanation and revision of
the hasty bungling, and ill-considered provisions
of the Solitary Reconstruction acts.
dal district—the Hon. Hiram Warner at
Troup Superior Court, in the case of “Jones, Ex
ecutor of Newsom vs. Heard,” in which decision
the Staw Law, so-called, is pronounced unconsti
tutional, null and void. Doubtless this decision
of one so eminent as a jurist, published, too, as
we are advised, by request ot members of the
bar in thfe judicial district, will attract general
attention. The question, however, of the con
stitutionality of the “ Stay Law,” we learn, is
yet before the Supreme Court of the State for its
decision, and it is probable, notwithstanding tlie
decision of Judge Warner, that, even in this ju
dicial district, no attempt will be made, by_ sher
iffs or their deputies, to make sales of property
until that judicial tribunal shall determine the
question, and not then, of coarse, should it de
termine the law to be constitutional.
tay law.
We devote a large portion of this morning’s
iiMoe of the Intelligencer to the decision re-
B. Jokes, Exec. of| Rule against the Sjhentt for
L. D. Newsom, I Troup Superior Court,
r.,- | May Term, 1367.
Andrew
Joel.
Peter A. Heard. j
On the 20th day ot November, 1862, Joel D.
Newsom obtained a judgment against Peter A.
Heard in the Superior Court of Troup county,
on a promissory note lor the sum of $1,238 50
for his principal debt, aud the sum ol $164 23
for interest and costs of suit. On the 29th day ol
November, 1862, an execution was issued upon
that judgment against tbe property ot the de
fendant, commanding the sheriff to make the
money due thereon as required by law. On the
3d day of April, 1867, J. O. Towns, tbe sheriff
of Troup county, levied the execution upon the
land of the defendant to satisfy the same, but did
not raise the money by the safe ot the land or
otherwise. At the present term of the court the
executor of the plaintitT (Newsom having died
since the rendition ot the judgment,) moved a
rule against the sheriff, calling upon him to show
cause why he should not be ordered to pay to tbe
Dlaintifl the amount due upon the execution.—
The sheriff, in responding to the rule against him,
shows for cause why he should not be required
to pay thfe money due on the execution, “ that
the defendant resides within the State of Georgia,
and that every provision of the laws of the State
for the stay ot executions apply to his condition
and protect him; that he required a bond of in
demnity of the plaintiff, which he refused to
give; that he was served with a written notice
by the attorney of defendant, that if he proceed
ed auy further against the land of the defendant
he -would be held as a trespasser under the laws
of the State.” Upon this showing of the sheriff,
considering him as a mere ministerial officer, the
court relused to grant a rule absolute against him
for the payment of the money. The counsellor
the plaintiff then moved that the court should
grant to him the following order:
Bag and Baggage.—The Sultan of Turkey is
making rather startling preparations for his July j
visit to Paris. He suite is announced as consist-1
iuir of five hundred .persons—-three- hundred t
i women ami fifteen eunuchs, Ac., Ac. Whether
minis- j Judies, and gemlemin—we mean hanris
■ a<-i eunuchs—will be lodged in the Tuileries
The Speaking at Greenville.
The Knoxville Commercial of the 5th says
that Mr. Etheridge used up Maynard at Green-
ville even worse than he did Stokes at Knoxville.
It relates the following incident as illustrative of
the composition of the situation of Browiilow
and Etheridge before the people.
A beautiful young lady (we speak from the
card) Miss Fry, advanced to the stand and pre
sented Mr. Etheridge with a beautiful bouquet, ar
ranged with much taste and care. : It was re
ceived in Mr. Etheridge’s usually gallant style,
and acknowledged in a neat, appropriate speech.
It next became Mr. Maynard’s time to receive an
offering, which came, when a buxom lady of
color, with shining ivory exposed by a broad grin,
came, boldly forward and presented her cham
pion with a bunch ot flowers. Poor Maynard
was non plussed and confused, bat regaining his
composure, succeeded in making s speech, ap
propriate, or otherwise, in which be reminded
the donor of the flowers jjiat a rose coming lrom
her would smell quite as sweet as if presented by.
any one else—some think more so. His poetry:
- A rose smell* as sweet, presented by this hfnd.
As if it were given by the fairest in the land.
General Siceels.—The distinguished officer
at the head of the Second Military District bids
fair to become a most prolific legislator, if not
altogether tbe wisest ot bis generation. The
people of Charleston retire to their virtuous
conches at night fondly dreaming that on the
Europe, and doubtless he will do tins with due ! lhat Le and bLi snite ’ nr511 create a greater^sensa- fouling mor ning, when they rise with the lark
eclaL The Royal and Imperial parlies will be i ,inu Dari? than a*! the Emperors in Chrhitru-
Napoleon.—The Emperor Napoleon is now j a l* >n g with the grand Turk himself, we have Dot
playing the host to all the crowned heads of j yet learned from the MonHAtr. AN e may be sure
feleJ ami flattered, and tln-ic*.good will secured
by those delicate attentions so peculiar to the
French, aud as a result we must expect to find
the great European conflict which seems inevita
ble, deferred until Napoleon shall have so per
fected his measures as to enable him to precipi
tate matters.
tlOlll.
Florida.—GoL T. uoborue, of Tallahassee,
has been nominated by. Qufef Justice .Chase as
Register, under the Bankrupt Jaw, tor the State
of Florida. Col. Osborne will act for the whole
Sta.
to greet the pnrpllngs of tbe East, they will he
met with a new order—^nd they are rarely dis’-‘
appoiuiud. The Code Napoleon was a right
smart affair, bat we are apprehensive it will be
considerably dwarfed, when the Code Sick els
shall be complete and make its appearance in
royal octavo form, bound in good calf and
i “Joel D. Newsom ) pj fa returnable to Troup Superior
_ __ C Court, May term, 1803.
Peter A. Heard. )
“Principal, $1,238 50. Interest to 20th Novem
ber, 1862; $164 23.
“ On motion of counsel for Andrew B. Jones,
executor of Joel D. Newsom, the plaintiff: It is
ordered, that the sheriff do proceed to raise the
money on the above fi. fa., as required by the
terms thereof, and that he make return of his
actings and doings thereon to the next term of
this court.”
The counsel for the defendant in execution re
sist the motion upon the ground, that to grant it
. would be in violation of the provisions of the act
of 13th December, 1866, commonly known as
I “ the Stay law.” The plaintiff insists, that he is
entitled to have the order granted by the court,
for the reason, that the act of 13th December,
1866, Btaying the collection ot his demand, is
unconstitutional and void. Thus it will be per
ceived, that the constitutionality of the act of
! 18th. December, 1866, is directly presented for
the judgment of the court.
’ The decision of the question now submitted
to the court, imposes a very grave responsibility.
It involves the integrity of the Constitution,
which this court has solemnly sworn to support
and maintain on the one hand, and the supposed
interests of the people on the other. If the
court shall err in its judgment, it affords it great
relief to know, that whatever errors it may com
mit, the same can be reviewed and corrected by
the supreme judicial tribunal of the State. It is
always much more pleasant and agreeable to a
judicial gffleer, when consistent with his official
dqty, to act in accordance with public opinion in
regard to questiofas in which the people are sup
posed to be deeply interested; yet, if that public
opinion is midst clearly, in bis judgment, in vio
lation of the fundamental law of the land, then,
he has no discretion left but to perform his sworn
doty, and suppprt apd maintain that fundamental
law with fidefify and firm ness. Any other course
ot conduct, on the part of a judicial officer, would
justly, subject him to the charge of a want of
{confidence in bis judicial integrity, and thereby
destroy the moral power of the court, in com-
manding obedience to the Constitution and laws
ot the land. Whenever the judicial tribunals of
the country; either State or Federal, shall fail to
maintain and uphold the fundamental lam
thereof, but shall become demoralised, then, there
will be no security for either persons or property.
Deeply impressed with the importance of main
taining these views, whatever may be the conse
quences to me personally, the records of
no coilrt m Georgia shall ever in the future,
exhibit the fact, that by my own voluntary
judicial conduct, the fundamental laws of
her people were permitted to be violated.—
The judicial integrity of the court will he main
tained, as well as the integrity of the Constitu
tion, for the simple reason that the very highest
obligation that; can be imposed, requires me to do
so. The trust arid confidence reposed in me,
shall be faithfully performed to the best of my
ability, at all times, and under all circumstances,
milMy._ but finnly, and independently. Let us
now inquire, what my judicial duty requires me
to perform, in regard to the question submitted
for my judgment in this case ? The Constitu
tion of ihri United States declares, that “no State
shall pass any law impairing the, obligation of
contracts,” , The Constitution of the State of
Georgia, declares, that “ex post facto laws, laws
impairing the obligation of contracts, and retroac
tive laws, injuriously affecting any right of the
citizen,' are prohibited.” Tbe Constitution of
the State of Georgia further declares, that “Leg
islative acts in violation of the Constitution are
void, arid the judiciary shall so declare them.”—
Thus it will be seen, that if the act of 13th De
cember; 1866, is in violation ot the Constitution
of the United States, and the Constitution of the
State of Georgia, or either of them, then, the
court is bound so to declare by its judgment.—
First, does this act of the Legislature “impair
theobligation of contracts” within the prohibition
of the Constitution of the United States ? The
Constitution, it will be perceived, doc-s not pro
hibit the States from passing laws impairing
contracts. Tbe prohibition is expressly directed
against laws which impair the obligation of con
tracts. What is the obligation of a contract
as contemplated by the Constitution ?
“The obligation of a contract is a legal, not a
mere moral -obligation - it is the law which binds
a party to perform his undertaking. The obliga
tion does not inhere, or subsist, in the contract
itself—proprio vigore—but in the law applicable to
the contract1st Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,
652, and authorities there cited. NVheu tbe par
ties entered into the contract now before the
Court, whicii the plaintiff seeks to enforce, what
was the legal obligation of tbe defendant? • His
legal obligation was to do and perform just
what the laws of the land required him to do,
and perform, otthe time the contract was made, in
accordance with its terms and stipulations'; that
was the exact measure of his legal obligation at
the time the contract was made, nothing more,
nothing less. The defendant’s legal obligation
was to perform hiscontract as the laws of the land
required him to perform it at the time it teas made.
That was tbe extent ot liis bgal obligation to the
plaintiff, and just to that extent the plaintiff had
the legal right to have it performed in order to
maintain the integrity of the legal obligation of the
defendant’s contract. If it was not the existing
law of tbe State, applicable to the contract at
the time it was made, which created and defined
the defendant’s legal obligation to perform it in
accordance with its terms and stipulations, what
is it that does create and define his obligation to
perform it? If there had been no existing law
applicable to the contract prescribed by tbe su
preme power of the State at the time it was nvide,
creating and defining the defendant’s obligation
to perform then he would have incurred no
other than a mere moral obligation, over which
human tribunals have no jurisdiction. It, there
fore; necessarily follows that the existing law, ap
plicable to the contract prescribed by the su
preme power of the State at the time the contract
was. made, creates aDd defines the defendant’sfe-
g,xl obligation to perform it, in accordance with its
terms and stipulations.
“ A perfect right is lhat which is accompanied
by the right of compelling those who refuse to
fulfil the correspondent obligation. A perfect
cbtigrttvm is that which gives to the opposite party
the right of compulsion."—Vattel, 62. The de
fendant’s obligation to perform bis contract in
accordance with its terms was a perfect obligation,
because the plaintiff, at the time the contract was
made, bad the legal right, under the then existing
lam of tbe State, to have compelled its perfor
mance. The defendant’s obligation to peform
performed as prescribed Dy that existing law,
was also a perfect right. . .. . ,
Let us now inquire, -What acts of the Legisla
ture will impair the legal obligation of contracts
within the constitutional prohibition? In^ the
case of the Justices of the Inferior Court of Mor
gan county vs. Selman Sparks et dl. (6th Georgia
Rep., 439) the Supreme Court have answered tins
question in the most explicit terms. The c °urt
say: “ The objection to a law on the ground ot
ii.q imnairina life obligation of a contract, do
not impair the legal obligation of contracts. A
statute of limitations does not affect, or impair
the legal obligation of the contract; it merely
prescribes tbe time within which that legal ob
ligation shall be enforced, tbe obligation itself,
remains intact. Acts of the Legislature abol-
^ ishing imprisonment foe debt, as well as acts
his contract was just what that existing law made j exempting certain property from sate.under exe-
its J impairing life obligation of a contract, does
not depend on the extent ot the change which
the law may make in it. Any deviation from its
terms, by postponing, or accelerating the period
of performance which it prescribes, or imposing
conditions not expressed in the contract, or dispens
ing with the performance of those which are, how
ever minute, or apparently immaterial in their ef
fect upon the contract of the parties, impairs its
obligation, and consequently is within the consti
tutional prohibition.” This, in my judgment, is
a sound, exposition of the law applicable to this
case. See Winter vs. Jones, 10th Georgia Re
ports, 195. NVe have endeavored to show what
was the extent of the defendant’s legal obligation
to the plaintiff at the time the contract was made.
NYe have shown in the language of our Supreme
Court, what particular class of laws would im
pair that legal obligation. Now let us examiue
the act of 13th December, I860, and see whether,
according to the foregoing definition, it impairs
the legal obligation of the contract between the
parties in this case ? The act is declared to l)e
“ au act for the relief of the people of Georgia
and to prevent the levy and sale of property
under certain circumstances.” The 1st section
of the ael declares “ that there shall lie no levy or
sale of property of defendants in this State, un
der any execution, founded on *my judgment,
order, or decree, of auy court, heretofore, or
hereafter to be rendered upon any contract, or
liability made or incurred prior to the first-of
June, 1865,* or in renewal thereof, though bearing
a subsequent date, except in the following man
ner : For one-third of the principal and_ interest
due on said execution, and no more, which may
be levied ou or after the first of January, 1868;
one-third of the whole on, ; or alter the first ot
January, 1869, and the remaining one-third on
or alter the first of January, 1870, unless the.de
fendant shall endorse on the execution a waiver
of the benefits of this act.” The fourth section
of the act further declares “ that any officer, or
other person violating this act, shall be guilty , of
trespass, and liable to the defendant, or person iri-
jured, in damages, not les3 than the amount of the
judgment, order, or decree, upon which he is
proceeding, as in other cases of trespass." The
existing Jaw of this State, at the time the contract
was made between the parties on which this
judgment, and execution is founded, and which
the plaintiff is seeking to enforce, imposed the
legal obligation upon the defendant to perform it
in accordance with its terms and stipulations,
That legal obligation was in full force, and bind
ing upon him, on the 13th day of December,
1866, when the act in question was passed. Does
the act of 13th December, 1866, postpone the per
formance of that legal obligation f If it does,
then in the language of the Supreme Court of
Georgia, it impairs the legal obligation of the con
tract. Does the act of 1866 impose conditions up
on the parties, not expressed iu the contrat, or in
the laic applicable to the contract at the time it
was made ? If it does, then, according to the
same authority it impairs the legal obligation of
the contract. Does the act of 1866 dispense with
the performance of any part of the legal obliga
tion of the defendant to perform his contract as
that legal obligation existed at the time of its
enactment ? If it does, then, in the language of
our Supreme Court, before cited, it impairs the
legal obligation of the contract.
now, in what manner, does the act of 1866
impair the legal obligation of the contract? At
the time of the passage of the act, the defend
ant’s legal obligation to pay the debt included in
the judgment was upon him, in fdl its force, and
effect, as the same existed at the time the contract
wa9 made. Now, by the act of 1866, he is re
lieved from the performance of that legal obligation
until the first day ot January, 1868, absolutely,
and for two-thirds thereof, until the first day of
January, 1869, and for one-third thereof, until
the first day of January, 1870. The act ex
pressly declares, that the defendant’s legal obliga
tion to perform his contract, shall not be en
forced by the process of the court until the first
of January, 1868, and after that time, only in the
manner before stated. To that extent, the de
fendant is relieved from tbe performance of his
legal obligation to the plaintiff; as the same ex
isted at five time the contract was made, by the act
of. 1866. Besides,'the fourth section of the act
declares, that any officer, or other person, (which
includes the plaintiff ) who -shall violate, the act
of 186,6, shall be guilty of trespass, and liable to
the defendant in damages, Ac. Thus it will be
perceived, that by the "act, the defendant is not
only relieved from his legal obligation to the
plaintiff to perform his contract for a definite pe
riod of time, but that any officer, or other per
son, who slia^l enforce the performance of the
defendants legal obligation within that time, to
perform his contract, as the same existed at the
time tbe contract was. made, shall be guilty of
trespass, and punished as a trespasser.
The act not only relieves the defendant from
his legal obligation to perform his contract
in the manner specified therein, but actually de
clares, 1 that theplaintifi shall be 1 guilty of trespass
if he shall enforce the performance of the de
fendant’s legal obligation to perform his contract,
imposed, by the laws of the Stale, at the .time the
contract was made. The legal obligation of the
contract is impaired by relieving the defendant
from its performance, as expressed in the act.-—
The legal obligation of the contract is impaired
because the plaintiff cannot enforce the defend
ant’s legal obligation to perform it, without being
a trespasser, and liable for damages under the act
Before the passage of the act of 1866, the defen
dant was under a legal obligation then resting up
on him in its full force, to perform liis contract.
Is that legal obligation to perforrii his contract
as binding upon him note, as it was before the
passage of the act, or is that legal obligation less
binding upou him now, than it was then ? The
law ot the State applicable to the contract as it
existed at the time tlie contract was made; con
stituted, the exact measure of the defendant’s le
gal obligation to perform it, in accordance with
its terms and stipulations. Is the legal obliga
tion of the defendant to perform that contract
the same now, under the legislative enactment of
the 13th December^ 1866, a3 it was at the time the
contract was made ? Is the legal obligation of
the defendant to perform his contract now, as
strong, and binding upon him, as it was, when the
contract Was made? If it T is, then lie obtains no
relief from the performance of kis legal obliga
tion to the plaintiff under the coritract, and the
act of 1866 does 'him’no. good, confers no benefit
upon him whatever, and the legal obligation of
the coritract is not impaired. If however, tlie
defendant’s legal obligation to perform his con
tract is not now a-; strong and binduig upon him,
as it was when the contract was made, what is it
that makes that legal obligation' to perform it
less strong and less binding upon him ? Most un
questionably it is the provisions of the ac). of
1866, which declares that the defendant’s legal
obligation to perform that contract, as the same
existed '.t the time the contract was made, shall
.not be enforced by the levy, and sale of-bis pro
perty under auy execution, founded on any judg
ment, rendered upon that contract, until tbe first
day of January, 1868, then, only-one-third thereof,
and tbe remaining two-thirds on the first of Jan
uary, 1869, and first of January, 1870, respec
tively. The act postpones the ultimate perform
ance of the defendant’s legal obligation of his
contract until tbe first ol January, 1870. The
act of 1866, prescribes conditions lor the perform
ance ot the defendant’s legal obligation, prejudi
cial to the rights of the plaintiff, which did not
exist under the law of the State creating, and. de
fining, that legal obligation, ot the time the con
tract was made. Will any honest, fair-minded
man, undertake to say, when we take into con
sideration the defendant’s legal obligation to
perform bis contract, as that legal .obligation
existed under the law, at the time the con
tract was made, and bis legal obligation to
perform it wm according to tbe provisions of the
act of 1866, that bis legal obligation to perform
that contract has not been postponed, altered,
weakened, and impaired by that act ? One fact
is quite apparent, at least, that the defendant’s
legal obligation to perform his contract under the
provisions of the act of 1866, is wd tbe same as
it was.under the law applicable to the contract,
at tlie time, it was made, and the question is,
whether that act impairs that legal obligation.—
But the argument for the defendant. is, that the
act of 1886 only affects the remedy, and that the
remedy is no part of the contract, therefore, it is
not within the constitutional prohibition. The
reply is, that tbe Constitution does not prohibit
the Legislature from passing laws impairing con
tracts. The Constitution declares, tliat “no
Stale shall pass Gay law impairing the obligatioi-
of contracts.” Whether defendant’s legal obla
gation to perform his contract, has been impaired
by the Legislature, under the name or form of a
remedy, or any other name, makes no difference,
the question still remains to he answered, does
the act of 1866 impair the. legal obligation of -the
defendant's contract? That the Legislature may
pass remedial statutes is readily conceded, pro- Kelley at Home.—Bill Kelley has reached
vided, always, that such remedial statutes, do j his'home, and true to his instinct?, tells some-
binding upon ihe parties, as the same existed at
the time the contract was made. This class of
acts do not, necessarily, limit, postpone, restr ct
or impair the binding force of the legal obligation.
to perform the contract as the same existed at
the time it was made, but simply declare the
manner in which that legal obligation shall be
enforced; the legal obligation to perform tlie
contract, according to its terms and stipulations,
remaining untouched. A remedial statute, how
ever, is as much a law as any other statute, and is
as much within the constitntional prohibition
as any other statute, when it impairs the legal
obligation of the contracts. Under ordinary cir
cumstances this would be considered a plain
proposition, but we are toid by high authority
that “ God hath made men upright, but they
have sought out many inventions.” It was
doubtless, the object of the framers of the Con
stitution to protect the legal obligation ot con
tracts lrom tbe subtle inventions of remedial law
makers, as well asall others. Accordingto the in
terpretation given to this clause of the Fede
ral Constitution by tbe Supreme Court of
tbe United States, I do not entertain a doubt
that the act of 1866 would be held by that
court to be within the constitutional prohi
bition^ and, in my judgment, tbe decisions
of that tribunal, upou questions arising un
der the Constitution of the United States, are
binding authority upon the courts of Ibis State.
Sturges vs. Crowningshield, 4th Wheaton’s Rep.
191; Green cs. Biddle, 8th Wheaton’s Rep., l ■
Brounson vs. Kinsey, 1st Howard’s Rep., 311-
McCracken vs. Hayward, 2d Howard’s Rep., 60s!
But this Act of 1866 expressly operates upon
the legal obligation of contracts made before its
passage, and to that extent, is retroactive, and is
expressly prohibited by the Constitution of the
State of Georgia. Neither by the Constitution of
the United States, or by the old Constitution of
the State of Georgia, are retrospective laws, or re
troactive laws prohibited. This was considered
an evil, which tlie people of Georgia, in adopting
their new Constitution, intended to remedy,
and prohibit. If the framers of the new Consti
tution did not intend to prohibit the Legislature
from passing retroactive laws, operating upon the
legal obligation of past contracts, which might
injuriously affect any right of the citizen, it is ex
tremely difficult for this court to say what they
did intend. My conclusion, then, is, both upon
principle and authority, that the binding force
and coercive power of the law applicable to the
contract, as the same existed at the time it was
made, constitutes the obligation of the contract.
The defendant was legally bound by that existing
law to perform it in accordance with its
terms and requirements, and the plaintiff
had the legal right, under that existing law,
to enforce the performance of that legal
obligation. Any subsequent act of the Legisla
ture, therefore, remedial or otherwise, which al
ters or changes the then existing law, which cre
ated and defined that legal obligation to snch an
extent as to make its legal force and power less
binding upon the parties, postponing, or obstruct
ing its enforcement, or imposing conditions for
its performance, not prescribed by the law which
created and defined that legal obligation at the
time the contract was made, necessarily impairs
it, and is prohibited by the Constitution. Bui it
is said that tlie act of 1866 affects only the
remedy, and therefore, is not within the constitu
tional prohibition. The pertinent inquiry is,
how does the proposed remedy affect the legal obli
gation of the contract, at the time it was made ?
Does it impair it or not ? This is the real ques
tion in the case to be answered. The act of
1866, it will he perceived, creates a new and dif
ferent obligation for the performance of the con
tract from that imposed upon the parties by the
existing law at the time the contract was made.
The legal obligation to perform the contract
which existed under the old law at the time the
contract was made, is postponed until the first of
January, 1868, absolutely, and conditionally until
the first of January, 1870. The binding force of
the legal obligation to perform the contract, and
the coercive power of the law to compel its per
formance, which existed at the time the contract
was made, is less strong and less binding upon the
parties now under the provisions of the act of
1866, than it was then, as will readi’y be per
ceived by reference to the act. The act
of 1866 prescribes conditions for the perform
ance of the legal obligation of the contract, which
were not prescribed by the old law applicable to
the contract, at the time it was made, to the
injury ot the plaintiff’s rights arising under, and
secured by that old Jaw, creating, and defining,
that legal obligation. The act of 1866 prohibits
the plaintiff from exercising his legal right to en
force the performance of the defendant’s legal
obligation to perform his contract, as the same
existed under the old law, creating and defining
that legal obligation, at the time the contract was
made, under the penalty of being a trespasser. The
act of 1866, does all these things, which, in my
judgment, the Constitution of the United States,
and the Constitution of the State of Georgia, ex
pressly prohibit from being done, either under
the name, or form, of a remedial law, or any
other law of like character, producing the same
practical effect.
The result,-therefore; is, after the most careful
examination of-this question, that the act of the
13th of December, 1866, impairs the obligation of
the contract between the parties in this case, as
the same existed under the law prescribed by tbe
Bupreme power of tlie State, at the time the con
tract was made—which, being expressly pro
hibited by the Constitution, is, therefore, null
rind mid, and such is the judgment of the court.
Therefore, let ihe order directing the Sheriff
to proceed with the execution, be entered on the
minutes of the court.
Hiram Warner, J ; S. C. C. C.
B. H. Hill, for plaintiff; Bigham, for defendant.
An Important Matter.
Special attention is directed to the paragraph
following, copied from the Richmond Examiner
bf the 5th:
Notwithstanding the fact that a more careful
perusal of this general order showed us at once
that its scope and purport had been mistaken,
still we found yesterday that a great number
of people, even after reading and re-reading it,
adhered to the opinion that it was a “sweeping
disfranchisement” of all who had voluntarily
borne arms for the Confederacy. Therefore, in
order to put all doubts on the subject to rest,
and reassure the public, we called upon Colonel
Chalfin, the courteous Adjutant General of the
District, who, in the absence of the command
ing general, discharges the duties of that high
position, for the purpose of being officially as
sured in the premises.
Tlie Colonel expressed his regret that the
order should have been misconceived by the
press generally. He thought it plainly enough
worded, and was fearful that some Of the regis-
teiiug officers in the country might be misled,
and adopt the interpretation first put upon it by
the press. The order, he thought, sufficiently
indicated that none were disfranchised but such
as had formerly held office under the Govern
ment of the United States, and of the State, and
afterwards given voluntary aid to the rebellion.
No man that had never been an officer of tlie
State or United States previous to the war was
dislranchi8ed. He requested us to correct tho
wrong impression the order had created.
The Examiner says, in another article on the
subject; .
We wish our people to understand this mat
ter of registration and voting, as it is not only
of vital importance-to them, but the law on the
subject and the military order are really as plain
as the nose an the face of each one of them.
A person may have volunteered the veiy day
Virginia seceded—may have voted for the or
dinance of secession—may have voted early—
and may have participated actively and volun
tarily in eveiy battle from Bethel to Appomat
tox Courthouse, and yet not be disfranchised if
be previously held no office snch as is mentioned.
And, on the other hand, a person may have
held one of the offices mentioned previously,
and yet, if he did not voluntarily engage in any
of the acts mentioned in the seventh paragraph
of the order, he, also, is not thereby disfran
chised.
Under this rendering, the number of persons
disfranchised in Virginia will be very small.
^
Supposed to be Murdered.—The Montgom
ery Mail of Sunday contaius the following:
Day before yesterday a Mr. Spratt, contractor
upon the line of the Montgomery and Eufaula
Railroad, left Montgomery for Union Springs,
with about two hundred dollars to pay the hands
Upon the road. Since whieh time be has not
been seen. It is supposed that he has been way
laid and murdered by some of tbe employees,
who expected him to return with a larger sum.
Later.—Since writing the above we learn that
the body of Mr. Spratt was found yesterday in
a creek near Oak Grove. It is stated that bo
was undoubtedly murdered by negroes, who
were under the impression that the unfortunate
man had on his person a large amount of money.
Active efforts are being made to arreat the guilty
parties.
it; just what that existing law required aud
would have compelled to be done for its perfor
mance iff behalf of the’ plaintiff, the other party
to it The defend ant’s obligation to perform his
contract under the then existing law was perfect,
and the plaintiff's right to have that obligation
cuiion have been heidmot to be wiu*ui the con
stitutional prohibition, for the reason that such
aefe merely modified the remedy, but did not touch,
or interfere with, tbo legal obligation to perform
the contract—that legal obligation to perform
the contract still remaining in iuM force, and
thing more than the truth in regard to bis late
trip. The dispatch below shows :
Jndge Kelley was received by his political
friends in Philadelphia hist night. In lus address
he referred to tbe Mobile affair, 9aying the riots
were not chargable so much to citizens <.r tin-
disloyal authorities ol that place as they were u>
Andrew Johnson, who had appointed to u post
of profit there a recreant Northerner, who pro
voked the disturbance by inflamatory statements
in the public journals days before his arrival.-—
Tbe riots, he said, were premediated, and were
not brought on by any words of bis own.