Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

ttifrhli) ^Btflligfncrr. ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Wednesday, October 0, 1867. Hon. B. C. Yauter on the Political Sltu- allou of tbe South. Xlic Ifulbcrt Relief Humbne. We have before us the Carteraville Express, from which we perceive that the Jlulbert Relief Jf:/mbvg lias two disciples 'it least in the good old county of Bartow. One of these is a candi date to represent that count}' in the approaching Convention, and announces that important fact in the following delectable card : Carterbyille, October 1, 18*57. Editor* Express-. Having been solicited by many citizens ol the 42d District, both white and black, to run for the Convention, I have at l.ifit cot iiiy consent to do so, and I hereby an- nounce myself a candidate for said Convention. As it is customary for said candidates to give I heir views on tbe leading questions of the day— here goes: I believe in all men having their rights in the courts of the country. I believe that a Convention ought to be held and our Slate reconstructed, and take her place in the Union. I am opposed to the confiscation of the lands of the whole people. 1 am opposed to the whites and blacks becom ing socially equal, but think they ought to be po litically so. As we are all poor and have but little of this world’s goods, and in order that all should now take an equal start, I am in favor of wiping out all old debts, and let each one take a fair start, Ac. These are my ideas on some of the leading questions of the day. If elected, I will do all the good and as little harm as possible. Yours truly, Ben. Latimer. The unblushing effrontery of this Mr. Ben. Latimer, we have never seen excelled. After announcing himself “ in favor of wiping out all debts and let each one take a fair start, dec.',' he closes with saying, “ if elected, I will do all the good and a* little harm a* possible.” “ All the good ” indeed t Hob Peter to bestow upon Paul, is a part of the good this man would do. Verily, he is a marvellously proper man to represent any people, not even excepting those of African ’scent. And, then, hear him again. He “ w opposed to the confiscation of the lands of the whole people.” The whole people ? Does he mean then that he is in favor of confiscating the lands of a portion of the people ? Or does he know what he docs mean ? We do not know this Mr. lien. Latimer, noi do we mean him any personal disrespect when we express our convic tion that ail the fools in the land arc not dead yet. The other card or communication which we notice in the Etprcss bears the signature of a Mr. W. L. Goodwin, who closes with the affirma lion that he will give his “ support to any measure of relief which is expedient, practicable, and con stitutionalThere is more sense in this than in the card of Mr. Ben. Latimer; but so far as relief is concerned it is a mere repetition of the lluihert Humbug. Affirming that he knows "that repudiation is not strictly, honorable, honest or just between man and man—” that “the act is scorned by many high-minded men,” he yet utllms that “ it is expedient and practicable.”— How “practicable” Mr. Goodwin ? How in the face of the provision ol the Constitution of the United States, which declares that “no ex post lacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts,” cau such relief—relief that repudiation will give—he practicable. Tell the people of Bartow County this, and you may escape the charge of being nothing more nor less than a disciple of the Hulbert, the would be great rebel humbugger of t lie people of this State. 'flint .11 omi-uein—--We Recline. A friend at Marietta addresses us the following note: Noticing in your paper of the 2d your com incuts upon the action of your City Council in ; egard to a contribution for erecting a monu ment to the “ Lamented,” as Brick Pomeroy calls him, and to show you that the subject is attracting attention iu the far West, I enclose vou the copy ot u note received from a young friend in the State of Arkansas. You can hand his contribution to some one of that ilk, and publish his communication. , Dear : 1 send you a two cent revenue stamp to help erect a monument to the memory <.f Lincoln. I saw in a Georgia paper that the loyalists of that Stale were trying to raise funds to erect a monument at Atlanta. I would send you more, but I gave ten likely niggers, and as 1 never allow anything ot the kind to pass with out leading a helping hand, when } 0u see any of the agents in getting up this fund, give them the stamp, and tell them I nm sorry it could not have been a nigger. Yours sincerely. We respectfully Leg leave to decline being an agent in the matter referred to. The two cent stamp is held subject to the order of the dona tor of it, or to auy oue who will undertake to appropriate it as he desires. The “Atlanta Lin coln Monument Enterprise” is oue which we can neither directly or indirectly advance, not even to the amount of two cents. Athens, Ga., Sc-pt. 30, 1867. Mcsere. Ira R. Foster, George Ilillyer, If. V. M. Millar, and J. D. Pope: Dear Sirs—Your letter, of the 23d instant, requesting my views upon ilie present political status of Georgia, and the course most expedient __ for her |>eople to pursue in reference to the pro- i a l Robert “e‘ Lee "toV^eraTutysnes posed call of a Convention, under the acts of unconditionally, because it was pressed Congress known as the reconstruction measures, 1 — > ... duce individuals to abandon the Confederacy, and return to their allegiance to the United States, assuring pardon to such as would return—that is, i a personal exemption from punishment. But that would not obviate the imposition of terms upon the aggregate of individuals, as a political com- | munity—as a State—before being admitted to the . benefits of the Constitution and a participation i in the Government of the United States. One branch ot our army was surrendered Igr Gene- Vtcwi ou the monument. A friend suggests to us “that Judas got money for betraying Christ, but did the money sanctify the deed of treachery?” “Again does the fact that certain members of our City Council possess money, give them li cense to set the moral sense of the community at defiance ?” Both these questions, we, of course, answer in the negative. Neither iu the case of Judas, nor iu that of the members ot our City Council, does the posession of wealth justify the act, charged by our friend against either of the parties. Our friend also asks: “Why did not the mem bers of our City Council who voted to grant, on a certain contingency, ten acres of land to the Atlanta Lincoln Monument Association, vote to take the bones of our fallen soldiers to crown the monument when erected ; or a base to erect it upon when begun, as they do not seem to scru ple in granting ground for it, all wet with the tears of widows and orphans ?” To the last querry, we can give no answer.— We can only, as our friend does, enquire “why ?” echo, and re-echo it, and leave the response to come from those immediately interested in the result of the vote which they have giveu and which has been found so obnoxious in the com munity. The Alabama Election. The Montgomery Mad ot the 4th instant says: “Yesterday was the last voting day in Alabama, i and the polls were closed in this city at the hour ! ot (5 o’clock last evening. We have no means I of yet knowing the total vote of this county, ! but we presume it is between five and six thou- i sand—nearly all negro votes. The vote falls 1 far short of the ex[>ectations of the Radicals. It I is probable the Convention is carried, but bv a > very small majority. This election will long be j remembered as the greatest farce ever enacted ■ in the State of Alabama. The mass of the is before me. Having been no active participator, for some years, in politics, I cannot imagine m3-judgment ! will carry much weight beyond the reason, ar- f ument and authorities by which it is sustained. propose, therefore, to assign, present, and quote them. Whatever power of condensation I may exercise, I am conscious it cannot be done in a short space. Yet the immensity of the interests, political and material, involved in our decision of tbe issues presented, will justify the extended limits of this letter. We were never before in such a fearful crisis. There is an intensely ex cited and inflamed condition of the public mind. It is natural to a defeated people. Passion, pre judice, mortification, hatred, exercise a fearful control over judgment. It is a mental condition unfavorable and fatal to a clear exercise of the functions of reason. Unless we disembarrass the mind of all these obstructions, we cannot arrive at correct conclusions as to our situation, or clear perceptions of duty. I know that it. has been rendered more diffi cult for the people to reasou calmly, and decide dispassionately, as they have frequently been harangued by politicians opposed to a Conven tion, in addresses to their passions, and hatreds, and prejudices. The bitterest words, and most opprobrious epithets ot the language, have been invoked, with which to denounce those who think it expedient to vote for a Convention, and especially those, among them, who were original secessionists, and have taken the amnesty oath. They are denounced as “ perjured traitors,” “traitors to their principles,” “cowards,” who would sell the South for a consideration; and infamy, for all time to come, is invoked upon them. Such declamation is, generally, evidence of a bitter heart—of a frenzied mind—of weak ness of argument; is an outrage upon the rules of good taste—violative of every parliamentary courtesy which should characterize the discus sions of every speaker or writer. Sjich charges upon States Rights men are untrue in fact, and an unmerited slander. I shall not follow in the pathway of such ig noble example. I shall accord to every one who may differ with me as much honesty of purpose aud patriotism as I claim for myseli; aud, iu deep devotion to my native sunny Southern land, I yield to none. In kindness, in courtesy, I shall proceed to discuss the situation. I in voke the dispassionate consideration of the peo ple. I submit the following propositions : Georgia is not now a State in the Federal Union. If Georgia is not in the Union, she can only “be admitted by the Congress” of the United States. Georgia does not occupy the position of a foreign government proposing to be admitted into the Union of the States, which (like Texas was originally) would be entitled to negotiate the terms ol annexation. Georgia occupies the position of a conquered Shite, aud is, therefore, subject to the Govern ment ot the United States—limited, in the exer cise of its sovereignty, by the rules of interna tional morality and justice. The first proposition asserts that Georgia has never been restored to the Union. If so, she has no property in the Constitution of the* Uni ted States; and can, of right, demand no benefit under it, beyond What that government is pleas ed to concede. The surrender of our army ty the army ot the United Slates was unconditional. Neither then, nor at any subsequent time, have terms of peace been concluded between the United States and Georgia. The war, therefore, in law, still exists. Georgia is under a military government until the terms of peace are concluded. She has as sented, in her late Convention, and acts ot the Legislature thereunder, to some of the terms re quired. The remaining terms are now submitted iu the acts ot Congress under consideration. A compliance with the requisitions of those acts by the proposed Convention, aud the Legis lature to meet (hereafter, will conclude the peace and entitle Georgia to admission in the Union. • Upon acceptance, by Georgia, ot the terms submitted by the conqueror, he will be precluded from requiring any other conditions. Upon the rejection, by Georgia, ot those terms, by voting against Convention, the conqueror can, by the law of nations, increase his demands in number and rigor, aud curtail tbe right ol tranchise he has now granted. Georgia was a colony subject to the sover eignty ot the British crown. In 1783 Great Britain acknowledged her, separately, an inde pendent aud sovereign State. She united with other colonies, similarly situated, and framed a General Government—the Government of the United States—reserving to herself all sover eignty not thus qualified. States Rights men, ot the school of Jefferson, Calhoun, Troup, claimed the right of a State to renounce the compact—dissolve the copartnership—whenever, in her judgment, tbe people, in Convention, should so determine. The advocates of thi9 right were called secessionists. Georgia, by her ordinance in convention in 1801, did dissolve her political connection with the Government of the United Slates of America, and declared herself a separate and independent nation. She renounced all benefits, and denied all obligations, under the Constitution of the Uni ted Stales, and absolved her citizens lrom alle giance to that Government. She formed, with other seceded States, a confederated government. That government declared itself a nation, sepe- rate aud independent of the United States, and again absolved its citizens from allegiance to the Federal Constitution. States Rights men held that the act of secession was rightful, aud, there fore, peaceful in itself. The original secessionist was a man of honest conviction ; he did not be lieve he was committing treason against the Gov ernment of the United Slates; and, it lie had held an office aud taken au oath to support the Constitution of the United States, he did not believe he was violating that oath, since his State had rightfully withdrawn lrom that Government. Iu heart, he was incapable ol treason or perjury. It is, therefore, 11 palpable and historic tact that Georgia was out of the Federal Unique Shc- rnust still be out, uuless it cau be proved that she has been restored by the constituted authority of the United States. But it is alleged by the leaders of opposition to a Convention, that Georgia lias been restored to the Union, and the following reasou is giveu : “For we must admit that the doctrines of the issue, as insisted upon by the United States, and the purposes and demands ot the United States in making and carrying on the war, and the terms of the surrender, were agreed to by us in the act of surrender, and, therefore, made the law ot the peace for both parties, being thus de manded by one party and conceded by the other.” ‘ B. H. Hill. I will admit the doctrines of the issue, as in sisted upou by the United States, were maintain ed by their army iu our defeat, and in destroy ing our national independence; aud that we agree to abide the decision of the sword. Fower cannot change opinion; it can coerce conduct: the couquered satisfied of the folly ot resistance, now or hereafter, may pledge never to attempt to exercise a right again, but he cannot, at the mere bidding of power, or the exercise of his will, change the honest convictions of his mind. I will admit that in our defeat the United States have established their purpose, that Georgia should not exist as an independent State; and that, in the act of surrender, she consems to that declaration and agrees to the purpose of the United States—“the preservation of tbeUnion.” I will admit that the terms of surrender, were agreed to by us in the act ol surren der.” But what were they? I will let Mr. Hill state his own case, as I am re wing, just here, his position—that the terms of were demanded and conceded before the surrender, and the case closed. He says : " I repeat, the only demand made bv the United States iu the be- Grant and sur rounded by overwhelming numbers—and to have continued the straggle would have been a useless slaughter of our gallant men. The only terms of surrender were to disband the army, and re turn to their homes, giving their word of honor not to take up arms again, bat to remain peace ful, law-abiding citizens. This was only a usual military parole. And every soldier went home a prisoner of war. And each one so paroled, who has not since taken the amnesty oath, or been specially pardoned—if worth over $20,000 —is a prisoner of war to-day; and will continue so to be, unless pardoned, until the terms of peace submitted by the Government of the United States to the seceded States shall be accepted, and due notice thereof given by the Government of tbe United States. These facts ot history show that, at the surrender ot Lee, no doctrines of the “issue,” or“purposes ot the United Stales,” or “demands,” or any other terms were demand ed, or submitted, or proposed by any person, military or civii, in behalf of the Government of the United States; of course nothing being proposed, nothing could have been accepted by the Confederacy, even if there was any authority, on her behalf, present to negotiate and accept. General Grant had no power to submit terms of peace, and bind his Government. A General cannot declare war for his Government; neither can he conclude terms of peace involving the political status of the enemy. Tbe sovereign, or one or more of the Departments of the Govern ment, specified in the Constitution, can alone de clare war or make peace. In the United States, the Congress, and the President, conjointly de clare war. Terms of peace can be made by the conjoint action ot the President and Senate. In 1797, Genoa was an independent republic. She was invaded and conquered by France; and ruled by her from 1805 till 1814 In that year Lord Bentenck, an English officer, England being at war with France, entered Genoa with his army. Tbe people gladly surrendered to him, on the idea that he was a Deliverer—England having ever been on friendly terms with Repub lican Genoa. And Lord Bentenck issued a pro clamation declaring that the “Genoese State, as it existed in 1797, with such modifications as tbe general wish, the pubiic good, and tbe spirit of the original Constitution seem to require, is re established.” But this act of tbe British General was repudiated by the British Government— And, by consent ot England, Genoa was ceded, by the Treaty of Paris, May, 1814, to the King of Sardinia. And the cession was confirmed, by the Congress of Vienna, in 1816. But perhaps the true import, and design of the language ot Mr. Hill’s proposition is, thatythe doctrines of the issue, “and purposes and de mands of the United States in making and car rying on the war,” were legitimately to be assum ed to have been “ demanded by one party and concedetUiy the other,” and were legitimately to be assumed to be the terms “ agreed to by us in the act ot surrender;” although there were no terms of peace, relating to political status, actually submitted. The argument is based entirely upon an as sumption—a wild chimera of the brain—the presumptions of an excited imagination. It is not sustained by the practice- of nations, or by iuternational law. Take an example in our own history—the war with Mexico. The declarations of the United States, during the progress of hostilities, were not considered as constituting or making the law of peace by the acceptance, by General Scott, of the surren der of the Mexican army at the capital of Mexi co; nor considered as conceded and accepted by Mexico, as such, in the act of surrender. No; the terms of peace, unaffected and not concluded by the act ot surrender, and embracing demands additional to the purposes declared during the war, were made by the Constitutional authority —the President and Senate—and accepted, af terwards, by Mexico. The case of Genoa not only establishes the fallacy of the position, that the terms of peace must be made known at or before the surrender, but also, even where the General declares and establishes terms, the illegality of the claim by. the conquered party, that the conqueror is pre cluded from demanding any other terms. It follows: as there was no law of peace made at the surrender of the army, conditions may be exacted thereafter. There must be actual demands made, and as sent thereto, to conclude peace. They must be made, aud accepted, by compe tent authority on each side. The conqueror is not limited, in his demands, by declarations made during hostilities. He may increase his demands until the terms of peace are agreed upon. Until the terms of peace are accepted by the people of Georgia, in Convention, the state of war will continue. “Il the people do not voluntarily submit, the state of war still subsists.” [Vattell, Law of Nations. But it is alledged, that the President pre scribed terms; that Georgia complied with them, and, then the President restored her to the Union. It the President’s act was valid, I admit that the United States are precluded, by the well recog nized principles of International law, from exac ting other conditions, and are violating that faith which should be sacred and inviolable; and Georgia should never assent to such prohibited demands. It is our misfortune, that the President’s course was not in conformity to the Constitution of the United States; and, therefore, not the act ot the government Before I enter upon this point, I remark that whilst no terras of peace were submitted through Geueral Grant when General Lee sur.endered, terms were negotiated between Generals Sher man and Johnston. Those terms recognized the seceded States in “the Union, with all the digni ty, equality and the rights ot the several States unimpaired.” This was the line upon which General Sherman fought, and he was disposed to be consistent and wanted his government to end the war upon those terms. But knowing he had no power to conclude them, he submitted them to the President of his government, a part ot the treaty, or peace making power, lor appro val. The President rejected them, and directed Sherman to press Johnston to the unconditional surrender of Lee to GraDt Johnson surrendered “without terms,” save the parole, which is a mere military usage of letting the prisoners go home, on honor not to take up arms again, and to obey the laws, rather than hold them in close custody till the terms of peace are made by the duly couslituted department of the governmen- ment. Such a course, when an army disbands, is required by humanity and the law of Nations. This rejection by President Johnson is a signi ficant fact, that the United States had not made and would not make the law of peace with our army. The terms of peace, and admission to tlie benefits ot the Union and Constitution of the United States, were to be submitted to the people of each se jeded State. Farther proof: President Johnson ordered ar rests ot governors of our States, appointed his provisional governors, and issued bis proclama tion to reconstruct said States, prescribed eligi bility for seats in the conventions ordered, re quired the emancipation of slaves, repeal of ordi nances of secession, and dictated other terms, on the ground that civil governments were subvert ed. The laws of Georgia were permitted to ex ist only by sufferance—to be provisional We were not in the Union, then, up to this time. The Constitution of the United States was net yet our property. The people of Georgia not dis franchised, organized a Convention, which com plied with the President’s orders—even to the emancipation of our slaves, and giving them “absolute civil eqqality with their former own ers.” tian, which can be quoted to sustain them.” And Mr. Hill sayB, that whoever would consent to accept “new terms, prescribed after the sur render, which, by being thus prescribed, “are infamous,” are base, treacherous, servile cowards— traitor* to their principles, who would sell their country for a consideration, who deserve to be bra nd- ed with tnfamy by the people. If Mr. Hill, self-constituted judge of other men’s motives—bitter denunciator of character, —flippant dealer in fierce and odious epithets, is correct, then, in the above burning denuncia tion, he has composed his own epitaph. For, since tbe surrender, he gave his consent and approval for the people of Georgia to as semble, in the Johnston Convention, aud abolish slavery—a demand outside ot tbe Constitution— and to adopt an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in violation of the Consti tution—“to maintain the Constitution and pre serve the Union.” Bear in mind, also, that President Johnson ordered that no man should be eligible to, or take a seat in that Convention, who did not have a pardon. Whoever received a pardon, or availed himself of oflered amnesty, (the Convention was composed of none other,) took an oath to support the Constitution ot the United States. Now hear the fearful judgment of Mr. Hill, though he was present and consented to, and approved of, the murder of the Constitution, upon all the members of that Convention—upon all the people who voted for delegates—upon whoever aided in the adoption of that amend ment. w This judgment is pronounced now upon all who vote tor a^Convention to carry out the Sherman “Military bills”—being “to establish that which is a violation of the Constitution.” It just at all, it is equally just to apply it to any “establishment oT’ or doing that which is a viola tion ot the Constitution. I change, therefore, the tense, only, to apply to past action. Hear: “Oh f my deluded countrymen 1” “Did you mean, when you swore to support the Constitu tion, to vote for that which violated the Consti- tion ? I press the question to every man’s con science. Did yon obtain your consent to disre gard the ConstUition ? Don’t dodge, or explain, or qualify; answer the question. Did you ob tain your consent to disregard the Constitution ? If not to be regarded, or respected, or observed, why swear to sub port it ?” “Slavery cannot be abolished by aA President’s proclamation ; that declaration waSLaly designed to be a war meas ure—to end wits the war, and to make no part ot the terms or law of peace: it was simply de signed to force us to lay down our arms, and thus preserve the Union. Congress cannot, con stitutionally, abolish slavery, or compel a State to do it, under the Constitution.” Were you will ing to violate the Constitution ? Were you will ing to swear to support it, with the intent, at the time of swearing, to violate it ?” Then, I proclaim, all posterity will proclaim— your hell—mort—gaged conscience will never ceaseto proclaim: you are perjured, and perjury is not half your crime—you committed perjury in order to become a traitor! You took an oath to support the Constitution, and then you voted to do that which is a violation of tbe Constitution, a thing outside of the Constitution, and just so sure as passion shall subside, and reason return to our people, and sober, oath observing patrio tism Bhali again rule in the land, so sure will you Tie branded, and justly branded r as a felon and whipped throughout the land with the stinging, remwlpsa lashes of public iufamy, because you took an oath to support the Constitution, with intent to violate it; because you committed per jury in order that you might help to destroy your country. And in vain will you hunt ex cuses to palbiate your changeless infamy.” If this is a just sentence, it attaches to any and every one, who have voted for or appoved any thing outside of the Constitution, as well as to those who shall do so hereafter. And the in famy should be more intensified and more deep ly branded upon Mr. Hill and the late.Conven tion than upon those who vote tor accepting the present Military bill; because they voted to make the negroes free citizens, and forced upon us, thereby, the question of the right of tbe free male citizen to participate in the government under which he lives. The abolition of slavery is the Pandora's Doc—opened by Mr. Hill’s con sent and approval—whence have arisen all tbe ilia of the issues now upon us. That is, after It may be replied, aud properly, that some of peace j these things were necessary to be done, such as repeal of ordinances ot secession, and laws in consistent with our former position in the Union* and were the decision of the war. But the abo- <jinniug was, that the people of the Confederate i lition of slavery was a demand outside of the States should lay down their arms, retire to their ! Constitution; slavery, and property in slaves, homes, and obey the laws, because therein* ilie ; was recognized by the Constitution. Indeed it United States sought to accomplish the only pur-1 is admitted by all of us—men in favor and men intelligent whites of the State had nothinsr to do ! P ose of lhe war » to vit tllu defeat of secession j opposed to tlie present Convention—men every- , tiAMiAM * ! and the preservation ot the Union ” “ The \ where with it, and, therefore, have no cause for shame at the perpetration of so immense an outrage upon the rights and privileges of a gallant and once free people.” So closes the election farce in Alabama. Much such a farce will soon be acted in Georgia. Let our people prepare for it, and do the best they can lor the State! Were it probable that united action ou the part of the whites could be secured, we would kuow what to recommend, but ap prehending. as we do, that this cannot be brought about, we have only to advise that the whites in each election district govern themselves accord ing to the circumstances by which they niav be surrounded. Where good and tree men can be elected, vote and elect them. Where such can not be, in consequence of the gerrymandering process, let the nigger and the white Radical, giv ing preference by ail means to the former, take the polls into their own keeping and elect whom they please. It is but a faree anyhow—the trag edy will come ofl thereafter. question is, did the United States, during the war and betore the surrender, make other demands, or avow additional purposes, and make them that Congress, under the Constitution, could not emancipate our slaves. Mr. Hill ad mits ibis. He says, also: “During the war, Mr. Lincoln, President ot the United States, issued known to the Confederates? I have been unable j his proclamation emancipating slaves in certain to fiud auy other, and believe no other man is j Slates and ports of States. But this itself was able to find any other legitimate or official de mands or purposes.” Well, I admit that, in the surrender, the army agreed to lav down their arms, retire to their homes, and obey the Jaws. And this covers the only “ terms of'the surren der”—the parole given by the soldier “to lay down his a: ms, retire to Lis home, and obev the laws where he resided.” But while I admit all the principles in Mr. Hill’s statement—it cannot avail to sustain his posi ion—that at tbe surren der these tilings “ were agreed to 1 y us,” and, therefore, made the law of the peace lor both parties, being demanded by one party and con ceded by the other. They were not demanded at all, nor were they conceded at all. There was no authority thereto d-mandtiiem; nor, if de manded, was there any one to whom the United Males would submit terms of peace—settlement. The objects and purposes of the United States declared to be a war measure only, to end with the war, and to make no part ot the terms or law of peace; the Congress had proposed to the States an amendment to the Constitution, abol ishing slavery everywhere., but the States had not ratified it." It was, therefore, only a propo rtion undetermined at the time of surrender.” “Neither he,” (President Lincoln,) “nor General Grant, nor any other power, alluded to this as part of the terms during the negotiations for, nor at the time of the acceptance ot, the surrender. The only conditions ot the surrender were to submit to the Uiws. and not take up arms against the U nited States.” And you know Mr. Hili as serts that any terms “not distinctly made before the surrender is accepted,” “is a base treachery the people of Georgia blindly adopted and fol lowed the fatal doctrines of Mr. Hill and coad jutors in rejecting, last year, the terms of peace submitted in the “Constitutional Amendment; ” which allowed us to vote the negro or not— gaining or losing, merely, political power ac cording to our decision. Bat the sentence is not just, is not applicable to any who consented to abolish slavery, or who shall accept the other terms of peace now sub mitted—hard though they be, because they are the terms ot the conqueror under the law of na tions. Because, Mr. Hill is utterly mistaken, in facts, history, and law, that the terms of peace have been made and concluded. Hence, all his premises are wrong; and, of course, all his con clusions fallacious—leading all people, who con fide in his judgment, to “imminent danger or to tal ruin.” Will not the people awaken from their delusion, and think lor themselves ? You trusted such “false prophets” a year ago, when "the “Constitutional Amendment”—tbe mildest mea sure ever offered to a conquered people, which left to us to vote the Degro or not as we pleased —was submitted as the law of peace. You listened to the Siren voice ot those “false prophets,” who said “reject it”—because a few honored men are disfranchised—no harm will result—the conquer or will relent—yield and admit you into the Union without that or any other exaction. How fatal the delusion 1 How terrible the predica ment in which your blind confidence has placed you l Will you trust such prophets again ? Is it fated that you should illustrate the mythological adage, that, “whom the gods intend to destroy, they first make mad ?” It a sufficient number of you follow the coun sels of such prophets again, and reject the pro posed Convention, I warn you, in the light of the past, there are ahead “evils of a more dread ful nature, Which, though yet at some distance we have but too great reason to apprehend.”— The conqueror can, under tbe law of nations, exact from the seceding States the payment of their war debt—over two billions and a hall of dollars; the quota of Georgia would be two hundred and fifty millions of dollars. Its exac tion would be total ruin to the people. Our homes would pass into the hands of foreign capital. The conqueror can disfranchise every man who votes “against Convention,” yea every sympathizer in the Confederate cause, as easily as be disfranchised me, or any other person, who held an office before the war and took an oath to support tbe Constitution of the United States This done, the conqueror can turn over the re construction of your State government to the negroes and few "whites who can take the “ Test Oath.” If this should be done—and it may be done, but 1 invoke the magnanimity of the con queror that it be not done—then your State gov ernment will pass under the absolute and irre coverable control of the negro'. To recover white ascendency then will be hopeless. But, if you refuse to follow such fatal counsels, and vote “for Convention,” and accept the terms, the law cf the peace will be made: and no other terms can be demanded, under the law of nations: aud you must be admitted into the Union. Your white vote now exceeds that of the negro; hun dreds, perhaps thousands of white men, entitled to register, but who, unfortunately, declined to do so, may yet do so; and with an equality of white voters even, thousands of energetic, intel ligent white men, with capital, will move into the State; the negro vote will not increase, but gradually and certainly diminish, from tbe well- known historic fact that the free negro race does not thrive but decreases; and the years will be few before the whites will have the absolute as cendency and control of all the machinery of the State government. Then prosperity, wealth and population would increase; peace would es tablish her benign reign, developing the im mense resources ot the State, stimulating every industrial pursuit, revivifying cur depressed en ergies, and giving to our wives and children a day ot Hope, and a home of security and happi ness. Will not, cannot our people comprehend the situation ? Can you not submit to the sacrifices, great though they be, “to procure a necessary peace'' and to avoid possible, yea, in the event of rejection of present terms, probable “evils of a more dreadful nature,” super-added to the renew ed demand of present terms ? We are in the extremity, in which I can quote the language of the great Publicist. If a State “ thinks fit, by a disadvantageous treaty, to pro cure a necessary peace—if by great sacrifices she delivered herself from imminent danger or total ruin—the residue which remains in her posses sion is still an advantage for which she is indebt ed to the peace; it was her own free choice to prefer a certain and immediate loss, but of limit ed extent, to an evil of more dreadful nature, which, though yet at-some distance, she bad too great reason to apprehend.”—Vattell—Law of Nations. Bat to recur to the position that Georgia was restored to the Union, on the acceptance ot the demands of the President, in her late Convention, by his Proclamation to that effect. I have said the President’s course was not in conformity with the Constitution, and, therefore, not the act of the government—therefore invalid. The demands, or terms of peace submitted by the President,shoald have been “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two- t’airds of the Senators present concur.”—Clause ises a second objection, fatal to the restoration by the President: “New Suites may be admitted by the Congress into the Union.”—Clause 1, Sec. 3, Art, 4. Even though a treaty of peace had been nego tiated by the President “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two-thirds of the Sen ators present concurring,” admission into the^ Union could not be effected save by the Act of Congress. The proclamation of the President, therefore, ojuld not—did not—restore Georgia to the L nion. For it is laid down in International Law, “But all rulers of States have not a power to make public treaties by their own authority alone.— Some are obliged to take the advice of a Senate, or of the Representatives ot a nation. It is from the fundamental laws of each State that we must learn where resides the authority that is capable of contracting, with validity, in the name of the State.—Y attell. But even if the President’s terms had been ratified by the Senate, Georgia would not have been, ipso facto, restored to the Union._ It would yet require the act of Congress to admit. Upon the platform of Secessionists, Georgia was out of the Union—both in fact and law fully. But the Union-men view denied that Georgia could lawfully dissolve the Federal Union. Yet they went with her, defining their act to be revo lution against lawful authority. But the motive of action, clearly, cannot affect the fact of action.— If the revolution is successful, then the fact ot dissolution is maintained; if revolution is unsuc cessful, diso'ution is defeated, and the admit ted lawful authority re-established. But some political chemistry is necessary to re-unite the “ disjecta membra.” And the successful Gov ernment has tbe right to put in the crucible, among other things, such iugredients as will so solidify the Union that the seceeded States will be, hereafter, deprived ot any solvents. “A civil war breaks the bands of government, it produces in the nation two independent par ties, who consider each other as enemies, and acknowledge no common judge. Though one of the parties may have been to blame in break ing the unity of the State, and resisting the law ful authority, they are noi the less divided in fact.” “When a nation becomes divided into two par ties absolutely independent, and no longer ac knowledging a common superior, the State IS dis solved, and the war between the two parties stands on the same ground, in every respect, as a public war between two different nations,—Vattell, Law of Nations. Again, look to the history of the United States, (of which Georgia was one,) and Great Britain. They were colonies ot Great Britain. They de termined to resist, and overthrow her lawful au thority. They assembled, by delegates, iu a Con gress, and on the 4th ot July, 1776, adopted a Declaration, “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to bt,” (simply by their own will, the right of Revolution,) “ ^ree and Indepen dent States ; that they are absolved from all alle giance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them aud the State of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. Now, 1 beg you to notice that the Articles ol Confederation, under which the revolutionary war was conducted, were agreed to by the dele gates of the thirteen original States, in Congress assembled, on the loth of November, 1777 ; rati fied by only eight States on the 9th of July, 1778, and not finally ratified by all the States till the 1st of March, 1781. And yet France, before the ratification by a single State, and before three months had elapsed, after the adoption of a common system of gov ernment by agreement of the delegates only in Congress, recognized the independence of the United States, to-wit: On the 6th of February, 1778—only one year and seven months alter tlie Declaration, whilst the war was being actively waged, and five years before the war was ended! . Georgia, in 1861, as the United States did in 1776, declared herself a free and independent State, absolved all her citizens from allegiance to the United States, and dissolved all political con nection with them. It is unnecessary to argue further, that—with out reference to the question, whether Georgia was lawfully takeu out of the Union or not—“the unity of the State” (Federal Union) “was divided in fact”—that “the State was dissolved.” If so, she can only get back into the sisterhood of the United States by an act of Congress. “In Sweden, since the death of Charles XII, the King caDnot declare war without the consent of the States assembled in diet, but he may make peace in conjunction with the Senate.” A simi las provision to that of the Constitution of the United States. It takes “Congress to declare war;” but peace may be made “by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Sen ate, two-thirds ot the Senators present concur- rin Upon this’ State of facts let us listen to a stand ard authority on the law of nations: “When a prince, who is possessed only of a limited authority, lias a power to make peace, as he cannot of himself graut whatever conditions he pleases, it is incumbent on those who wish to treat with him on sure ground, to require that the treaty of peace be ratified by the nation, or by those who are empowered to perform the stipulations contained in it. If, for instance, any potentate, in negotiating a treaty of peace with Sweden, requires a defensive alliance or guaranty as the condition, this stipulation will not be valid, unless approved aud accepted by the diet, who” (being the war making power) “alone have the power of carrying it into effect.” [Vattell.] “The Kings of England are authorized to con clude treaties of peace and alliance; but they cannot, by those treaties, alienate any of the pos sessions of the Crown without the consent of Parliament. Neither can they, without the con currence of that body, raise any money in the kingdom; wherefore, whenever they conclude any subsidiary treaty, it is their constant rule to lay it betore the Parliament, in order that they may be certain of the concurrence of that assent. bly to enable them to make good their engage ments.” “The Emperor Charles Vrequired of Francis the First, his prisoner, such conditions as that King could not grant without the consent of the nation, he should have detained him till the States-Generai of France had ratified the treaty of Madrid, and Burgundy had acquiesced in it. Thus he would not have lost the truits of his vic tory by an oversight which appears very surpris ing in a prince of his abilities.” [Vattell, Law of Nations. By the requisitions of the Constitution, and these rules ot international law, the law of peace, in our case, cau only be made by the conjoint action and approval of the President and Senate, and of Congress; tor the holding of Georgia in the Union was one of the main purposes of the war. Congress took up the question. She consid ered what Georgia had done, under the Presi dent’s demand, including the abolition ot slavery and the adoption of the amendment to the Con stitution prohibiting slavery anywhere, ever hereafter in the United States, as already offered by Georgia, being, in part, the terms of peace, and passed them through all the necessary forms ot law. Then she passed an act to submit to Georgia the‘‘Constitutional Amendment,” which permitted her to vote the negro, or not, as she pleased. This act, had it been adopted by Geor gia, and the spirit ot its provisions been carried out, would have concluded the law of peace, and Congress would have been required, by the law of nations, to have admitted her into tlie Union. But, under the fatal counsels heretofore advert ed to, Georgia rejected. The demand was renewed, by the present Military bills, with the increased exaction ot uni versal suffrage—what a terrible turn of the screw ! How gladly to-day would Mr. Hill, and all Georgia, accept “qualified suffrage” ot the negro; yea, even, “impartial suffrage;” At least he says "lhe negroes iu Georgia are citizens of Georgia. They are free and have equal rights— civil rights—and shall enjoy them. They will be empowered to discharge the 1 rusts—which he defines to be the right to vole for agents, and be elected as agents, to fill othces—to make laws— to execute laws—to administer laws—when time and experience shall show they “are cap^ able and worthy” and the good of society will be promoted thereby, and this Georgia will de termine for herself.” lie is not. therefore, op posed to the principle ot negro suffrage—a quali fied suffrage” for the negro citizens ot Georgia. He would certainly be, also, for “impartial suf frage”—that is placing the white men on th e same footing with the negro citizen—that is allowing odIj sueli of them to vote or fill the offi ces as “are capable aud worthy.” For he says that “universal, indiscriminate, ignorant, vicious white suffrage has buried a million of victims slain by each other's hands, destroyed tlie peace and prosperity of the country, and saddled an innocent and unborn posterity with burdens too Can Mr. Hill be correct Congressional traitors from other States the United States who did not secede from the Union —“ shall determine who shall be entrusted with the great duty of preserving society in Georgia; and language breaks in the vain effort to express the contempt and scorn he feels for the dastard Georgian who would consent ^for such fragmen tary conclave to so determine” As Georgia and the other States of the Con federate States were out of the Union, those States Which did not secede constituted the L ra ted States. They constituted the Government of the United States, in the eyes ot all nations.— They fought to prevent our maintenance of a separate nationality. They conquered us. Let International Law decide between Mr. Hill, and those who agree with him, and those of us who recognize the right of the United States to dic- tate terms of the return ot Georgia to the Union, “on principles countenanced by reason and eonforma ble to humanity.” This expression shows that we do not admit that the conqueror is absolute mas ter of his conquest—that he may dispose of it as his property—that he may treat it as he pleases. “But it the entire State be conquered, if the nation be subdued, in what manner can the vic tor treat it, without transgressing the bounds of justice ? What are his rights over the conquered country ? The whole right ot the conqueror is derived from justifiable self-defense, which com- nrehends the support and prosecution of his iiedits. When, therefore, he has totally subdued a ""hostile nation, and thinks proper to retain the sovereignty of the conquered State, and has a right to retaiu it, he undoubtedly may, in the first place, do himself justice respecting the object which had given rise to the war (the abolition ot slavery,) and indemnity himself for the expenses and damages he has sustained by it (that he has not yet done, nor required iu the terms submit ted, which would ruin Georgia;) he may, ac cording to the exigency of the case, subject the nation to punishment, by way of example (dis- francisement of those ot us who held office be fore the war, which required us to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, this is punishment to individuals—it is no irre parable loss to the State;) he may even, if pru dence so require rentier her incapable of doing mischiet with the same ease in future; (he has required our repeal of ordinances of secession, and au abandonment of the assertion ot the right ever again; and he has, to this end, enfranchised the emancipated negro, though this were unne cessary to secure the laith of a true Southern man. Now that he abandons the right, implicit tailh may be had in.his fidelity.) “It it is against the sovereign alone that he has just ebuse ot com pliant, reason plainly evinces that he acquires no other rights by his conquest than such as be longed to the sovereign whom he has dispossess ed ;” (but here the people of Georgia are the sov ereign, and all rights which the people possessed were, by the conquest, acquired by the conquer or, of course, amoDg them, the right to regulate franchise. I will recur to this view hereafter,) “and on the submission of the people (by accep tance of the terms of peace) “he is bound to govern them according to the laws of the State. If the people do not voluntarily submit (accept the terms proposed) the state of war still sub sists.”—Vattell, Law of Nations. 1 deduce the following incontrovertible propo sitions: whether Georgia seceded lawfully, or went out by revolution against lawful authority. Georgia is out of the Union. The United States have conquered her. As conqueror, they have the right to dictate the terms ot settlement and re-union, limited by the principles of justice of international law. The terms of peace and re-union have not been concluded. Until the law of peace is made, war, (though actual hostilities have ceased since the capitula tion of our armies,) or the state of war, still sub sists. The terms of peace and re-union can only be submitted by, and agreed to and accepted by the governments, or duly authorized authority, of the respective belligerents. On the part of the United States, peace may be made by the conjoint action of the President and Senate; but admission into the Union re quires tlie action of Congress. Therefore, iu our case, the co-operative action of President and Senate, and Congress is neces sary. Technically, there should be the two dis tinct actions. Practically, however, this requisi tion has been met. Tne Constitutional will of all the necessary, authorized, departments of the government is expressed in the present Military bills. They are “tbe advice and consent of the Senate,” “two-thirds of the Senators present ” having “ concurred.” They were not approved by the President, but over his veto the bills were “ re-passed” by a vote of*' two-thirds of the Sen ate and House of Representatives.” Then the Constitution says “ it shall become a law.” But it may be objected that the Constitution only says “he shall have power,” but does not say “Tie shall make.” The reply is, whatever force there might be in that position, the defect has been remedied, aud objection obviated by the consent of the Pre sident to execute the law. The will of the peo ple having been expressed in the constitutional forms ot the government, which makes “it law,” notwithstanding the objection of the President, he proceeded to execute and is now executing the present bills. On the part of Georgia, acceptance ot the terms of peace can only be made by the people in Con vention, Congress having delegated that au thority. The Union-men view—that the State still re tains intact all “its former rights and privileges under the Constitution, and the individual citi zens of the State alone can be exposed to pen alties for rebellion ; tbe property ot the non rebelling citizens could not be lawfully taken, nor the political rights of the States impaired,” is a manifest error. I think I have demonstrated it. I propose to add a few more thoughts, which have been induced by the above language of a writer from Marietta, in the Atlanta In telligencer of the 2d instant, signed “K.”— Permit me to say, it is the best article that has appeared on that side. Commends itself tor its fairness, for its courtesy, its concession ot equal honesty,of purpose and patriotism to an oppo nent, for the entire absence of abuse. He has won distinction, on that side, in this polemic field. He admits that if the right of secession was retained by the States, Georgia did place herself outside of the Union—became a “seperate nationality,” and now is, under the results of our recent war, subject to the will of the conqueror by the principles of international law. It fol lows, that Stales Rights men, who honestly be lieved in that reserved right, and now follow out their principles in their logical sequences, and have the manhood to meet the unfortunate con sequences of defeat, and acknowledge the right of the conqueror to dictate the terms ot peace and re-union, are neither “servile cowards,” “traitors to their principles,” nor “traitors who are attempting to sell their country for a consid eration,” nor deserving “infamy.” The objection to this theory is, that it con fesses to treason against a lawful government— the highest crime known to the law. It defines the cause of Georgia to have been merely a “re volt..” In such a war the Duke ot Montmorency, being defeated and taken prisoner at the battle of Castelnaudari, lost his life on a scaffold, by tlie sentence ot the Parliament of Toulouse. I do not want to stake the life ot Mr. Davis, our late President, or any of our representatives, upon such a position. The error of “K,” consists in a want of dis crimination between what constitutes a revolt, a sedition, an insurrection, a rebellion, and the ac tion of an entire State in Us sovereign capacity.— The action of Georgia, and other seceded States, was not an attempt to overthrow the Govern ment of the United States; but only to with draw aDd be separate. It was not, therefore a revolt. A sedilion{does not cease to acknowledge the sovereignty ot the government) a concourse of citizens, asyn the case of what is commonly Cal led the whiskey rebellion in Pennsylvania, who refuse to allow an odious law to be enforced upon them—driving off the officers and refusing, as in that case, to pay the direct whiskey tax.— An insurrection is an extended sedition, magni fied by the number of persons involved in law lessness, reaching,it may be, a majority of a State and amounting to a ve.y serious interruption of the machinery of the State government. But it is lawless action, of a portion only of the peo ple ot the State. The State authority even is attempting to suppress it. In such cases the Constitution of United States provides “for sup pressing insurrections” and resisting “invasions from without,” upon a call from a Legislature or Governor lor aid. But the Constitution of the U. States does not reach the case of action of States. Union men cannot denominate the war by any lower term than “civil war.” “But when a nation becomes divided into two parties absolutely independent, and no longer acknowledging a common superior, the State is dissolved, and the war between the two parties, The bill concedes the right to vote for or against Convention, or tor or against ratification of any action ot the Convention, it called. But a vote against Convention would subject us to a renewal of the same demands, with perhaps more odious terms superadded. It not the exac tion ot the payment ot the war debt, the support of tite military government may be imposed upon us. This atone would ruin every interest in the State. A vote against Convention would probably be followed by a disfranchisement of all who so voted—perhaps of all who had sym pathized with the Confederate cause. Congress has as much power to do that as to have disfran chised me. Then Congress would turn over the organization ot your State Government to the negroes anti those few whites who could take the iron-clad test oath. This was Mr. Stevens’ proposition, and was carried in tire House of Representatives. The State Constitution so adopted would be admitted into the Union by the present Congress. The people should vote for and carry Con vention.” Not only to prevent increased and ruinous demands, but to save white men from being disfranchised, by Congress, for contumacy in rejecting a Convention. It is of infinite mo ment in tbe future government ol the State— after being restored to the Union—that Georgia. re 1 ain her"present majority of white registered voters. It is necessary to white ascendency and control of tbe State—for good government. There are wild alarms, that bad and unprinci pled men may get control of the Convention, and engraft upon the State Constitution provi sions uujust aud proscriptive to classes, ot de structive to good government; that they may even disfranchise all who aided and sympathized in the Confederate cause—and the miserable condition of Tennessee, under the action of a Convention, is held up as a scare-crow to voting for a Convention. In the first place, if there be danger, it is the part ot wisdom to rally every energy and elect the wisest and most virtuous citizens. The whites have a majority ot votes: see to it that good, not bad, men are elected. In the second place, the Convention will have no power to disfranchise beyond what Congress has done in these Reconstruction measures.— [See sec. 5, “Bill to provide tor.the more efficient government of .the Rebel States,” commonly called Sherman Bill. It distinctly forbids tbe Convention to disfran chise any “registered” voter; “and when such Constitution shall provide that the elective fran chise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualification herein stated tor election of del egates”—a security for the black vote, but at the same time your safety. They can not act on disfranchisement beyond those of us who are disfranchised by the Consti tutional amendment, (Sec. 3,) then only subject to the power of Cong'ess, by a vote ot two-thirds ot each House, to remove such disability. And the Convention will have no power to re pudiate private debts. For, by the Military bill, the Constitution to be formed is required to be “in conformity with the Constitution of the United Stares, in all respects; ” And the Consti tution of the United Stales says: “No State” shall impair the obligation of contracts. But if, from the loo great apathy of the people to elect good men, bad and unprincipled men should get control of the Constitution, aud adopt unjust and proscriptive provisions, then you are authorized by Congress to vote against ratifica tion. There are some minor points of objection urged against acceptance ot the terms proposed, and hopes of relief from them, which I had de sired, briefly, to ventilate. But I am admonish ed, by tbe great length ot this letter, that I should conclude. These views honestly entertained, though feeb ly expressed, are subject to such use as you may deem proper. With sentiments of regard, your obedient ssrvaut. Ben. C. Yanoev. Georgia Teachers’ Association. Under instructions from this Association, the presiding officer has made the following ap pointments, most of which have been accepted : To report ou “The best method of teaching Arithmetic, and to recommend the best Text Books,” Professor Williams Rutherford, Univer sity of Georgia, Athens. On “Algebra and Geometry, and Text Books,” Professor Gustavus J. Oir, Masonic Female Col lege, Covington, Ga. On “Natural Philosophy and Text Books,” Professor W. Leroy Brown, University of Geor gia, Athens. On “Chemistry and Text Books,” Professor Joseph E. Willett, Mercer University, Penfield, Ga. On “The Jactot method of teaching Reading and Orthography,” D. Swope, Esq., Atlanta, Ga. On “Reading Books and Elocution,” Rev. I. 8. K. Axson, D. D., Savannah. ^ On “English Grammar aud Text Books,” Rev. L J. M. Bonnell, D. D., Wesleyan Female College, Macon, Ga. On “Geography ami Text Books,” Martin V. Calvin, Esq., Augusta, Ga. On “Tite best, method of preparing a Student for College in Latin and Greek,” Professor Win. G. Woodfin, Mercer University, Penfield, Ga. Ou “Pronunciation ot the Ancient Languages,’ Professor C. Schwartz, Wesleyan Female Col lege, Macon, Ga. On “ The best method of conveying a know ledge of the facts and principles of the Bible.” Rev. L. M. Smith, D D, Emory College, Oxford, Georgia. On “ Evidences of Christianity—whether it should be taught in schools and colleges, and to what extent, anti recommending text books,” C. F. McCay, LL.D., Augusta, Ga. Alabama Election-—The Vote An Conven tion. It seems that the whites, as a general thing throughout the State, have not voted in the elec tion now going on. Convinced that the swindle would be carried through by lair means or by foul means, if necessary, the legitimate corpora tors of Ilie State stood aside and permitted the bogus voters to run tbe machine. The whites in the upper counties may cast enough votes upon the question to swell the vote to mere than a majority of the registered list, but we doubt whether tlie Convention will be called by a ma jority of tlie list. Thus iar the votes cast are as follows: Mobile, city and county, 3.121; Montgomery, 4,183; Elmore, 940; Lee, 1,500; Dallas, 3,300— total up to 12 m., yesterday, 13,044. The num ber of registered voters in these counties is not less than 31,210. It will be seen, therefore, that in counties where extraordinarily bad adventur ers have been at work, and extraordinary influ ences brought to bear upon tlie negroes, the vote thus far has fallen below half of the registered list by 2,500 votes. If the Radicals have done so badly in their strongholds, they need not ex pect ultimate success in their nefarious schemes, even though a Convention should be called. The result of tins vote should induce the politi cians to remove Col. Swuyue to Ohio.—Mont gomery Mail, 3d insl. grievous to be borne. that a majority of the white voters of Georgia stands on the same ground,in every respect, as a orant and vicious” For it took a major- , public are “ignorant ity of white votes (tor there were no black voters) to take Georgia out of the Union—and to com war between two nations.”—Vattell. As to whether the property of “ non-rebelling citizens” could be lawfully taken by the United pose the nearly 100,000 gallant—heioic army of j Slates Government, 1 refer him to recent deci- Georgia—who fought lor the independence of | sions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Georgia; who though conquered—yet are not | Alexander of Mississippi, a non-rebelling citizen, dishonored, but covered themselves, ami their j who had even taken the Lincoln Amnesty oath State, with honor and glory upon a hundred I during the war, and what are usually called the •is deemed infamous by all mankind, and is held i 2, Sect. 2, Alt. 2.—Constitution. to be a new and just causa ot war,” “and is a ! This was not done. There was no ratification . . most perfidious abandonment of the most sacred j of the treaty by the Senate. So there was not were declared at the commencement and during of national obligations in the face of mankind,” | even a conclusion cf the terms of the peace bv the tae war, for her justification—claiming her war j “and that there is not a respectable publicist or , constituted authority ot thegovernment. Much j was just—and proclamations were issued to in- 1 law-writer, ancient or modern, heathen or Chris- J leas OQf admission into the Union. And here ay- battlefields. The Generals and soldiers of the United States army generously bear testimony to the courage and iionor of their gallant toe! j Prize cases. The descisions are against his po- i sitioD. j. No; the action of Georgia can only be placed Mr. Hill holds: “It is tho duty of society,! on one of two principles; secession or revolu- Georgia, to withhold these trusts—voting and holding offices—from the ignorant and vicious, since the ignorant and vicious should never be tion. Out in both law and fact, if not lawfully. Or out in fact, The German Defection.—The great source of uneasiness to tlie Radicils is the defection of the Germans. This detection is constantly in creasing in extent, and will undoubtedly cost tbe moral idea men several thousand votes at the State election. The German Republican Gene ral Committee, an organization that represents at least fifteen thousand German votes, which were polled last year and several preceding years for Radical candidates, has already taken the field against al! candidates who will not pledge themselves to vote for the repeal of the obnoxi ous features ot tbe Excise law. Ttiese German Republicans are among tlie most earnest and in telligent voters in New York. And when they say they will vote against Sabbatarian Radicals they will certainty do so. Now, a3 the Radicals cannot go back on the Excise law, they will not nominate anti-excise candidates, and the Ger man vote will, therefore, be cast against the Radical party. It only seven thousand Germans change their votes from the Radical to the De mocratic side, tbe number will be sufficient to insure a Democratic victory. There are many American Radicals, also, who say they will not vote for excise candidates, so that in this city alone the defection caused by Radical Sabbata rianism will carry the State over to the Demo cracy. The indications at the present time warrant me in predicting a Democratic majority of ten thousand in New York iu November, and Some who are more sanguine and perhaps better informed, place the figures as high as twenty thousand.—New York Cor. Charleston Mercury. There is great excitement at Victoria, British Columbia, over a supposed volcanic eruption sixty-five miles distant, in the Cascade range. Thf. “ Rising Sons of Liberty” is the title of a negro organization in the several Southern entrusted, and have no right to b& entrusted with ; these military bili3, submitting terms of peace the exercise ot a power by which they may rob and restoration. 1 or kill or torture others., .And ‘if foU^nys .’that They are passed under the law of nations, every society must determine this matter for jt- In neither self. It is flagitious, it is mean, it is cowardly; ft* ‘ Constitution, is treason to the very frame-work of society tot These bills are the submission of conditions of 6ay_ that a fragmentary qonclave of perjured peace and restoration. Shall they be accepted ? In either event. Congress has tbe right to pass : States, of a military character, which is creating p«p militfffv hilla anhmtHtnrr forma nf nooo» I ’ no Jit tie an Kitty. President Johnson lias declared to a friend [mr aspect is there any conflict with the J that he shall make a stand in opposition to Con- ' gress if it attempts to suspend him during t|r$ impeachment trial.