Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

ERROR CEASES TO BE DANGEROUS WHEN REASON IS LEFT FREE TO COMBAT IT.”—Jefferson. VOLUME XXL ATLANTA, GA., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1.18(J9. NUMBER 35. Labur la Labor. Engagement* with our l’team tnemis who were iu the city on yesterday, iu attendance upun tlie Stale Press Convention, have so inter- lered with out editorial duties, that we have had no tune to |W|»rr any original matter lor this ixttue ol the INTELLIGENCER, and as the “Labor MovetueuT" in the 'North has extended South, even to Atlanta, we lay la-tore our readers the following article Irotu the New York World, • on.meudiug it to those who lake interval iu the iiu|Kmaul question: “ \\ ilh the I lent and most eaiuesl wishes for the ruccra of everything that may subserve the real intere-tjol the working men and wo incu iu this country, we tear that very little good wilt come liom the Laboi IViUVeutloU now in ecs.nim iu Philadelphia. For more than tweniy years these crude conventions iu this country have l*ceu endeavoring to ettect a solu tion oj vexing labor questions, hut as yet very hide has been accomplished, and tor obvious reasons. We gave, Wednesday, some idea ol the enormousstrength the English trades-unions have attained, the latest ceusus statistics show ing that these associations embraced not less that nine bundled thousand ol the very cream <>1 the working classes in that country. Nor are mi te numbers to be taken as an estimate ol the really prodigious power which these organi sations wield, because two hundred picked men acting in unison might, and do, lay down the laws which govern all the rest ol the trade, in cluding even the non unionists.” “The strength ol the British association lies not in uumlieis, but simply in the tact that they’ are sternly practical. The trades resolutely re fuse to meddle with fiohtics, and decline to be drawn into any side issues which do not sheet thetr organizations. Their action is direct; all they i are tor is the establishment ol their organ izations upon substantial bares, and such inci dental benefits as are to be derived Irotu the ac cumulation and projier use ol funds devoted to Hie rebel ol the hick and disabled or the carry ing on ol strikes. All else is beyond the imme diate purposes ol these bodies. Then, too, the trades unions w hich at hist were local have now become national, and ere strictly classed, the separate interests by tln-UL-elves, so that the amalgamated engineers, the ' amalgamated car - loniiumcmii 1 S'olowel r. tliilbrrl. I have just ehaueed up.ni a recent number ot the Chimney Corner, eouiainiug a puritan ol the able Superintendent ol the Stale lb'ad, ubuh. though tar lr.nil bciug what his tiw-udamightde- sire, is readily revogui. ■ d But it is not ol this 1 would speak, but ol the importer l sketch which accompanies it This,- although, perhaps, not particularly cxieptioua hie, seems to la- ii..l to ,to lull jlbtkv to its »ub jecl. it hi happen.--! lletl pioli-ssionul Ini-in. ue- rOHitsleil mt pii-em t- in Atlanta during the excited itisciis-iiou ot tin Milelieil claim, and the Hmue railway purchase in countctiou with the prosfteelive e\tension ol the line to Decatur, Ala, and thus iuy attention wa-; diawn to Col. iiulhcrl, whose iiniotmtable will aud ilcter- luineit |s is ti lam •- well-then most cuuuiugly CXI-IUpiUii-d During n. temporary atoence iu New Y'ork preparing the excursion certificates connected with his increasingly popular immigration move ment, which promises so well lor the South, a formidable influence had been lobbying the Legislature to procure the retrocession ol valu able property to the heirs ol a Mr. Mitchell, who, in the early days of Atlanta, had donated the same to the Western A Atlantic Railway Colonel Hulhert arrived late in the atternoou ol the day preceding that on which the vote was taken, which it was conceded would result, ad versely to the Slate. Succeeding iu arresting decisive action by asking time to prepare and communicate important information- -which was laid on the desks of members the next morning in printed lorm— he w r ent to work in earnest; worked 'hard day and night; proved an overmatch lor the lobbyists; uud saved the State not less than halt a million ol dollars! and made again good the soubriquet of “ Shurp and Quick" so houorahly and deservedly won by the unusual promptness and energy which characterises all his business movements. These same commanding qualities subse quently achieved lor him a yet more enduring ami widely beneficial victory, stamping him no less a statesman and diplomatist, than as a man of superior practical views and qualifies! iousi He advocated the purchase ol the Rome Rail- I'KITBK STiUa I'OITKT Room. ( Atusu, Ui., Am-u-t S4, 1SM». ) tSE HON. JOHN HUSK INK, U. 8. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA. In the Mutter of Meador if Brothers, Tobacco 1 h-.de r*. J Mill U. S Attorney .ami L. K. Bleckley, counsel l.-r tbe Uorerum.-ut, cued, J W. Blacksluue Kept. ft'-V 4 Hai i roll's Hist, 0. S 414, 14 Stats lOi, Acts SII I'oofifss. 3 sessim.. p 117. Conk. 740 Act of J ly 2 1, ISOB Act Ol bl 4 Staid 07. Act of lSWi-14 seel. ': Am. L;.« Ke\ lr%f Ml. ». A. ts.. brine and h. J. (iarlrell for Veador & Brothers, cited, :: BUtch. 14s S Tsuntnu 260. Ad id March 2. is.'H. Bright. Fed Diet, lis; 2s Eu C. L R. 3 N. vtt e and M in., 725. 2 Dallas *S 1 Or. O. 0.581 .— 1 clsioie sS note writs of a-sistance, bright Die. I'd Ji.U Rev Ac:a ls.te-67. i!sri. L. K 417 Laws ol t . S. Courts 47 Code o Ga 9S5. Burd on Habeas Corpus Law R ports Ex. cases 290, voL 11. 1 Peters C C. K 291. Bright Dig. 94, lUi, 163. pcnteis, ami other l ombinatiwna work each in I w *y> uud its extension to the Alabama line, their own direction; aud there has been no at tempt in England, as there is here, to assemble all the diticriug trades in one general congress or convention. It anything approaching such action has occurred at all, it lias been the mere inlormal gathering ol a lew U-ndiug delegates Irotu diticrent unions to settle trade disputes or to look alter the general interests which all trades unions have in common, but never to agitate |N>)ilical Idol ms. When our trades- uiiioua leaiu to lolluw the English example iu these respects, they may expect to attain some thing Approaching the English success. “ It must he conlcsse.l that there is something exceedingly lasciuating in the lormatiou ol a great IhIhjz party w hich, by the mere force of numbers, shall la- able to ell eel at the polls some ot the reforms which are sought. But the establishment of such a party in the United States, or in auV other free country, t»simply impossible. General potuice, as embraced in the carrying on ot the government, the selec tion ot proper persons to administer the same, the finances, aud other purely political ques tions, must be lull to the regularly organized parties, ol which there aie two aud two only, iu ttiia Country. A labor party or labor congresses w ill uever be called upou, as such distinctive organizations, to attend to these things.” “ But, as we feared, it has been the mistake ol the convention now sitting, as it has been the bane ot all similar conventions iu this country,to meddle with matters which iu no wise directly concerned it, or even the immedi ate interests ot the working classes. The moun tain in labor, which, alter much groaning aud tribulation, brought lortli a mouse, is paralleled by labor iu labor at l'biladclpliia exhausting three whole days, to say nothing ot the patience ot the delegates, iu the effort to eject Miss Anthony.” "There is no hope tor these labor conventions till they agree upou the lollowiug points 1. That there shall be no discussion or action ot purely polities! character, such as looking to the loruiauou ol a new labor party, or to the siding with either ot the now established parties as a distinctive labor branch ol the same. 2. That t be discussions shall be confined solely to mat ters immediately aliening the trades, to-wit: the organization ot umous and then the putting ot them on such bases that they can treat with capital ou terms of equality. 3. That represen tation in these convi mums must be confined to workingmen only, and delegates must be ad mitted from bona fide organizations alouc. “All these vital principles have been disre garded by the convention at Philadelphia, which has been indeed swamped by resolutions on all sorts of reformatory measures, including wonn n’s rights, lands, banking, currency, land reform, the tunctious ol government, 'and mauy more matters the proper elucidation ot which would compel centuries of discussion and de cades ot experiment, even alter the best plans had l«ccn decided upon. So long as these things are (leruiitled to make up the greater part ot tbe proceedings ol labor conventions, what is really important w ill surely be lost sight ol; and wc believe we speak the real sentiments ot tbe great mass oi Workiugtnen aud women in this country when we deplore the vague and discur sive discussion ot a convention which proteaa- cdly was called for work, not words." The largest tree in the lower Park went by the Liard tuts atternoou. it has shaded, in its tune, probably, a hundred thousand jieople, and braved, at least, a thousand storms. What lime s|>ei<M I or years, even iu defiance ol the gashes, aud cuts, and locks ot newsboys and school- t.ois, the wood mail's axe levelled forever in a btiel hour. “Wnndmim, spare that tret 1 ,” has L o me a sung quite but ot place tu the city.— Hi change. Rev. Father McDonald, ot Key West, was attacked with yellow lever while officiating at the altar ou the lSUi ultimo, aud died iu sixty U was a young man, aged twenty-six, a ul liit-liuguisUcvl .for las pit ly and mental eu- .... amenta. Ilia death Jett Key West tempora lity w about a prusl, and the lu«-eiai services were- held by a layman ami tbe sisters ol tbe outtrul where, it was understood, parties stood ready to extend it to Decatur, Ala., on the Memphis A Charleston Railway. The project encountered bitter and strenuous opposition iu both branches ot the Legislature; but the immense, (aud to any other than Col. Hulhert, appalling,) in fluence against it, ou the part ot gentlemen ot signal ability aud deserved popularity aud |Kiwer, was bravely tuet by the Superintendent ot the Slate Hoad who was watching closely all measures calculated to impair its value to the Stale. As iu the Mitchell claim case. Col. Hulliert worked day and night; aud through his sleepless vigilatic*, unflagging spirit, and untiling energy, proved invincible, and trium phantly carried—though iu a modified form his wise and sagacious measure. Please lot liear until i mention aue otlu-r fea ture of Col. iiulberts policy. Per«-«t4vlnsr rm* immense advantage.) hkely to. result to the road he so admirably manages, in increasing business and profits ; to the immedi ate section it traverses by stimulating the devel opment of dormant resources, and thereby in creasing wealth and values, and reducing the per centum ot taxation ; to capital ami labor ; by employing aud making both profitable ; aud to the country at large, by adding to its com mercial aggregate and indueoce, he has started his brother Railway Managers in the South— by reducing the heights on line tor agricultural purposes, and on coal and iron neatly one halt, whereby the production of tbe two tirsl-uauted has been quadrupled, aud that ot the last named. (Iron) will soon be stimulated beyond precedent in the South. In twelve months, by continuing his preseut lilieral and talighted policy, he will have done more in this direction, than has la-eu previously done by auy one man in a quarter ol a century'. Such a man deserves well ol his country and neighbors, and will be sustained by all true tnen. -I >A\VsoN. The Water kauilue lu i*l»li jilt IpLln. There is gieat appreheusiou exhiing in the “City ot Brotherly Love" oi a Water famine prevailing there. It seems that the beds of the Schuylkill and the Delaware have nearly run dry, and that the inhabitants ol the city are iu danger ot sudenng iu consequence. Many ol the large factories have ceased to work, and an attempt to obtaiu water by opening the old wells of the city has proved a lailure. During the last thirty days one thousand five hundred millions ot gallons ot water were’pumped from the rivers tor use in the city, and yet the cry is still “waterI water! what are we to do lor water 1” We refer to this cry for water in Philadelphia, and the distress produced there fi»r the want of it, in order to direct the attention of our city readers to the tact that Atlanta will need and must have greater supplies ol water than her wells will be capable ot producing a? her popu lation increases. It is time that serious consul eration be given to this important subject. The health ot the city, so proverbial and »o good with, her present supply ot water,cannot he. preserved without largely increased supplies wheu her population doubles what it is now; and that this will be the case in five or six yi ars more, is apparent Irom the ratio ot increase an- uually, according to the most reliable estimates, tor the past lour years. Our city authorities and citizens must wake no iu rcgird to this matter. From the Chattahoochee the city must draw its supplies—supplies tor domestic u-e, lor mauutactunug, and other purpose. Onlay is daugerou?. Water works Atlanta nitre t have, anti the sooner “the hall is put in motion" to have them, the better lor the continued pros perity and health ot the city. 1 U4 c k'i»ktur’ <* l»tnit)u in in.- NfMor The Hyruu Scandal. Mrs. Harriett Beecher Stowe is being severely dealt with by the press oi all parlies North and South, aud very properly too, Ibr the publn a tiou which she recently made ot the cause ot j separation between Lotd and Lady Byron. It is, iu truth, an outrageous publication, and had ! it lieeu made by' a man, it would have consigned j him to merited latxtuy. The slmy is tlisgnstiug; i shocking to eV. rv refined stnse; suhveisive ot • I 1 abi.-fi i„lL> • X.lusi .«» -4 . till! mallei the important decisiou oi Judge Erskiue, ot me j i. h i ;.uns oi the btsu vd Georgia, uiy 1 iivinc, among other questions, the Cunsuiubouafitj of j a ‘-> MCr - ,n a s. me ot the provisions of the Internal Revenue ! .v. is ,)i I;iH. in..; i;or \Y "trenot present j a to it the opuii.si \* .s Ut-iiiiu nut it is spoken j ol by UiembeiSvJ ti e Imt as L-mg very able.— : f. r ours. T. iio.ugti *-uti riaiuiug a high re- S4a-it L.l tilt ability ol .lu.tge El ski lie, we cau- pot but pellviVe that It lUlii.alej Very platuly the Juice's «V*'|t ktiOWU »l. visas a FialeOUld and his • tuMafiziug pfudivitiea. . ■ v%’« ban that there are mauy other cases, nioials amt decency. How any woman n thoroughly debased and ni<<ib .l in fie. cuiH .an ffn lei..re the pucii. ,.iii. s...t. ... • p sure. J ndmiumg it to be true, which we Jo out, « a ) And who can be benefiiu-d by ■ Mrs. Stowe’s publication ? Not society; n<n j Lady By ron’s memory: not the relatives ot that I lady; nor can literature. It startles i-vtu the i vicious, virtue shrieks at and abhors it. and it i slanders the inemt-ry of a diceasevi lvi>, tfic j sister ..t t er husband, who ou hi r vlyiu. ka ked, | it re artirmed, to Lady Byron lor consolation au.l help, was ever true in her sisterly adectiou tu \ her brother, and whose hie gives the lie to the j cbm ge width Mrs. Stowe brings against her. No i true-ht artetl woman—woman in her pure in- | tuilar to ilnt .4 the Mtadura, out it was agr.ed | Ft met*—would publish to the world what Mrs j counsel at me lK-gtuuiug oi ihe aigument in deliberately done, v.-e ttiat this should be a test case, and tills Yutiacqucully' void red the Others. Thet are having good rains about Macon and the.CGUntry below, Erskine, ,1 —The Supervisor of Internal Revenue, lor the Stall's ot Florida and Georgia, issued a summons against, each ol the members ot the firm of Meador A Brothers, Dealers in Tobacco, in Atlanta, Georgia, under a provision contained in the 49th section ol the Act of Con gress ol July 20, 18C3. requiting them to appear betore him, at his office, at a certain time, aDd to testily under oath, and to produeotbeir books, papers, Ac , relating to any business transacted fiy or through them, lroiu the 20th July, ISfW, to 1st July, lb09. The loregoing is only a synop sis ul the contents of the summons. The par ties were duly served but tailed to appear or to produce their books, beir.re the supervisor. He then made application to me iu pursuance of a provision contained in the- 9th Section ot the Act of July 13, lbOG—14 Slata. 102—tor an at tachment against the Meadors. But, btlnre it wa« issued they voluntarily appeared ; an at- lai litueni nisi was granted and time given to them to show cause why it should not be made absolute. On the return day, they ap peared and by their counsel, Gartrell aud Loch- iaue, placed theii defence on file. It is in sub stance, as follows : First, That so much oi the act of July, 1868, as grants authority to a supervisor to compel per sons to testily and to pioduce their Links, Ac., in an imaginary case, is unconstitutional and void. Second, If constitutional, still the supervisor can only pr.H'eed to conqiel the -production ot books, Ac , iu the same manner and to the same extent as aases-ora can do; and that neither *' can compel persons to testily and produce their bools, Ac , iu an imaginary case against parties residing out of their districts.” Third, That the 49th secliou of the act author izing the supervisor to summon any person to produce books, Ac., and to appear and testify under oath, is of no ettect, “ because the provis ions of the act of July, 1866, lor enforcing the summons are inconsistent w ith the provisions ot existing laws for the punishment ot contempts.” Fourth, That no order of punishment can he rendered in a case belore the judge, Inr disobey ing a summons to appear belore a supervisor, as the act “ directs that no older can he issued in consistent with existing laws lor the punish- uieul of contempts, aud by those laws, no court or tribuua) can punish lor contempt, except as against violations ol its own orders.” Fifth, That the powers here claimed by the supervisor “ ate judicial fvowers, and that the judiciary is expressly lived by the constitution aud previously exisliug laws—neither assessors nor supervisors iormiug any part of it.” During the argument, which was elaborate and able, additional propositions were advanced oially, and various objections were taken to the constitutionality ol the 9th section of the act ot 1866, aud the 49th section of ihe act of 1868. The 49th section ol the act of 1868—15 Stats. 125 - alter providing lor the appointment by the .Secretary ol the Treasury, on the ivcomineuda non ul the Commissioner ol Internal Revenue, ot certain officers, to be called supervisors ol in ternal revenue—proceeds to define their duties aud powera as follows: “ It shall be the duty ol every supervisor ot internal revenue, under the direction ot the commissioner, to see that all laws and regulations relating to the collection ot iuterna! taxes are f&ithtully executed and com plied with ; to aid in the prevention, detection, aud punishment of any lratids in relation there to, ami to examine ioto the efficiency and con duct of all officers of internal revenue within his district, and tor such purposes, he shall have power to examine all persons. Links, papers, ac counts, and premises, and to administer oaths, and to summon any person to produce books and papers, or to apjiear and testify under oath belore bun, and to compel a compliance with such summons in the same manner as assessors may do," Ac. The mode by which assessors may compel a compliance, is pointed out iu the 9tn section ol tbe act of. 1860; “ In case any person so sum moned shall neglect or reluse to obey such sum mons, or to give testimony, or to answer inter rogatories as required, it shall lie lawful tor the assessor to apply to the Judge of the District Court, or to a Commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States lor the district within which the person so summoned resides, tor an attachment against such person as lor a con tempt. Ii shall tie the duly of such Judge or Coiumissinntr to hear such application, and if satisfactory plot J be made, to issue an attach ment, directed to some proper officer, lor the arrest ot such person, aud upon his being brought before him, to proceed to a hearing ot the case ; and upon such hearing, the Judge or Commis sioner shall have power to make such order as he shall deem proper, not inconsistent with the provisions ot existing laws, for the punishment .it contempts, to enforce- obedience to the re quirements of the summons, and punish such person lor his deiault or disobedience.” At the opening of ihe proceedings, Mr. Mil- ledge, United States Attorney, stated that he held a Liter of instructions from the Com mis .-.inner ol Internal Revenue t<> the supervisor, dated June 11th, 1869, and added that it was desirable it should be read to satisty the Mead ors, ttiat it was not idle curiosity, but duty, tiial guided him in issuing the summons. It was piixluced aud read. The substance ol the letter wa3, that certain officers ol the Internal Revenue Department had L-eu in Georgia, examining with reteience to the affairs of certain dealers iu t »bacco, snufl, Ac., whose lactones iu V.rgiuia and North Car oliua had been seized, and that the assessor at Atlanta was instructed to procure iulorwation trotn agents ol the tobacco houses in question, which it was necessary to use in conneetiou aiiU the cases in which the officers reterred to were engaged. He is then instructed fir obtain nom the cooks, Ac., ot these agents,—whose names would he furnished to him by the said as essor—the iutormation needed by the said . -fficers, and forward it to them, at Richmond, Virginia. it was argued for the Meadors that the pro vision in the act giviug power to the supervisor to compel jiersous to testify under oath belore him, and to produce their books, papers, Ac, tor his inspection, in an imaginary case, is uncon stitutional and void. Admit the assumption—directly or hypo thetically—does it iheretore loliow that the law ie unconstitutional ? If this is an u im aginary case”—a mere visionary fancy ema nating from the brain ol the supervisor—it oughi not to be countenanced ; tor a proceeding ot this kind might prove little less burttul to the mercantile interests ol the Meadors, thau one tiegun and prosecuted to gratify sinister in quisitiveness or mischievous espionage, and nut - ’tut fde, and for the public good. Moreover, to institute a proceeding or action, not to detenniue a right or controversy, but to deceive the Court and raise a prejudice against third persons, is a contempt. Core v. Phillips, t’a. Temp. Hard. 237. S. O 3 Hawk. P. O. 329 Bnt :itlr r a careful perusal ot the statute and me 1. Lei ot the cominissioi'.ei, iik n lettci us in tiHUXi e t my mi..J re aolisbcxl mat tfire prc<- cfejing is not in an imaginary case ; but mai, on i Lc contrary, there was sufficient cause h.r the issuing ol Uie summons by the saperviser, and that his actioo in the premises was war ranted hy the statute. It so, then this proceed tag is Lgiiimateiy here. Under .urecii n f tl.e commissioner, it is«he auty ol the super visor to aid in the prevention, di tectum and luinisbnteat of any trau-as in relere-n. e to tfi.- collection of internal revenue. The commis sioner informs him ( tut certain tobacco lactoiies L » l Len seized in Virginia and North Cato iua , and directs him to procure the names ui the agents ot those factories, and to ascertain front their books, papers, Ac., information needed by certain internal revenue employees or officers, touching the factories seized. Upon these in structions he seems to have acted. But it must not be imagined from what has been just said that either wriuen or verbal instructions .ire necessary belore the supervisor can issqf & summons under the 4Sth section o* actol 1.868.— Oongress did not snioteud to limit his authority and useluluess. True, he mast obey aud follow the instructions ol the commissioner wheu given. He must also act in good faith. Aud a public officer is i>resuined io act in obedience- to his duty, until the contrary appears. The ruling on this point being adverse to the Meadors, the proceedings, with the exception ol, perhaps, some brief details, might end here; so tar, at least, as the constitutionality o! the prevision in the 49th secliou of the act of 1868, lias been impugned. For, if this provision is void, when there is no real case, tiie presump lion is fair that it is constitutional and valid when the case is not an imaginary' one. Another point was presented and discussed, namely: That, grauuusr the constitutionality ol the provision, still, the supervisor can only pro ceed to compel parties to appear, testify or pro duce their books, Ac., iu the same manner, and to the same exteut as assessors can do; and that neither cau compel them to do any of these acts, in an imaginary ea3e against persons re siding out ot his (the vruwrvLorV) district. The 49th secliou de.’ Lies that it shall be the duty of the supervisor aid io the i *'eveution, detection and punishment of any frauds iu re lation to the collects'!: ol internal tax29, and to examine into the efficiency and conduct of all officers of internal revenue within his district. For what purpo-e were the powers in ques tion conferred upon Ihe supervisor? The Act says to aid in the prevention, detection, and punishment ol auy !r ,uds in relaliou to the col lection of taxes. There are no wools in this clause—nor can any be imported into it—re stricting the operaiiou and 1 ihet of the super visor’s action to the Vrritorial boundary of his district. True, his action is within his di nomi nated district; but the legal consequences ot the action may afiect |a rsons or things elsewhere The next clause con (era on the supervisor, pow ers distinct and different from these, namely, to examine into the efiiciency and conduct ot the revenue officers within his district. And on this IHiiut 1 coucur with the counsel lor the Meadors. I likewise agree with them, that the supervisor can compel llie production of hooks, etc., only io the manner aud to the extent that an assessor can, under the 9th section of the Act of 1866. When either issues a summons, and Ihe party served negh cts or relttses to appear, to testily un der oath, or to produce his.books, etc., the pow er ot each—the one as assessor, and tne other as supervisor— is exhausted. For remedy,to com pel compliance wilh the exigencies ol the sum mons, he must make application in the manner provided in fhe section last relerred to, to a Judge or a commissioner. Even on the hypothesis that this is an imag iuary case it is yet due to counsel on both sides that the clauses cited from the 49th sec*, tion ot the Act of 1868, should receive aeon-* slruction to the extent ot their argument. Coun scl tor the Meadors insisted that the 49th sec tion, empowering tbe supervisor to summon per sons to appear, produce 1 looks, etc., and to testi ly under oath, is of no effect, beo-ause the provis ion iu the 9lIi sretiou ot the Act ol 1866 is in consistent wilh the provisions ot existiug laws lor the punishmeut ol contempts. Congress deriving authority Irom the Consti tution to ordain and establish courts of justice subordinate to the Supreme Court, has hitherto conferred upon these courts,such jurisdiction as it has thought proper to bestow ; but there still lie dormant iu the national legislature, vast and various powers which only await the exigency, essential to call them into action. Notwithstanding the jurisdiction ot the na tional courts—Supreme and Interior- -is liniiuoi; they yet possess powers nnt granted by positive law; not independent, but auxiliary'. For in stance, although they have been vested by statute with pow« r to indict punishmeut for con tempts ; (act ui r.'itl. modified, alter the im peachment oi Judge Peek , bv the net of 1831,) still it J*« s cut .•>ti->u , cither front U.e -peculiar constitution ol these coin is—their limited and defined powers—or the statutes declaratory of these powers, that they could not exercise.the same authority without the aid of Acts of Con- gtess ; tor tiie right to inflict summary punish ment lor a contempt is an inherent one, and in dispensable to all courts 01 justice. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case ot The United Stales vs. 1(1103011,7 Crane Ii, 32, said: “Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our courts ol justice, trom the nature ol their institution. * * * * ; to line lor contempt; to imprison tor contumacy; ealorce obedience tojorder, Ac , are jaiweis which are necessary to others ; and so tar, our courts, no doubt possess powers not immediately derived from statutes.” The first section of tbe art of A larch 30,1831, empowers the several courts ot the United Stales to issue attachments and inflict summary punishment lor contempts of court, but this power shall not extend to any cases except, Ac., * * * * “ and the disobedience or resistance by any officer ol said courts, party, juror, or witness, or any other person or persons, to any law tu! writ, process, order, rule, decree, or com mand ot the said courts." See aLo the act ol 1789. It may he borne in mind that the section just relerred to, gives tbe same power to the Judge when acting under the authority ol these rev enue statutes as is possessed by the national courts themselves. Unlike those courts which have their origin in the common or unwritten law, the courts of the United states were created by written law. In thelormer, the jurisdiction is general, and all the proceedings brought belore mem are pre sumed to be within their cognizance until the contrary appears. In the latter, the jurisdiction is limited and defined, and they can take cogni zance ol such proceedings only as are affirma tively shown to be within their jurisdiction. Yet they possess certain unexpressed powers inci- dt ntal and appurtenant to all courts of judi cature. Comparing the provision in the 9tli section ol the act ol July, 1866, with the act just quoted and the act of 1789 relerred to, 1 have tailed to perceive wherein the 9di section is inconsistent with either ot those statutes. Tiie powers granted by those acts are, I apprehend, suffi ciently ample to enable the judge to carry into eflect the provisions in the 9iU section ot the act of 1866. It was insisted that no court or tribunal could punish lor eout< mpt, except lor violations ot its owu orders This, as a general proposition, is correct. But, iu proceedings under the 9th sec liou of tbe actol 1866, the question ol Con tempt would arise lor consideration, only when some process or other lawful command ot the judge waa disobeyed. It was contended also, that the authority claimed hy the supervtsoi to i»ue summons, re quiting pereous to appear i-t-iore him is a judi cial act. Tnai issuing a summons and requiring persons to appear, testily under oath, pioduce nooks, Ac , may tie, it taken in an extended sense a judicial act, must, I think, be admitted. But the mere issuing ol a. summons is in itself only a ministerial act. Nor did Congress in using the term “summoDs” in the 49tb section of the act 01 1868, contemplate it to be or the legal dig nity ol a writ, or other judicial process ; but simply a notice—and similar m its nature to a summons issued by an ovetseer of roads requir ing persousto attend, with the necessary imple ments, and to work ou the public highway. His summons, a> h is already becu said, neglect ed or disobeyed, bis authority ends. He must then apply to the proper officer, as directed by the 9Ui section of the act ol 1866, to entorce obedience. And when the alleged delinquent is brought before the judge, be will “pr.iceed to a bearing ot the case;" aud then,and not till then, can it be properly said that there is any exercise ol judicial authority. There exists in eveiy political s'-vereigu com munity the inherent power ot guarding its own existence and protecting and exalting the hap piness and welfare ot its people at targe. This soverrisn powt-r re known a- itieef-ineritch-ntiiiu f ut lilt- l.uti )D 81 aie, ai d • IUM-ki : til.’ jiiiHcf to appropriate the acqaisUXuns «.t cut.jcots or citizens to public purposes, and to control and preserve tbe relations ot social life—internal polity or police, public ne&hh and public morals. Generic with sue power of eminent domain is tin 1—><i .<t taxation , ea«.L . 3 1 sent tally a suviieitu atinuute, lodged m th. agerega e of 1 fie p -pt>\ u hi d the lignt ..1 c aitieatdomain , a < re.-cd, n appropriates property exceeding tbe ow ner's share ol < ouUibutton to the pufibc burden, t axation is the piOporiional and rea sonable assessment which may be imposed trom time to time upon persons or property. The Na tional Constitution prohibits ibetaL ngot private property tor public nse without ju-t compensa tion. The tax payer receives a lull and jast com pensation lor fits share of contnlunioa to the public necessity by the benefit conferred on him, in the proper appropriation of the tax paid.' Notwithstanding tluse two powers have, in my judgment, & common origin, both being in herent in tbe sovereign authority—the object oi both being the sslety ami welfare ot the whole community—yet the we glit of authority would seem t«» tie that there exists a distinction be tween these two modes oi taking individual properly for public use. Tbe Hi*? Bridge Co. vs. l)ix ei. <d, 6 How. 597. Brewster vs. Hough, 16 N. 11. 143, iu which.it was held “that the power of taxation is essentially a power of sov ereignty or eminent domain" But see Com- m>nwealth v, Alger, 7 Cush. 53 ; aud WiHia -ns v. Mayor of Detroit, 2 Mich., 560. Ttie direct question has not—at least so tar as my knowl edge extends—been decided by any ot tiie- Na tional Courts. i>ee Slate of Few Jersey v ll’if- soii, 7 Crancb, 164. 'Churns Iliier Bridge v. Warren Bridge, et ul, 11 Peters 420.640 —Story J. Oilman, v. City of Sheboygan, 3 Black, 510 But whether there is auy substantial dilleieuce in principle, is not here a question requiring de termination. It is euotign lor me on ibis occa sion to declare, that Congress has not made any provision tor trial, by jury, whether property tie taken by right ot eminent domain, or by author ity ol the taxing power. It is nevertheless uoqueriiooable that when the government appropriates inet 1 vidua! proper ty lor public purposes, the obligation to make Just compensation is concomitant ; but Con gress is tbe sole judge ot le w the compensation shall tie ascertained and paid. Aud as to the executorial and summary modes employed tor the collection ot taxer— fixed debts doe to the gov eminent- although they cause a certain diver sity iu “the laws ot Ihe land,” and although such proceedings haw: hee.n sometimes questioned, as iuiriuging the right ot trial by jury; never- thele-s, it is, at this day, too well settled in this country—and in England from time immemo rial-to be now disputed. Moreover tbe collec tion ol the excise *»r public taxes has never been deemed a judicial, hut simply a ministerial act. Murray's Lessie, et. al v. Hoboken Land Improvement Co., 18 How. 272. Peirce v. City of Boston, 3 Mete., 520. Out ot the provision in the 49th Section of the Act ol 1868. empowering a supervisor to ex amine premises, and to issue summons requi ring persons to appear belore him, testify uuder oath, produce their books, papers, Ac.,—and that part ol the 9th Section ot the Act ot July, 1866, w hich provides the mode of compelling obedience to the summons—two questions arise for adjudication. The one is based upon the fourth amendment to the Constitution, which aays "the right of the people to he secure in their persons, houses, papers aud ellecls against un reasonable searches aud seizures shail not be violated, aud no warrants shall i93ue, but upon probable caase, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” The other is tound among the enumerated pri vate rights in the fifth amendment, and is as fol lows : No one shall “be deprived ot life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The rights ol personal security, personal lib erty, and private properly— aud incidentally, the near identity of w rits of assistance and general warrants to the summons issued by the supervi sor, were tully discussed. Tbe introduction into the Constitution of the provisions iu regard to search vvarrauts, was doubtless occasioned by the strong teeling exci ted lioth iu .England and America, Ironi the practice ot issuing general warrants on bare suspicion and without louudatiou, empowering the officer to enter aud s* arch auy house, to break open any receptacle, seize and carry away all or any private papersorother property. These abuses had continued for tu»uy j^ears until, at length, in 1763, the Com t ol King’s Bench, (then presided over by Lord Camden,) in the case of Knlick v. Carrington, 2 Wile.,273, declared then to be manifestly illegal. Vide Buckle v. Money, Id, 206. Money"et. al va. Leach, 1 W. Bla 555. Commonwealth vb. Dana 3 Mete., 829. Story on Const. Sect 1901. Sev eral years anterior to the decision in Entick vs. Can 1 nylon, the illegality of general warrants had been eloquently maintained by James Oris in Massachusetts, in the discussion had respect ing writs of assistance. The writer of an able article on Mr. Otis in the July (1869) num ber ot the American Law Bevieio, gives a briel histoiy ot these writs, derived Irom notes to Quincy’s Reports, by Mr. Justice Gray ot the Supreme Judicial Court ol Massachusetts. A copy ol this writ may lie louud iu ihe at tide — It authorised the person to whom it was issued, to enter, accompanied by a Sheriff, Justice ol the peace, or constable, any house, where un customed goods were suspected to be concealed ; and, it resistance was made, the writ empower ed the searcher to break open the house and seize the goods. These writs, modified in some degree, are still ot force in England 3 Am. Law Review 641. 4 Bancroft’s Hist. U. 8. 414 Conn-el for the Meadors contended, that, it there was any distinction iu priuciple between general search warrants or writs ot assistance and the power claimed by the supervisor to en ter and examine premises, and to issue summons requiring persons to appear betore.him, Ac, there was no difference iu their practical effect — each being repugnant to the constitution and all equally illegal. The first point in' th° question presented for decision, is as to the right ot the supervisor to enter'and examine the premises. This power, as already noticed, is giveu by the 49th section ot the act ot 1868, and no warrant whatever is made necessary belore entry and examination. Hir Wm. BlaCkstone, speaking ol the excise duty, which is an inland imposition upon com modifies, charged in some eases, on the manu lacturer, and in others, on the seller or dealer in the manufactured articles, and answering sub stantially to our system ol iuternal revenue or taxes, says; “ The frauds that might be com muted in this branch of revenue, unless a strict watch was kept, make it necessary, wherever it is established, to give the officers the power ot entering and searching houses ot such as deal in excisable commodities, at any 7 hour ot the day, and in many oases the night likewise.” 1st Uom. 319. Such wa-> the law ol Engl uul and ot the colonies prior to the war ol Independence, and so it has continued to this day under the nation al goverumeut, and in nearly every State of the Union; and the) validity ot this apparently rig orous law, in its'application to the inland reve nue and the collection ot taxi s, has never vet been successiully questioned. Vide Act ol Con gress March 3,1791; 1st Stats RSO ; A< t of May 8, 1792 ; Id 267; Act of July 22, 1813 ; 3 Id 22, etc. The sicoud point in the question, lor deter mination, involves the right ut the supervisor to issue summons requiring persons to come belore him, to testify under oath, and to produce their books, Ac , tor his inspection. The legal princi ples which govern llie first point in Ibis ques lion, are so closely blended wiili those wtiicb control the second, that the answer given to the first, might suffice lor this. TUe objection made to the power given to the supervisor by tbe statutes is, as just mentioned, that it is forbidden by the fourth amendment to the Constitution. But lhi3 is a civil proceeding, and iu no wise does it partake of the character ot a criminal prosecution; no offense is charged agaiust the Meadors. Theretore in this pro ceeding the fourth amendment is not violated. Said Merrick, J.,in pronouncing the judgment of the Court in Robinson and another v. Richard- atm, Judge, 13 Gray, 454; “Search wan ants were never recognized by the common law a3 processes which might be availed ol by indi viduals in the couise ol civil proceedings, or for the maintenance of any mere private right; but their use was confined to'cases oi public prose cutions, instituted aud pursued lor the suppres' sion ol crime or the detection aud punishment of criminals.” Murray's lessee v. Hoboken Laud if Improvement Company, supra, 1 Bishop, Oim. Procedure, sec. 716. i do not perceive any like ness in principle between the summons issued by the supervisor arid either general warrants or writs of assistance. '{’he second question in this branch ol the case grows out of mat important private right se cured to the citizen by the tilth amendment, that fie 'i.i.l not “ be deprived ut ni<- iioeny or pro perty w ilii *ut doc c i 1 - - oi la -V Ibis pro vision is deduced i■ >,u ;u grand oii-ioui, too 29th chapter of the Great Charier, wbicfi pr.e tected every individual in the free enjoyment of his file, his liberty and his property, unless de clared to be forfeited by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. By “law of the land” was probably meant the ancient Saxon common law. In Murray's Lessee et al. v. H-b ken Land Im provement Company, supra, it was said by Mr. Justice CLBTis, iu delivering the judgment of the Court. “ The words ; due process of law ’ ■r were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning mi itiA words ‘ hv the law of the land.*” meaning as the words * by tb it the converse ot this lie true, the phrase “ bg the law of the land" imports a meaning as com prehensive as “due process ol law,” and conse quently’ includes, like the latter, trial by jury. But neither—even iu au enlarged sense—means mat, to deprive a man of his lile, Uis liberty or his property by means of the law in its regular administration’through courts ot justice, the iq- tervention ol a jury is, it, all cases, necessary. Take, lor instance, the esse of a person indicted for a capital or other ofleose, and who, on ar raignment, instead of pleading “ not' guilty ” to the charge, elects (inr reasons satisfactory to himsell) to plead “gutllv;" ii the indictment be sufficient in law, the Court awards judgment agaiust him; and ibis is judgment "by the law ol the land,” and as lawful Uu der tiie Constitution, a* it lie had been tried and loumt guilty by the judgment ol his peers. So, if a j*t-rson stands in contempt oi the court, the couit summarily punishes him hy line aud iui- prisonmenl, «>r either, thus depriving him ot his piojieriv, or bbeity, or Lilli, without a trial by jury. Aud it may l>e remarked that it the imprisonment be tor a time certain, executive pardon is Use only mode ot releasing him, before the expiraliou ol his'sentence. >, in cases of lemurrer or special verdict, or where a person makes default,or confesses judgment; and so too iu equity causes where trial by jury is quite uuusuai-, rnt’u are deprived of their property. Other instances could readily be given to show that the word , “hy the law ot the laud,”—“due process of law** donut necessarily import a jury trial as essential in every case to deprive a per son ot his life, lilierty or pr perty. indubitable proof of this may be tound in the case ot Mur ray's Lessee ei al v. Hiboken Lend Improvement Co, supra. Thai case arose out ot the act of May 5,1820 3 Stats. 592. The main question was, whelber- the.issuing, by the Solicitor ot the Treasury, of what was denominated in the statute, a war, rant ot distress, against a delimiting collector of revenue, whs in conflict with the Constitution. The court h<Id the law to b - valid and not in consistent with tbe Constitution The decision was placed mainly on the ground that the auciet t common law ol England recognized a suiuin ry remedy lor the recovery ot debts due to tbe government. Se>- Martin v. Mott, 12 VVbeat, 19 United States v. Ferreira, 13. How. 40. It was further insisted that the power given to the supervisor is violative of that clause in the tilth amendment to the Constitution which de clares that no one shall be compelled in any criminal case to lie a witness agaiust himsell, This clause, tike that iu the foaith amendment in reference to search warrants, is applicable to crimiual cases only. And here a thought sugge.-ti itself. As the Meadors subsequently to the passage ot this Actol July 26,1868, applied, lot and obtained from the government a license or permit to deal in; manufactured tobacco, snuff, and cigars, 1 am inclined to be of theopiuiou that they are, by’ this their owu voluntary act, precluded from assail ing the constitutionality of this law, or other wise controverting it. For the graniing ot a license or pernrit—the yielding ol a particular privilege—and its acceptance by the Meadors, was a contract in which it. was implied that the provisions of the statute which governed, or in any way affected their business, and all other sta tutes previously passed, which were m pari ma teria with those provisions, should he recognized and obeyed by them. \V lien the Meadors sought and accepted ihe privilege, the law was before them. Aud can they now iurpugu ils consti tutionality or rduse to obey its provisions aud stipulations, and so exempt themselves Irom the consequences ot their own acts? Theaeiuternal revenue or tas laws were char acterized as being not only repugnant to the Constitution hut also unreasonably burdensome. With the most minute attention i examined tlios |...i ;i n of the Acts of July 13, 1866 and July 26, 186 . presented lor my eouBideration ; aadcareluiiy sou; oi to ascertain w hether they were in conflict « ■ u any ol the provisions of tbs Constitution. Mt * omlusiou on that question has been expressed 1 do not concur wilh coun sel, that these laws are unreasonably burden some. But even if ibev are, nay, even if they are oppressive, and uuju .1 modes are employed tor their eulorccurcnl. tin rcme.lv lies with Con gress, and not in ii.<- dull. toy. By enacting these laws Congo as 1.1 exercised ilia couslitu tional power ot taxation and the courts have no power to interfere. Providence Bank os. Billings, 4 Peters, 514 Fa tension-of‘ Hancock Street, 18 Penn (6 Harris) 26. Kirby vs Shaw, 19 LI 258. Liv ingston rs 1/1 ■ of .Yew York, 8 Wend. 85. In. the m ith .. 1 ..p. ning Furnuiit strict. 17 Id. 649. ll.-i . .-ck cs Randolph, 13 Verm. 529. in Mc- Cn.iodi os. Maryland, Chid Justice M akhhai.i. said, that it is as “uutit lor the judicial depart ment to inquire what degree of taxation is the legitimate use, and what degr.-e nity amount to the abuse of the power " Thus it w ill be seen that there are many cases in which the right ol property must be made subservient to the public welfare. The. maxim of the law is, that a private mischief is to be endured rather than a public inconvenience. Oa this ground tests the right ol public neces sity. 2 Kent, 336. Aral it is well to bear iu mind that the National Government is supreme within its constitutional hums, lor to it, is in trusted the paramount iufi-iest ot the whole nation. Iu declaring and < allying into ett. 11 tiie laws, my action,as a judge,w i'll e.vci tie “ton e the least possible power ad> quale to (lie end proposed.” Yet, let no one lii-sb ite to do homage to The Law; the very least as feeling her care, a d llu- greatest as not > \ciupu-d irom her power. It is order.d that tfic sn.l Jotiu f Meador, Newton J Meador and .1 mien G. Meador, com posing the firm ot Meador >v. Brothels, dealers .n tobacco, in obedience to tiie summons ot the supervisor, appear lorthw-iib belore him, and answer under o ah, touening 1 he receipt, stor ure, delivery or sile tu m ■ firm ot M. 1 lor A Broth ers, between the 2d ii day m July 1868, an I the 1st Jay ot July 1369, ol any aud i.ll tobacco which came to ti.eir pos e -.ton or under their control in the w-iyol b isiuess.durintr said period And, also, that they, at the same tune, produce to the said supervisor all hooks and papers ot said firm, specified iu said summon’, which con tain any entry, statement, 01 c nnmuuioaiion touching or in any manner relating to tobacco. And ii is lurlber ordered that the clerk file this opinion iu iiis office, and, ihai on payment ot his iee, he lurnish to th - supirvisir a copy ot the same cerfifi -d under iiL official seal Atlanta, Ga , August 25, 1859 Our Weekly local Department. Savattnnli Income Reiurua. It seems trom au article in the Savannah Ad vertiser that there are “fifty"two per-ons who return incomes ot ■five thousand dollars and up wards, ranging as high as two hundred and three thousand seven hundred and filly dollars. The large majority return incomes ot a l.Ule over one thousand dollars. Printers, with one exception, are very poor, and return no income stall. Doctors are al.-o an impecunious class, and work day and night without accumulating a large lortune. Lawyers are not overburdened with large incomes, which may he owing to the backwardness in clients la not 'settling up promptly. Editors ain’t worth a continental— being even poorer than printers. The richest man in bsvannahbelongs 10 ihe mercantile pro- lession. One w idow returns nineteen thousand and ibrty-aix dollars income.” Cattle Plague—The Knoxville Press & Hera'd, ol the 21st, f avs that a disease among tne cattle in Upper East Tennessee, which first made its appearance at Bristol, is, it is said tpreadiug, and imbibers are dying. Tbe Wafer Famine, in Tliituilelpbia. 'l lie drought iu Philadelphia si'll continues j not a drop ot rain having fallen since the riight ol the great whisky fire, August 4, when 30,- 000 barrels of whisky were destroyed. The supply of water in Fairmouut water works has become alarmingly scare.:. The City Council ou Ton-day la-i, donated f25.006 to the desti tute {amities- _ An Oi d Buck — t 'ommodore^ sn.lerbilt mar- r.e i a .Mi-, Crawf rd. Mobile, Ala., a lew uay s since, ilia iird v. tie Las been dead but a few monttis, aud Le is s. veniy-five and better. Paving Well.—The earnings of the Central Pacific Railroad for July were $579,000, an in crease oi 4,25,060 over the month of June. Not withstanding the successive reduction of rates, the result 01 operations ot the that three months since the connection of the Eiaiein lines shows a revenue ot $7,060 000 per annum, ot which $3,000,000 is net. Oeatit It 0111 Heat. Oar exchanges from every' direction contain accounts of deaths from heat. Several persons died in Washington city :.nd its vicinity on the 24 th insU The lime and cement quarries near Kingston, ship daily over two hundred bushels of iime. j Georgia Press Convention.—The above body met to day iu tbe City Council Chamfer,- the lollowiug officers vre-re elected : President, Joseph Clisby, ot the Macon Tele graph; Vice-Presidents, J. II. Christy, ot the Athens WatchmanA. If. Wriglit, of the Chronicle <£• Semtinel; aud H. II. Jones, ot the Cutlibert Appeal; Secretaries, 0. H. C. Wil lingham and A. R. Watson. Upon registering names the following were enrolled : Macon Telegraph and Monroe Advertiser.— Joseph Clisby. Athens Watchman.—J. H. Christy. Atlanta Constitution.—I. W. Avery and W. A. Hemphill. Albany Neu-.—C. W. Styles. Chronicle it Sentinel—A. R. Wright and H. Moon. Central Georgian.—J. Medlock. Constitutionalist.—I. W. Call. Journal <£ Meisenger.—T. A. Burke. Columbus Enquirer. —T. Ragland and J. W. Marlin. Intelligencer.—J. L Whitaker and J. H. Steele. Hancock Journal—W. H. Royal and Dubose. Marietta Journal.—Neill. American. Union.—j. C. Swaze. Georgia Enterprise.-—W. L. Beebe and J. W. Anderson. Cuthbert Appeal—H. H. Jones. Hawkinsvi'.le Dispatch—D. W. D. Bouily, . Lagrage Reporter—C. H. C. Willingham. Greensboro Herald—H. M. Burns Newnan Herald— J. C. Wooten. Athens Banner— 8. Adkinaon and M. Pulton. Madison Examiner—T. H. Broh-.tou. Americas Courier—E. H. Christian. Rome Courier—YL. Dwintll. GrijJin Star—F. B. Fitch. Day School Visitor—3. 8. Shecut. Covington Examiner—W. A. Harp Farm Journal— J. F. Shecut. Washington Gazette—J. H. Wright. Dawson Journal—8. R. Weston. . Christian Index—3. J. Toon. Atlanta Medical di Surgical Journal—3. G. Westmoreland. Rural Southerner— Sam. Echols. ScolCs Magazine—T3. B. Crew. Sumter Republican—C. W. Hancock. Middle Georgian - 8. Burr. On motion of C. W. Styles, the following committees were appointed: l. Committee ou Permanent Organization ; 2. On Legal and Gen era! Advertising; 3. On Agencies, and Cash amt Credit Sys'em f 4. On Constitution, By-Laws and Rules; 5. On The Press. Each committee to consist of five members. Major Steele amended the motion: That llie committees report to the Convention during the next session, which will assemble some day de- signaled hy the President, at Macon during the week ol the Fair in November. On motion of Colonel Styles, Mr. Fleming, of the Charleston Courier and New York World was invited to take a seat in the Convention. Colon cl Fulton, of Clarke, delivered a mes sage In.m Messrs. Glenn, Wright A Carr, to visit their warerooms and examins a cotton press. Accepted. On motion ot Col. Styles, the Mayor and City Council of Atlanta, were invited to tske seats in the Convention. On motion oi Mr. Moore, the Convention re turned thanks to Col. Hulbert, and accepted his generous invitation to make an excursion over his nmd, and to other points designated, Ou motion ot Mr. Christian, the thanks ot the Convention were tendered the City Council lor the use of their hall; also, lor an invitation to tide around the city. On motion of Col. Jones, thanks were re turned to the citizens and merchants of Atlanta for courtesies. On motion ol Major Steele, thanks were re turned to Col. Clisby lor the able, efficient and courteous manner in which he had presided over the convention ; also to the Secretaries, for their politeness in perforimg their duties. Couventiomadjourued. until 8 o’clock, p. m. Pre-s Convention—Alter our report of the Press Convention was made, the Committees were'appoint! d, which were as follows: on Permanent Organization—Messrs. Hemp hill, Medlock, Burke, Whitaker and Atkinson. Ou Constitution, By-Laws and Rules—Messrs Styles, Hancock, Fitch, Weston and Pound. On 1-fates of Legal Advertising, and of Rates of Ad vertising Generally—Messrs. Willingham, Burr, Dwinell, Russell, and Christian. On System of Agfncies, and the Cash and Cic-Jit System.—Messrs. Martin, Harp, Moore, Avery and Call. Tluse Committees are to report at Macon. The Convention after referring some unfinished business to the Macon Meeting, adjourned Tues day night at 10 o'clock. Upon the adjournment of the Convention,the members of tbe press and invited guests re-as- semhlcd at the Hall upon an invitation from Col. Hulsey, and spent au hour or two in an ex ceedingly pleasant and agreeable manner toast ing, ?.nd speech making, partaking of various contributions, generously sent in by his honor, Mayor Hulsey, McBride A Co., G. W. Jack, Glenn, Wright A Car, Massey A Landsell, Beer- muu A Kuliil, Meadows A Bro., and M. E. Ken ney. We notice that a tew of our merchants are receiving early lull goods. We never wonld have kuop/n it, had we not been passing by their store houses and witmssed the fact. Since our residence iu Atlanta we have been surprised to see that so lew of our merchants advertise.— Why this is so, «e have hea' d no reason. They act and taik as if they hive objections to per sons knowing what articles they keep—seem to attach some secret Li their business. The sum mer will soon p:isi hy, anil we can point out stores now where they have a pretty good sup ply ot spring goods on hand. They can blame no one, lor it was not known that these mer chants had goods. The experieiw e o! wise aud prudent business men through 1 lie country is, that it pays to ad vertise. It has started many a man on the road to fortune. The experience of other localities holds good ol A'imta. We are acquainted with.sever-al gem'nmea in the city, who say they first gained a foothold in business by judi cious advertising. Th .s are one or two Dreg' stores iu oar city, in. names of the tians own ing them are ai i .m i o over North Georgia as household woids. lias advertising paid them:t There are Candy manulactuieiS in Atlanta, who have liberally and extensively advertised, dal they gain by it ? Reader, to-day, let a stranger accost you on the street, and ask where he can find a Candy establishment, or a Jewelers, or a Drug store, where do you refer him 1 is it to some unknown house, or some of the well adver Used establishments of the city r Think over the wealthy men of Atlanta, and you will find that they made-known their name9, their business, and have added to their wealth hy freely using printers ink.