Newspaper Page Text
IDcckit) Jnlclligenccr
ATLANTA, GEORGIA-
w«dn>m»y« March g. 1870.
IN tbb bvpbbsie cobet.
Th . CaM ©t Nancy Marlin w. Wallace,
Superintendent efthe State Eoat,
The plaintiff in this case, brought her action
to recover damages from the defendant for
injuries inflicted upon herhusband in a collision
of cats on the State, or “ Western and Atlantic
Railroad,” of which he afterwards died. At the
time the injuries were inflicted the plaintiff's
husband, who was in Confederate military ser
vice, was on his way to the battle-field of Cbicka-
mauga. The defense was that the husband was
at the time of his death, engaged in making war
upon the United States, and was therefore not
entitled to recover. The case came np and was
tried in Fulton Superior Court, before Judge
Pope, who granted a non-suit. This was then
assigned lor error. Messrs. Baugh and Garling
ton for plaintiff in error, and Messrs. Bleckley
and Mynatt for defendant. Below we give sub
stantially the argument made in this interesting
case, by one of plaintiff's counsel, General
Garlington, directedjmainly to the points, first
that, assuming that the deceased was engaged
in an unlawful transaction at the tune of his
death, to-wit, making war upon the United
States, it was no offense unless it had been
proved that he was voluntarily engaged in that
service and that the onus of proof oi that fact
was thrown upon the defendant; second, that
in performing military service in the army of the
Confederate States, the deceased was only
acting in obodience to the supreme authority of
the Government set over him, and therefore was
excused, if not justified, in rendering that ser
vice ; third, that the war between the States ol
the Union was a civil war, iu the sense in which
that term is used by writers ou international
law, and was so recognized by the U. S.
Government in acknowledging, by its acts,
belligerent rights in the Confederate States,
and that, therefore, the Government ol the
United States, and the Government oi the Con
federate States, sustained to eachother the rela
tion of independent nations engiged in war.
The reader will find the argument of the
plaintifl’s counsel which wc present, not only
able but interesting, and to our mind convincing
No decision has yet been rendered by the Su
preme Court, and we still look to it with much
interest when, on Tuesday next, we presume, it
will be pronounced.
General Garlington said:
“At the time the intestate was killed by tLis
collision of cars on the Western and Atlantic
Railroad he was a citizen oi the State ol Ten
nessee, one of the States of the Southern Con
federacy. By the laws of the Congress of the
Confederate States, and the military orders
issued in pursuance thereof, he was required to
perform military service in the war then waged
by the United States against the Confederate
States. By the edicts of his Government lie
was compelled to render this service. He had
no election; obedience was demanded of him
by the supreme power of that Government. To
use the language of that pure and enlightened
jurist, Judge Bryan, in the case of The United
States vs. Alfred Ilaycr, tried in the District
Court of the United States, for the District ol
South Carolina, ‘ That Government was in the
very nature of things a military despotism,
whose commands must unhesitatingly be obey
ed, and in the light of the past it is but truth to
say, whose commands were so obeyed.’ The
order requiring thej intestate to report ior
military service—to use the language ol the
same distinguished Judge—* was a command to
be instantly complied with, not a matter of
parley. That command carried with it an
expression ol torce which could not be resisted
any more than its cannon and bayonets; which
left the party upon whom the demand was
made no alternative but to yield. There was no
retuge against the wrath of that Government
There was no defense against its power.’ The
mere fact, therefore, that the intestate was a
Considerate soldier and at tbe^ time ot his death
was making war against the United States, was
not sufficient ground for the Judge below to
order a non-suit in this case. The condition ol
things which then existed in the Confederate
States was such as to excuse the citizens in ren
dering obedience to the Government which had
been established over them, was such, at least,
as to raise the presumption that the deceased
was not voluntarily engaged in making war
upon the United States; and that, therefore, in
order to make out his defense, the defendant
should have offered proof sufficient to rebut this
presumption; that is to say, that to defeat the
plaintiffs right ot recovery, the defendant should
have proved to t he satisfaction of a jury that the
deceased was voluntarily engaged in making
war against the United States. This is what 1
conceive to be the principle which was decided
in the case of Gannon vs. Wallace-, Sup t. Rut
the Court below, in granting a non-suit in this
case, reversed this rule, and threw upon- the
plaintifi the onus ot proving a negative; to-wit,
that her husband was not voluntarily engaged
in the military service of the Confederate States.
The deceased, therefore, being subject at the
time to the supreme nower ot the Government
under which he lived; being, as it were, in
durance vile, to defeat the plaintiff’s right of
recovery in this action, it was incumbent on the
delendant to prove that the deceased wa9 per
forming voluntarily the military service in which
he was engaged at the time ot his death. Tnis
the defendant was not required to do in the
Gourt below, and this is assigned as one ground
ot error.
But I go further, and take the ground that the
intestate was excused, if not justified, in obey
iug the authority ot the Government of the
Confederate States, without inquiring into the
motives that actuated him; whether that obe
dience was rendered voluntarily or not, that it
is a presumption of law, and not oi fact, that
his obedience to that authority was involun
tary.
The deceased, in taking up arms against the
United States, was acting in obedience to the au
thority of the Confederate Government Was he
guilty of any offense in doing so, and if so, of
what offense? If he was guilty of any oflome,
it was the crime ot treason. I shall endeavor to
show, that under the circumstances in which he
was placed, he was not guilty ot this great crime,
nor of any other offense iu making war agaiu.*t
the United States. I shall not enter into an ar
gument to show that under our complex system
of government, the allegiance ot the citizen was
due to the sovereign State ot which he was a
member, and not to the United States; and th .t
therefore, when his State withdrew from the
Union, he was absolved from all duty ot obe
dience to the Government and laws ot the
United States. These questions, which have
been the subject ol discussion amongst our
Statesmen from the earliest period ol our consti
tutional history, maybe now regarded, for all
practical purposes, as definitely settled, uot ju
dicially, not by the lorce of reason and argu
ment, but by the sword. A peonle are oblig id
to submit to the arbitrament to which they have
had recourse to decide upon their rights. In
this'ease that arbitrament w T as the ultima ratio
ot nations. These questions, then, are of the
past—issues that are dead, and 1 say ol them,
“ Jet the dead bury their dead.”
Putting out ot view altogether, the question
whether the allegiance ol the citisen was due
to the State to which he belonged, or to ihe
United States, as a body politic, we take the
position that the condition of things which re
sulted lrom the secession of the States which
afterwards established a government for them-
selvec, was such as to excuse the citizens of these
States for their adhesion to the government set
over them, and for the obedience which tiiev
rendtred to Its laws. That this is no new (ang
led doctrine invented lor the occasion, and to
sustain a peculiar theory ot government, but
that it has come down to us lrom the ancient
common law ol England.
Allegiance is defined by Sir William Black-
stone to be—“ the tie or ligament which binds
every subject to be true and iailhiul to his sov-
leign liege-lord, the King, in return for that pro
tection which is afforded him.” The considera
tion oi the allegiance of the subject, is slated by
this learned author to be “ the protection which
is affoided him.” It follows, therelore, that it
the sovereign should reiuse, or from any cause
fail, to afford protection to his subjects in the
enjoyment of their rights, he thereby torleits all
claim to their allegiance. This results lrom the
very relation of sovereign and subject—govern
ment and citizen. Allegiance and protection
are correlative duties; they cannot be separated.
This has always been the law. In Ecu fend, at
an eariy day, the application of this princip:e—
to determine what was a violation ol the duty
of a'degiance to the sovereign—to define treason,
gave rise to great disputes. Great latitude was
taken by the Judges in defining treason; and
the creatures ot tyrannical princes by arbitrary
rules ot construction convened into treason
many offenses which were never intended, or
eten suspected to be such. This gave rise to
the Statute 25, Edward 3d, which defined the
crime of treason, and amongst other things de
clared it treason “ to levy war against the King
in Ins realm, or be adherent to his enemies in
bis realm, giving them aid and comfort.” This
provision ot the Statute ot Edward is the origin
ot the definition of treason given in the Consti
tution of the United States. That instrument
declares that 44 treason against the United States
shall consist only in levying war against them,
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort.” After the passage of the Statute
ot Edward, the laws of Eoglaod in record to
treason underwent many changes, which were
generally adopted to suit the humor and policy
ot the reigning monarch. The discussion ot
these charges is foreign to my purpose. The
War of the Rosea, however, gave rise to a
statute which, in my opinion, has an important
bearing upon the point which 1 am now con
sidering, to-wit: The Statute of 11, Henry 7,
ch. 1. This Statute enacts that obedience to
the authority of the Sovereign or King, “for the
time in being,” shall not render the subject
liable to the penalties of treason or of any other
offense, nor deprive him ot any rights of person
or property, or expose him to any “vexation, trou
ble or lorn.” This Statute I refer to as authority
not because it was an act ot Parliament, bat
because the act was declaratory, only, oi the
common law, which is made of force in this
State. This is what Sir William Blackstoue,
and all the commentators, say. It was iu the
nature too, ot a remedial statute. Arbitrary
aud tyrannical Kings bad gone too tar in de
fining and punishing treason, and this statute
was intended to correct this evil, to bring them
back to the principles of the common law. The
reason upon which this piincq la of the com
mon law, that the subject shall not suffer in per
son or estate for rendering obedience io the
King “ for the time being,” to the King de facta
is founded, to adopt the language of Sir William
BlackstODe, is, that “ otherwise, under an usur
pation, no man would be safe it the lawful
Prince had a right to hang him for obedience to
the powers in being, as the usurper would cer
tainly do for disobedience.” The turther reason
is also given, that there is a temporary allegi
ance due to the King de facto lor his administra
tion ol the Government, and temporary protec
tion of the public. Hence, treasons committed
against Henry 6, who was of the House ot Lan
caster, were punished under Edward 4, ot York,
though all the line oi Lancaster had been pre
viously declared usurpers by act ot Parliament
Hawkios, in his pleas to the Crown goes so far
as to say that this duty ot allegiance requires
the subject to resist the title ot the legitimate
King in defence ol the King de fordo. Without
giving his lull assent to this doctrine, which
Hawkin’s grounds upon the Statute ot Henry 7,
Blackstone says, that the true interpretation ol
that statute seems to be that “ it doea by no
means command any opposition to a King de
jure, but excuses obedience to a King de facto."
On reading this celebrated statute, it will be
seen that the protection which it gives to the
subject, extends to his obedience generally—
civil or military. Military service is particularly
mentioned. It protects those who attend upon
the King de facto, in his wars wilhia the realm
or without. Moreover, this statute does not
make any distinction between acts ol obedience,
whether voluntary or involuntary. Now, let us
apply these great principles oi the common law to
the case under consideration. What was the
condition ot things iu which this country was
placed, and in which the deceased found him
self, at the time when, as we allege, the cause of
action in tbisfease originated ? The deceased
was a citizen of Tennessee. That State had
joined the other seceded States in a Confederacy
under a new government. This setting up ot a
new government, by these States resulted in the
war which convulsed this continent and attracted
the attention ot the civilized world tor more
than four years. This great contest was waged
on the grandest scale ot war.
In all the material ot war, in expenditure oi
treasure and life, it finds no parallel in any strag
gle ot equal duration. For a long time its for
tunes were varied, and the issue was doubtful.—
For years the Confederate States sustained the
contest with a reasonable hope ot success. For
years their armies held the armies ol the Union
at bay upon the frontiers. During nearly four
years the capital of their government was almost
within sight ot the capital of the Union, and
oftentimes the banners ot their armies were to te
seen from the bights around Washington. From
the fields ot Manassas to the closing scene of
the great drama at Appomattox, a series oi bat
tles were fought, which, lor the numbers en
gaged on both sides, for heroic daring, for all
that illustrates the pomp and circumstance of
glorious warfare, modern history lurnlshes
scarcely an example.
During this gigantic struggle, the Government
at Richmond represented the (Jonh derate Stales
aud exercised supreme, paramount authority
throughout these States. It controlled the peo
ple ot these States, aud all their means and re
sources. It made laws, imposed taxes, the most
burdensome, perhaps, that any people ever had
to bear, and by acts of proscription, the meat ex
haustive that were ever imposed up in any peo
ple, toicedall the arms-bearing population into
the field. Men and money were exacted by its
authority to au extent, which had never before
been required of any people. As was sail by
the General on the other side, who gave the fin
ishing blow to the Confederate cause, “ it robbed
both the cradle and the grave for recruits.” The
very life’s blood of the people, and all their ma
terial resources, were not only subject to^its con
trol, but were brought iDto actual requisition.—
Its power was absolute, irresista^ls; its man
dates as authoritative, as compulsory, as the
Ukases of the Czarr ot Russia The power and
authority ot the Union were expelled from all
this territory. Its < fficfeh had to depart, or
abandon their duties. Its courts were closed,
its civil government suspended, abrng tied. It af
forded no protection to the people ot tucse States,
except where its armies had made iuroads into
their territory and exercised a precarious and
uncertain authority. The Government of the
Confederate States exercised its authority over
eleven Stau s, having a territorial area of over
eight hundred thousand square miles, and a
population of over eight millions ot souls.—
History scarcely furnishes an example of such an
array of force, such a consolidation of all the ele
ments of national power,against what was claim
ed to be the lawful, legitimate government as is
presented in the case of the Confederate States.
The government of these States established itself
so firmly in its seat, and exhibited such unity and
power that it was able to wring even from the
government ot the United States an acknowl
edgement ot belligerent rights, which had been
conceded to it by other powers. The war was
carried on between the parties upon the usual
footing ot other wars. Prisoners were ex
changed, and all the rules of regular warfare
which obtain between independent nations were
recognized. The government of the Confeder
ate States, such as I have described it, was,
therefore, to all intents and purposes, a de facto
government. In describing it I have defined a
de facta government, what its essential qualities,
its attributes, aie, and all these the Confederate
Government possessed, perfect and complete.
Iu the case of Therington vs, Smith <fe Hardy,
which has already been refeied in the argu
ment ol this case, Chief Justice Chase, who
delivered the opinion of the Court, diaoiislyH.
the subject of governments de facto,and pointed
out what he conceived to be the deslinctloas
between in governments of that sort. 1 no
objection to his description ot the different,
kinds, or degrees, to use his owu expression, of
governments de facto ; but with alldeieranee, I
do not accept the legal consequences, which he
deduces from the destiections which he makes.
His definition ot u de facto government in 'its
strictest sense is do doubt, correct, as also his
illustration ol such government by the example
ot the commonwealth in England during the
times of Cromwell. Another description of a
government de facto is gives by him which he
denominates a government of “paramount
force.” Iu this class be puts the government of
the Confederate States. He also refers to the
cases ot Tampico occupied during the war with
Mexico by the United States troops, and of
Castiue, in Maine, reduced to British possession
during the war of 1812. as examples ot this
sort of government. The difference which he
makes between a de facto government in its
strictest sense and a government of paramount
lorce is, that the citizen is protected in his obe
dience to the former eventin bearing arms against
the legitimate government, while he is protected
in his obeditnee to the latter only in civil and
local matters, and not in performing acts oi !
military service against the legitimate govern- i
ment. This question wa3 not involved in tha
case before the Supreme Court, and the opinion J
of the Chief Justice upon it, has not the au
thority of law, though entitled to tire highest
respect. I contend that in reason and principle
there is no such distinction between these two
discretions of governments de facto. as the
Chief Justice has drawn in the opinion he de-
livered in that case.
I have already stated in substance, that
the reason why the authority of govern
ments de facto, is recognized as a protection io
the citiz n in his obedience to it, is that, unless
that authority can be held up as a shield ior his
protection, in times of civil commotion, to
which every government is exposed, the citizen
would be left without any protection whatever
and exposed to the perils ot disobedience to’
rightful authority when established, though that
authority was not, and could not, bsenfored
at the time ot the disobedience. In this con
sists the reason why obedience to governments
the Confederate States within its territorial lim
its was'supreme, absolute, irresistable. Doea it
not, then, come clearly within the principle of
tte rule ot law declared by the statute of Henry,
7—that no one shall be held to account in per
son er estate for his obedience to the de facta
government, even though at war with the le
gitimate government? Why not? The only,
reason assigned is because lhe government ot
Confederate Srates did not get possession of the
customary seats of the United States Govern
ment, and there exercise the customary func
tions ot the latter. In the case referred to,
Chief Justice Chase a&ys: “To the extent then
ot actual supremacy, however unlawfully gained,
in all matters ot government within its military
lines the power ot the insurgent government
cannot be questioned.” “Its power was ret
nized as supreme m nearly the whole of the
ritory of the States confederated in insurrec
tion.” This language is plain—cannot be mis
taken. There are no degrees ot supreme power.
Nothing can be higher or greater than the su
preme. Does it matter, then, whether this su
preme power was exercised at a particular
place or not, as affecting the ooedience of the
citizen subject to that power ? Would this power
have been more supreme, il I may use the ex
pression, over the people of the Confederate
States, if it had been for the Ume established at
Washington, and President Lincoln and the
Con cress of the United States had removed to
Philadelphia? The authority ol the Govern
ment ot the United States in the territory ot the
Confederate States had been abolished as com
pletely as it that government had been expelled
from its customary seat at Washington and the
Confederate Government occupied that seat. So
far. then, as the reason ot the principle applii
and the rights of the citizen Are concerned, it
matters not whether the legitimate government
has been expelled from “its customary seat” or
not. If within the territory of the legitimate gov
ernment, resistance to its authority baa acquired
sufficient power to expel the legitimate govern
ment from a certain well defined portion ot that
territory, and to establish another government
over its people, exercising supreme authority,
enforcing obedience to its laws, in tine, discharg
ing all the lunctions ol a government, such a
government, in all its essential requisites, ac
cording to reason and principle, is as much a de
facto government as if it had expelled the legiti
mate government from its customary seat. In
the case supposed, the legitimate government has
been deprived ol its customary functions, and
they have been transferred to another power,
the government in being. And thiB is the real
test of the question, whether a government is
de facto government or not. It is a question ot
power, ot the exercise of tbe lunctions of a gov
ernment, ot actual domination. The customary
seats ot the regular authorities may be held
after their customary functions have ceased,just
as the customary functions ot the United States
government ceased, were suspended in tbe terri
tory of tbe Confederate States.
To hold that the possessions of the customary
seat of government is necessary iu order to
entitle a government to the obedience ot its
citizens, seems to me to be putting the question
on too narrow and technical grounds. This is
especially true when applied to the government
ot the Confederate States. In England, whence
we have derived *»ur ideas ot a de facto govern
ment, an example of the kind or description oi
government which w&s established by the Con
federate States, has never occurred, and from the
nature oi things, could not well occur. Its
government is a monarchy, represented by the
King and his parliament sitting at Westminster.
The straggles in that country were made upon
the question who should be King, and with bis
parliament rule the kingbom. The contest was
tor the seat ot power itself, who should rule in
the ancient castle hf Windsor or in Whitehall.
Hence, tbe actual possession of the throne, the
occupation oi the customary seats of the regular
authorities, was considered tbe strongest evi
dence ot rightful authority and title, at least so
far as the obedience of the subject was con
cerned. Owing to our peculiar system of gov
ernment, this evidence oi rightful authority is
not eatitled to have the same lorce here as in
England. In all tbe States of the American
Union, there are local governments which have
always had charge of all matters ot civil ad
ministration which most intimately concerned
the citizens. All the powers of government are
exercised by them, except such as have
been delegated to the general govern
ment, and which were intended chiefly to regu
late the intercourse of these States with foreign
powers.' In the ordinary working ol this system
scarcely anything occurs to remind the citizen
ot his duties to the general government. The
protection of his person and property, all his
civil rights is afforded him by the laws and
tribunals of the State. Military service even,
in time ot peace, is performed by him under
officers appointed by State authority. Such
was the condition of things at the time when
tbe Confederate States withirew lrom the Union,
hence it was but natural that the citizens ot
these States in this great civil commotion should
look to their State governments as guides tor
their conduct, as the governments from which
they should seek protection and to which they
should render obedience. These State govern
ments adhered to the government oi the Con
federate States, and claimed for it the obedience
ot their citizens. The question with them was
not whether they should possess the seats ol
power at Washington and govern the whole
country North as well as South, but whether
they should have a government ot their own
located within tlOeir own limits and such a
government they did establish, exercising during
its existence supreme authority. But it is said
that this government was not acknowledged in
the character winch we claim ior it. either by
tbe United States or other powers. How does
this fact affect the real character of the govern
ment, or plaee tito relations oi the citizens to it
on a different roofimg? Is it necessary that a de
facto government should be recogn ; zed as such
by the legitimate government as well as other
powers in order to acquire that status? —
If so, it is probable that there never
thmtw of his day, of whom Dr. Johnson said,
“ No man ol could meet Burke, by acci
dent, under a gateway, to avoid a shower, with
out being convinced that be was tbe first man in
England.” I say it is clearly his opinion, from
the extract I have read, that the recognition ot
belligerent rights in a people put them beyond
tbe pale of treason.
I beg permission to read, also, an extract from
the speech of the same author, on conciliation
with America. In discussing the question
whether the authorities of Great Britain should
irosecute the people of the colonies, for treason
n their overt act of resistance to the mother
country, he said:
“At ibis proposition I mast pause a moment.
Tbe thing seems a great deal too big for my
ideas ot jurisprudence. It should seem, to my
way of conceiving such matters, that there is a
very wide difference in reason and policy be
tween tbe mode ot proceeding on the irregular
conduct of scattered individuals, or even oi
bands of men, who disturb order will in tbe
State, and the civil dissensions which may irom
time to time, on great questions, agitate the sev
eral communities which compose a great em
pire. It looks to me to be too narrow and pi -
dantic to apply tbe ordinary ideas ot criminal
justice to this great public contest I do not
know lhe method ot drawing up an indictment
against an whole people ******’*
1 am not ripe to pass sentence on the gravest
public bodies, entrusted with magistracies ot
great authority and dignity, and charged with
the safety of their fellow citizens, upon the same
title that I am. I really think that for wise men
this is not judicious, tor sober men not decent,
for minds tinctured with humanity, not mild and
merciful.”
Such are the opinions of the greatest orator
and the most profound ot the philosophic states
men of tbe times ot one who, though a s todc
advocate of monarchical institutions, was si ill
the friend of htfman liberty—ot a man who wss
able to rise above tbe passions and prejudices
of the hoar, and from tbe highest elevation ol
thought, to contemplate, with impartial eve,
the conduct ol men and the affairs ot govern
ment.
It seems to me that Chief Justice Chase, in
the opinion which he delivered in the case ot
Thorington concedes what we contend tor
when he puts tbe government cf the Con
federate States in the same class oi which the
government of Castine, during its occupation
by the British in 1812, is an example. Mr. Jus
tice Story, in delivering the opinion in the case
of tbe United Slates vs. Rice, says ot Castiue:
“Tbe sovereignty of the United B’ates over the
territorv was oi course suspended, and the laws
of the United States could no longer be enforced
there or be obligatory upon its inhabitants.”
Again: “By the surrender, tbe inhabitants
passed under temporary allegiance to the British
government, and were bound by such laws,
and such only as it chose to recognize and im
pose. From the nature oi tbe case no other
laws could be obligatory upon them.” Here
the principle we contend for, is recognized, and
the reason of it stated with precision and lorce.
I think the opinion of the Court in the case ot
Thorington has tailed in the object to dwarf
this great principle, or to fritter it away by
The Call for a SUM CoavezUoa. I
We have, only on one occasion, noticed the I _____
call for a State Convention which emanated invalare on the block
From the New York Evening l9t ****'-
New York Mouey »•««. .
=21L^SSS a &£
specious reasoning when applied to the case of
the government ot the Confederate States. It
should be borne in mind also, that the point be
fore the court here, was not involved in tbe case
referred to. The question in that case was
simply whether a contract ior the payment ot
Confederate notes made during the war, be
tween parties residing within the Confederate
States may be enforced in the courts of the
United States according to the intent of ihe
parties. This question was decided in the affir
mative. The reasoning in that opinion on the
subject ot different kinds ot de facto govern
ments and the position assumed in it, that the
supremacy ot the government ot the Confeder
ate States would not excuse or justify acts of
hostility to the United States are merely obiter
dicta.
The authority cited from Yattel is full to the
point m-ide in the brief. That great publicist
uses the following language: “A civil war breaks
the bands ot society and government, or at least
suspends their force and effect; it produces iu the
nation two independent parties who consider each
other as enemies and acknowledge no common
judge. Those two parties, therefore, must ne
cessarily be considered as thenceforward con
stituting, at least for a time, two separate bod
ies—two distinct societies. Though one of the
parties may have been to blame in breaking tbe
unity ot the State and resisting the lawful au
thority, they are not the less divided in tact.
Besides, who shall judge them ? Who shall
pronounce on which side tbe right or the wrong
lies ? On earth they have no common superior.
They stand, therefore, in precieily the same pre
dicament as two nations who engage in a con
test, and being unable to come to an agreement,
have recourse to arms.”
Again, the same writer says: “The sovereign
indeed never fails to bestow the appellation oi
rebels on ail such of bis subjects as openly re
sist him; but when the latter have acquired suffi
cient strength to give him effectual opposition,
and to oblige him to carry on the war against
them, according to the established rules, he must
necessarily submit to the use ol the term ‘civil
war.’”
The war between the United States and the
Confederate States was therefore a civil war, in
the sense understood and accepted by the laws
of nations. Compared with that great struggle,
a rebellion is a pigmy to a giant—a farce to a
tragedy. Does it require argument to show
this? Who does not feel it, know it ? Is it
not the greatest perversion of language, a
violation of the plainest dictates of rea
son and the principles ot justice, not to speak
of the sentiments ot humanity, to characti rize
as a rebellion, this great war between lhe States
of the Union; to say that the government which
the Confederate States upheld ior more than
four years, which sprang into existence with all
the insignia of imperial power, like Minerva
full-armed from the brain ot Jove, was no gov
ernment at all, its mtreat shadow, having noth-
from this place, by whom, and from whence,
we are not advised. There is, in these degene
rate days, much of what a departed friend,
well known in Georgia, called “ assumacy,
and we are inclined to the position that a futile
one, and one more productive of mischievous
consequences could not have been made, under
the present condition oi Georgia affairs. Com
menting upon it, the Columbus Enquirer, one ol
the most conservative, and it must be conceded
ot the staunchest Democratic papers ol the
State, says:
We have receiv* d, in a letter from Atlanta,
lhe following call tor a State Convention to or
ganize a party in opposition to the plunderers
and usurpers who now have control in Georgia.
It is hardly necessary for us to say that we re
gard tbe overthrow ot that party as the great
political necessity ot the times, and that we are
willing to unite with all patriotic men in bring
ing it about But this call does not come to us
with sufficient endorsement to satisfy us entirely
that there is not something kept conct aled
some device by which the leadership may be
transferred to men who are not the representa
tives of princ'ples which we are unwilling to
abmdou or compromise. We say that the en
dorsement is not sufficient to quiet our appre
hension -for we are not informed by whom the
call is made—and we can neither second nor
oppose it without more light:
Whereas, There can be no doubt that if the
party now in power iu this Slate is permitted to
go on iu their extravagant, reckless, and cor
rupt expenditures ot the resources ol Georgia,
in their unbridled and wanton infraction of law
and right, they will enact eveu more infamous
and degrading acts, obnoxious to our people,
detrimental to their interests, aud bankrupt the
State:
Resolved, That ignoring all past issues and
political differences and prejudices which have
heretofore divided us on men and measures, we
invite all good citizens to unite in an unanimous
effort ti. nurl irom power, by all lawful means,
the political adventurers who, like vultures on a
dead carcass, are devouring the State to the
very bones.
Resolved, That, in order to secure the co-oper
ation of the great masses of the people in this
movement, upon the success ot which the fu
ture agricultural, commercial and financial pros
perity ol Georgia depends, a Stale Convention
composed ol delegates from all tbe counties in
the State, is invited to assemble in Atlanta, on
March 15,1870, to confer together, and adopt
such measures as the gravity of the crisis de
mands.
We do not know from where the foregoing
could come, but we do feel that it ought not to
be heeded ; that it is without warraut from any
respectable authority, in the sense of political
and other influence, and ought to be, as our
Columbus cotemporary thinks, disregarded,
would be suclr a eovernment. But _ is | fog of its prestige or authority, and that those
it trua that the governmeut of the United ^ho obeyed its commands, were rebels in the
Q»n /Rrl nnt nnkn.\mlnJm fn/I<.(ir> tn . • ..... 1 . » . «
States did not acknowledge the Confederate
Government as a governmeut de facto ? It is
admitted that it did not do so ia terms, but it
conceded fo that, government rights which be
long to a de faeflo government—the rights ot a
belligerent pow er. This was done, it is true,
reluctantly, but not the less effectually on that
account. Nor did foreign powers recognize it
in terms as a eta facto government or enter into
treaties with it, but they also acknowledged it
as a belligerent power. 'This is all that foreign
government!! are accustomed to do under like
circumstance!/. W hen a people have thrown oft
their allegiaijce to their government, and have
bad recour se to arms to establish their inde
pendence until they have made their opposi
tion to th eir government so effectual as to de
monstrate that the a’tempt to reduce them to
suhjeoatitoa has failed, foreign nations are not
accosronsed to go further than to acknewledge
theii; ti^/e as a belligerent power. Foreign pow
er^ aener acknowledge a de facto government as
s^iph. In the great family ot nations, all its
mem’aers stand upon a perfect equality. To
trea t with a nation is to acknowledge this equal
ity.. It Great Britain, or any other power, had
m ade a treaty with the Confederate States, the
s ct would have been a recognition of their in
dependence, that they were entuhsd to take
their stand among the nations ot the earth.
This was no done, but everything abort of this
was done. Tbev were acknowledged as a bel
ligerent power not only by foreign powers,but by
the acts of the United States authorities. I have
read history to little purpose, if this be the treat
ment which traitors have received at the hands
ot their sovereign.
Who ever heard of helligerent rights being
accorded to traitois ? This, I confess, is some
thing new to me. I do not think that you will
find such a doctrine laid down even in any of
the old writers who lived at a time when abso
lutism aud kingly perogative were in tbe ascen
dant. i take tbe liberty to acmmend to your
Honors' attention what one ot the most distin
guished statesmen ot the age in which we live
has said on this subject. It is no doubt familiar
to your Honors, but it is so refreshing in these
times to drink from tbe chrystal fountains of
wisdom, which such men have struck ont Irom
the rock of truth, that at tbe risk ot being tedious,
I beg your indulgence while I read a few pas
sages irom his writings. In bis letter addressed
to the Sheriff oi Bristol in 1777, on the affairs of
America, Edmund Burke said:
“War is at present carried on between the
King’s natural aud foreign t roc>pi on one side,
and tbe English in America on tbe other upon
the usual footmg of other war*: and according
ly an exchange ot prisoners has been regularly
made from the beginning. It notwithstanding
this hitherto equal procedure, upon some pros
pect ot ending the war with suoss (which,
however, may be delusive) the administration
prepares to act against those ; s traitors who
remain in their hand at th*-close on he troubles
in my ooinion we shall exhibt' lo ihe world as
indecent a piece ot injustice as ever civil jury
lias produced * * * * * *
These strange incongruities must cverpcrplex
those who confound the unhappiness ot civil
•dissensions with tbe crime of treason. Whenever
a rebellion really and truly ex sts wl ;ch is as easy
Jy known infect as ltisdifficd. to define in words
government has uot entered into such military
•conventions, but h is ever declined ail intermedi
ate treaty, which should put rebels in possession
or the law o£ nations with regard to war. Com
manders would re< eive no benefit at their bands
de facto in the eye ot the Law is regarded as ex- j because thsy could make no return tor them.—
c usable. I have already shown that protection J W :ao has ever beard of
capitulation and paroles
of honor, and exchange of prisoners in tire late
by the government is the consideration of the ~ ,
allegiance due by the citizen. I have also J ref lellion in this kingdom.”
shown that the authority ot the Government of ’ It iq clearly \opinion of this profot^^
sense in which that term is used by tbe law
writers, Such a doctrine, with all due defer
ence, it seems to me, belongs to another age, the
times of bloody Mary or Henry the Eighth. It
may prevail now while tbe feelings widen that
struggle engendered still have their influence,
but when the.swell of the great storm shail have
subsided, and the agitated wati rs find their level
and again become tranquil: when in times to
come posterity shall calmly review these great
events and examine into tbe motives of those
who took part in them, a different judgment will
be rendered. When history shall have made its
impartial record ol these events, it will tell an
other tale. Although it may not justify those
who were led to this attempt at revolution,
and plunged the country into civil war, it will
attribute their offense to mistaken virtue, and
refuse to put it in tbe class of nefarious crimes.
As I have already said, I think the courts
have gone quite far enough in spreading the
taint of rebellion upon the acts ot parties en
gaged in this war. I fully appreciate the diffi
culties which they have to encounter in con
sidering cases like this. But it does seem to me
that the error has been committed of viewing
the questions they involve too much in the light
ot mere questions ot municipal law, embar
rassed by its technicalities and cold precedents,
and not as great que .tions ot public law to be
determined according to the eterna' principles
of justice and humanity. Precedents may
always be found in favor of arbitrary power—
they are ot its own creation. History is full of
these precedents, especially ot such as origina
ted in times of civil commotion, when power
was seeking to establish itself, whether right
fully or wrongfully. They are worth but little
as authority. What court, that has any regard
tor the principles ot justice and truth, would
rely as authority upon the decisions ot the Star
Chamber of James or upon the cases of Alger
non Sydney and Sir Harry Vane, who were
convicted and executed for treason? Courts
should be governed by the opinions of the great
luminaries ot the law, such as Hale and Black-
stone rather than by the decisions ot those who
showed themselves to be willing instruments of
tyrants. I think, too, that something is due, by
tboae who administer the law, to the age in
which we live—to the progress which it has
fir civilization, and especially in reforming
the criminal law, in softening its harsh features,
in adapting its provisions to the spirit ol the
age. A great change has taken place during
the present century in the ideas ot men upon
the subject ot penal laws. So late even as the
time ot Sir William Blackstone, there were by
the laws ot England one hundred and sixty cap
ital crimes. Go back to the reign of Henry the
Eighth, and see how many acta were denomina
ted and punished as treason. Now, under our
government and laws, treason is confined to
one act, making war upon the United States.
The spirit of the age in which we live revolts
at the criminal code which prevailed even at
the beginning ot the present century. In all
proper cases, therefore, in construing crimes or
offenses, our courts Bboold endeavor to temper
their opinions with the spirit of progress and
improvement, as well as with mercy. And in
no class of cases, should they be more caretul
in applying the principles ot justice, than in
esses where the legitimacy ol their government
ba9 been called in question and its power as
sayed. Io all such cases,‘ power is on one side
and weakness on tbe other.”
A leading London newspaper says that it is
practically certain that the ballot will be the law
ot England before the present preliminary sea-
Exchange and in gold room. aS3i8ted
MsSSSSSfiwS
wl nJk»M >»-av k y fteb,a ! l l !S!&!S”
been eery heavy, and many " rlbe r
been entirely cleaned out. lhis nas mreuc
weakened the bulls, and is another weak spo
lor the bears to move on. „„ m „i„tpiv de-
The events of to day have ris !
moralized all speculative t h at ev “y
and this was clearly seen in the tact that e y
time the markets rallied this afternoon the bulls
W Thedayclosed with very litt,e /f^he^heavy
the lowest point, when we consider the heavy
de Tfo> e n™xt r move for lower prices will be made
on the basis of a drain of currency tJthemte
rior tor Spring settlements, which are a'ways
made in the Middle and Eastern States on the
1S Thet>ank9, this year, have commenced toeing
currency much earlier than usual, which ia ac
cepted as meaning that the intenoir isinuc
poorer in currency than generally expected.
*Tbe bank statements will be watched with
much interest in the future, in view ot thei clree
connection of this currency question with tbe
future of values in W all street.
The decline in gold is beginning to affect
merchandise, and produce and values are grad
ually shrinking. In the department ot dry
goods it has checked business and brought down
^ In the produce markets it has materially
affected cotton, and brought about a panicky
teeling in the market for thiB great staple.
The decline in cotton within a week has
entailed heavy losses on speculators and wiped
out a great many ot them.
The money market was very easy at the close
at 4 to 6 per cent, ou call. Prime discounts are
7 to 8 per cent. _
The foreign exchange market is nominally
steady, although there is very little business
d °One of the leading bankers is asking 1081 less
1-16, but all the others are willing to draw a'
1084. 'ess 1-16. Colton bills are quoted at 10a
l °The^gold market was very calm at the elo.-e
which was quite natural in view of the exhaust
ing excitement in the early part ot tbe day.
The latest quotations were 115^ to 1154-
Not Truk.—The Atlanta New Kta states an
untruth when it says the Governo*r’9 proclama
tions were spread out in the Republican so as to
fill space.” They occupied the usual space al
lotted to such documents by the press geuerally,
and but little more than half that now appro
priated fy the New Era aDd the Intelligencer,
whose spreading out is a shameless swindle upon
the treasury.
Between the Savannah Republican and the
New Era, we do not wish to interfere. We have
only to say on the part of the Intelligences,
that we publish all advertisements in the style
which we receive them, whether from officials
or individuals, and so has been the uniform
practice of the papers of this State, and all over
the United States. Patriotism is one thing, and
business is another, and no paper in Georgia
knows this better than the Republican.
Women an J uror*.
Eleven women as jurors, is one of the startling
pieces of news from Wyoming to-day, some of
them women of iamily, and some of them also
wives of busy husbands. We hope they will
like it. Missouri, too, we see, half promises the
bailot and its responsibilities to women. As in
the West women are generally very scarce,
those who are in for the ballot now have a gol
den opportunity ot reaping all its advantages.
Appointment of Census Takers.
We copy from the New Era, of this morning,
the following notice regarding the appointment
of census takers, lor the benefit of those who
are seeking, or may desire, such appointments:
“ We are authorised to state that applicants
for appointments to take the census ot the sev
eral counties, will be required to make and file
their application, made in their own hand-writ
ing, stating how loDg they have resided^ in the
county for which they make the application,
their present and previous occupations, whether
they can take the oath required by law tor all
officers of the United States, (the iron clad oath,)
and such other facts as may enable the Marshal
to form a judgment of the applicant’s fitness ior
the census service.”
•* We fear there is much misapprehension
abroad in the community as to the value of these
appointments. There is only a fair compensa
tion provided for tbe work if fully aud faithfully
performed. And this, we understand, will be
rigidly required by the Marshal before any pay
ments are made. In all cases, it will be neces
sary lor the census taker to perform the work
required personally, and in no case c n the posi
tion be sub let, or 'the service be performed bv a
substitute. Active work will not commence be
fore the first of June next”
“ Applications addressed to Major William H.
Smyth, Uuited States Marshal,can be. filed with
his deputy, in this city, Mr. Chamberlain.”
Wall Street—jElscomfiture ol the Balls,
New York, February 28.—To-day was ore
oi marked importance in the bear campaign on
Wall streeL The movement was assisted by the
popular feeling lor a lower gold premium, and
the general list rush, occasioned by tbe break in
gold. Bulls suffered severely, aud many Bmall
operators were cleaned out. The events of to
day have completely demoralized all specula
tive movements lor a rise. This is clearly seen
in the f act that every timet.be market rallied the
bulls were free sellers. The day closed with
very little recovery lrom the lowest point.
THE BEARS ADVANCING.
The next move lor lower prices will be on
the b isis at a drain of currency to the interior
lor spring settlements, which are always made
in the middle and eastern States on ihe 1st of
April. Banks have commenced losing cuirency
much earlier than usual, which is accepted as
meaning that the interior is much poorer in cur
rency than was generally expected.
Rumor says that a powerful combination are
manipulating the market, with the intention of
making a sharp upward turn in premiums.
GOVERNOR BROCKEP.AGE.
The following is the official announcement of
the Treasury policy ior March :
United States Tretisury, New York. February 28.
During the month ot March, 1870, I shall, bv
order, receive bids for gold and otters of bonds
as toliows ; Bids tor gold March 3, one million
dollars; March 17, one million dollars ; March
31, one million dollars; all account of the sink-
i fund. Offers ol bonds Wednesday, March
2, on account of special fund, one million dol
lars ; Thursday March 10, on account of sink
ing fund, one million dollars; Wednesday,
March 16, on account of special fund, one mil
lion dollars; Thursday March 24, on account of
sinking fund, one million dollars; Wednesday,
March”30, on account of special fond, one mil
lion dollars. Chas. J. Folgeb,
Agent of Treasurer. |
The Baltimore New Eclectic.—This very
tasteful magazine lor March drops the cumula
tive title of “ The Land We Love. It open*
with the poem Daphles from tbe Southern
Review. Its other contents are: A Review of
Allsop’s Maryland; Chapters 1-2 of a Perfect
Treasure—Niranna, by Sidney Lanier A con
tinuation of the Dukesborougb Tales—A Maid
en to Marry-The Double Cure—Mrs. Grundy
on the Scientific Study of Poetry—Mosaic, and
the Editorial Department**. Turnbull & Mur
doch, 54 Lexington ptreel, Baltimore. Yearjy
subscription (4,
The Trade and Commerce op New York.
The trade ot the city has increased during
past week, although the decline in gold has un
settled business, and caused a downward turn
in values. In the department ot dry goods, the
chief feature has been the “drives” by the lead
ing firm in the trade. Prints and other cotton
fabrics have been at a reduction ot about one
cent per year below the agems’ prices, which
attracted crowds of buyers and caused con
siderable excitement. This action was feebly
imitated by other firms. A marked feature ot
the trade at present is the concentration of busi
ness, which is confined chii fly to a lew large
houses. In the produce market cotton bas un
dergone a material decline, and lower prices
have also been ma 1e for naval stores, wool and
petroleum, while hops, bay and whisky have
been steady. The market lor hog and beef tiro
ducts has shown more firmness. At the Pro
duce Exchange tbe business in breadstuffs has
only been to a very moderate extent, while
prices have been somewhat irregular and un
settled. Common grades of flour have fallen
oft a trifle, while medium grades have been iu
better request at slightly advanced figures.
Spring wheat has declined 1 to 2 cenis, and
Winter, under a better milling demand, has ad
vanced about 1 cent per bushel. Rye has
slightly advanced, but the business h is been
chiefly of a retail character. Corn, under a
light supply and fair trade demand, has ad
vanced 2 to 3 cents per bushel. Oats have ruled
dull, without material change in price. Barley
has been leas active at rather easier prices, while
peas have sold s'owly at about former figures.—
New York Express, ls< inst.
Poor Old Horse.—When he dies he is bled,
and his blood is preserved tor the use of the
dyer. The maine and t til are next cut off lor
the manu'acture ot sieves, haircloths, and bow-
str ngs ior the violin ; the shoes are taken oft for
the nailer; the hoots are cut off for various
other kindB ot bornw< rk, and a portion
of the teet goes to tbe glue-maker; the skin is
8‘ripped lor the tann> r, who converts it into ex
cellent leather for boi ts and harness, and the
collar maker finds it in its rough state, the best
material for cart harness. Tbe flesh is then cut
up tor camiverous beasts in menageries, or for
dogs, and, though without knowing that they
are hippophagi; (a club of horse-eaters, who
regularly advertise their club days,) some of our
fellow-creatures are regarded in the cheap-eat
ing houses of great European cities with delicate
bits of carcass in the form of pates, pretended
beefsteaks or soup.
When the flesh and fat have been removed,
the stomach and intestines are laid aside tor
machine straps and strings tor musical instru
ments. and are often sold, lor the last pui pose,
as tbe best Naples cords; ihe ribs are turned
into buttons and children’s toys; the large reund
bones serve tor tw« ezers. whistles, knile hand
les, cups, balls and dominoes. The bones ol the
head are either consumed in heating furnaces or
crushed for manure. The remainder ot the car
cass is burnt lor manute. A very useful animal
is the horse, liviDg or dead; and those who
“ pay for dead horses,” are, according to the
above statement, not in such a very unprofitable
business alter all.
On Beltef.
The following is the Resolution on “ Relief”
which recently passed the Geueral Assembly of
this Bute and received the approval oi the
Governor: *
A RESOLUTION.
Resolved by the General Assembly, That all
the proceedings in the several courts oi this
State, founded on any debt or contract made or
entered into before the first ot June, 1865, and
all levies and sales by virtue of any execution
so founded, shall be, and are hereby stayed
until twenty days after the recess taken by this
General Assembly shall have expired.
Resolved, That the General Assembly in com-
nliance with the just demands ot the people
earnestly appeal to Major General A. H Terry
to sanction and enforce the above resolution
alter its approval by the Provisional Governor.
Benjamin Conley,
President ot the Senate.
J. G. W Mills,
Secretary of the Senate.
R. L. McWhorter,
Speaker House of Representatives.
Jno. J. Newton,
Clerk House of Representatives.
Approved February 18th, 1870.
Rufus B. Bullock.
u Deatftt Abroad lu tbe Land.”
This morning’s edition of our paper, contained
the announcement of two deaths, one in
LaGrange—that ot tbe Rev. Dr. W. M. Cun
ningham, than whom none throughout our
State was more highly esteemed as a Christian
“Minister of the Word”—the other of Mrs.
W. A. Hemphill, the wife of our neighbor of
the Constitution, a lady ot rare excellence and
many virtues, whose funeral services took place
this afternoon at Trinity Church, and whose re
mains are even now being follow* d to their des
tined place of interment by a large circle of
mourning relatives and friends. Death is in
deed “ abroad in the land.” Deeply do we
sympathize, in both instances referred to, with
the families and friends ot the deceased. Owing
to the last named event, we see it stated tbat no
paper lrom the Constitution office will be issued
till Monday evening next.
Oar Contributor, C. W. Howard.
In the “ Plantation ” of this morning, we
were much gratified to see under the foregoing
heading, tne following editorial notice:
“ It is with exceeding gratification that we
inform our readers that the proprietors of the
Plantation have made such arrangements as will
secure to its pages weekly contributions from
Mr. C. W. Howard, ot Kingston. We can
hardly allow our feelings full scope in speaking
ot this estimahle and learned man, so widely and
advantageously known throughout the country.
For many years we have, upon all po-sible oc
casions, availed ourselves of the aid and instruc
tion which this gentleman’s experience and
teachings, as ottered the public, have afforded.—
We gratefully acknowledge the benefit which
we owe to ihe writings and conversation of our
friend, and have no doubt that tbe thousands
who read this paper will, in due time, have as
good reason for making the same acknowledg
ment.”
A Foul Murder at Indian Spring —We
received last night, from a gentleman ot this
city, information tnat a most foul and brutal
murder was perpetrated at Indian Spring, on
Sunday last, by two negroes, upon the person
ot Mr. J. McClusky, a quiet, peaceable aud in
dustrious citizen ot Butts county.
It appears that the negrot s had stolen a cow
from Mr. McClusky, and had taken it to the
woods and killed it, and wtre endeavoring to
steal other cattle, when Mr. McC. discovered
them in the field and began to call his dogs —
The negroes testing the dogs and tearing tbat a
general alarm would be made and they be
arrested, turned upon Mr. McC. and killed him
After perpetrating the murder tbe negroes put
the body in a sack and then pul it in a hole
and covered it with a large rock.
Mr. McC. and bis sister were living together,
and it was not long before she discovered the
absence of her brother, and after waiting a rea
sonable time for his return to the bouse, she
notified the neighbors ot his unaccountable ab
sence, and search was immediately made lor
him, but not until the following Tuesday was
his body found, and in the condition above
stated.
The negroes are still at large, but it is to be
earnestly hoped that they will soon be arrestid
and severest penalties of ihe law inflicted upon
them.—Macon Telegraph & Messenger.
The His (X) SIahk Explained.—A statement
appears in some ol our exchanges to the effect
that there is a tobacconist of Richmond, worth
over $200,000, who has to make his “X,” being
incapable ol writing his own name It i9 wtll
to call to mind how this 9tory originated. When
Mr. Jefferson Davi3 gave his bail bond here,
Mr. James Thomas, one of the bondsmen, was
quite ill and so very nervous that he could not
put pen to paper at all. Accordingly he bad
his name written and then affixed mark, as the
law required. Mr. Thomas R. Price (now de
ceased) who was blind, had his name signed to
the same bond also by anothe.r, likewise append
ing his mark. It is weil known here that both
ot these gentlemen were abundantly able to rign
their Dame, except that they were physically in
capacitated at the time. The bond referred to
has been lithographed, and copies have been
scattered to all parts ot the world, with no com
mentary explaining the carious appearance of
two cross marks among the signatures to tbe
bail-bond ot the lamous ex-President of the
Southern Confederacy, and hence the misappre
hension in regard to the facts .-Richmond Em
quirer.
Arbabt op Mbs. Ob. Mary Waleeb
Yesterday morning this lady, while walking
along Tchoupitonlas s'reet, near Girod street,
was assailed t.y a large crowd of boys, who be
haved toward her in a shameful manner, by
nailing her dr. si and hair, addressing M vere
eoitbets to her. The throng increasing, Officer
Mullaly thorgbt proper to airest Mrs. Walker
and bring her Delore tbe Recorder, chaigiug her
with inciting a riot and viol iting a city ordi
ranee which prohibits aoybedy from wearing
the habits of the opposite sex. Durirg tl e
tumult a young man having asked Mrs. Walker
it she remembered when they were both incar
cerated in Fort LaFayette. replied : “You are a
liar and ad—d s .” Ric rdtr Becker re-
teased her on the ground that the Legislature
having treated her respect fully, he was in dtry
bound to do tbe same thing, or snmethii g to
that effect.—New Orleans Bulletin, 22d.
The Boston people are having a great dpal of
sport in their skating rink?. It makes one truly
envious to iei4 their newspaper accounts of the
display of grace and energy made upon the
ekaW in that regioo. We could beat these
affairs all to nieces if we only had the ice. But
Jtoe^-tb^r»frere the trouble begins.
“Kina: Cottou.”
The New York Democrat, commerting upon
the recent decline in gold, says: “ If it were not
lor the cotton crop, there would be no coin bal
ances in the New Yoik bnnk9, nor in the Fed
eral Tre i9uiy It would all he od the other side
of the Atlantic.” -If the best informed mer
chants and financiers are to be believed, the
Democrat is right, tor they, too, make the sari e
assertion.
Meningitis.—We learn that this strange and
extraordinarily fatal disease is prevai'ing to a
fearlul extent in Crawford county, in this State,
there being over one hundred and fifty cases,
and not sufficient available medical skill to com
bat the disease. The people have written, so
we understand, to this city asking for medical
help to be sent them in their distress. We trust
that recognizing the force of the able address
delivered at that commencement of the Medical
College last night, the call will be answered.—
Savannah News, 2d instant.
What Constitutes Hell.—Dr. Norman
McLeod is accredited with the tollowiDg :
Let the fairest star be selected, like a beau
teous island, in the vast and shoreless sea of the
azure heavens, as the future home of the crimi
nals from earth, and let them possess what they
most love, and all that it is possible for God to
bestow; let them be endowed with undying
bodies, and with minds that shall ever retain
their intellectual powes; let no Savior ever
press his claims upon them, no Sabbath ever
dawn upon them, no saint ever live amoDg
them, no prayer ever be heatd within their
border, but let society exist there forever, smit
ten with the leprosy ot enmity to God, and
with utter selfishness as its all-pervading and
etc rual purpose - then, as sure as the law of
righteousness exists, ou which reds the throne
of God and the government of tbe universe, a
society so eonstituttd must work out tor itself
a hell of solitary aud bitter suffering, to which
there is no limit except the capacity of a finite
nature. Alas! the spirit that is without love to
God or its neighbor, is already possefsed by
power which must at least create for its own
self-torment a worm that will never die, and a
fire that can nevermore be quenched.
An Afflicted Hu.-band.— An ex-army offi
cer iu Indiana tells a story of an acquaintance,
who, having removed from his native town
wh n a young man, went back there for his
wile She livid but a short time, and he jour
neyed hack tor another, who also soon “ went
to he an angel ” Again be returned to bis na
tive village, and this time he brought back two
charmina creatures; one he married and the
• •tiler he kept on hand as a supply in case tbe
Reaper should make him awidowtr for the thud
time.
Destructive Fire in Palmetto.—A friend
writes us from Palmetto, a short account of the
disastrous conflagration, which occurred in this
village, ou the night of March the 3d. He says,
“ the fire began in Mr. W. J. Shockley’s store,
and then spread until 13 business houses were
destroyed. I give the names ot those who were
burned out: W. J. Shockley, Morgan & Bohan-
nan, W. P. Davis, James C. Smith, Davis &
Thomas, Dr. 8. Z. Tatom, W. W. Floyd, A.
Hutchinson & Co., Wm. Jackson, Garrett &
Walthal, W. J. Shockley, and J. C. Smith were
partially insured, the others had no insurance.
The general impression is that the fire was the
work of an incendiary.
We sympathize with our Palmetto friends in
their misfortunes, and only regret our inability
to afford them that substantial relief, which
they now so much need no doubt We hope
t he vile perpetrator, which has caused so much
mischief may he ferreted out, and upon convic
tion, be made “ to pnll hemp and stand on noth
ing.” A few examples of this aoi t are greatly
needed to stop this burning of houses, towns
and cities.
Babnesville.—We learn from the Bames-
vilie Gazette, tbat our old home is in a thriving
and prosperous condition. Manufacturing es
tablishments, public and private buildings are
being erected on a large scale. When we had
cast our lot in ihis pleasant little town some
thirty years ago, it was looked upon as a “one-
horse concern.” We are gratified to learn that
our old friend “ Giddy Barnes,” lor whom tbe
town was named, ztiil survives, but regret to
learn tbat he still adheres to his old togie
notions, and retards the growth ot the village, by
his extravagant ideas of the value of un
improved real estate in the village and
itsv cinity, of which he owns ihe larger proprr-
tion We hope he will unstring himself, and
put his property down at prices which will en
able purchasers to buy, improve ami build up
the town. The location of Baruesville is favor
able to tbe support and sustenance of a very
respectable town. It is surr"undid with an in
dustrious population, fertile lauds, healthy loca
tion and all things else capable of making it one
of the most pleasant villages in Geoigia Our
apology for saying so much in repaid to this
place, is our former residence iu it, and the many
old iriends and acquaintance we have yet re
maining there.
Removed—Our young friends, Reed, Pen
dleton & Ellis, have taken offices iu Chisolm’s
new building, oppotire the marble yard, where
they are prepared to give prompt attention to
any matters pertaining to their profession (tl 8
law.)