Newspaper Page Text
Deritfy intelligencer
ATLAHTA. GEORGIA-
Wadna»dM< February 8, 1871.
Du. Sickle*.
Oar minuter at Madrid has lately given
a state banqnet to the Spanish Cabinet and
diplomatic corps. The occasion of it is said to
have been the conclusion o( an imoortant nego
tiation between the United States and Spain.
What next? Annexation ot Cuba?
JStxv Source of Revenue.
The revenue accruing to the State of South
Carolina from phosphates during the current
year, Bays the Charleston News, ** is expected to
amount, at the lowest estimate, to three hun
dred thousand dollars,” which sum is about
three-Jourths the amount of taxes paid by the
people of that State beiore the war.
Immigration from the North.
The New York Tribune gives an account of
the purchase lately of a large tract ot land in
the Western part of Nor h Carolina, by a colo
ny composed principally ol New Jersey men.—
The sum to be paid tor the land is $500,000, and
Mr. Davidson, attorney lor the colony, is now
on his way to North Carolina, to investigate the
titles. The above colony was created under the
auspices ol Mr. Greeley ot the Tribune.
Ex-Govkhhor Brown, President of the
Western & Atlantic Railroad Company, has,
since the lease of the Road, paid to the State
twenty-eight thousand, three hundred and
twenty five dollars on rental account. Three
thousand, three hundred and twenty-five dol
lars was for the traction of the mouth of De
cember, and the twenty-five thousand due lor
the month of January.
ThiB Road will be well managed, and the
rent promptly paid, for each month, a3 it may
fall due.
Tlie XIX Century.
We have received the February number of
this valuable monthly. From it we k-arn that
the Rev. Dr. Hicks has retired trom its editorial
management, and that the responsibility of its
fntnre prospects has devolved upon Mr. John
G. Livingston. The present number contains a
fair contribution to Southern literature. We
notice that the larger number of conti ibutors is
from the Slate of Georgia. This is a represent
ative literary magazine of the South, and de-
• - '.ho the patronage of the Southern people.
Swedlab Immigrant*.
’ho Press and Messenger, (Eatonton,) says :
" Our neighbors in Jones and Jasper counties
having taa le the experiment of using Swedes
r 3 bouse servants and field laborers are so well
p M, tb it on a recent visit to Jones, we ob-
: that they were makmg arrangements to
rt a la. ge number, and since reaching home
v ave been informed by letter irom Jasper
the people over there are about to do like-
Georgia Senator*.
Mr. Hill has been seated and the door partial
ly opened for Dr. Miller. It is certainly closed
against Messrs Farrow and Wbitely. The indi
cations are that Dr. Miller will be sealed. A
resolution to allow him, as a condition prece
dent, to take the oath prescribed lor persons
whoso disabilities have been removed, has been
introduced and will probably pass. Colonel
Blodgett’s claims to hiB seat have not been con
sidered, and we suppose cannot properly be
until the lourth of March next.
The President’* Hu Kim message.
The Washington correspondent ot the Boston
Post, under date of the k9th ult., says: The
President, in conversation with a friend recent
ly, expressed his sincere and earnest disapproval
ol the results which have followed in the Senate
Ircm the communication ot his socalno
Ku Klux message. He did not anticipate
the appointment of a Committee ot Inves
tigation and the consequent agitation ol
the country over the question, and now
admits the impolicy of the entire movement
which threatens to reopen the question of recon
struction in the South.
An Affair of Honor.
The Augusta Chronicle & Sentinel of yester
day, gives the particulars of the arrest, in that
city, on Tuesday morning, oi Colonel William
Johnstone, of Charlotte, N. C., and A. H.
Davega, ol Chester, 8. C., who had come there
preparatory to a hostile meeting at Sandbar
Ferry. The parties were arrested by order of
Mayor Estes, who had received a dispatch from
the'Mayor ot Charlotte, disclosing their purpose.
It is staled that the matter, in dispute were re
ferred to a Board ot Honor, alter the parties had
given peace bonds. It is, however, thought by
some, that there will be a fight.
Vhe Angnata Consiltutlonnlfst.
The Augusta Constitutionalist, of Wedneeday
last, contains a card announcing the withdraw
al of James R. Raudall from the editorial chair
of that journal. The regret we feel at tlie re
tirement of Mr. Randall from the position w hich
he has filled with such ability and dignity, is
mitigated by the fact that his mantle has been
replaced upon the veteran editor who formerly
presided over the columns oi that paper, J aines
Gardner, Esq.
The salutatory of the latter appears iu the
Constitutionalist oi Thursday, and sounds “ the
true ring”—the battle note ol State’s Rights
Democracy.
Sensations.
Sensations are the order of the day. We have
sensation preachers, to begin with, and how
could they expect sensations to end with them ?
We havo sensation doctors with their wouderlul
nostrums; sensation lawyers with their stun
ning style, inside and outside of court; and last
though* not least, sensation ladies, or ratner,
sensation patterns, a la Parisian. Then we
have sensation newspapers with their startling
heads of news, principally of ciime, -which are
paraled with prurient taste beiore the public,
“ interesting cases ot sensation,’' &c. He who
raises his voice against the>e arts ol the day, is
set down as an “ old logy,” “ behind the limes,”
a partizau of truth and honesty, things that
have “ plavc-d out” Thus the world wags, and
may continue to wag.
Incendiarism in South Carolina.—The
barn and statdes ot A G Maybiu.ot Newber-
■ S C , containing all of his lorage and eight
. tfts, were entirely destroyed by lire on Mou-
ight, 23d instant. It was the work ot an
...V vn'iary.
T e dwollinp, smoke-house and kitchen ol
An E-tes, living near Cross Keys, S C.,
were entirely consumed with nearly all their
ds, on Saiurday night, 21st instant. It
wa v work of an iuceudiary by the name of
M . Jo; o, a ru gro, who has been arrested and
ciufe red the crime.
On Monday night, 23d instant, the gin house,
r <. jtton, screw, about 2,030 bushels ot cot>ou
and a tma 1 quantity ot cotton belonging
m Dr. Allen Crosby, about ten miles we?t ot
Y kville, S. G..on the Union road, were des-
tr y d by. fire. The incendiary's touch was the
cause, and a colored man, who has since dis
appeared, is no doubt the fiend who applied it t
Sav*DD*b River.
The Augusta papers inform us that the late
rains raised Savannah river at that place 25 feet
8 inches, on Thursday at 12 o’clock, wheu it
began to fall, and all fears of an overllow were
allayed.
Bcllroad Courtesies.
We acknowledge railroad courtesies from
Hon. Joseph E. Brown, President Western &
Atlantic Railroad Company, and from Col. B.
Y. Sage, Engineer and Superintendent At'aina
& Richmond Air-Line Railway Company.
Suffocation toy Gas.
A family ol lour persons were lately suffo
cated by gas iu the city of New York. The
J ury of inquest censured the owner of the
louse occupied by the deceased persons lor nut
having the gas pipes properly secured.
The Cuban Insurrection.
The latest news from Cuba leaves but little
doubt that the cause of the Cuban patriots has
become hopeless. Several military chiefs oi the
revolution have surrendered themselves to the
Captain General, and the Government set up by
the insurgents is completely disorganized.
iSirrlife.
On the 81st ult. at the residence of her fath
er, Colonel B. C. Yancey, Athens, Ga., was mar
ried, his beautiful and accomplished daughter,
Miss Mamtb Lou, to Ms. F. Bowdbe Phinizt.
“ Across the threshold led.
And every tear kiss’d off as soon a* shed,
His house she enters, there to be a bght,
fehlnioit within, when all without is night:
A tuaraian angel o’er his life presiding.
Doubling his p. ensures, and his cares dividing : ”
Tlie Income Tax.
The House returned to the Senate the bill
-which had passed the latter body, with a mes
sage that it had no right to oiiginate such a
measure. The Senate refused to concur in the
reasons assigned by the House, and asked tor a
committee ot conierence, which was subsequent
ly agreed to by the House, and there the matter
now zests.
SPEECH
OP
Hon. Linton Stephens,
DELIVERED IN HIS OWN DEFENSE BEFORE
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER 8WAVZE,
At ffacon, Geoifla, January S3, 1871.
May it please the Court: I know full well that
if your Honor is not superior to the average ot
poor human nature, you will find it difficult, it
not impossible, to give my defense in this case
an impartial consideration, and an honest de
cision. The prosecution against me is founded
on the course which I took in the recent politi
cal election, which resulted in a victory lor my
party, and a defeat for yours. It is also directly
in the line of an assault, which was lately made
againBt me in the newspapers, by the official
bead of your party in the State. I therefore
recognize in this case a political prosecution,
just as distinctly as I recognize in my Judge a
most zealous and determined political opponent.
Yet, sir, there are other considerations which
encourage me to hope that 1 may obtain, even
from you, that decision which is demanded by
justice and by the laws. From the personal
knowledge oi you, which I have acquired since
the beginning ol this trial, I have discovered
that you are a man of decided intelligence; and
I am told that you are a man of courage. I am
also told that you, yourself, have been in some
instances, a victim to p ditical persecution, and
an object of unjust obloquy. Surely, such a
man, with such an experience, ought to give a
lair hearing to one whose only fault is not any
wrong which he has committed against th-J
laws, t>ut the damage which he has inflicted upon
a political party. My greatest encouragement,
however, is derived from my confidence in the
lawfulness of my conduct, and the power ol
truth. To truth, bravely upheld, belongs a
triumph which cannot be defeated, nor long de
layed, not even by the intensest prejudices of
partisan strife. I am strengthened, too, in the
advocacy of truth on this occasion, by the con
sciousness that, iu defending myself, I shall
but be defending principles which are dear to
every American, because they lie at the foun
dation ot the whole fabric ot American consti
tutional liberty. Nor, sir, unless I am much
mistaken in the estimate which I have formed
of your character, will you listen to my defense
any the less favorably, because ot the frankness
and boldness with which I shall present it.
Ini accused under the Enforcement Act of
Congress.
My first position is, that this whole act is not
a law, but a mere legal nullity.
It whs passed with the professed object Of
carrying into effect what are called the 14th and
15tti Amendments to the Constitution ot the
United States, and. depends on their validity lor
its own.
These so called Amendments are, as I shall
now proceed to show, not true Amendments of
the Constitution, and do not form any part of
that sacred instrument They are nothing but
usurpations and nullities, having no validity
themselves, and therefore incapable of impart
ing any to the Enforcement actor to any other
act whatsoever.
I take occasion to say, that I regard the 13th
Amendment, abolishing slavery, as clearly dis
tinguishable from the 14th and 15th so-called
Amendments, in the manner both ot its propo
sal and of its ratification. The contrast between
it and them will contribute to make their inval
idity all the more apparent. It is true, that
when the 13th Amendment was proposed, ten
States of the Union were absent lrom Congress;
but their absence was voluntarily, and there
fore did not effect the validity of the proposal.
It is true, also, that the Legislatures which rat
tfied it for these ten States had their initiation
in a palpable usurpation of power on the part
of the President ot the United States; yet it is
also unquestionably true, that they were elected
and sustained by overwhelming majorities ot
the true constitutional constituencies of the
Slates for which they acted ; they rested on the
consent of the people, or constitutional constitu
encu s of the States, and were therefore truly
- L-'gislatures ot the States.” This Amendment
whs iatified by these Legislatures of the States
in good faith, and in conformity with the al
most unanimous wish ot the constitutional
“ peoples.”
How different is the case of the 14th and 15th
so called Amendments I It these are parts of
the Constitution, I ask, how did they become
so ? Were they proposed by Congress in a con
stitutional manner ?
In iraming and proposing them every State
of the Union was entitled, by the express terms
of the Constitution, to be represented in speech
and vote by “two Senators” and “at least one
Representative.” But ten States of the Union
were absent This time their absence was not
voluntary but compelled. Wheu they were
claiming a hearing through their constitutional
representatives they were driven away, and de
nied all participation in framing and proposing
theso so-called Amendments 1 Was this a con
stitutional mode ot proposal ? I say, that it was
an unconstitutional mode, and that the proposal
was, ab initio, null and void.
Bui how stands the ratification of these so-
callea amendments? To say nothing about the
duress of bayonets and congressional dictation,
under which the ratification was forced through
the ratifying bodies in the ten Southern States,
the great question is, who were these ratifying
bodies ? Were they Legislatures of the States ?
They were not. They were the creatures of
notorious and avowed congressional usurpation.
They were elected not by the constitutional
constituencies of the States, but by constitu
encies created by Congress, not only “outside”
of ihe Constitution, but in palpable violation of
one ot its express provisions. The suffrage or
political power of ihe States is not delegated
to the General Government by the Constitution;
hut on the contrary, its reservation to the States
is rendered exceedingly emphatic by that pro
vision of the Constitution which, instead of
creating a constituency to elect its own officers
—President, Yice-President and members ot
Congi ess —adopts the constituencies of the
States, as regulated by the Slates themselves,
lor the e;ecliou ol the most numerous branch of
their own Legislatures.
Ten oi the ratifications which were falsely
counted in favor of the^e miscalled Amend
ments as ratifications by Legislatures of Slates,
were only ratifications by bodies which had
their origin in Cougussional usurpation, were
elected by illegal constituencies unknown to tin
Constitution ol the United States or the Oonsti
tutions of the States, and were organized and
manipulated under the control of military com
manders who claimed and exercised ihe juris
diction of patsing upon the election and quali
fication ol their members. Can these joint
products ot usurpation, fraud and lorce be
palmed oft as Legislatures ot States? Can rat-
lticatfon by them be accepted as ratifications
by Leg slatures of States? Can mkehood tnus
be converted into truth by the thimble-rigging
ot Presidential proclamations? These budies
were, indeed, set up by their usurping creators
as Legislatures for and over States; but, until
the known truth ot recent history can be blot
ted out by the mere power of shameless asser
tion, they cannot be recognized as Legislatures
ot States. The parliament of Great Britain is
a Legislature/or and over poor, down-trodden
Ireland; but what Irishman will ever recognize
it as the Legislature of Ireland!
The false, spurious, and Revolutionary char
acter ol these ratifying bodies is rendered still
more glaring by the lact that, supported by the
bayonet, they subverted or rather repressed the
true, legitimate Legislatures ot all the States
where reconstruction was applied. That such
Legislatures existed in these States, and are in
deed still existing, is demonstrable from the
facts viewed in the light of either of the two
theories of secesion—that of its validity or
that oi its invalidity. On either the
ory the seceding States remained States.—
On the one theory, they were States out
ot the Union; on the other, they have remained
all the while States in the Union. The Su
preme Court of the United States in the recent
case ot White vs. Texas, speaking through Mr
Chief Justice Chase, held that secession was in
valid, and that the States which had attempted
it remained and still are States in the Union
A State is not a disorganized mass of people.
It is an organized political body. It must have
a Constitution ol some sort, written or tradi
tional. Being an organized body, it must have
a law of organization or composition or consti
tution, defining the depositary of its political
power. Where there is no such constitutional
or constituting or organizing or fundamental
law, there can be no organization—no State.
These ten States then, which seceded or at
tempted to secede (as the one theory or the
other may be held,) have all the while had con
stitutions. In point otfac teach ot these has ever
been a written constitution, giving the ballot to
defined classes of citizens who are known as
the eoi.stitutional constituency ot the Sta‘e.
This constitutional constituency is entrusted by
each ol these constitutions, with power over the
constitution itselt in modifying or changing it,
and of course, in modifying or changing the or
ganization or compositions ot the constitutional
constituency. This constitutional constituency
is the depositary of the highest political power
of the State. Any change made in the consti
tution or organization ot the State or in the
composition of the constitutional constituency,
as it may exist at any time, without the concur
rent action oi the constitutional constituency
itself, is Revolution. It is disorganization. It
is the subversion or suppression (as it may prove
permanent or temporary) of one organization,
and the substitution ol another. It is the aboli
tion (permanent or temporary) of the old State,
and the introduction ot a new one.
Each ot these ten States, in 1665, at the close
of the war, being then a State, had a confuta
tion and a constitutional constituency lml ed
back by unbroken succession to the constitution
ana constitutional constituency as they existed
before secession. Secession made no break in
the chain. The provision which was put into
the constitution at the time ot secession con
necting the State with the Contederate States
instead of with the United Slates as its Federal
bead, is wholly immaterial to the present pur
pose. In the one theory, it was simply void,
and left the organization of the State, the-con-
stitution and the constitutional constituency
intact. On the other theory, being valid, it
modified but did not impair the integrity of the
State organization. AH this follows from, or
raiher is comprehended in, the odc proposition,
that these ten States have never l03t their char
acter as States.
Each ot these ten States being a State at the
ciose ol the war in 1365, stands now de jure
just as it stood then; unless it has since that
time been changed by the action oi its consti
tutional constituency. I think each oi them was
so changed in the latter part of that same year.
In each oi them a convention was elected by a
iarge and unquestionable majority of the con
stitutional constituency (although a portion ot
them were excluded from voting) lor the pur
pose ot modifying the constitution. These con
ventions repealed the dTOtnances ot secession,
abolished slavery, and made some other chances
in the several constitutions, but (in most oi the
States) lelt the constitutional constituencies just
as ih-y stood beiore. In conformity with the
constitutions, as last modified by these conven
tions, each of the States was speedily provided
with a complete government, consisting of a
Legislative, Executive and Judicial department.
It was by the Legislatures thus formed that the
13th Amendment to the constitution of the
United States, abolishing slavery, was ratified.
Since that time no change has been made in
the organization ot any ot the States, with the
co-operation or concurrence of the constitution
al constituencies. Only very small minorities
of the constitutional constituencies have co-oper
ated in the work of reconstruction. It is a no
torious and unquestionable fact, that an over
whelming majority of them in each of the
States have been steadily and unswerviugly op
posed to it, and have voted against it, whenever
they voted at all.
The clear result in my judgment is, that each
of these States now stand de jure just as she
was left by the action ol her convention iD 1865,
with a complete government, formed under the
constitution of that year, including a Legisla
ture which still constitutionally exists, and is
capable ot assembling any day, it it were only
allowed to do so by the withdrawal ot the bay
onet. But she stands de facto suppressed, by a
government originated and imposed on her by
an external power, and supported alone by the
bayonet. Such a government is the embodi
ment of anti-republicanism and despotism.—
Unde just such a government Ireland is writh
ing, and Poland is crushed.
Is it not now demonstrated that the bodies
which ratified the so-called 14th and 15th
Amendments in the name ot thes9 ten Stales,
were the revolutionary products ot external
force and lraud, displacing the true Legisla
tures which alone could have given a constitu
tional ratification !
These so-called Amendments, then, have been
neither constitutionally proposed, nor constitu
tionally ratified. How can they lorm parts ot
the constitution ?
A successful answer to this question would
long ago have brought that peace and harmony,
which can never come from might overbearing
right. Instead of giving such an answer, the
authors of these measures have sought to drown
reason and argument in clamorous charges of
violence and revolution against the victims—
not the perpetrators ot those crimes.
But an answer has at last been attempted
from an unexpected quaiter. Strangely enough,
it comes from one who has greatly distinguished
himself by the vigor and ability with which he
has denounced the whole scheme of Reconstruc
tion as a revolutionary usurpation and nullity.
And, still more strangely, be adheres to that
denunciation, while now arguing that these so-
called amendments, the creatures and culmi
nating points oi that reconstruction scheme, are
valid points of the Constitution. Such a con
clusion trout such a beginning! And yet he is
hailed by his new allies, as a very Daniel come
unto judgment. They were in a sore strait tor
an argument.
He says these so-called amendments have be
come parts of the Constitution, because they
have been proclaimed as such, by the power
which, under the Constitution, has the “juris
diction” to proclaim amendments.
There has been much said, sir, about these is
sues that are “ dead;” surely here is one that is
not only alive but very lively. Let Americans
hear and m&rk it 1 The Constitution ot the
United States can becbaDged, can be subverted
by Presidential proclamation III 1 once knew
a man whose motto was that a lie was better
than the truth, because, he said, truth was a
stubborn, unmanagable thing, but a lie m the
hands ot a gepius could be fitted exactly to the
exigencies ot the case. But even he admitted
that the lie must be well told or it would not
serve. It it should appear to be a lie it would
be turned from a thiDg of power into a thing of
contempt. There has been progress, sir, since
that man taught. It is now discovered that a
known, proven lie is as good as the truth, pro
vided it can only get “proclaimed” by a power
having “jurisdiction” to proclaim it!! I, sir,
know of no power—either on the earth, or
above it, or under it—that has “jurisdiction”
to “ proclaim” lies ! 1 Nay, sir, I know ot no
power which his jurisdiction to proclaim
amendments to the Constitution. According
to' my reading of that instrument, amendments
constitutionally proposed “ shall be valid to all
intents and proposes, as part ot the Consti
tution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three-fourths ot the several States, or by Con
ventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or
the other mode of ratification may be proposed
by the Congress.” The ratification by three-
fourths of the States acting through their Legis
latures or their Conventions, sets the sfat of va
lidity upon the amendment and makes it a part
of the Constitution. Nothing else cau do if.—
It must be a true ratifi"ttion, by a true Legisla
ture, or a true Convention ot the State. A false
ratification by a true Legislature of the State,
will not ft". A tiue ratification by a spurious
L=gH re, >' I no' do. The validity of the
•vii .i.nent, its au’h'-my as a part of the Con-
i. ion, ate made to depend upon the historic
uuth ot its ratification as required by the Con
stitution. Proclamations ot talsehoods, from
Presidents or trom anybody else, have nothing
to do with the subject. This is plain doctrine
drawn lrom the Constitution itself. The valid
ity of the Constitution in all its parts depends
upon the tacts ot tneir history.
But according to this new discovery, the
President ot the United States can subvert the
whole constitution, and make himself a legal
and valid autocrat, by simply “proclaiming.’
that an amendment of the constitution to that
effect has been proposed by two-thirds of each
House of Congress, and ratified by the Legisla
tures of three-tourths of the States ; although
it may be known of all men that there is not
one word oi truth in the proclamation ! I The
President ot the United States can legally con
vert himself into an autocrat by his own proc
lamation. Theories are quickly put into prac
tice in these days. Let tne country beware! I
We are also told by this new Daniel, not only
that the usurpation has become obligatory by
its success, but that there is no hope of getting
rid of it; for he says, it cannot be changed with
out another amendment, ratified by three-
fourths of the States, and that there is no pros
pect of getting these three-fourths. Wonderful !
Why, he himself has taught us, that the whole
thing may be accomplished by a Presidential
proclamation. We have only to elect a Demo
cratic President, and let him “proclaim” that a
new amendment, abolishing the 14th and 15th,
has been duly proposed and duly ratified; and
the thing is done. That, sir, would be the way
taught by this new light; but it would never be
my way. I do not propose to walk in the ways
of falsehood. I preier truth; because it is no
bier, grander. I believe also that, when it is
supported by true and bold men, it is always
more powerful. My way would be to elect a
Democratic President; and let him treat the
usurpation as a usurpation and a nullity; and
let him withdraw the bayonet; and “proclaim”
that the revolutionary governments in these ten
States would not be supported by him; but that
the constitutional Republican governments,
which now exist here, would be le.t free to rise
trom their state of forcible repression, and do
their natural and legitimate work ot true restor
ation, real peace, sincere and cordial lratemity.
Tint WHOLE PROBLEM IS SOLVED BY THE SIM
PLE WITHDRAWAL OF THE BAYONET.
I have now mown, tnat tne 14:h and loth
Amendments do nut form any part of the con
tinue. n; and thus have madeg >od my first po
sition, that the whole Enforcement Act, which
depends solely upon them for its validity, is not
a law, but a mere legal nullity. ,
My second position is, that, even if the so-
called 14th and 15th Amendments were valid,
yet all those parts of the Enforcement Act
claimed as applicable to my case are utterly
“ outside” of them, and (being confessedly out
side ot the constitution apart from them) are
unconstitutional and not bmding as law.
The 14th Amendment and the small part of
the Enforcement Act relating to it have no rele
vancy to this prosecution, and I shali say noth
ing turther about them.
Those parts of the act claimed as applicable
to my case rest solely upon the 15th for their
validity; and, in order to Bee whether they are
outside of it or not, it becomes necessary to
know what are the terms and extent ol that
Amendment.
The effect of its terms is strangely misappre
hended. It seems to be regarded as a thing
which, by its terms, secures the right ol suffrage
to the negro, and empowers Congress to enforce
that right. This is a total and most dangerous
mistake. Here is the Amendment. It is not
longer than the first joint ot my little finger:
“ Sec. 1. The right of citizens ot the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States, or by any State, on ac
count ot race, color or previous condition ot
servitude***
“ Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
This i3 the whole ot it. Now, sir, I defy ref
utation, when I affirm that, by these terms, the
right of suffrage is not conferred npon nor se
cured to any person or class ot persona whom
soever. The whole is simply a prohibition on
the United States and the several States.. The
United States in legislating tor the District ot
Columbia or a Territory, and the several 8tates
in regulating their suffrage, each tor herself,
are prohibited irom denying it to anybody or
abridging its excercise on either one ot three
grounds—race, color or previous condition of
servitude—but are left perfectly tree to abridge
it or deny it on any other grounds whatsoever—
say female or male, ignorance or intelligence,
poverty or wealth, crime or virtue, or any other
oi an innumerable multitude of other grounds.
In point ot tact the right is denied, both by the
United States and by each one of the several
States, on many ot these other grounds; and
the denial is eu forced under heavy penalties,
not only by the laws of the States, but by this
very Enforcement Act itself. To say that ihe
right is conferred on or secured to anybody, be
cause h cannot be denied for any one or all ot
three reasons out ot an indefinite number of
possible and usnal reasons, is simply absurd.
As well say that a plat ot ground is fenced or
secured from intrusion by putting a wall on one
of its many sides, leaving all the other sides
perfectly open. A right is not conferred or se
cured by law, when it can be denied without a
violation ot law.
Tnis brings me to the crucial test of my
second-position, Whether I have violated any
provismn ot the Enforcement Act, or not, it is
at least certain that I have not violated the
15th Amendment. It is affirmatively proven,
by the testimony ot the two prosecutors in this
case -4hutwo negro managers ot election—that
I did not object to or in any manner interfere
with nny vote on the ground of. either race,
color qr previous condition ot servitude. It is
manifest, then, that it I have violated any part
or parts ot the Enforcement Act, such part or
parts are “ outside ” ot ihe Amendment and
unauthorized by it; since I have not violated
the Amendment itselt. I have not violated the
Amendment, even if its prohibition leached
private citizens, instead ot being confined, as it
plainly is, to the United States and the States
severally.
The truth is, that far the greater part of the
Enforcement Act is “ outside ” ot the Amend
ments which it professes to enforce. This act
presents, another live and very lively issue to
the people ot this country; and already are the
thunders ot opposition heard from Republican
as well as irom Democratic quarters. Under
preteuse of restraining the United States and
the several States from denying or abridging
the right of suffrage on account of race, color
or previous condition of servitude, this act
takes control ot the general and local elections
in the States—seizing the whole political power
of the country, and wielding it by the bayonet;
and fillBkUp pages of the statute book with new
offenses and heavy penalties levelled, not
against the United States or the several States,
or their officers by whom alone the 15th
Amendment can possibly he violated, but against
private citizens. The Alien and Sedition Acts,
which, by the power ot their recoil exterminated
their authors, were not equal to this act either
in the nakedness or the danger of their usurpa
tion. It thi9 act shall prevail and abide
as law, then our heritage ot local self-govern
ment, lost to us, will pass into history, and
there stand out forever a glory to the noble
sires who wrung it from one tyranny, and a
shame to the degenerate sons who surrendered
it to another.
My third and last position is, that, even if the
Enforcement Act were valid in all its parts, yet
I have not violated any one ot them. I am
accused under its 5th and 19th sections.
The 5th provides a penalty against “ prevent
ing, hindering, controlling or intimidating, or
attempting to prevent, hinder, control or in
timidate” any person from voting “ to whom
the right ot suffrage is secured or guaranteed
by the 15th Amendment.” I have already de
monstrated that the 15ih Amendment secures
or guarantees the right of suffrage to nobody
whomsoever. It is impossible, therefore, that
I am, or that anybody ever can be, guilty under
that section.
But again; the testimony utterly fails to show
that I interfered in any way with the voting of
any person legally entitled to vote, or indeed,
with the^roting of any person whomsoever.
It was incumbent on the prosecution to show
what persons, if any; and that they were per
sons entitled to vote. The Enforcement Act
itselt inflicts a penalty on all persons who vote
illegally; and, of course, cannot intend to pun
ish the pre mention or hindrance of illegal vot
ing. The attempted proof, as to my interfer
ence with voters, relates to four persons only.
It tails to show that either one of the tour was
a person entitled to vote. It fails to show that
three of them did not actually vote. It fails to
show that any one of them offered to vote, or
even desired to do so. I tails to show that any
one of them beard me make a single remark,
saw me do a single act, or was even in my pres
ence from the beginning to the end ot the three
days’ election.
As to the remark which I made to a small
crowd, about prosecuting all who should vote
without having paid their taxes, I have this to
say. In the first place, it is not Bhown who
composed that crowd, nor that one single one
of them was a person entitled to vote. In the
next case, the remark was a lawful one; tor it
was Bimply the declaration of an intention, not
to interfere with legal voters, but to prosecute
criminals; and therefore cannot be tortured into
a threat, in any legal or criminal sense ot that
word. A threat, to be criminal, must be the
declaration of an intention to do some unlawful
#c!; and it never can be unlawful to appeal to
th- laws.
I pass to the charge, under the 19'h section,
that 1 interfered wt h the managers of election
in the discharge ot tneir duties, by causing
'heir arrest under judicial warrant. That part
ot the 19th section which is invoked against me
is in these words: “ Or interfere in any manner
with any officer oi said elections in the discharge
ot his duties.”
My first answer to this charge is, that the
managers were arrested, not in the discharge ot
their duties, but in the violation ot one ot the
most important ot them—one prescribed not
only by the Constitution ot the State, but by
this very Euiorceineut Act itselt; for the act
made it their duly to reject all illegal votes, and
provided a penalty lor receiving them. These
managers had received and were still receiving
the votes ot persons who had not paid their
taxes of the year next preceding the election,
as required by the Constitution ot the State.
The testimony shows that this fact was fully
proven, and not denied by tnem, on the com
mitment trial before the magistrate. The reply
to it then was, and now is, not a denial, but a
justification, on two grounds. One ot these
grounds was, that the oath which they had
takeD, under the Akerman Election Act, re
quired them to let every person vote, who was
of apparent full age, was a resident ot the
county, and had not previously voted in that
election. They said then, and it is now said
again here, that they could not inquire into the
non-payment ot taxes or any other constitu
tional disqualification for voting, except only
non age, non-residence and previous voting in
that election. And yet, a man who was of fall
age, and a resident ot the connty, and who had
not previously voted, was excluded by these
same managers, on the ground that he was a
convicted ielon. Their own action in excluding
the felon is utterly inconsistent with their con
struction ot the obligation of their oath. The
oath, as construed by them, and now construed
here by the prosecuting attorney, is in plain
conflict with the constitution, and is therefore
void, s ad could not relieve them trom their con
stitutional duty to exclude all who had not paid
their taxes. Tne first ground of the managers’
justification therefore tails.
Their other ground was, that the unpaid tax
of those whom they had allowed to vote with
out payment of taxes, was only poll tax, and
that the poll tax had been declared by an act of
the Legislature to be illegal and unwarranted
by the Constitution, and its further collection
suspended.
The fact that it was only poll tax does not ap
pear from the evidence before your Honor, but
I admit it to be tru >. I did not come here to
quibble. I am here to justfy my conduct under
the law, on the truth as it exists, whether proven
here or not. My answer is, that this declartory
act ot the Legislature is false, unconstitutional,
null and void. The act is but the opinion ot
the Legislature, concerning the constitution
ality ot a previous act of 1869, imposing the
poll tax for that year. That act is before me,
imposing a poll lax of one dollar per head “for
educational purposes” using the very words
which are used by the Constitution itself in de
fining the purpose for which poll taxes may be
imposed. Now, sir, the question which I ask
is, what it is that makes this act “ illegal” or
unwarranted by the Constitution ? Surely, it is
not made so by the subsequent declaration of
the Legislature put forth just before the elec
tion, to serve a palpable, fraudulent, party pur
pose.
The L igislature is net a court; but on the
contrary it is expressly prohioited by the Con
stitution trom exercising judicial functions, and
its declarations, concerning the constitutionality
ot legislative acts, have no more authority than
those of private citizens. The single question
then is whether the declaration in this case is
true. The Legislature assigned its reason for
the opinion it gave. What is that reason? It
is, that the Constitution limits the imposition oi
poll taxes to educational purposes; and that
when the poll tax in question was imposed,
there was no system ot common schools or edu
cational purpose to which it could be applied.
Therefore they said its imposition was “ illegal
and unwarranted by the Constitution.” They
said it was unwarranted by the Constitution to
provide the money beiore organizing the schools,
to which the money was tc be applied; that is
to say, the only constitutional way to organize
the schools, was to go in debt for them! 1 lack
words, sir, to properly characterize the silliness
of this reason.
But, curiously enouch, the Constitution itself
took the very course, which these sapient legis
lators declared to be “ illegal apd unwarranted
by the Constitution.” It provided money and
devoted it to these very Common Schools, which
were still in the womb ol the luture at the time
of its adoption. It decided to mat purpose
the whole educational tund which was then on
hand. Therelore, I say, this declaratory Act is
not only false, but is iu the very teeth ot the
Constitution itselt. Mark you, sir, it did not
repeal nor attempt to repeal the poll-tax ; it
ouly suspended its collection. But, I say, if it
had been a repeal in terms, instead ot a mere
suspension, it could uot change the case, as to
the right of a person to vote without having
paid me tax. The Constitutional requirement
is, that “ he shall have paid all taxes, which
may have been required ot him, and which he
may have had an opportunity ot paying agree
ably to law lor the year next proceeding the
election.” The poll-tax was *• required iu April,
1869, and continued to be required, up to the
passage ot the atoresaid lalse declaratory Act,
in October, 1870—a year and a halt During
all that period tax-payers had “ opportunity” to
pay it. They had 547 opportunities, counting
each day one opportunity. On the day ol the
election, then, any man who had not paid his
poll tax tor 1869, stood in the position ot not
haring paid a tax, which had been required oi
him, and which he had had very many oppor
tunities of paying agreeably to law. He stood
clearly within tne letter ot the Constitutional
disquadficatiou lor voting. He stood, also,
witum its reason and spirit, for ita true inten
tion was to discriminate agaiust the citizen wno
should not have discharged a public duly lor
the year next preceding the electron. Nothing
but payment could remove from him the char
acter of a public delinquent. Legislative remis
sion of the tax canuot serve the purpose, lor
he still stands alter tluc&aa man who has laded
in a public duty. The most that cau be
said lor him is, that after the repeal, the tax
ceased to be required of him; but the ouly ma
terial tacts—that it had beeu required, and
could have been paid, but had not been paid —
remain unaltered.
Tne managers, then, in receiving the votes
ot persons wno had not paid their poll tax, were
not in “ the discharge ol their duties.” W hether
they thought so, is not the question. It tuey
were really wrong, then 1 was rignt; and suie
ly I am not to be punished lor being right.
There was no interference with them in the
discharge of their dunes.
But again; even il I were wrong in the opin
ion whicn I entertained of their duty, yet 1 did
not interfere with them unlawfully. Tne whole
context oi that clause, in the likn secton under
which I am accused, shows that me mterierence
contemplated is an unlawful interierence; es
pecially the words whicn come immediately at
ter it—“ or by any oi suen means or other un-
Jawiul means,” etc. Tnis word “other” shows,
conclusively, that all the means contemplated
were only such as were of an unlawful charac -
ter. This would be implied in construing auy
penal statute, even it it were not expressed ;
tor the universal rule ot construction lor
penal statutes is, to construe strictly against
the prosecution, and liberally in iavor ol the
accused. Is it impossible that any J udge cau
have the hardihood to hold, that it was the
intention of this Enforcement Act to impart
to managers of election me sacred character
of Eastern Brahmins, making them too holy
to be touched even lor their crimes V Surely
it was not intended to give them greater sanc
tity than belongs to peers of the Briti&h Parlia
ment, or to legislators oi our own country wmle
engaged in legislation. Notwithstanding all the
hign privileges accorded to them, all ol these
are subject to arrest, in any place, at auy mo
ment, under a warrent charging breach ot the
peace or felony. Was it intended to protect
these managers irom immediate accountability
lor all ielonies whicn they might commit during
three whole days ? Until this shali be held as
the intention ot the Entorcement Act, it is im
possible to maintain mat I nave violated it m
any particular whatever.
The Constitution declares, that “the right of
the citizen to appeal to the courts suaii never
be impaired.” My whole oliense, sir, is this
that 1 appealed to a court of competent juris
diction. I devoutly believed I was right in
my opinion ol the law. 1 believe so now.
But, wnether I was right or wrong in my opm
ion, who will dare to say that 1 was wrong m
testing that opinion, not by the strong Uaud,
hut by appealing to a court appointed by the
Constitution, lor the very purpose ol deciding
the question ? That court decided that I was
right; and the “interierence” which loliowed,
sir, was the interierence, not ot myselt, out oi
the law, as expounded and administered oy a
judicial tribunal. Moreover, sir, the decision
oi that tribunal stands as the law ot the case,
until it shall be reversed according to law.—
These managers were charged with leiony
under the laws ot this State. Was it a crime
for me to seek a judicial inquiry iuio the truth
or probability oi such a cuarge? I suspect,
sir, that my real crime, in the estimation ol my
prosecutors, is, that the judicial interposition,
invoked by me, had the effect oi preventing
numerous repetitious ot a crime, winch womu
have done signal service to their political party.
Il angry power demands a saermee lrom
those who hare thwarted its lrauument pur
poses, I teel honored, Sir, in being selected as
LUe victim. It my suffering coula arouse my
countrymen to a just aud lofty indignation
against the despotism which, in at'acking me,
is but assailing law, order and constitutional
government, I would not shrink irom the saert
lice, thouga my blood should oe required instead
oi my liberty.
DeeUloiu oc Supreme Court of Georslt—
Janaurr Term, 1871.
Order of Circuits with the number oi cases
from each s
... l
Southern Circuit
Southwestern Circuit
Pataula Circuit
:::::::::::::
... 0
...15
...27
...27
Maoon Circuit
...13
...12
Tallapoosa Circuit
...10
...17
... 5
...11
Northern Circuit
Midiie Circuit
... »
... 0
Ocmalgee Circuit
Eastern Circuit
Brunswick Circuit
.............
... 9
...10
... 4
Augusta
The Female Lobbyist.—^The beautiful
female touoyisi” is one oi the most numerous
aud irrepressiole ot the demoralizing institu
tions ol Washington. The evil influence exer
cised in this way over the potent, gr .ve and
bald-headed Old codgers of Congress appals
the honest men and disgusts and lulunates the
virtuous women ol the National Capitol. A
letter-writer says: “ There is one golden-haired
goddess here with rosy cnecks aud Cleopatra
iorm, wnose influence is said to be never
exerted in vain; and at her nod, or the glance
oi her pretty eye, she can bring any of
our Solons to kneel at her pretty leet.”
something ought to be done at once
to suppress these captivating sirens.—
Wouldn’t it be a good thing to organize a special
Capitol police, composed at the homeliest and
most severely virtuous ot the wives ot members,
station a squard in each oi the rooms attached
to the halls oi the Senate and House, aud per
mit no interview between lobyists and legisla
tors, except in the presence oi one or more ot
these guardians ? Our impression is that, under
such an anangement, the regions about the
Capitol would soon be made too hot to hold the
seductive “golden-haired goddesses,” now ad
dicted to lobbying dalliance with the venerable
old spooneys who sell subsidies for smiles aud
offices lor assignations.
Oat at Sea.
“ That is the eal'ant ship that will bear
Me over the seas,’’ yon said;
And yon carelessly hnmmed a merry air.
Bat
L crave me a momeni iur mein, yt
1 Knew that my heart was dead.
Cotton.—The receipts ol cotton by wagon,
yesterday, were unusually heavy in this city,
lor this season or the year. Third street was
blocked with wagons all the forenoon, tnat had
brought in cotton, and were reloading with
provisions and plantation supplies for the return
trip home. Those who had purchased Bugar
and salt, must have had a “ mighty bad ” time
in getting home with it tiirougn the drenching
rain of tne atiernoon.
The receipts oi cotton at this point is calling
iorth much comment, and it is confidently be
lieved, by the knowing ones, that our receipts,
lor the present cotton year will reach 110,000*
bales. The receipts for the month oi January,
closing last evening, amounted to 15,524 bales.
For tne month oi January, 1870, tne receipts
were only 7,477 - showing an increase in the re
ceipts ior January, 1871, over those of tire cor
responding month ol 1870, oi 8,047 bales.
On the first ol February, l8?u, middling cot
ton was in good demand in Macon at 23£ cents.
This morning it will take the best to bring 14
cents, and that, too, in the face of acknowledged
peace in Europe. It appears to us these tacts
should be seriously considered by planters
when pitching their crops the coming spring.—
To iaise cotton at 14 cents per pound, under
the present labor system ol the Somh, is a very
hazardous business to say the least or it; and
should the crop oi 18?l-’?2, be as large, or what
is more probable, larger than the crop now com
ing forward, ten cents per pound will be the top
figures next t*h-—Macon Telegraph and Messen
ger.
The Difference,
Every other President went out of office poor.
Grant went in poor. It is not believed that he
will go out as he went in.
Tuesday, January 31, 1871.
After Court had opened and the minutes had
been read, and beiore any opinion had been de
livered, j udge Lyon asked ior permission to
withdraw the record in the ca9e oi Green vs
The Southern Express Company —a case argued
last week. The Court retused to allow the
record to be withdrawn, and proceeded to de
liver opinions in the loiiowing cases :
In Mitchell vs. Tne State—assault with intent
to murder irom Sumter—the judgment oi the
Court below, reiustng a new trial, was affirmed.
The case of G:a3s, et at., vs. Clark & Morgan
—retusal of an iujunction trom Sumter—was
dismissed, because prematurely brougnt to this
Court. The judgment oi the Court below in
this case was tendered before the passage oi
the act by the last Legislature regulating the
practice in injunction cases, aud hence that act
was not considered in the disposition oi this
case.
In Tomlinson, et al., vs. Hardwick, et al.—
Award, irom Sumter.—The judgment ot the
court below was reversed, on the ground that
the couit erred iu overruling tne demurrer to
the exceptions filed to the award, it being the
opiniou oi this court that the exceptions did
not show that the award was so coutiary to the
testimony, as to require an tulerence that there
was lraud, corruption, or mistake on the part
oi the arbitrators, aud the award for that rea
son illegal.
In Weiis, et al, vs. The Mayor and Council ol
Atlanta, et al.— Ihe judgment ot the court
below, refusing to grant an injunction restrain
ing tne execution ot a couu'acl made by said
Mayor and Council tor the construction of
water Works ru said city, was affirmed.
in Green vs. The Southern Express Company
—Aoiion tor false imprisonment, lrom Suuuer.
The judgment ot me court below, granting a
new uiai, was affirmed.
In Windsor aud Jowers vs. Oliver—action
for slander lrom Sumter—the judgmeut oi the
court below was affirmed.
In Johnson, administrator, vs. Stewart, et al
—equity irom L=e—jnugmeut ot the court be
low rej using to discharge the receiver, was
affirmed.
Argument in case No. 16, Southwestern Cir-
cait—Felton vs. Hill and wile —was resumed oy
Judge Jackson tor plaintiff rn error, aud con
duced oy Judge Lyon lor deiendauts in error
No 17, Southwestern Circuit—Cohen vs. Co
hen ifc Co.—naving been enured upon the
docket pursuant to an act regulating tue prac
tice in mis court in injunction cases, was Called
in its order. Penning opening argument oi
Gen. Morgan, lor plaintiff rn error, tne court
adjourned ml 10, A. M, to morrow.
Wednesday, February 1,1871.
Argument in case No. 17, couth western Cir
cuit—Cohen vs. Cohen & oo., et al.— Was re
sumed and concluded. Gen. Morgan anu Mr.
Anderson tor plaintiff in error; Judge Jackson
lor defendant in error.
Nos. 8 aud 10 naving been transferred to the
heel ol me Circuit was called, it is Stalling
vs. Bryce & Co.—Attachment, lrom Sumter.—
it was argued lor plaintiff m error by Judge
iiyou, and lor deieudani in error by Mr. Ander
son.
No. 10, Southwestern Circuit—Darley, Sher
iff vs. i nomas.—Was argued lor plaintiff in
error by Judge Lyon, and lor deieudani in
trrur by Mr. Andet son.
A motion was men made by Mr. Anderson to
take up me case ol Cuubeoye and Hazelburst
vs Adams—injunction lrom Bibo; Judge Jack-
aou, counsel lor deieudani in error was present
aud consented, but memuersoi the Bar lrom tne
Patania circuit, oojecung to the motion Ior tlie
reason that lerren Superior Court commences
next Monday, the Court overruled the motion
and set down me case lor a hearing at the heei
oi me Patania Gtrcuit.
l'ue first case on me docket irom the Pataula
Circuit—Vauder, et al., vs. Turner—continued
lrom me last term—was called and argued lor
plaintiffs in error by Col. A. Hood and General
Morgan, aud lor deieudani iu error by Judge
ft. H. Clark.
Pending argument in Cherry, et al., vs. Dun
bar—-a continued case irom Terrell county, me
Court adjourned till 10 A. M., to-morrow.
'IhuesdaY, February 2, 1871
Argument in tfie case oi OUerry et al vs. Dun
bar—a continued case lrom i'eirell. Was re
sumed aud concluded by Colonel C. B. Woot
en ior piiutiffs m error. No appearance lor de-
iendants in error.
Key vs. Cock—a continued case from Terrell.
Having been settled was withdrawn.
No. 1, ol mis term—Pataula Circuit—Sutton
vs. Bell. Was wimdrawn, no service oi tfie
bill ol exceptions ever having been periected.
No. 2. Pataula Circuit—Foster vs. The state.
W as argued lor plaintiff in error oy Colonel A,
Hood anu Judge Joun I'. Clark, and ior defend
ant in error by Z. D. Harrison.
No. 3. Pataula Circuit—Perry vs. Gilpin.—
Having oeen settled was withdrawn.
No. 15. Paiuula Circuit—Brown vs. Reed &
Co. Was, upon motion, called out ol its order,
aud argued lor plaintiff in error by Judge Ly
on, aud ior defendants in error by Colonel C. B.
W ooten.
Pending argument in No. 4—Shaw & Son vs.
MeK. Gunn, me court adjourned till 10 A. M.,
lo-morrow.
Friday, February 3, 1871.
Argument was resumed and concluded in
case ol A. Sharp & Son vs. John McK. Gunn,
No. 4, Pataula Circuit, by Judge B. o. Worrell
lor plaintiffs in error.
No. 5, Pataula Circuit—Calvin Watson vs
B F. Kemp—Was argued by Judge Kicuaid
H. Claike lor plaintiff in enor, aud Col. C. B.
Wooten lot oeteudaul in error.
Aigument was nearu iu case of Madison
Bcu vs. ine btate—No. 0, Pataula Circuit —
Judge Jonu i’. Clarke ior plaintiff <n error, and
Z. D, Harrison, Esq, representing S. Wiso
Parker, Solicitor General, lor plinuff in error.
No. 7, Patania Circuit—Joun Oeafey i’rusten
vs. Edward Keitrue—case iruui Terrell—was
argued by Judge Joun P. Claike lor plaintiff in
trior, ana oy Judge Richard H. Clarke lor de-
ieadant in eirur.
No. 12, Pataula Circut—J. M. Redding, Ad-
min'strator, and Heine Ford, piaiuliUs in error,
vs. Samuel A. McNeu uefendant iu error,
No. 14, Pataula Circuit—Wm. Solomon,
plaintiff in error, vs James BucUanan, Sheriff,
defendant iu erxor, and No. i6, Pataula Cir
cuit—Leroy M. Brown and Wm. Gresham,
plaintiffs in error, vs. Thomas H. ate wart, de
fendant in enor, were withdrawn.
No. 8, Pataula Circuit—Margrette Johnson, et
al., vs. John James, et al.— was argued ny
J udge Richard H. Clarke ior plaimihs in error,
and Col. A. Hood, lor defendants in error.
PendiDg argument in No. 9, Pataula Cir
cuit—Sanuers vs. McAfee—Court adjourned till
lo-morrow morning.
Saturday, February 4,1871
Argument was heard in No. 9, Pataula Cir
cuit—Eli B. Sanders, plaintiff in error, vs. A. B.
McAfee and J. R. Owen, defendants in error—
Bill ior the euiorcemeni oi vendor’s lien, lrom
Randolph Superior Court. Judge John T
Clarke lor plaintiff in error; Col. Hubut
Fielder ior defendant in error.
No. 10, Pataula Circuit was argued—E. B.
Sanders, plaintiff in error, vs. A. B. McAfee
and J. R. Owen, defendants in error—Claim,
lrom Raudoipu Superior Court. Judge John T
Ciarke ior plain till in error; Col. Huout
Fieluer, for defendants in error.
Monday being consultation day, as usual, the
Court adjourned toll 10 o’clock, A. M., Tuesday
7m instant.
“Arc von —how a oon—and is it tor long ? ’*
Or somethin!? like the-e were my words;
Bat my vo'ce was strange, and the inn looked wrong,
And my brain ran wild with jour careless song,
And the singing of hateiui birds.
“To-morrow,” von answered quietly.
Bn the words fell down like blows;
An* the stent of the rotes sickeLed me.
And a fog mil over the land aud sea.
And over my heart, God knows.
The ship sailed ont in ths morning light,
And the wind hlew wild and iree;
Ana tne cowu of me billows, crested white,
And the log and the mtet rolled ont oi sight,
But never away from me.
The sea bird wheeled with a walling cry.
And onward the good ship rued;
And 1 sto^d on the bea ’h where you and I
Wander d oft n the days gone by,
Aud I knew that heart was dead.
Knife-S wallowing.
The New Orleans Times relates the following
incident, which occurrea last week at me ot
Charles Hotel in tnat city :
An elderly French gentleman, just arrived in
the city during our “ continong” in the interval
or the war, was seated at the table beiore one
oi those bluff and bold Americans with a know
ing air generally recognized as Drummers. For
a o n lie the oiu gentleman sal quietly regarding
the company, wnen suddenly he broke out irau-
ucaliy in appiause, clapping ms hands and cry
ing bravo 1 bravo! In a moment every eye
was turned toward mm, half a dozen stewards
dashed frantically in his direction, people left
me table and clustered around him just in time
iu see the old delighted party hand me drum
mer a couple of hve-ffanc pieces. Tne latter
amazed and offenued thereat, demanded an ex
planation, which, alter much contusion, was at
last afforded him. Wmle simply eating his
dinner like an American Christian, he hau been
mistaken by the rude old Freucnmau ior a per
forming u b Word-s waiio wer.”
The English papers state mat, after the lapse
ol twenty mourns, reuabie intelligence has been
received oi the safety of the great explorer oi
Africa—Dr. Livingstone. The world will hail
this information wuh joy.
The Tollers of the Railroad.
What a busy world is that made up nf thoae
who put the migh y agent—steam—to its uses.
Atlanta is uot a great city, yet any one who
has spent a night within its limits, cannot have
tailed to be impressed with this idea. There is
no rest, no quiet, in this active world. Every
hour gives evidence of the ceaseless labor and
energy that guide and direct Us industry. In
the distance you hear the signal ot approaching
trains freighted with the merchandise ot tar off
regions, and filled with people in transit to
every part of our broa l country. Around yon,
come thundering these “chariots ot fire,” that
almost “jostle in the streets.”
Oftentimes, at the hour of midnight, when the
pitiless storm was peltiug our windows, and
rattling Its hail of sleet upon our roofs, have
we reflected upon the hardships and sufferings,
to which the persons, who have charge and
control ot these engines of commerce _ and
travel, are exposed. At all honrs, and in all
weather, at the appointed minute, their hands
are at iheir work. The engineer seizes his
throttle and away, through hills and valleys,
over plains and rivers, speeds the iron horse,
“ like a thing of life,” suomissive to his will
“ as the sued that knows his rider.” Ia storm
aud darkuess, as well as in sunshine and day,
exposed to lightnings and floods, these brave
men pursue their course, unsafe to limb and
lue in spite ot all the precautions and con
trivances uumau ingenuity has been able to
devise. The passengers retire to rest on beds
ot ease—almost luxury—aud commit their lives
io ihe charge of these men of muscle and
daring, and cream oi home and absent lriends.
How lew of them appreciate the responsibility,
the exposure, the physical endurance, of those
who contribute to lhrir comfort and safety 1
They have paid their hire— that’s sufficient. But
this is uot the poiut How could the commu
nity get along without these men? How
essential have they become to the wants
aud necessities oi life times, aye, to the
civilization ol the agel They are the
great instruments by which not only
an interchange oi producis is effected, but
also oi iueas—know'edge. They are the coad
jutors oi the press, and ihe telegraph, in the
rapid diffusion of intelligence throughout the
world, i hey help to hnug the great world
together, into one larniiy, aud by association,
by tueauiition ot thought and ideas,to promote
the improvement aud progress ol the races.
While all acknowledge the usefulness ot this
class, we are persuaded that their merit has not
oeeu appreciated to ihe full extent, not as it
should nave been. The community owes them
moie than has been accorded them ouly because
proper cons deration has not been given to the
pan they periorm in the great field oi modern
industry, enterprise and improvement, and to
the incessant toil and dangers to Which they
are expesed.
Tbe “Hljlier Civilization.”
We notice that Jeremiah Uolbaith, alias
Henry Wilson, has been again eltcted a Sena
tor ol the biate ot Massachusetts. This man,
ol Gipsy origin, but who early exchanged the
name aud pieuatory ha oils ot his tribe ior the
laucable occupation oi a cobbler, is the selected
representative oi ihe “ higher civilization” ot
whicn the Bay Btate proudly boasts.
Il is no disgrace to a uiau it, being an honeBt
cobbler, he lohows the Horation advice and
sticks to his last, nor il in advancement he
leaves behind him the lapslone and the bench ;
but this the vulgar aud narrow mind of the
Massachusetts benator canuot compass; he
draws the waxed ends oi his Crispin rhetoric
and cobules away as if laws were to be patched
like old shoes.
Mr. Hughes (Tom Brown ot Rugby,) who re
cently stated m London that his observation in
Massachusetts had convinced him that men of
culture could uot interest themselves in politics,
the truth ol which was denied by noisy politi
cians—themselves the best evidence oi the fact
— might give weight to the truth ot his state
ment by a sketch ot the characters oi some of
the men now representing the “high moral
ideas” oi the boasllul commonwealth. If men
ol refinement and scholarsuip have not aban
doned in disgust all luieresi iu national politics,
now does it happen that Massachusetts is rep
resented in me oeuate by Henry Wilsou, while
iu the House Beu. Butler has flavored legisla
tion with me odors aud morals ot a Monday
uiormug police court. Is n not true that Rich
ard H. Daua, eminent as a lawyer, of wide
legioiauve experience, hign literary reputation,
son oi ancestors or renown, opposed house IT to
Butler and canvassed me Essex district, ex
posed to brutal personalities and mud inrowing,
mat ms jieojne and party Should not suffer the
disgrace aud omer shame ot Butler’s election?
Ann was not Butler triumphant, receiving
nearly the whole vote oi his party, while the
saermee and devotion oi me gentleman was
uot rewarded by even a ‘complimentary vote?’
There is uuoluer representative oi high moral
ideas, ot whom we have personal knowledge—
Nainauioi Banks, now meinuer lor a rich, pop
ulous district oi Massachusetts. This Pogram
oi politics, like Heuiy Wilson, was a plant
grown iu iree soil, with the rich manure of
Kuowuothingism, aud is a specimen ol the lull
Uorccceuce oi mat senooi or progress ot which
we hear suen boast.
If the suppressed report of Gen. Smith and
James f. Bfedy upon mis man’s conduct when
in command of tue Department ol Louisian*,
i evcaiihg a deptn ot ueoauenery and reekiess,
DeoS, wnne connptlou undermined power and
nullified the elied, ol conquest, could be pub
lished in BaWicnoc, we do not believe it would
imerierc at an wi n Banks' majority.
“A fellow feeling makes uo woomona kind.”
Or shall we look wuh wondering _eyea at
the “ Great American dhovel,” Air. Oakes
Ames, a heavy vapid grabber, who sits in Con
gress voting laud grants to his own railfoads.
Or yet to “ Ginexy ” Twitched, another hot
house flower, wuospraug irom stage-driving to
rail ear comiuclmg, and restraining the insane
desire inherent in the average conductor to
iuvtst the perquisites oi office in diamond pint
and last women, has become a railroad mil-
lionaire, aud takes toil oi the nation. Or to
hn B Alley, ex-member ol the House, lilted
out ot his warm place oy Butler, hut not until
he had re stocked his tan-yard, and stuffed his
carpet-bag with bonds, email we mention Mr.
BuihDgton, iragraut with ail political jobbery,
but otherwise eulireJy inconsequential. “ These
hi-your gods.”
But we retrain, lest, like Binquo’s issue, the
lme stretch to the crack oi doom, and our
teemiDg columns require the space ot a New
gate calendar. We mink it proves conclusively
tnat Mr. Hughes is ngut, and that decen; peo
ple in Massachusetts nave abandoned politics to
the ignorant ana corrupt. It it is not so, there
is ieit hut the other bora of the dilemma—that
the boasted superiority is but a poor, paltry
boast after ail, aud the Wilson’s and Butler's
are lair specimens ol their people.—Mew Orleans
Tiroes.
Not Settled.
We clip the following lrom the Chronicle and
Sentinat:
Ire Duel.—The Board of Honor appointed
to decide the Da vega-Johnstone affaii tailed to
arrange satisfactory terms lor tne settlement ot
the ditticuliy up to last evening, and Mr. Davega
renewed his Challenge. A dispatch was receiv
ed yesterday oy the Mayor irom Dr. Davega, of
Charleston, requesting his brother’s arrest, but
it was noi complied with, as he had already
been bound over to keep the peace. Last night
it was hoped that one chance lor a settlement
remained, but ii it tailed the parties were to
leave lor another Btate—probably Alabama—
tneie to fight n out according to the “ code.”
Hymeneal.
Oa the evening oi me 2d instant, at the resi
dence oi Mr. Green T. Dodd, oi tuts city, Dr.
a. A. Wilson was united in marriage to Mias
Nannie Btubbi, by tue Rev. Mr. Evans, pastor
ot Trinity Ghurch. Viter tne ceremony the
bridal party were entertained iu tne most ele
gant style oy Mr. A. A. Wneon, who resides in
the country. The happy pair hare our wishes
ior a happy luture.
The Augusta papers state that the affair of
honor pending between Col. Wm. Johnston,
Fresidentof the Charlotte, Columbia and Au
gusta Railroad, aud Mr. A H Davega, of Chea
ter, S. G., ha3 been amicably adjusted by the
intervention of lriends.
Mr. T. R Mills, oi the Bavannah bar, wag ap
pointed by Gov. Bullock, District Attorney ot
the 1st Senatorial District—Sims’ District—-de
clines the appointment, and has returned th^
commission tendered him by the Governor^