Newspaper Page Text
Cnnstitationnlißi fc Jltpblit.
JAMES GARDNER, JR., 't
and > Editors.
JAMES M. SMYTHE, )
AKHBTA, GA.
SATURDAY MORNING, SEPT. 13.
THE LARGEST CIRCULATION IN THK STATE.
For aoremor.
CHARLES J. MCDONALD.
District For Congress.
I.—JOS. W. JACKSON, of Chatham.
2—HENRY L. BENNING, of Muscogee.
3. DAVID J. BAILEY, of Butts.
4. JOHN D. STELL, of Fayette.
6. WILLIAM H. STILES, of Cam.
6—THOMAS F. JONES, of Newton.
7. DAVID W. LEWIS, of Hanoock.
8. ROBERT McMILLAN, of Elbert.
See first page, Daily Si Tri-Weekly.
By request, we re-publish to-day, an edito
rial which appeared in our paper of the 22d ult.
rr~F* The Northern mail did not arrive last eve
ning until about half past 7, P. M. We under
stand the detention was caused by two freight
trains coming in collision about twelve miles
this side of Charleston. There was a general
smash, but we understand no lives were lost.
The Democratic Party of Georgia on the Terri
torial Question.
As efforts are being made by Mr. Cobb and
his supporters to mystify the Democrats on the
doctrine of non-intervention, as held by the
Democratic party of Georgia, we propose to show
what was the position of that party in 1847,
1848, and 1849, when Mr. Cobb was in full fel
lowship with it, and a prominent member in its
ranks.
For this purpose, we quote the following reso
lutions, being so much of the action of its con
ventions as relate to the subject.
Resolutions of the Democratic Party in Convention,
at Milledgeville, June , 1847.
Retolved , That the Democratic party, while it
asserts the right of citizens of any state to settle
in any of the territories of the United States
with their property, yet in the spirit of mutual
“rwKesMon” in which our Union originated, and
by which alone it can be preserved, we are still
willing to abide by the provisions and the geo
graphical line of the Missouri Compromise,
Retolved , That we adopt the four following re
solutions as passed by the General Assembly of
Virginia, as amended.
Retolved , That the Government of the United
States has no control, directly or indirectly,
mediately or immediately, over the Institution
of Slavery, and that in taking any such control
it transcends the limits of its legimale functions
by destroying the internal organization of the
sovereigns which formed it.
Retolved, That under no circumstances will this
Body recognise as binding any enactment of the
Federal Government, which has for its object the
prohibition of Slavery in any Territory to be
acquired either by conquest or Treaty, “south of
the line of the Missouri compromise,” holding it
to be the natural and independent right of each
and every State of the confederacy, citizen of each
toreside with his property, of whatever descrip
tion, in any Territory which may be acquired
by the arms of the United States or yieldedby
Treaty with'any foreign power.
Retolved, That this Assembly hold it to be the
duty of every man in every section ot this con
federacy, if this Union is dear to him, to oppose
the passage of any law, for whatever purpose, by
which Territory to be acquired may be subject
to such a restriction.
Resolutions of the Democratic Party in Convention,
ut Milledgeville, December, 1847.
Retolved, That Congress possesses no power,
under the constitution, to legislate in any way
or manner, in relation to the institution of slave
ry. It is the constitutional right of every citi
zen, to remove and settle with his property in
any of the Territories of the United States.
Retolved, That the people of the South do not
ask of Congress to establish the institution of
slavery in any of the territory that may be ac- I
quired by the United States. They simply re
quire that the inhabitants of each territory shall
be left free to determine for themselves, whether
the institution of slaveiy shall or shall not form
a part of their social system.”
Rctoluliim of the Democratic Parly in Convention,
at Milledgeville, June, 1848.
pt Rescind, That tne opinions of the democracy
of Georgia on the question of slavery in the ter
ritories were correctly set forth in the resolution
of the late Democratic Convention at Milledge
ville, in December last, which declares that “the
people of the South do not ask of Congress to es
tablish the institution of slavery in auy of the
territories that may be acquired by the United
States. They simply require that the inhabi
tants of such territory shall be left free to deter
mine for themselves whether the institution of
slavery shall or shall not form apart of their so
cial system.’’
Resolutions of the Democratic Party in Convention,
June, 1849.
Retolved, Thit in reference to the subject of
slavery in our newly acquired Territories, we
hold tne doctrine ot' non-intervention, which
doctrine denies to Congress the power to legislate,
either originally or by ratification of the action
of the Territorial Legislatures either for or against
the introduction of slavery into such territories,
and holding such doctrine, we should reganl the
adoption of the Wilmot Proviso as unjust and
unconstitutional, and are prejtared to co-oper
ate with our friends in resisting its enactment
and enforcement on the basis of the resolutions
adopted by the Virginia .Legislature at its last
session: which we hereby adopt, and which read
as follows.
Be it resolved unanimously , by the General As
sembly of Virginia, That the government of the
United States has no control, directly or indirect
ly, mediately or immediately over the institution
of slavery, so as to impair the rights of the slave
holder, and that, in taking any such control, it
transcends the limits of its legitimate functious
by destroying the internal organization of the
sovereigniies who created it.
Resolved unanimously, That all territory which
may be acquired by the arms of the United
States, or yielded by treaty with any foreign
power, belongs to the several States of this Union.
us their joint and common property , in tvhich each
and all have equal rights; avid that the enactment,
by the federal government, of any law which should
directly, or by its effects, prevent the citizens of
any State from emigrating, with their property,
of whatever description, into such territory
would make a discrimination unwarranted by,
and in violation of the compromises of the con
stitution and the rights of the State from which
such citizens emigrated, and in derogation, of that
perfect equality that belongs to the several States
as members of this Union, and would tend di
rectly to subvert the Union itself.
Here is apparent, at a glance—lst. What the
Democratic party claimed for the South. 2nd.
What it meant to assert in proclaiming the doc
trine of non-intervention. 3d. The entire com
patibility of its position then with the poeition
of the Convention of 1851, which nominated
Charles J. McDonald.
First.—The Democratic party claimed the
right of the Southern people to an equal .
ticipation in the territories acquired, or to be
acquired, by the joint arms and treasure of all
States. It claimed for Southern men the equal
right with citizens of other sections, to carry
their property, slaves and all, into the territories,
and enjoy the use thereof as fully as under the
laws and customs of the Southern States from
which they should emigrate. It claimed for
them the right to reside, with their slave proper
ty, in such territory. This necessarily involved
the claim for the protection of the Constitution
and flag of their country, by means of organized
Governments and Courts of justice.
The great doctrine of equality of rights was
asserted in these positions. It was claimed that
Congress should do nothing to disturb this equal
ity of rights existing among the citizens of this
common Government—that it should enact no
law—that it should organize no form of territo
rial government in such away as to prevent the
enjoyment of equality of rights.
It will be perceived that all the thunders of
Southern denunciation were hurled against the
Wilmot Proviso. This was the great and mon
strous wrong threatened the South. It was the
obstacle which was threatened to be interposed
by the North to the equal participation by
the South in the territories. The Southern
Democrats universally, and the Southern Whigs
generally, believed that unless Congress inter
posed this prohibition, there would be no obsta
cle to this equal participation. They believed
the Constitution secured this equal participation,
and that the laws of the conquered race could
not override that instrument, and be enforced to
the deprivation of the constitutional rights and
equality of the Southern people.
Secondly.—What did thp Democratic party
mean by the assertion that non-intervention
was the duty of the Federal Government ? What
was this doctrine of non-intervention as under
stood by the South? It meant—lst. That Con
gress, in forming territorial governments, had no
right to enact the Wilmot Proviso, or other kin
dred measure, to prohibit the introduction of
slavery into the territories. 2nd. That it had no
right to enact that slavery should form a part of
the social system of the people of the territories,
thus introducing and establishing, by its own
mere will and authority, the institution of slave
ry among that people. 3rd. That in establish
ing territorial governments, this equal participa
tion in them, claimed by the Southern people,
should be recognized and secured to them, and
the people, thus made equal, left free to determine
for themselves whether slavery should or should
not form a part of their social system.
This was the sort of territorial government the
Democratic party wanted and were entitled to
claim, and did claim for the South. They ex
pected, and had a right to expect that territorial
governments, when formed, would be in con
formity to this equitable principle of equal par
ticipation, and that this principle would be
stamped upon the face of the bill creating such
governments.
The Democratic party of Georgia and the
South, looked upon Gen. Cass's Nicholson’s let
ter as recognizing this principle, and for that
reason supported him with zeal. In that letter,
while coinciding in and endorsing the opinion of
other leading statesmen, that slaves would not go
there, ns it would not lie to the interest of the in
habitants already there, or of the citizens of the
States going there, to introduce it, he distinctly re
cognized the right, os was universally considered
among us, of the slaveholder to take and keep
his slaves there. He even contemplated the
possibility of this being done, and thus, in that
letter, argued with the Northern people against
opposing territorial governments on the non-in
terventiou principle.
“The question that presents itself is not a
question of increase, but of the diffusion ofslave
ry. Whether its sphere be stationary or pro
gressive, its amount will be the same. The re-
I jection of this restriction will not add one to the
class of servitude, nor will its adoption give free
dom to a single being who is now placed'there
in. The same numbers will be spread over great
er territory; and so far as comparison, with less
abundance of the necessaries of life, is an evil, so
far will that evil be mitigated by transporting
slaves to a new country, and giving them a larger
space to occupy.”
It was not till after the Presidential election
that Gen. Cass elaborated from that letter the
squatter sovereignty doctrine, which empower
ed the sovereign squatters who should first settle
on the common soil, and in advance of the action
of Congress giving a territorial government, to set
up for themselves a government with full right
to establish or prohibit slavery—a doctrine which
was intended, by free soil intervention, to oust
the people of the South of their constitutional
right of equal participation.
Thirdly.—The demand of the Southern mem
bers of Congress, that this right of equal par
ticipation should be recognized by a declaration
to that effect incorporated in the territorial bills
was entirely compatible with the doctrine of
non-intervention, as held by the Democratic par
ty of Georgia, and is entirely compatible with
the position of the Convention which nominated
Charles J. McDonald.
When the Democratic party declared that Con
gress had no right to legislate, either originally
or by ratification of the acts of territorial legis
latures, for or against the introduction of slavery
in the territories, but should preserve the policy
of non-intervention, it proclaimed the just and
constitutional principle that Congress should
maintain on this question a position of impar
tiality. It should not act the partizan. either to
introduce and establish slavery by its arbitrary
legislative will and maintain it there—whether
agreeable to the people of the territory or not:
neither should it in like arbitrary and unwar
ranted manner interpose and prohibit its intro
duction. It should not stand at the boundary
line and there meeting the emigrating slavehold
er with his slaves, drive him back with the Wil
mot Proviso stretched as a flaming sword across
his path. Its duty was to give the territories
such a government as opened the path wide and
free for every citizen to go in with his property of
every description, and when assembled there from
every section of the Union, upon the principle of
equality, they could determine for themselves in
forming a State government, whether slavery
should or should not form a part of their social
institutions.
This Congress failed to do. This Congress
pertinaciously refused to do. It was, in this,
derelict to it* duty and to the juit claims
the South. In refusing to acknowledge this
right of equal participation it played the parti
zan against the South and in favor of the North.
It did this in refusing solong to give territorial
governments unless the South would permit the '
Wilmot Proviso to be attached, and preferring to
have the territories without government, rather
than acknowledge the right of equal partici
pation. It did this in voting down, in the House,
Mr. Toombs’s amendment aiming (in an indirect
manner) to secure this right Sept. sth, 1850, and
which that gentleman once said “he would
never surrender.’’ It did this in voting down,
on the 7th September, 1850, the following a
mendment of Mr. Seddon, which aimed to pro
cure a direct acknowledgement of this right.
“ And that prior to the formation of State Con
stitutions there shall be no prohibition by reason
of any law or usage existing in said territories,
or by the action oi the territorial legislature, of
the emigration of all citizens of the U. States
with any kind of property recognized as such in
any of the States of the Union. This was re
jected—ayes 55, noes 85.’*
The North thus triumphed over the South.
And on the same day it did this by rejecting
the following amendment of Mr. Millson.
“ Provided , That no law or usage existing in the
said territory, at or before the time when the
same was acquired by the United States shall be
held to destroy or impair, within the said territo
ry, any rights of projierty or relations of persons
that may be now recognized and allowed in any
of the United States.”
Among other things forcibly said by Mr. Mill
son in support of his amendment was the follow
ing:
“My object is to test the strength of the doc
trine of non-intervention—the true doctrine of
non-intervention, which leaves the rights of cit
izens of the South where the Constitution has
placed them, and removes every obstruction that
has been put in their way by a foreign govern
ment as well as their own. If gentlemen, then,
you are really in favor of that non-intervention
of which they speak so much, .they will not con
tent themselves with simply forbearing to insert
a positive prohibition of slavery, believing it un
necessary to do so, but they will also take ca.e
that the rights of Southern citizens shall not be
destroyed or impaired by the legislation of the
power that formerly owned the territory.”
“What excuse can there be for refusing to in
sert such a provision in the bill except that it is
really expected and intended that the bill as it
now stands shall secure our exclusion from this
territory. Is this non-intervention ? It this a re
sult which Congress may lawfully accomplish , di
rectly or indirectly?”
Mr. Millson's amendment was rejected,—ayes
49, noes 92.
Mr. Wellborn, (of Geo.) offered the following
amendment.
“ Provided further, that the people of said ter
ritory be allowed to pass all laws necessary for
the protection of slavery within said territory,
should slaves be introduced there.”
Which Mr. Seddon moved to amend by add
ing the following:
“ And to remove all restrictions to the free
emigration of persons with their property.”
These were also rejected.
In the Senate similar amendments had been
rejected.
Should it be said that the enactment of such
amendments would have been legislation on sla
very by Congress, and would have been in con
travention of the doctrines held by the Georgia
Democratic Conventions,which denied the right,
this conctisive reply is at hand.
It was never intended to deny to Congress au
thority to pass laws necessary to secure the con
stitutional rights of the people, whether in refer
ence to slavery or any other subject. The passage
of the fugitve slave law icas legislation on slavery.
It was to secure constitutional rights appertain
ing to the slave holder. The passage of Mr.
Seddon’s, Mr. Millson's, and Mr. Wellborn’s
amendments would have been doing no more.
If the one would have been violative of the
doctrines of non-intervention, so was the other.
One word as to the District of Columbia Bill
which was also legislation on slavery. It was legis
lation considered in 1849 to be so adverse to sla
very, that the Democratic Convention which as
sembled that year at Milledgeville, adopted as
its own the following Resolutions of the Vir
ginia Legislature.
Resolved , That we regard the passage of a law
by the Congress of the United States, abolishing
slavery or the slave trade in the District of Co
lumbia, as a direct attack upon the institution of
the Southern States, to be resisted at every haz
ard.
Resolved, That in the event of the passage by
Congress ol the “Wilmot Proviso,” or any law
abolishing slavery or the slave trade in the Dis
trict of Columbia, the Governor ot this Common
wealth is requested immediately to convene the
Legislature of this State (if it snail have adjourn
ed) to consider the mode and measure of re
dress.”
Mr. Cobb was a member of that Convention,
and voted for and advocated those resolutions.
He now justifies the act of Congress which does
abolish the slave trade in the\District of Columbia.
Instead of protesting against he advocated it at
Washington, and signed the bill as speaker.
This is one of the series of bills which gave, as
is claimed byJMessrs. Cobb, Toombs and Ste
phens, a triumph to the South. The votes we
have quoted above on the Utah territorial bill
are additional evidences of Southern triumphs.
When Southern members of Congress come
home after such votes and tell their constituents
that these are Southern triumphs, it is time for
the people to change their Representatives.
In the language of _ Judge Berrien, we may
truly exclaim.
4 If these be triumphs what woidd be a defeat ?”
Can the Spell of Delusion be broken? Constttu
tional Union Panorama.
We bring into view this morning the Hon.
A. H. Stephens. In a letter to the Federal Union
dated August 30th, 1844, Mr. Stephens, alluding
to the Clayton compromise, said:
“Those are the principles I hold—Congress has
no right to exclude the South from an equal sharo
and it is tho duty of Congress, to see that the rights
of the South arc as amply protected, as the rights
of the North. And it was this right of legal pro
-1 notion, for the property of tho South, that was
surrendered in that bill. If Congress has the pow
er to declare oxactly how far tho interests of the
North shall bo protected; if they have the power to
oxtend the Missouri Compromise line, they cer
tainly have the power to say in clear and distinct
words, that up to that lino on tho South, the rights
of the South shall be protected—and not after pro- i
hibiting us from going North of that line, leave as •
to contest with the Courts our rights on the South ,
of it. This is what the Compromise Bill did. It
excluded us from the whole of Oregon, and left us •
to the- Courts to deeiile, whether we should be al
lowed to carry and hold our property in New '
Mexico and California. For 6Ueh a Compromise ’
I shall never vote.’’
■ .1 • • (
Again he said :
“ I mado a speech in Congress when a plan for •
annexation similar to the Tyler treaty was offered,
in which I maintained the same position and stated 1
the only ground upon which I should voto for an- .
nexation. They were the same grounds which I
had advocated throughout 1844. Seven Southern :
Whigs stood by me—wc held the balance of power :
in the; House. And when all tho other plans offer
ed (and there were a number) failed, (neither of
which secured the rights of the South.) then Mr.
Brewn (after conference with mo and others.) of-1
fered his with the Missouri Compromise in it and !
that passed by my vote, and the other seven Whigs,
and it coaid not have passed in the Committee of
the whole House without our votes as the proceed- j
ings of the House Will show. The firm and in
flexible course I and seven other Southern Whigs !
j took upon that question secured the rights of the
South and obtained the establishment of the Mis
souri Compromise, which it was said by the Foder
ial Union, coaid never be obtained. And if a simi
! lar course shall be taken and maintained by all
parties at the South, the same Compromise or one
as good can be obtained again. I have taken
the same stand now and I intend to maintain it,
in defiance of all assaults and denunciations that
may bo made against me from any and evory quar
ter.”
What a pity Mr. Stephens did not stand up to
these positions. He gave up the Missouri com
promise line and got nothing in the settlement
which he accepted.
Again he said:
"I shall, as I havo heretofore done, maintain
the equal and just rights of my constituents upon
all questions, and I shall demand that they be
; clearly and distinctly recognized by Congress, that
they may be amply protected by all others before
whom, they may come for action —and when these
’ rights are left to the Courts to determine, by my
! sanction they shall be so clearly set forth and de
! fined that the Courts shall be bound to protect them
. in their decisions. And I say to you and tho peo
i pie oftho 7th Congressional Dist., that I shall never
- return as your and their Representative and tell
them I have secured their rights by getting an act
passed which will enable them to carry their slaves
to California and New Mexico to encounter a law
suit whenover they get there, which will cost more
than their slaves are worth. If I can never get a
better compromise for them than snch an one as
■ that, I shall never agree to any at all. They have
I that independently of any thing I can do for them,
• and that is a right which no act of Congress can de
l privo them of.
After all these high-sounding pretentions of
devotion to the South, Mr. Stephens agrees to a
' compromise which does not repeal the Mexican
laws as he himself admits, and which subjects the
Southern man to those very courts whose deci
sion he so much dreaded. Mr. Stephens further
said, i n one of his speeches;
“This compromise bill, sir, did in my opinion,
endanger and surrender tho then rights of the
South, by a “continuanco of tho municipal laws of
Moxico” which were of forco at tho timo of the
conquest, and by which slavery was abolished there.
The rights of the South are not only endangeretl,
but totally ahatuloned in this compromise. Its pas
sage would have been worse for the South than the
Wilmot proviso, in express torms.”
What does he tell us now? That the South
is better off than she has been for the last thirty
years—that she has got more that she demand
ed—that this settlement is just and honorable,
while he admits that the Mexican laws have not
been repealed—while he knows that under the
recent compromise Southerners will be subjected
to the courts to test their rights to hold slaves in
Utah and New Mexico I Such is A. H. Ste
phens who raised the Southern banner and gave
the warhoop in 1844. He now bows the knee to
the enemy,whose power he then so bravely defied
His valor has oosed out at his fingers ends, and his
patriotism where is it ? It has gone down be
neath his cowardly fears, or his selfish ambi
tion, or his betraying judgment.
In 1845, Mr. Stephens made a speech in Con
gress in favor of the annexation of Texas to the
Union, after he had opposed it with ail the viru
lence belonging to his nature.
In that speech he used the following language :
“ Thisacquisition will give addition power to the
South Western section in tho national councils, and
for this purposo I want it. Not that lam desir
ous TO SEE AN EXTENSION OF “ THE AREA
OF SLA VERY,” assoinc gentlemen havesaidits
effects would bo. I AM NO DEFENDER OF
SLAVERY IN THE ABSTRACT. LIBERTY !
ALWAYS HAD CHARMS FOR ME, and Iwould |
rejoieo to sso all of Adam's family in evory land
and olirao, in tho enjoyment of those rights which i
are set forth in our Declaration of Independence as
natural and inalienable, if a stern necessity bear
ing tho mark and impress of the Creator himsolf,
did not, in some cases, intorpose and prevent. Such
is tho case with the States where slavery now ex
ists. Hut / bare no wish TO SEE IT EXTEN
DED TO OTHER COUNTRIES, and IF THE AN
NEXATION OF TEXAS WAS FOR THE SOLE |
PURPOSE of EXTENDING SLAVERY WHERE ,
IT DOES NOT NOW. AND WOULD NOT OTH
ERWISE EXIST, I WOULD OPPOSE IT ! ”
If these sentiments were uttered in a Friday
evening's speech in a school of Garrison's, they
would be applauded by very abolition auditor.—
They would pass muster where hatred of the in
stitutions of the South, was the stepping stone
to power and eminence. We allow to Mr.
Stepans the right t»> entertain these sentiments,
but the home of the man who does entertain
them would be more appropriately located
North than South of Mason and Dixson's line.
Have we correctly quoted Mr. Stephens's
language ? We think we have. His own words
make him an enemy to the extension of the area of
slavery. For, after saying that he Is no defender
of slavery in the abstract, he adds, “ if the annexa.
tion of Texas was for the purpose of extending slave
ry where it does not now, and woidd not otherwise ex'
ist, I would oppose it.” Well, Mr. Stephens tells
ns, it does not exist in New Mexico and Utah.
What then ! He would oppose its extention in
to those territories. This is his meaning, or lan
guage has no meaning at all. Mr. Stephens says:
“ 1 have no wish to see it extended to other countries
4rc.” If then, as he says, slavery does not exist
in Utah and New Mexico, how could he, with
his deliberately expressed opinions, desire to see
it extended there. He could only desire' it by
proving false to his principles. Has Mr. Ste
phens ever retracted the sentiments contained in
his Texas annexation speech? If he has
we have never seen it. Was he sincere then, or
was his object to please the anti-slavery North ?
If he was sincere he is not the man for the South.
If he was not sincere he is a selfish and danger
ous demagogue, who pampers Northern fana
ticism, for his own selfish ends, at the expense
of the rights and safely cf the people among
whom he lives.
But we take it for granted that Mr. Stephens
was sincere. Can the people of Georgia and the 1
South agree with him ? Are they opposed to the ;
extension of slavery? Their interest and safety \
depend upon the extention of the area of slavery, 1
to which Mr. Stephens says he is opposed. Sup- j
pose it should be confined to its present limits 1
for the next fifty years, what would be the coa- ,
sequence ? Can human imagination conceive i
the evil consequences. Our slave limits would s
be a scene of desolation. Our lands would be ,
worn out and bloodv insurrections wobld make a
charnel house, an aceldima of the section in i
which slavery existed. The abolitionist who ,
desires the overthrow of slavery would ask noth- 1
ing more than to confine it in its present limits. \
His bloody purpose would be accomplished with t
sure and deadly him by that. We have tried to c
show, time after time, that slavery will exist in s
some form or other. We must have black slave- t
ry or white slavery, or reverse all the past his- ,
tory of the world. If the black man is not the (
slave the poor white man will be. There is no t
I escape for him. Let these truths of history sink i
! de€ P into hearts of our people. They ought to
break the spell that now binds some of them in a
1 delusion which, unless it shall be broken, will
involve them in a reality of blood and desolation
unparalelled in the annals of history.
Last Words of Col. Crittenden. A pri
vate letter from an American gentleman in
Havana states an incident as occurring at the
execution of the 50 expeditionists, which is in
teresting if true. It is, that when Col. Critten
; den was told to turn his back and kneel, he im
patiently exclaimed: “A To! 1 kneel only to God,
, and never turn my bark to the enemyP The
. guard stepped back, and he was left to face the
; almost instant fire of the platoon, which he did
with the utmost coolness.
Mr. Harmon Hibbard, of New-Yok, has pat
| ented a new method of tanning leather, as well
, adapted to southern as northern latitudes, by
t which it is said that sheep, goat, calf, and all
| other kinds of light stock, are thoroughly and
r completely tanned in from three to four days;
• cowhides in from ten to fifteen days; harness from
, fifteen to twenty days, and sole leather in from
r thirty to forty days.
t The Western Texan of the 21st inst., says
J that Gen. Harney, Col. Hardee, Col. Wilson,Ma
' jor Waite, Col. Stanford, Major Morris and Col.
i Bomford were then at San Antonio, in atten
-1 dance on the court martial convened for the trial
of Major Morrison.
We are requested to state that tho Barba
cne, advertised to take place at Waynesboro, Burke
County, on the| 20th inst, Jhas been postponed to
1 Saturday, 27th inst.
i . ,
[communicated.]
To Howell Oobb.
Sir : —You made your advent to Calhoun, on
Saturday, the 6th inst., on the baggage train from
, Dalton. At this latter place, you unblushingiy
P declined to meet the Southern Rights party in
, “a fair, open and manly discussion,” to which
you were invited—first by some of the friends of
that party, on the cars from Tunnel Hill, and
i again upon your arrival at Dalton, where a for
mal proposition was submitted to you in writ
‘ ing. The note addressed to you declared it to be
■ the opinion of the writers, that every candidate
for the suffrages of the people of Georgia, is bound
, to make known to the people his opinions and
; policy touching all questions of public interest
and importance; and if he canvasses the State,
■ to maintain these opinions in debate against all
1 comers. That no citizen is bound to show a
■ commission from any man, or set of men, to en
title him to enter into such debate. That the
' Constitution of his country, is every free-
I man’s commission for an unrestricted exer
-1 cise of the liberty of speech. That they de
' sired an opportunity to test the correctness and
• truth of your opinions and policy in an “ open,
fair and manly discussion.” The note closed
with an inquiry whether you would grant it?
1 The Honorable Howell refused.
Upon rising to address the people, you at
tempted to satisfy them of the reasonableness of
your refusal. It would not be fair, you thought,
i for you to encounter fresh “ recruits and relays ,”
1 in your perigrinations. That is, that you, a po
litical Oily Gammon, coming forth with an art
i fully devised tale, “ fined and refined,” told and
retold for the hundreth time, in every nook and
corner of the country for months past—for you,
; a “trickster,” “in varnished falsehood bright,”
I to meet the unofficial people in open, fair and
| manly debate—you must tell over your stereo
typed tissue of misstatements, sophisms and
| sophamoric puerilities, without contradiction or
| molestation. There can be but one reason for
I conduct so unusual and so cowardly. You dare
I not submit your statements, your opinions and
your arguments to the test of a fair investiga
tion. They are false, unfounded and rotten, and
you know it. It is the right of the people to
test your opinions and those of your opponent. It
is their duty to test both. You evade the test of
open debate, though traversing the State as a
speech-maker. You call upon the people who
would meet you in fair debate, for a sort of pow
er of attorney from your opponent. This is an
insult to the understanding of the people. It is
a mean evasion—a paltry trick. Your friends
and you acted and spoke as if under conviction.
You spoke at Dalton as though an incubus weigh*
ed down your soul, and your friends applauded
with the sickly timidity of a chicken in the last
stage of the pips. This figure does not degrade
the subject.
It seems to be a part of your plan to raise the
cry of persecution. Your character has been
scrutinized, and some people do not believe you
to be a patriot and a saint. Some do not believe
you to be either. Some do not believe you to be
consistent or honest. Some think you have be
trayed their interests for “a mess of pottage,”—
♦hat you have had a part of the pottage, and ex
pect to get more. Some regard you as a “ trick
ster ” and “ a traitor.” If you were a man of
sense, you would know that all this might be ex
pected. You would not expect your path to
greatness to be strewed with roses divested of
thorns. If you were an innocent man, a phi
losopher and a patriot, your philosophy and pa
triotism would find consolation in your con
scious innocence. Either, therefore, you are not
a wise man, or, you are not a philosopher and a
patriot. I will not call you fool or knave. It
would be impolite. But really, sir, do you not
think the people, whose chief executive officer
you would be, have a right to inquire into your
character? Is it not even their doty to do so?
Would you revive the law of violated majesty—
that refinement of Roman tyranny ? Who are
you, sir, that you should claim exempt’on from
the common lot? But I have a sort of apology ,
to offer you for my political friends. They did
not originate these charges. They were loth to •
believe them. They even resisted them until i
a long train of circumstances forced them to en»
dorse and adopt them. Shall I detail to you ]
some o'f those circumstances, in addition to this j
whining about persecution ? ]
You were in the convention of 1849, which 1
nominated Gov. Towns for re-election. You ]
were on the committee which reported the reso- j
lutions adopted “ unanimously ” by the conven- j
tion. In the 2d of the resolutions so adopted, ,
the convention, referring to certain resolutions j
of the Virginia Legislature, “ adopted” them. (
and published them as their own. The resolu- 1
tions, so adopted, refer to three distinct and tepa- t
rate acts of aggression apprehended from the 1
General Government, —exclusion from the terri- f
tories by the Wilmot Proviso—abolition of slave- ,
ry in the District of Columbia—and abolition of
the slave trade in that District.
determination to resist either of these acts at ,u
hazards and to the last extremity, and I
the Governor to call the Legislature together
“to consider the mode and measure of redress
if Congress should perpetrate either of them
Now, sir, you were in the convention, on the
committee, and published to the people of Geor.
gia, as the unanimous voice of both, these resolu- t
tions. I
\on were on the committee which invited I
Gov. Towns to become the candidate of the I
Democratic party upon this platform, on th. t
11th day of July, 1849. What was theaurpn* I
of the people of Georgia, when they saw you, I
after taking an early start, and moving to Wash- ?
ington by the way of the Northern cities, become i
first a prominent aspirant to the Speakers 1
chair—then a successful one—and then, in the I
face of the address of the Democratic party in I
! Congress, in 1840, of which W. R. King was I
chairman, becoming the first speaker of the I
’ House who openly recognized the existence of |
1 as a party, of the very men who sought to per- I
' petrate the aggressions you recommended your I
constituents to resist! You went further. You I
i not only recognized them as a distinct party, but I
. you recognized in these incendiaries a right to 1
. share in the organization of the House. You 1
. put the vilest of the vile crew upon important 1
I committees. You organized abolition in Con- 1
gress, thus giving them prominency and import- I
ance, and increasing thereby their power to per- f
, petrate the aggressions you advised us to resist!
, You went even further yet. With pretended
devotion to the Union on your lips, you put
upon a committee, having in charge this very
question of the territories, the question then
convulsing the Union, a wretch who had been
1 ignominiously expelled from the House for intro
-1 during a petition to dissolve the Union! And
now, persecuted patriot, how do you excuse
1 yourself for all this ?
1 You made a pitiable attempt at a partial ex
culpation on Friday, Sept. sth, at Dalton. You
1 attempted to make the people there believe, that I
in adopting the Virginia resolutions, announcing
resistance to any one of those distinct acts, the
• convention was only getting a basis to resist one
j of them, and did not mean to resist any but
I that!— and that one the Wilmot Proviso! If
t you thought the people there assembled endowed
with common sense, no wonder you spoke as
’ one under conviction, while announcing this
* contemptible quibble. No wonder you felt hu
-1 miliated. No wonder you felt its utter insin
cerity and insufficiency; and, so feeling, openly
avowed, at last, that you would have been faith
less to the pledge, even if you had made it!
Now,sir, who can trust you? Who can regard
' you as any thing else but a quibler and a “ trick
ster!” If you did, in fact, object to the resolu
i tiou at the . time, why did you permit it to go
I forth as the unanimous voice of the convention ?
Why did you permit it to stand upon the record
for more than two years, without explanation or
contradiction ? Why did you never contradict
it publicly until interested to do so ? Because
> y°u had proved false to it. l'ou could find means
to protest against the Southern Address. Why
could you not protest against this resolution ?
This quibble is a specimen of your mode of
reasoning. It is easy to show it to be equally
false upon the several measures which you are
laboring to persuade the people, make up a com
promise, which you characterize as wise, liberal
and just. God deliver us from such wisdom, lib- I
erality and justice! You praised the fugitive
slave bill at Dalton and at Calhoun. You told,
at the former place, that we are indebted for this
bill to a Southern Rights man. Why did you not
tell the people at Calhoun the same thing?
Were they not as much entitled to know to j
whom they were indebted for the bill, as the peo
ple of Dalton ? or had you discovered that it was
impolitic to let the people know that the only
one of the pretended compromise bills which
aims at justice was drawn up by a Southern
Rights man. Let the people remember this, and
let them call to mind how your friends at the
North execute the law. You boasted of the re
covery of a fugitive under this law' from Boston
Why did you not tell them, that of four slaves
who have been attempted to be recovered, three
escaped ? You are a Collegian and a Lawyer.—
You know, or ought to know, that “ suppressio
veri” is as immoral and criminal as suggestiofalsi
—that it is as immoral to conceal the truth, as to
tell a lie. R lam not mistaken, you intimated
as much against the author and signers of the
Southern Address. Did you not ? You said at
Calhoun that hundreds of fugitive slaves have *
been recovered under this law ! I have not a par
ticle of doubt that this is utterly untrue, and defy
you or any of your pirty to produce the proof.—
You would have done so gladly if you could. But
you offer it now. Your suppressions in regard to
the California Bill, the Utah Bill, the New Mex
ico Bill, and the Texas Boundary Bill, are as gross
as deceptive, and as easily exposed as those to
which I have referred. As it would require, how
ever,more space than I have allotted to this letter,
to point them all out, I shall content myself for
the present by noticing your attempt to escape
from the load of odium which you have drawn
upon yourself, by the suppression of a letter, the
publication of which you had a right to com- ,
mand, the public a right to demand, and which
the public has demanded. You, doubtless, hare
been felicitating yourself upon the discovery of
an ingenious mode of escape. I will now show
that this pretended escape is a trick, an unworthy
trick; and that it would have been better even
for your reputation, that it should have remained
simply a “ suppressed letter.” You said at Dal
ton, and I am informed, at Cassville also, that
every sentence, paragraph, syllable and letter of
the suppressed letter is contained in your letter
to the Macon Committee, except the introducto
ry sentence. Now let it be remembered, that
you had been charged early in June last with
having written such a letter. That the public
press had called loudly and repeatedly for the
publication of that letter. That the people, in
their public meetings had called upon you for that
letter. In short, you were in a terrible exigency
in relation to that letter. That while in this
painful predicament, brought upon you by that
unlucky letter, you received or was advised of a
letter of inquiry addressed to you by the Macon
Committee. It was nearly six weeks after this
last letter was addressed to you before you an
swered. You were on your travels, and had pro
bably made no arrangement to have your letters
forwarded to you by any of your friends at
Athens. It is also highly improbable that you
(Concluded on first page.)