Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.)