Newspaper Page Text
Chronicle 4 Sentinel.
VVRBSK 5D A l MOUSIXB. JURI mT”
Sumner’s Fiasco.
The rejection of the Johnson-Clarendon ;
Treaty i>y the Senate of the United States,
accompanied by a bellicose classical speech |
from Mr. Charles Sumner, Senator from
Ma-sachusetts, not only was unexpected
by ihe country, but even took the Repub
lican party by surprise. The speech itself
fell flat enough upon the public ear. It
possessed the tone of the Western bear
fighter, proposing to whip all creation •
■lone up, as the late James L. Petigru
wa- once forced to do with a disagreeable
object, in the neatest possible style of
• iiinsioal braggadocio.
Mr. Sumner is supposed to be directeur
• h Chief of New England policy, and
Captain General of New England policy,
and this means equally the control of the
Government at Washington as well as the
affairs of the Hub of the universe. Albeit,
Hr. Sumner’s speech was given to the
public under the express and extraordinary
auction of the Senate’s lifting the veil of
the secrecy of an Executive session, it has
met with no favor, simply because every
common sense man who believed in the
mplicity of his heart, that the Massachu
setts Senator really meant what he said,
really saw that the proposition which looked
to a war with Great Britain, at a juncture
when the country was just beginning to
emerge from the most exhausting and de
moralizing of wars—civil or internecine war
was simply preposterous It might very
readily be imagined that New England
manufactures would again flourish as they
had flourished before by a state of war.
But this, and this alone, was the single
interest that could possibly receive benefit
by the belligerent attitude of the Massa
chusetts Senator, who assumed to speak
for and represent the sentiment of the
whole country. So flat has this speech
fallen that not only, it does not
• luickcn the public pulse, but it absolutely
receives the condemnation of the par
ty which lie assumes to lead. The
moderate Republican press everywhere
condemn it, and while the Democratic
press ridicule it, the extreme Radicals are
only able to approve it in brief faint praise.
A leading Northern Radical press com
mends Mr. Sumner’s patriotism, and that
i all il does commend in its commentary
>o Mr. Sumner’s speech. We believe
the New York Tribune did publish what
purported to be an indignant, scurrilous
letter from a reputed, indignant English
man, and in “a parolcllopipcd style” said
something about the guardian of the cradle
of Liberty (which had thrown Daniel
Webster into the street) and about Sum
ner receiving many letters of like nature
from like unknown correspondents.
Along with Mr. Sumner's speech it
wa permitted to go to England secretly
that the speech and tho action of the
Senate was designed for homo consumption
and not for foreign credit. One or two
eminent British statesmen were fraDk
enough to say this much to the British
public. Nevertheless, leather-headed
John Bull does not appear to like such
talk, and fumes, sweats and talks “last
ditch” talk, all of which may be very
serious and earnest talk with the honost,
but wo imagine that, like the Times' ar
ticles, it is only a little thunder for home
consumption for patriotic hoof eating
Britons. There is, however, a large class
of British subjects who are tired of being
badgered and bullied. Even Mr. John
Bright, whom Mr. Sumner and his friends
have so often quoted and praised, has
been compelled to take sides against the
Hon. Charles Sumner, of New England,be
fore the demands of Old England’s patriot
ism, and to pronouuoe against Mr. Sum
ner’s windwork in spite of his private ex
planation.
Now, wo beg to assure the “Thunderer”
there is nothiug in Mr. Sumner’s speech
except that which troubled the incon
venient Aunt, in Ijevcr’s tale of Charles
O’Malley—a little wind and religion, the
first named ingredient beiug largely in
excess, and the latter intermingled meas
urably as a patriotic duty to give good
odor. Tho Times and Mr. Bright, all
parties—Liberal and Tory—may feel
assured that Mr. Sumner’s calculations
are nut for their meridian. No doubt a
little non intercourse would not hurt his
New England friends or his interest,
financial and political. But this is no
part of the direct intent. The great
primary design of the Boston statesman
like J. N., tho immortal peripatetic Penn
sylvania philosopher, is only “to raise the
veil and lift the pressure” from the Radi
cal party and to become the hero of a Re
constructed Republic and a discordant Re
publican party.
Secondarily, tho New England states
men has set a trap to catch Fenians.
The Fenians have laid siege to British
powers for seven hundred years. That
their wrath against England’s oppressions
and tyrannies is just is not to be denied,
although long treasured. But that it is
blind, or, rather, it has been blind,
enough to seize upon just such
bait heretofore only to be betrayed and sold
and leeched is equally sure. We hardly
think., however, that this gull will be
taken from Mr. Sumner’s bards,
offering no security for fulfill
ment of a promise implied which comes
from the man who forces upon them
brotherhood with Africans and social
and political equality with pig-tail Chinese,
and hunts up lower races to degrade their
social status as competitors for daily bread.
As Mr. Sumner’s design, thereiore, is
only to catch Fenians as voters, the
English people ueed be under no appre
hension as to war or an open rupture be
tween the two governments, at least so
long as the Great Republic under Radical
rule has bonds for export and British
capitalists will buy them.
It is said, however, that Sum nor, For
ney, Stanton, Nye, llowe and others, have
adopted this strategic line, and are to fight
out all Summer, or, at least, until they
reach a Dutch Gap, and are effectually and
perpetually bottled up; and that Sumner
proposes a missionary tour for the enlight
enment and conversion of the Pacific buffa
loes, despite this Eastern failure.
The Tennessee Campaign.
Ip. Tennessee, as in the Reconstructing
elections ot' Virginia, the contest for politi
cal power is between the two factions of
the Republican party, the “Radicals” and
the “Republicans.”
The Conservatives take no part as a
distinct political organization. Wisdom
aud policy both forbid such action, which
would have thrown into the contest under
existing issues the uncertain influences of
a third party. The contest turns, there
fore, in the election of Governor upon a
question ot Disfranchisement, growing out i
of a recent decision of the Supreme Court
of Tennessee.
During Brownlow's lovely administra
tion, his chosen Legislature undertook to
make the fire-eating, blood-loving revenge
iul l'arson, the autocrat ol the Tennessee
empire, furnishing him with a standing
army, and by Legislative enactment cloth- j
iog him with the power to strike from the
list of registered voters such as had regis
tered as voters under the first registration !
act. prescribing anew registration
new forms. This power the amiable Par
-on did not hesitate to exercise, and the -
votes of some thirty or forty thousand of ,
the citizens of the State, acknowledged to
lie qualified voter.- under the first ac: and
using their privileges, were rejected at the i
last election indubitably because their votes ,
would, if cast, have at least endangered,
if not crushed, the Parson’s Senatorial
aspirations.
A recent decision of the Supreme Court
of Tennessee has denied the right of the
Legislature to confer such power, and the
power of the Executive to “unregister" i
qualified voters. This will, of course, add
to the strength of the Conservatives, but
it ha, caused the issue to turn upon the
existence of the Court as now organized.
1 he candidates for the Executive office
are both Republicans, and both running
as independent candidates.
I'be late nominating Convention of the \
Republican party of Tennessee was noth- i
ing more than a fierce riotous mob. It I
was composed almost entirely of the parti
sans of the two candidates. Many of the
districts sent two sets of delegates, between
whom tb*-re could be no compromise,
each claiming to be the rightful repre
sentatives of the party. After two days’
of contest, eliciting nothing more than
fierce invectives and vulgar, riotous clamor
from the contending tactions, it broke up
in a row. Hence each candidate is an
independent Republican candidate.
Senter, the successor of Browolow, as
his Lieutenant Governor, sustains the re
cent decision of the Supreme Court of the
State, and advocates the restoration of the
franchise to all disfranchised whites and
hence commends himself to the Conserva
tives ; and Brownlow, as our readers have
seen, supports his course, being now secure
of his seat in the Senate, although in
direct antagonism to the policy which he
pursued while Governor, and telegraphs
' him approvingly from Washington, al
leging that disfranchisement is not now
| the policy of the Republican party and is
1 now condemned by it. This feature in
the canvass will probably draw sufficiently
from the Democrats and Conservatives to
j secure Senter’s election.
Stokes, on the other hand, looks
solely for support from negroes,
scalawags, carpet-baggers and militia loy
alists. He denounces the decision of the
Supreme Court, and advocates the recon
struction of the Court, to be adjusted to
his political standard. He not only makes
war upon the present extension offranchise,
but demands further restriction, and that
the sole qualification for voters shall be
loyalty, and that loyalty shall be defined
by himself, imitating Brownlow’s past
career, by qualifying such, and suqjr only,as
adhere to his political fortunes. The
Courier-Journal, tracing the career of this
Republican apostle, who boasts a Republi
canism three shades blacker than the black
est Republican, from his outset as a cheat
ing horse jockey, and following him as a
“Black Jack revivalist, hog-drover, mule
driver, mule trader, grocery keeper,distiller,
rebel, and loyalist, down to his being a can
didate for the Governorship of Tennessee of
approved loyalty, thus finally groups
his Republican merits :
“ lies is a bully who sets himself forward
as a hero; a laggard who claims the
honors of war ; a Charlatan who pretends
to statecraft; a mere accident and make
believe who would have strangers consider
him a patriot. He began his career as a
cheat. He lias been a life-long, profes
sional sbara. And this is the man who
dares to look Heaven in the face and
lecture the people of Tennessee about
loyalty.
“This alternate jockey anti preacher—
this henchman of Etheridge —this apos--
tate Rebel—this traitor in embryo and
valiant in buckram—this low browed,
square-mil, piratical craft, with a flag lor
all courtries and a hand for everything but
a fray - is be not a lovely sample of Re
publican statesmanship?”
The liurke County Tragedy.
ARREST OF THE MURDERER —HIS CON
FESSION.
On Thursday morning the Chronicle
& Sentinel the only paper in the city
which had it -published an account of the
brutal murder ot' Mr. Adkins D. Lewis, of
Burke County, by a negro man, whom at
the time be had in his employment. Our
account stated that Mr. Lewis was mur
dered in cold blood in one of his fields and
that the murderer had fled from justice.
This morning we are gratified at being
able to announce to our readers that the
assassin has been arrested and now occu
pies a cell in the jail of this city, where
he will remain until demanded by the
authorities of’ Burke County, in which
the crime was committed. Below we give
a full account ot the whole transaction :
The reasons the negro gives lor killing his
employer; the manner in which the mur
der was accomplished; the subsequent
flight, of I lie murderer ; and his arrest in
this city Thursday morning.
The u line ot the geullcmaD was, as wo
have before btated, Adkins D. Lewis, an
esteemed and useful citizen of Burke
County, who owned and resided on a
plantation situated seven miles south of
the tiwn of Waynesboro. The mur
derer is a negro man named Ben
Godby, who has for some time past
been .in the employment of Mr. Lewis.
Godby’s family, consisting of his wife
and a little girl, were also employed
by the same master ; his wife, we believe,
a cook and bis child a nurse for Mrs.
Lewis. On last Monday Godby’s little
girl, while nursiug Mrs. Lewis’ child,
violated some commands which had been
imposed by her mistress, and was correct
ed by the latter for the act of disobedience.
This, of course, was told by the child to
her mother ; and on Tuesday morning the
latter called Mrs. Lewis to account for the
punishment in a most insolent manner.
Mrs. Lewis endeavored to make her stop
her impertinent language, but without
success ; the enraged negress grow more
and more violent, until Mr. Lewis, who
happened at this time to enter the room,
made her desist by striking her a light
blow over the head with a stick which he
held in his hand. The blow cut the
skin of the woman’s skull aud brought the
blood. That night when Godby returned
| to his cabin from work his wife told him
of the manner in which she had been treat
ed by Mr. Lewis. During the recital God
by and another negro man were present;
and the latter, we understand, asserts that
j Godby grew very indignant when told of
| the blow and declared his determination of
revenging himself by taking the life of his
j employer. On Wednesday morning Godby
and the other hands went to their
work in a field situated a short distance
from Mr. Lewis’ house. Before leaving
his house, however, Godby secreted on his
person a largo dirk-knife—thus showing
very plainly his murderous iatentions.
His wife refused to go to Mr. Lewis to
resume her culinary occupation, but re
mained at home in bed saying that she
was unable to work. A little later in the
morning of Wednesday, Mr. Lewis enter
ed the field aud asked Godby where his |
wife was? Godby, we are informed, re
plied that she was at home sick from the
effects of the blow Lewis had struck her,
and that he intended to have revenge.
Mr. Lewis made some reply to this, when
Godby drew his dirk and sprung upon j
him. Before his employer could recover j
from the surprise of the attack he stabbed
him five or six times in the stemach and
breast, inflicting several mortal wounds, j
During this time no one attempted to stay I
the hand of the murderer, and when his
victim fell to the ground, Godby fled, un- j
pursued, from the field and going to his
hous s procured his wife and fled theeounty.
Go Wednesday eveniug about 6 o’clock,
,M aj. Hugh McLaws, while going from
this city to his home in the country, met a
negro man and two women about six miles
from the city, on the Savannah road, com
ing to Augusta. He noticed that one of
the women bad blood on her clothes, hut
said m thing to the party and went on
hon.<. i liuisJay morning he returned
to the city, and, when about a mile from
here, overtook the party he had seen on
the previous evening. His curiosity a
little excited, Maj, McLaws stopped and
a-ked the woman with the blood on her
dress where she was going. She replied
that she was from Butke county, where
she had had a dimeulty with her em
plojer, Mr. Lewis, in which she had been
severely beaten by the employer, and that
she was coming to Augusta in order to
take out a warrant f or his arrest Maj.
McLaws then asked why she had not gone
to a Burke county Magistrate. The
woman answered that there was no justice
>n her District, and that she was
obliged to come to Augusta. Nothing
further passed between them, and Major
McLaws left the party and came on to
town. Upon reaching the city he read in
the Chronicle A Sentinel an account of 1
ths murder of Mr. Lewis, and saw at •
once that the negro whom he had passed
must be the murderer. He at once com- :
wunicated to the Police what he had seen, ’
and put them on the lookout for the ,
party. At about half-past cine o’clock a I
police detective saw the man and two wo
men standing near the corner of E lis and
Monument streets. Recognizing his game
from the blood on the dress of one of the
women, he approached and entered into
conversation with the party. Godby was
under the impression that there was a
Freedmen’s Bureau Agent in Augusta
and asked where he was to be found, say
ing that he had stabed Lewis, but had not ;
killed h m, and wished to have him ar- ,
rested lor beating his wife. The detec
tive told him to go into the office of one of j
Bullock's Notaries near by and he j
would see the matter all right.—
The negro did as directed, and
the detective going to the City Hall, re
turned with the Captain of Police. The
detective says that the Notary told him not
to go for the Police. When the Captain
arrived there the Notary informed him that
Godby had given himseif up. The follow
ing is the declaration to that effect drawn
up by Lyons aud sworn to by Godby. We
give it verbatim, et literatim :
Georgia, Richmond )
County. j
Personally appeared Ben Godby of
Burke county who being sworn deposeth
and saith that on the 16 day of June 1860 he
was employed by A.dkins D Lewis and
was working in the field of said Adkins D
' Lewis when said Lewis enquire t cf De
ponent where his wife was. Answered
that bis wife was in the house ami beaten
by him so she could not work. Then he
replied I will cut your throat from ear to
ear and drew a pocket knife and made at
me and I drew a knife in self defence and
stabed him with it and then tied. Depou
ent maketh this statement am) gives him
self oyer to the civil authority of Rich
mond county for fear of mob violence in
said county.
Sworn before me this 17 day of June
1869.
bis
Ben X Godby.
mark
Ellis Lyons
N P. ex off, J. P
After the above had been signed a com
mitment was made out and Godby sent to
jail. The knife with which he killed Lewis
is at the notary’s office. It is made from
a long file, beaten out sharp on both edges
with an exceedingly keen point, and is a
most murderous looking weapon. Godby
pretended not to know that Lewis was
dead and seemed astonished when told
the fact. It will be observed that in the
latter part of his declaration he swears
that he is afraid of “mob violence” from
the pcoplo of Richmond county. We
think he inteuded to say Burke county,
and that tho ignorance of the notary caused
the mistake.
Horrible Ku-kiux Outrage ! Attention
Orceley!
The Superior Court room in this city,
was yesterday morning the scene of anoth
er of those horrible outrages upon loil
blacks which have recently so grievously
vexed the pure and gentle soul of the
philosopher of the Tribune. The perpe
trators of the outrage we are about to re
late, were all white men —men who have
hitherto been regarded as gentlemen of
refinement and intelligence—fair types of
that Southern sentiment and feeling which
has so long and decidedly marked the
character of what is sometimes rather
contemptuously designated as Southern
chivalry. These men were twelve whits
citizens of Richmond county, selected for
their worth and intelligence from the great
body of the citizens of the county,to serve
as special jurors for the June term of Rich
mond Superior Court.
The facts of the case, as we gathered
them from a reliable eye-witness (the
writer of this notice), are as follows :
The representative of a large estate in
this county, a pure white, had cause I to
be levied a distress warrant for rent upon
the property of a black man name Philip
Oliver for nine months’ rent due for the
use of a house and lot in the city. The
evidence of the plaintiff showed that the
premises had been rented to the defendant
at the rate ot fifteen dollars per month by
tho former owner of the property. That
the plaintiff' purchased the house in 18G6,
and continued to lease or rent it to the
negro, but agreed, on account of the hard
ness of the times, to reduce the rent to
twelve dollars and a half per month. This
price was paid fora few months, when the
price was again, at the request of defend
ant (tho negro), rodeoed to ten dollars per
month on account of the continued “hard
ness of the times.”
Sometime in the Winter or early Spring
of 1868 the former owner of defendant and
his wife, being reduced to great poverty and
also being very old and infirm lady, moved
into the house occupied by the negro, and
while there set up some pretended claim
of ri >ht to the premises. The defendant and
his wife took care of, supplied and clothed
his old mistress while she thus remained
wi h him —purchased delicacies for her—
provided her comfortable bedding and
other clothing—nursed and waited upon
her in her sickness, and performed all the
offices of kindness and gratitude due, under
the laws of society, from children to their
parents. For this service he asked to be
allowed a deduction on the rent claimed to
be due, on the ground that his old mistress
claimed the house to be her property, and
not the property of the plaintiff.
Os course under the Law and the charge
of the Court the jury could not allow the
claim set up by the negro. They were
hound to find a verdict for the plaintiff tor
the whole amouut of Rent due, to-wit—
ninety dollars. If they had stopped here
all would have been well. If they had
gone no further the Tribune would have
had no right to right to complain of fur
ther offences by the Southern whites upon
the rights of loil blacks. But the jury,
moved and seduced by feelings which very
rarely trouble Puritan hearts—instigated by
the generous impulses of a noble na'ure
wholly unappreciahle by puritan morality—
and actuated by a generous desire to en
courage acts of kindness and benevolence
even in the loil population of the State,
actually took advantage of their position
as jurors to raise, by a voluntary subscrip
tion intheirown body, the sum of thirty-one
dollars, being over one-third of the amount
due, as a contribution to the negro to aid
him in paying the verdict which, by their
oaths, they were hound under the Law to
find against him.
But this was not ail. The plaintiff im
mediately remitted one-third of the ver
dict—the counsel for the negro gave up his
\ fee for his services in his defence—all be
j cause the case showed that a black man
and woman had taken care of and support
ed their old mistress, when the hand of
misfortune and sickness had fallen hard
upon her.
When it is remembered that the jurors
were all white, the Judge white, the plain
tifi white and the defendant’s counsel
white, what a howl will Greeley raise over
this, in puritan lands, unheard of outrage.
The pure and pious Forney will doubtless
clamor more loudly now than ever for
military government here, and the honest
and spotless Beast Butler and Booby Bul
lock cry again to Gen. Terry for more
troops for the protection of loil men.
The following is a copy of the note of
the Jury sent to the Court accompanying
the verdict:
We, the Jury, (Panuel No. 1) beg leave
to contribute the sum of thirty-one dollars
to the defendant in consequence of his
gratitude and kindness to his late Mistress. 1
W. J. Owens, Foreman.
Coalition Suggested in Tennessee.
One of the curious things suggested as
the latest movement in Tennessee, is that
a coalition has been effected between Par
son Brewnlow and Ex-President Johnson.
The suggestion is made by the Washington
correspondent of the Chicago Tribune.
The authority given is Senator Rcss of
Kansas. The impelling motive, is com
mon hatred of Stokes,a “Republican three
shades blacker than the blackest Republi
canism,” now the inde pendent Republi
can candidate for Governor as a Republican
of the true black stamp.
This correspondent describes Stokes as
“a baldi-h, plausible, dare-devil dema
gogue, loudest in a brawl, top-most in
anarchy, and resolved to get up somewhere
where he can be seen, whether he climbs a
Church steeple or an out-house.” The
result of this coalition is to be that the
facile Parson is made secure in his Sena- j
torial honors, and his friends are to be un
molested. whilst the Ex-President becomes
Handy Andy and takes his seat alongside J
of the fighting Parson in the United States j
Senate. If this be so, and it appears ‘
plausible enough, tho future of Ten
nessee is assured quiet since “Righte
ousness and Peace have kissed each
other.” Beyond doubt the age for
miracles has passed away, but the age of
Trade is at hand, and who is so expert as
these old Reverend and profane political
thimble-riggers? However,it is some satis
faction to know that “my policy men” in
Reconstruction, and “The loyal peace poli
cy” men of Tennessee have come together,
and that unfortunate State is ODce again
to become quiet and peaceful. The lion
and the lamb of Tennessee lie down to
gether, and the two ends of Reconstruction
kiss each other. Let us have peace!
Comparative View or the Expenses or
the County.
The Grand Jury for the first week of
the January Term of the Superior Court
of Richmond County, for the first time in
the history of.the county, we believe, gave
to the public the opportunity to examine
a condensed statement of the expenses of
the county. This action of this Grand
Jury was induced by the oppressiveness of
existing taxation. From the Scalawag
plundering expenditure by State officials
there could be no escape until the State
Government should again he fairly and
honestly remitted to the pe iple without
complication with National politics and
freed from Congressional interference.
Neither was it be expected that there could
be any modification of Federal taxes, how
ever unwise or oppressive they may be, but in
the matters of county taxes there was still
some little liberty left. If these could not
be modified they at least could be inquired
into by the Grand Jury of the county, and
the public permitted to form an opinion
respecting their expediency or necessity,
and the qourt pas3 upon the presentment
of the Jury respecting the faithful admin
istration of county affairs. For the pur
pose of aiding the public in these purposes
of the Grand Jury, we bring forward the
condensed statement of the receipts and
expenditures of the county Treasurer for
the two previous years to afford a just
comparison as to the expenses of the first
six months of the current year:
EXPENSES FOR 18G7.
For the Poor—
Paupers $15,872 25
Poor House 3,452 95 19,325 20
Roads & Bridges. 5,982 53
Justices Court
Expenses 8,263 07
Officers—
Salaries 821 90
Commissions 1,912 56 2,733 56
Printing 1,666 48
Elections 133 00
Money Borrowed. 7,412 25
$45,516 09
EXPENSES FOR 1868-
For the Poor—
Paupers $11,997 35
Poor House 602 97
Freedmen’s Hos
pital 764 85 18,784 17
Roads & Bridges. 4,487 58
Justice Cour l
Expenses 4,144 91
Officials
Salaries 886 38
Commissions 2,418 30 3,504 68
Printing 478 20
Elections 166 00
131,565 54
RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES FOR FIVE
MONTHS, 1869.
Receipts from January 19 th to June lbth,
1869.
Balance on hand January 19 $1,230 61
Amount borrowed from Nation
al Bank, $l,lOO, less interest.. 1,086 15
Received from Ordinary— liquor
license 300 00
Received by fines in Magistrates’
Court 347 00
Received from Ordinary—insol
vent tax collected 18 33
Received from Ordinary -amount
paid by Jefferson county for
building bridge on county line. 208 00
Received trout Ordinary— amount
refunded as attorneys’ fees 50 00
Received from Tax Collector 16,000 00
19,210 09
EXPENDITURES.
For the Poor—
Paupers $1,408 75
Poor House 902 95
Freedmen’s Hos
pital 716 34 3,028 04
Roads &l Bridges. 1,461,52
Justice Court
Expenses 6,579 63
Officials—
Salaries 850 00
Officers—
Superior Court—
costs past due 2,593 21
Commissions 786 57 4,229 78
Elections 119 00
Note money bor
rowed 1,100 n
Balance on hand... 2,722
$19,240 09
The foregoing statements exhibit the
very gratifying evidence of the rapidity with
which Richmond county has recovered from
exhaustion and impoverishment. Our
expenditures for the poor of the county
were, in 1867, in round numbers,under the
same officers, nineteen thousand dollars ;
in 1868, eighteen thousand dollars.
Taking the expenditures for the pres
ent year as shown above as a
guide, and recollecting that at the most
there remains but six weeks,or two months
in tho calendar year, in which we have
severe Wintry ueather which especially
invokes a call for relief from the county,
it is very plain that the expenses for
paupers will not much exceed,if it reaches,
the sum of four thousand dollars. It is
quite apparent that pauperism has been
greatly diminished, and we suppose our
paupers have either all gone to work, or
have migrated or died. At all events, we
| are quite sure, that however the diminu
tion of paupers may be accounted for,
every good citizen will rejoice greatly that
taxation for this purpose has been so great
ly reduced.
But while marked economy is shown in
| this item, it dees not appear that the ag
gregate expenditure will be reduced corre-
I spondingly. The statement for the last
six months indicates that the expenditures
| for the year will be about $38,000 in ISO 9,
1 against $31,000 in 1868, and $45,000 in
i 1867. We hope that it is the policy of
[ those who control to apply every dollar of
| surplus to cancelling the county debt,
which is shown to exist in the statement of
! 1867, but of which payment, neither of
principal nor interest, appears in the pub
lished statement. We would be glad to see
the ground under the authority of the
| Cou rt if they possess tho power; inaugurate
a reform both as to the manner in which
county officers make their reports and in
j the form of the reports themselves,
i The amount levied for county purposes,
: is a certain rate per cent, on the State
assessment. Why should there not be
published,on a fixed day preceding the ses
sion of the court, official statements show
ing the amount in aggregate levied and
the amount collected and paid over, and a
detailed statement of the expenditures for
all purposes, school fund, court expense,
Ac. Such published reports would enable
Grand Jurors to examine fairly these ac
counts by giving them that leisure for the
purpose which they cannot now do under
the press of other duties, and would afford
the grand inquest of the county an oppor
tunity of conferring with their fellow-citi
zens on any points of interest.
Judge Gibson stated, in his charge to
the Grand Jury at the begining of this
term, that there were over three thousand
voters in the county who had not paid poll
Tax. We suppose the Judge obtained
this information by particulary inquiry.
But why should not all these matters be
so managed as to place, fnlly and com
pletly before the public, all facts pertaining
to the administration of county affairs,
and by such methods as to enable the
Grand Jury of the county to pass under
standing]}- upon them, not hurriedly and
superficially as is now done, but thoroughly
and satisfactorily to the public as well as
to the officials. The public desires to
know when they have a good officer, and
who are good officials, and how their
affairs are being managed. But under the
present mode of rendering official accounts,
and under the present system of passing
upon them, neither the Grand Jury nor
the public know very much about the
administration of county affairs, nor of
the merits of the several officials.
The AuarsTA Postoffice. “ Re
liable Authority” says th it neither Bryant
nor Blodgett will get the Postmastership
at this city. It is said that both the
Mongrel and Carpet-bagger have so faith
fully shown up the character of each other
to the President that he has decided to
throw them both overboard and try anew
deal. “Let us have peace.”
The Effect of the Supreme Court Decision
on the Status of the Excluded Negro
Members of the Legislature,
The Macon Telegraph has taken a
strange view of the effect which the recent
decision of the Supreme Court .upon the
question of negro eligibility to offiee should
have upon the status of those negroes elect
ed to the present Legislature and who have
been unseated and declared ineligible as
members of that body. The Telegraph
thinks that to insist now that the rejected
negroes cannot be re-seated is not only il
logical but actually "-mischievous.”
la support of this position the Telegraph
insists that all the departments of the State
government are co-ordinate and none of
them more independent of law than the
other—that the Constitutional provision
which declares that “each House (of the
Legislature) shall be the judge of the elec
tion returns and qualifications of its mem
bers’ ’ does not make the Legislative de
partment superior to law, and that the
recent decision of the Supreme Court is the
law of Georgia on this queition. This is
the case as stat-d by our ootemporary, and
from which he arrives at the conclusion
i that to deny the reject id negroes, now
their right to resume the seats from which
j they have been legally ejected,would be as
J arbitrary and unwarrantable an exercise of
power as finds its corrolary in the action of
Congress in refusing to admit the Southern
members to seats in that body.
The Telegraph seems to have lost sight
o f the fact that the right of the negroes
elect to hold seats in the present Legisla
ture is r, sad judicata, Whatever may be
the effect of the decision of the Supreme
Court upon the right of negroes to hold
seats in any future legislature, or of the
right of any negro t j occupy a seat in this,
whose case has not been heretofore acted
upon, there can he no questioi in the mind
of any one at all familiar with the practi
cal workings of our system of government,
and the legal effect of judicial decisions,
that the judgment of the Supremo Court
in the case just decided, does not reach or
affect in the slightest degree, the status of
those negroes whose eases had been decid
ed—erroneously though it may have beeu
—against them previously to this decision
of the court.
Thejudgme it of a Ciurt is binding only
upon the parties actually before it. The
principles involved in the judgment ren
dered are applicable to aud will be enforced
in all similar cases which may thereafter
arise. Even the legislative power—the
law-m iking branch of the Government—
is expressly prohibited from making ex
post facto or retroactive laws. Upon what
grant of power will it be claimed that a
judgment of the Supreme Court upon a
legal question can be enforced so as to be
retroactive in its operation to the extent
of annulling and setting aside former judg
ments made in another or Lnfirior Court
upon the same question, but from which
no appeal has been taken, and under which
rights have been acquired and obligations
enforced ?
Let us take a case. The Legislature of
1860 passed an act generally known as
the Stay Law. This act, with modifica
tions, was re-cnacted in 1861 and in 1866,
By the terms of those acts plaintiffs ii
execution were forbid and Sheriffs inlril
ited from making levy and sale of De
fendant’s property during the continuance
of these laws. A holding an execution
against B ordered the Sheriff, in 1863,
to levy on defendant’s property and make
the money. The Sheriff refused to levy
an<l A took out a rule against him to show
cause why he had not made the money due
on the fi. fa. in his hands. To this rule
the Sheriff answered that he had been pre
vented from levying by the terms of the
Stay Law. The Court sustaiied the Sheriff'
and discharged the rule. Subsequently the
Supreme Court decided in another case
the stay law unconstitutional. Does the
Telegraph think that A cat now go back
on the Sheriff and sustain a rule against
him on account of his fonner failure to
levy? Certainly not. The law ot A’s case
was decided against him, aid while it may
be admitled that the decition was wrong
the case cannot he reopeaid, it is res ad
judicata. In future cases the principles
involved in the decisiouof the Supreme
Court holding the stay law unconstitu
tional will be applied, aid if the Inferior
Court refuses to recognize this principle,
upon a writ of error, ihe Supreme Court
will compel the Inferior Court to enforce
its view of the principle! involved.
If, then, a decision ofthe Supreme Court
upon a pure question of law involved
in the trial of an ordiiary suit, cannot be
applied or enforced in ) case of like char
acter which has already been decided—
although it may have l ten erroneously—
how does the Telegraph find, in the recent
decision of the Supreme Court, a power
and extent and scope which retroacts upon
and sets aside a solemn judgment made in
another case and betwien other parties?
The truth is, the decision of the Su
preme Court has no more effect upon the
rights of the excluded negroes to resume
their seats than it has upon the respective
rights of the members of the British Par
liament.
We do not insist that t'ae Legislature
“can trample upon the rights of citizens
in defiance of the liw.” We deny that a
refusal of the present Legislature to rein
state the negro js would be a violation of
any law or principle of law known to our
system. We deny that the recent decision
ofthe Supreme Court can, by any rules of
law or logic, he t»p died to the expelled
members. We deay the charge of the
Telegraph that a refusal to reseat the
negroes would be to assume “an untenable
position again.-J an authoritative exposition
ofthe law.” On the contrary, we insist
that there is nothrg authoritative or bind
ing in thisdecisior so far as the rights of
the expelled negroes are concerned.
We regret to ind a single respectable
voice raised in tie State in favor of the
wholly unjustifiable and illegal view enter
tained by the extreme Radicals upon this
question. The Ltgi lature cannot retrace
its steps even if it were willing to do so,
without a palpsble violation of all the
rules of Law and Parliamentary pro
ceedings known to deliberative bodies.
If any support were needed for the
views herein stat'd, wc furnish it in the fol
lowing extract fnm a private letter just
received from one of the greatest intellects
of the age—a statesman in the true ac
ceptance of tho term —one of Georgia’s
most cherished and honored sons. lie
says, “Don’t let our people get into the
“idea that the Supreme Court decision
“recently made will have the effect to re
store the negroes held by the Legislature
“to be ineligible, to their seats. It can
"have no such effect—that question has
“been decided, by the only Court having
V jurisdiction of it, and their decision is
“final in the premises. They could not
“reverse it even if they were now satisfied it
“was wrong, no more than the Supreme
“Court could take up any case decided at
“its last term.and reverse its judgment. All
“they could do, would be to decide differ
“ently in the next like case that might
“arise. This decision is based upon the
“code exclusively. That part of the code
“may be repealed by law.”
Upon the point allu lei to, in the latter
part of the above extract, we propose at a
future day, to comment somewhat at
length. In a few words our distinguished
correspondent has sot the whole matter
dearly before th i people and in such a
way that the dullest reader may fully com
prehend its force and vigor. This remedy
against the effect of the decision of the j
Supreme Court ir the future may be easily
and speedily applied.
Annual Report or the Mobile A Girard
Railroad.
Win. M. Wadley, Esq., President of the
Central Railroad Company, publishes on
June 3d, his report as President of the
Mobile A Girard Railroad, from which the
following is condensed:
The eernings have been $131,575 87
The expenses have been 104,105 57
Profits 27,270 36
On the 10th of July, 1868, the Central
RailroadCompany,to further the extension
of the Girard Road, agreed to endorse the
bonds of the last named company in ad
dition to a prior endorsement, in the sum
of $250,000, on the following term* : Ist,
thatonc-halt of tho capital stock of the
Girard Company should be transferred,
with all the privileges of stockholders, to
the Central Company, to be held as se
curity for all endorsements, the stock to
be re-transferred upon the payment and
cancellation of the bonds; 2d, the other half
of the Girard capital stock to be made pre
ferred eight per cent, stock, the interest
on which is to be paid out of earnings over
and above the amount required for expens
es, and bonded debt interest; 3d, all
revenue in excess of said specified re
quirements, to be set apart as a sinking
fund for the payment of all bonds of the
Girard Company.
This agreement was ratified by the
stockholders of the Girard Company on
the 18th July, 1367.
The bridge at Columbus was completed
and connection made with the Southwest
ern (formerly Muscogee) Railroad, Jan
uary Ist, 1869.
The alignment of the Girard Road in
its extension has been deflected from
Orion Crossing to Troy, Alabama, and it
is expected will be opened by November
next.
The Central Company has, in addition
to the afore mentioned endorsements,
agreed to make a further endorsement of
bonds for fifty thousand dollars, and
loaned its credit in the further sum of
fifty thousand dollars to purchase iron.
The obligations of the Company will
then stand as follows, viz :
First Mortgage Bonds $400,000 00
Second “ “ 300,000 00
Plain “ “ 33,500 00
Note endorsed by the Central
Railroad aud Banking Com
pany of Georgia 50,000 00
$783,500 00
Mr. Stephens’ Letter—Correction.
There is a serious error in the text of
Mr. Stephens’ late letter, which has been
copied in nearly all the Northern and
Southern journals. In the copies of ti e
letter, as published by the Herald and
copied in the papers generally, Mr.
Stephens is made to say that “the war was
not inaugurated by the authorities at
Washington.” When, in fact, he wrote
and it was so printed in the National
Intelligencer, to which paper it was origin
ally addressed,that “it was not inaugurated
by the seceded States at all, it was inau
gurated and wage! by those then con
trolling the Federal Government to prevent
secession.’”
The difference is a material and import
ant one, and we requost those papers who
published the incorrect version, in justice
to Mr. Stephens, to make this correction.
We copied from the text as furnished by
the Ilerald-Ani fell into the error ourselves,
which we now expose.
The CliUTJustice and the Politician.
Ex Go-ernor, Chief Justice Joe Brown
claims that, as Chief J ustice, he has not
“gone back” on Joseph E. politician.
The mile posts of the record are Secesh,
Last Ditch, Super Cooled against Jeff
Davis’ consolidation, Reconstruct, Negro
Suffrage, only as Republican Advocate
and Republican Chief Justice of the Su
preme Court deciding that negroes are
eligible to office. A writer in the Atlanta
Constitution asks the publi; to compare
the following extracts :
DECISION.
“The third para
graph of the 9th ar
ticle of the Consti
tution of this State
ad >pts in subordina
tion, etc. * * the
Code of G eorgia and
Acts amendatory
thereof, known as
Irwin’s Code. * *
* * * * I think
it very clear that the
Code of Georgia,
I upon which alone I
I base this opinion,
I which is binding
upon all her inhabi
tants while of force,
! confers upon all her
I citizens the right to
hold office.”
MARIETTA SPEECH.
“The negro can
have no p litical
rights except such
as are granted to
him. Congress, as
the conqueror, lias
made no such grant.
The Constitution
makes none. Then,
whence is his right
to hold office de
rived ?”
The Burke County Murderer.— The
Sheriff of Burke county arrived in this city
Saturday and, after consultation witli
Judge Gibson, decided to make arrange
ments by which Ben. Godby,the murderer
of Mr. Lewis, who was arrested in this
city on Thursday last, will remain in the
jail of this county until the time for his
trial arrives We are informed that the
negroes of Burke county have sworn to
rescue Godby from the authorities as soon
as he arrives in Waynesboro, which may
account for his detention in this jail.
A coroner’s inquest lias been held over
the body of Mr. Lewis and verdict return
ed that he was murdered by Godby. We
are informed that the murdered man was
literally cut ail to pieces—no less than
twenty three wounds having been inflicted
by the assassin, of which all but three
were mortal.
[COMMUNICATED. J
Reconstruction.
Messrs. Editors : As there seems to be
considerable difficulty among the leaders of
the Republican party at Washington city
to fix the status not only of the negroes,
but also the white people of the Southern
States, commonly called rebels, and more
particularly in Georgia, to the end that
the Republican party may always retain
the complete ascendancy, I beg leave to
suggest that it can be done very easily and
save the brains and bodily health of Butler,
Sumner, Forney & Cos., including Grant,
by passing a law that every white man
South of Masons and Dixon’s line shall be
obliged to vote for the ‘ nominees of the
Republican party for all time to come
upon the penalty of being disfranchised
forever in default of so doing In this way
all the States can immedianly be admitted
into the Union, and according to the Rad
ical vocabuliry be cxietly right, and all
harmony will prevail throughout the land,
the Millennium will soon have commenced
and the land will soon begin to flow with
Radical milk and honey.
Yours, &c , Justice.
Affairs In South Carolina.
SUMTER.
The Watchman says: “We heard one
of our leading merchants say, a day or j
two ago, that there was at present, and |
bad been the present year, but little if any
actual demand for corn among our farmers ;
and planters. Last year the cry for this j
great life-sustaining article came up from
every quarter, in many instances under
circumstances of distress, and before June
probably 50,000 bushels or more had been I
sold or furnished to Sumter.”
EDGEFIELD. %
The Advertiser says: “For three weeks
past we have bad bright, e'ear, sunshiny
weather, such weather as has given new
life to the cotton and new hopes to the
planter. But on yesterday and last night,
just as the dryness was beginning to
amount to a drought, there fell grateful
and abundant rain. This morning, Tues
day, 15th, it is again bright, warm and
clear. The reports of the growing cotton
are far more encouraging now than a few
weeks back, and corn everywhere is said
to be promising. The rain of last night
has brought the vegetable gardens all
square to the front, and the wheat and oat
crops are spoken of generally as good.”
NEWBERRY.
At a meeting of the Newberry Agricul
tural Society, on the 7th instant, a number
of new names were added to the roll. On
motion of Colonel Robert Moorman, the
fo'lowing resolution was unanimously
adopted : “Resolved, That it Is the sense
of this meeting, that in order to insure
success, harmony and prosperity to the
planters and laborers of Newberry, that it
should be held as a sacred rule that no
person shall, knowingly, employ a laborer
who is under contract, either verbal or
written, with another employee; and that
contracts with laborers should be strictly
and promply observed by all people.” It
ordered that a special meeting of the so
ciety be held for the purpose of hearing
the reports of delegates to the State Agri
cultural Convention, to which the com
munity generally is respectfully invited.
On rnotiou, the president was requested to
appoint a citizen in each township to advo
cate the interests of the society. The
society then adjourned, to meet the 2d
Wednesday in August.
Improved Lamp Burners, for parlor
and hanging lamps, unequaled by any,
and house furnishing goods in great variety
can'.be found at my stores; indeed the names
and prices of useful articles I sell would
fill at least one of our city papers, and
still they come and go fast for the times.
junlS— (12wl W. J. Farr.
The day of the planet Mars is only a lit
tle more than thirty-seven minutes longer
than ours.
From the Atlanta Intelligencer.
Kcniarks by Judge Warner.
His Honor Judge Warner, before com
mencing to read his written opinion, open
ed with the following remarks. lie said :
I dissent from so much of the judgment
of the majority of the Court as reverses the
judgment ot the Court below overruling
the demurrer. The question involved in
that demurrer was whether a colored cit
izen under the Constitution and laws of
this State has the legal right to held office
under her authority.
The State is the source and fountain of
office ; there can be no dispute about that.
And when a person, whether white or
colored, claims a legal right to hold an
office under her authority he must show
his legal right to do so either under the
Constitution or statutes of the State or
the common law of the State. The diffi
culty in regard to colored citizens in my
judgment—the legal difficulty— iu their
way, of holding office in this State under
the existing law, consists in this :
They are anew class which has been in
corpoiated into the body politic in this
State. It is unnecessary to inquire by
what means, but they have been incor
porated into the body politic of the State—
made a part thereof.
They cannot claim a common law right
to hold office in the State, for they had
not exercised that right so long that “the
memory of men runneth not to the con
trary.” They have recently been incorpo
rated into the body politic of the State.
They cannot claim a common law right to
hold office under the authority of the
State. In my judgment, the Constitution
did not confer that right upon them, nor
does the Code of Georgia confer that right
upon them, for it should be remembered
that the Code of Georgia was adopted by
the Legislature prior to their being made
citizens. Colored citizens were not iu con
templation of the lawmakers when that
Code was adopted. That Code was adopt
ed as the law of the State on the Ist of
January, 1863, and all the provisions that
are made in that Code were made for tee
class of citizens which are specified and
recognized in that Code as citizens. Color
ed citizens were not cont mplated hy the
law makers —they were uot in their view
at all. These provisions vrere not made in
reference to them iu any u auuer whatever,
for they were not then citizens of the
State; they were ineorpbiatei into the
body politic subsequently to that Code,
and when the Constitution adopted that
Code it adopted it as a whbla, as it stood,
without making any alterations in it.
Then colored citizens [caunot claim a
common law right to hold office in tire
State: the Constitution in my judgment
did not confer the right upon them to hold
office, and the Code did not confer it, be
cause it is uot the expression of the legis
lative will of the State since they became
citizens thereof, and can have no applica
tion to them. The Code, when it speaks
of the rights of citizens, speass of that
class which the Code itself recognized as
citizens at that time. It did not provide
for any other class who might thereafter
become citizens. It only provided for that
class who were citizens at the time, and no
body else—that class of citizens only were
in the perview of the lawmakers when they
adopted it.
The colored citizens haviug been incor
porated into the body politic subsequently
to the adoption of that Code, they must
either derive their right io hold office un
der some public law o: the State, either
under the Constitution of 1868 or by the
common law, or by some law that lias
been enacted —some expression of the pub
lic will of the State—since they became
citizens. That is my point.
Has there been any express ;d public will
of the State as to their right to hold office
since they became citizens thereof? If
there has, and the rights have been con
ferred upon them, they are entitled to ex
ercise them. If there has not they caunot
exercise them, and it is no answer to say
that because they are not prohibited from
exercising office they can do so. Unless
the right was conferred upon them pre
viously they have uot got it, although
there may be no prohibition ; for prohibi
ts® could not prohibit that which did not
exipt. If they have not got the right
either under the Constitution or some
public law of the State the tact that they
are not prohibited from exercising it
amounts to nothing. They must have the
previous right.
The distinction between the rights of
colored citizens to hold office in this State
and white citizens is this : 'J he white
citizen had a common law right to hold
office in the State—a right that has exist
ed so long that “the memory of man run
neth not to the contrary. ’ ’ There was no
law in this State previous to the adoption
of the Code in 1863, conferring the right
upon white citizens to hold office and that
declaration in the Cidi is only the sub
stance of the common law. When the
Code says it should he one of the rights of
citizens to hold office it only affirmed what
was the common law, and what was the
usage—the substance ot a custom so long
that the memory of no man runs to the
contrary. The white citizen, native born
and naturalized, lmd a common law right
to hold office, because he txeroised it so
long that “the memory of man runneth not
to the contrary,” but the colored citizen
when he was introduced into the body
politic could not claim that common law
right. We all know that he bad never
exercised. We all know the time was
wheu he did not exercise it, and therefore
he cannot ciaitn a common law right as the
white citizen can.
A naturalized citizen bad the common
law right to be President of the United
States, That was his common law right;
and hence there was a prohibition put into
the Constitution to prohibit a naturalized
foreigner from exercising that eornmon law
right. The moment that lie was natural
ized as a citizen he bad the eornmon law
right to hold office, and in order to restrain
him they put in the prohibition that no
body should be President but a native born
citizen. The prohibition prohibited the
exercise of his common law right, as it was
thought necessary to prohibit him from its
exercise.
The State being the source and fountain
of office, she may grant to any class of her
citizens by some public law, either com
mon, statute or by the Constitution—it
does not matter which, hut the party who
claims to exercise it must show the ground
—the law upon which he bases that right.
As I have said, the colored citizen re
cently incorporated into the body politic
cannot claim it under the common law
right lie must derive it either from the
Constitution or some statute. I say that
there has no statute been passed since he
was made a citizen —there has been no ex
pression of the public will of the State
since bo was made a citizen, that it was
her will and deure that he should hold
office. All the declarations of the Code,
all the enactments of the Code w re made
prior to the time when he became a citizen,
he was not embraced or included the ciri,
and not in the perview of the law-makers
who made that Code, and therefore that is
no expression ot the public will of the
State as to his right to hold office when lie
was not a citizen at that time. It applies
exclusively to that class who are recog
nized as citizens.
[Here the Judge, reading from his
written opinion, said : |
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGF
WARNER.
A I. EG KG NOT ELIGIBLE TO OFFICE IN
GEORGIA.
The defendant is a person of color, hav
ing as the record states one-eighth of ne
gro or African blood in his veins, who
claims to be lawfully entitled to hold and
exercise the duties of the office of Clerk
of the Superior Court. And >he question
presented for our consideration and judg
ment is : whc-ther a person of color of the
description mentioned in the record is
legally entitled to hold office in this State I
under the Constitution and laws thereof
The Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States declares
that “all persons born or naturalized in
the United States and subject to I
diction thereof, are citizens of the United 1
States and the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or im
munities of citizens of the United States.”
The Constitution of this State declares
that “all persons born or naturalized in
the United States and resident in this State
are hereby declared citizens of this State,
and no law shall be made or enforced
which shall abridge the privileges or im
munities of citizens of the United States
or of this State.”
From the time of the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and the adoption
and ratification of the Constitution of this
State in 1868, the defendant became, not
withstanding his color and African bbod,
a citizen of the United States and is en
titled to all the privileges and immunities
of a citizen. Does the fact that the defend
ant was made a citizen of this State with
all the privileges and immunities ofa citi
zen thereof confer upon him the legal right
to hold office in this State as such citizen ?
When we take into consideration the defi
nition and object of creating an effiee, and
by what authori y it is conferred upon a
citizen the distinction between the privi
leges and immunities ofa citizen as such,
and right to hold offie, will be at once ap
parent. It will be seen that the privilege
and immunities of a citizen as such is one
thing, and that his legal right to hold
office as such citizen under the authority
of the State is another, and quite a differ
ent question.
L’fhe learned Judge here read at some
length from 7 Bacon’s Abridgement, de
fining the word “office,” also from Ist and
2d Blackstone in the same connection, and
continued: 1
All citizens of the State, whether white
or colored, male or female, miao;- or adult*,
idiots or lunatics, aza entitled to have ali
the privileges and immunities of citizens,
but it does not follow that all of these
different classes of citizens are entitled to
hold office under the public authority of
the State because the privileges and im
munities of citizens are secuied to them.
The State, in this country, as the Crown j
in Europe, is the fountain of honor aud of
office, and who she desires to employ any
class of her citizens in her service is the best
judge of their fitness and qualifications
therefor. An officer of the State as we
have shown (from Baeon)“have to do with
another’s affairs agaiust his will and with
out his leave;” and such officer must have
the authority of the State to perform
these public duties against the will of the
citizen and without his leave. This
authority must be conferred upon the citi
zen by some public law of the State from
that class of her citizens wnich in her
judgment will best promote the geueral
welfare of the State. The right to have
and enjoy the immunities and privileges oi
a citizen of a State does not confer upon
him the right to serve the State in any
official capacity until that right is expressly
granted to him by law. Mr. Justice
Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the case
of Dred S ott vs. Sanford, says, “so in all
the States numerous porsous, though citi
zens, cannot vote or caunot hold office
either, on account of their age or sex, or
the want of the necessary legal qualifica
tions.” See, also, case of Cornell vs.
Coryell: 4 Washington’s Circuit Court Re
ports 380—381 to the same point.
The defendant, therefore, cannot legally
claim any right to hold office either under
the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
of the United Mates or the Constitution of
this State, which make him a citizen and
guarantee unto him the privileges or im
munities of a citizen; for he may well have
and enjoy all the privileges and immunities
of a citizen in the State without holding
any office or exercising any public or offi
cial duty under the authority of the State.
The privileges and immunities of a oiti
zeu of a State, do not confer the legal
right to hold office under the public au
thority of the State. Does the public law
of the State recognized and adopted by the
Constitution of 1868, and known as Irwin’s
Code, confer upon the defendant the legal
right to hold office in this State?
The Code took effect as the public law
of this State on the Ist day of January,
1863. By the 46th section thereof it is
laid down “that all white persons, born in
this Sta'e or in aoy other State of this
Union, who are, or may become residents
of this State with the intention of remain
ing herein ; all white persons naturalized
under the laws of the United States, and
who are or may become residents of this
State with the intention of remaining
herein, all persons who have obtained a
right to citizenship under the former laws,
and all children wherever born whose
father was a citizen of this State at the
time of the birth of such child, or in the
case of posthumus children at the time of
his death are held and deemed citizens of
this State.” “Persons having one-oigbth
or more of negro or African blood in their
veins are not white persons in the mean
ing of this Code.” The 1646 Section de
clores that “natural persons are distin
guished according to their rights and
status into Ist. citizens ; 2d. residents,
not citizens ; 3d. aliens ; 4th. persons of
color.”
Section 1647 says, “the persons to whom
belong the rights of citizenship, and the
mode of acquiring and losing the same
have been specified in a former article :
(referring to Article 46, above cited)
“Among the right of citizens are the en
joyment of personal security, personal
liberty, private property and the deposi
tion thereof, the elective franchise, the
right to hold offie;, to appeal to the
Courts, to testily as a witness, to perform
any civil function and to keep and bear
arms.” “All citizens are entitled to ex
ercise all their rights as such unless spe
cially prohibited by law.” See sections
1647—1653.
It will be remembered that at the time
of the adoption of the Code in 1863, the
defendant was not a citizen of this State
and was not recognized by the Code as a
citizen thereof. By the 1646th Section
the status of the defendant is defined to be
that ot a person of color and not that of a
citizen.
The revised Code adopted by the Con
stitution of 1868, includes the act of 1866,
which declares that "all uegroes, mulat
toes, mestizoes and their descendants,
having one eighth of negro or African
Hood in their veins, shall be known in this
State as persons of color,” and specially
defines their legal rights, but the right to
hold office is not one of them. (Revised
Code—Section 1661.)
It is true since the adoption of the Code
the defendant has been made a citizen,
but the legal rights conferred upon citi
zens by the Code were conferred upon that
class of persons only who are declared and
recognized by the Code as citizens of the
State at the time of its adoption. When
the Code declares that it shall be the right
of a citizen to hold office, such right is
confined to that class of persons who arc
recognized and declared therein to be citi
zens of the State, and not to any other
class of persons who might thereafter be
come citizens. So when the Code declares
that all citizens are entitled to exercise all
their rights as such, unless prohibited by
Jaw, it is applicable to that class of persons
only who were declared to be citizens of the
State at that time, and not aoy other class
of persons who might thereafter be made
citizens of the State, such as Chinese,
Africanr, or persons of color. The truth
is that the public will of the State has
never been ex ressed by a y legislative
enactment in favor of the right of colored
citizens to hold office in this State since
they became citizens thereof.
Although these several classes of per
sons might be made citizens of the State
with the privileges and imm initios of citi
zens, still they could not leg illy hold office
under tho authority ol the State until that
right shall be conferred upon them by some
public law of the State subsequent to the
time at which they became citizens so as
to include them iu its provisions. The
public will of the State, as to the legal
right of that class of her citizens to hold
office, has never been affirmatively express
ed, but on the contrary, when the propos
ition was distinctly made in the Convention
which forme 1 the present Constitution to
confer the right upon colored citizens to
hold office in this State, it was voted down
by a large majority. (See Journal of the
Convention, page 312.) So far as there
has been any expression of the public will
of the State as to the legal right of that
class of citizens known as colored citizens,
since they became such, to hold office in
thisState.it is against that right now
claimed by the defendant.
The insurmountable obstacle in the way
of defendant claiming a legal right to hold
office in this State under the provisions of
the Code, is the fact that he was Dot a
citi/.cn of the State at the time of its adop
tion. The class of persons to which he
belongs wore uot recognized by it as citi
zen . aud therefore he is not included in
any of its provisions which conferred the
right to hold office upon t lie class of citi
zens specified in the Code. The Code
makes no provision whatever for colored
citizens to hold office in this State; ail its
provisions apply exiiusively to white citi
zens and to no other class of citizens.
The Convention wnich framed the pres
ent State Constitution and declared per
sons of color to he citizen-could have con
ferred the right upon them to hold office,
but declined to do so by a vary decided
vote of that body, and went before the
people claiming its ratification upon the
ground that colored citizens were not en
titled to hold office under it; and there
can be no doubt that the people of the
State voted for its ratification at the ballot
box with that understanding.
But now it is contended that the do
fendant, though a colored person, is made
a citizen of the State and of the United
States and that no enabling act has ever
been passed to allow a naturalized citizen
to hold office in this State when he pos
sessed the other requisite qualificaiions
prescribed by law—that the defendant
having been made a citizen of the State is
entitled to hold office in the same manner
as a naturalized citizen could do. The re
ply is that naturalized citizens were white
per.-ons and as such had a common law
right to hold office —a right founded upon
immemorial usage and custom, which has
j existed so long that “the memory of man
runneth not to the contrary.” The 1648th
Section of the Code simply affirms the
common law as to the right of white citi
zens to hold office in this State. No such
common law right, however, can be claim
ed in this State in favor of persons of j
color to hold office. They have but re
cently become entitled to citizenship, and :
have never held office in this State. In
1848, in the ease of Cooper and Worsham
against the Mayor and Aldermen of the
city of Savannah —4th Georgia Reports, ;
72 —it was unanimously held and decided i
by this court that free persons of color j
were not entitled to hold any office in this ;
State ; the colored citizen cannot claim
any such common law rig .t for the rcas jn
that he never exercised and enjoyed it;
and that constitutes the difference between
the legal right ofa naturalized white citizen
to hold office in this State, and a person
of color who has recently been made a citi •
zen sin°e the adoption of the Code, and
who is not embraced wit hin its provisions.
The one can claim bis common law right
to hold office in th State, the ot er can
not; and uutil the State shall declare by
some legislative enactment that it is her ;
will and desire that her colored citizens I
shail hold office under her authority, they •
cannot claim the legal right to do so. We -
must not fotget that the State is the foun
tain and parent of office, and may confer
or refuse to confer the right to hold office !
upon any class of her citizens as she may
think proper and expedient.
When anew class of persons are iutro- ;
duced into. the body politic of the State .
and made citizens thereof, who cannot j
claim a common law right to hold office j
therein, it is incumbent on them to show I
affirmatively that such right has bee a con
(erred upon them by some public aw of I
the State since they were made citizens
thereof to entitle them to have and enjoy
such right. In other words, they must
show the public law o< the State enacted
since they became citizens thereof, which
confers the legal right claimed before they i
c.n demand a judgment A the Couit -
favor of such legal right. ,n
\\\ male white citizens of the Stale
whether nat.ve born or naturalized eit,-’
ze.as, having the necessary legal im-ilific.,
omce in this State, aud in order to deprive
them of tbeir common law right a P pro
hibitory statute is necessary. K A natural
.zed Citizen had a common law right to
hold the office of President of the United
States. Hence the prohibition in the
Constitution of the United States. But
as colored citizens ot the State, who -have
reeeutly been made such, cannot claim a
common law right to held office in the
State, no prohibitory statute is necessary
to deprive them of a right which .hey
never had under the common law or statute
therefore, it is
said that colored citizens have the right to
the - tat9 ’ un:ess specially
prolnltedby law it must be shown affirm
atively that they had previously enjoyed
they cannot show their
i,ght to hold office in the State, either un
der the common law, the Conetit i.inn or
statutes of the State the fact that th y are
not specially prohibited from excrcn-ii- a
right which they never had amounts to
nothing so far as investing them with the
right to hold office is concerned.
When and where, and by what pu'ffio
law of the State was the legal right to hold
office therein conferred on the colored
citizens thereof? If thisquestiou cannot
be answered in the affirmative, and the
legal authorities under which the right is
claimed cannot be shown then the aign
men t that inasmuch as there is no special
prohibition in the law agamst the right of
colored citizens to hold office, falls to the
ground. If there was no existing legal
right to hold office to be prohibited the
fact that there is no prohibition dees not
confer such legal right. There was no
legal necessity to prohibit that which d:d
not exist.
It is not the business or the duty of
couris to make the law but simply to ex
pound and enforce existing laws which
have been prescribed by the supreme
power of the State.
After the most careful examination of
this question I am clearly of o inioti that
there is no existing law of this State which
confers the right upon tho colored citizens
thereof to hoid office therein, and conse
quently that the defendant has no legal
right to hold or exercise the duties of the
office which he claims under her authority
and that the judgment of the couit below
overruling the demurrer should be affirmed.
Note —lt is due to Judge Warner to
state that after the foregoing report of his
opinion wasin type, wc received troni him
a note in which lie requested that we
would “not publish any other opinion than
his written one in that ease as mine” (his)
“unless authorized by” him to do s>. In
the same note the Judge states, that im
mediately after the delivery of his opinion,
he handed the manuscript over to I lie Re
porter of the Couit, and wo have not been
furnished with a copy of it, we are forced
to publish from our own Reporter’s notes,
in the correctness of whose report we have
every confidence, but will, if there he any
difference between his report and the
manuscript of the Judge, cheerfully pub
lish from the latter upon being furnished
with a copy of it.— [Ed.
AGRICULTURAL.
Contributions on practical farming are
(elicited from our friends throughout the
viunlry.
Vram the (Jrecnsboro Herald.
A Visit to Or. .lanes’ Farm.
Last week we visited the farm of our
enterprising friend Dr. Thomas P. Janes,
which lies on Fishing Creek, some seven or
eight miles north of Greensboro’, to see,
for onrself, what can be done, by trying,
on our old lands in Middle Georgia. Wo
had previously heard much said of Dr.
Janes' success in growing the different
kinds of grass, and expected to find some
thing more than usual in our county, but
was totaliy unprepared to see lied Clover,
Herd’s grass, Blue grass and Timothy
grown to such perfection in Greene county,
as not to be surpassed by the best farms in
Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania. This
statement may be doubted by some of out
farmers in Middle Georgia, who have not
developed the real woith of their lands,
nevertheless it is true. Our first visit was
to a field of Red Clover, live acres in ex
tent, about haif of which had been cut.
The average height of that standing was
front four feet to four feet five i ches.
This field has been under cultivation lor
the last thirty years or more, and the crop
which was planted without manure 4' any
kind, has yielded an average of two and a
half tons to the acre. Mr. Beej E. Spen
cer, who was raised on a farm in Cottnee
ticut, on visiting this clover field, and t ho
ot her grass fields ol Dr. Janes' farm,states
that they are not to be surpassed hy the
best grass crops that grow in the Northern
States. We next visited a field ol twelve
or fifteen acres of the same crop on which
the Dr. had turned his stoek every night,
during tlie season, thereby saving two
thirds feed of corn and fodder. We visited
other fields of Tiiuo'hv, Herd’s grass, and
Blue grass, and found all growing to as
great perfection as can bo found in any
part of the North or West. The lfcv. Dr.
Tucker, President of Mercer University,
at Penfield, as weil as Profs. Sanford and
Woodfin, who also vi.-ited this farm,
agreed with us in opinion. We had not
the pleasure of meeting with these gentle
men, but have seen letters written bv
them, in which they speak of' Dr. Janos’
success in growing clover and gia-s. Prof.
Woodfin,if we mistake not, is a Virginian,
Dr. Tucker lias traveled over both sections
of the country. North and Sou:!., and is
a man whose good judgment can be relied
upon, and whose integrity is indisputable.
We next visited his Wheat of which he
has planted largely, and like all the Wheat
in this county, we found it e ~J. The
Dr. has provide l himself ui-ii a Koaper
of the most approved patent, aid is well
fixed for saving his' wheat, oats, clover,
&c. llis corn arid coitou both look well,
though backward is yet much improved by
the recent warm weather.
Many persons will no doubt be surprised
to hear that these crops have been pro
duced on old land, without one pound of
guano or fertilizers of any kind. (filler
parties have used .ertilizirs freely, while
Dr. J mos wished first to to! the capacity
of his land without them, and then com-
Sare his crops with those of his neighbors.
le says in order to develop our finds and
to realize their real worth, our farmers
must change their system of cid’uro, plant
a smaller area oflai.d and cultivate it more
thoroughly. With the pro.-eot sy. t m <,f
labor, he says, the Southern 1 1-intcf will
be compelled to ab.ndon their node of
culture, and adopt that of the Northern
States—enriching with clover ami deep
plowing. lie tLowed us the neti.ts of
his overseers for successive y. ais boh o
the war, and his average cotton crop i - the
baud was from eight to ten bales, ami since
the war he has realizid not ru >re innu half
as much; this is an evidence o ' the in per
fection of our present syst; m of lab r.
Dr. owns, we think, lieu five llmuspud
acres of land lying on belli sides of Fishnfg
J Creek, fora distance of 5 miles. Ills resi\
j dencc, which is beautifu ly situated on the
West side of the Creek, is within tlireo
! miles of Mercer University, and about
i four miles to the nearest point ori the rail
road. About one third of this land is
heavily wooded with ork, poplar and
hickory, which itself’, mig't tie made a
source of immense wealth. H i crazy were
our people in ante helium days about cot
ton, that a mao who would h. e proposed
to them to grow clover and r tiler grasses
as a profitable business in t sis part of
Georgia, would have been denounced as a
fit subject for a Lunatic Am l im. The
truth is now just beginning to appear, that
aside from cotton, the counties in Middle
Georgia only need lb Jr producing capacity
to be properly tested, to show their su
periority over the lands of the West, or
those further South. With -such a soil, a
pure and salubrious atmosphere, pure cold
freestone water, cheap lands in connection
with our facilities for transportation to
market, our State must soon become
densely populated with emigrants from
abroad.
Dr. Janes is out the only planter who
owns more lands than he can cultivsl •,
and must consaqaently dispose of a portion
I of them to new comers neither is Greene
j county the only po 'ion of Middle Georgia
where such lands aic now offered for sale
at low prices. There are tens of thousands
| of acres embraced in the counties of
| Wilkes, Morgan, Putnam, Jasper, Bald
win, Newton, &c., which are now offered
I to immigrants at prices far below their
; value. Thoreof lb ; N iithern people who
wish to emigrate Smut, »"-| are so
foolish as to give credo ice l> ih ; ma y lies
of Ra : cal politicians which Mes.- rs. Gm -
ley anc Forney seem to delight in giving
publicity to, and will now come to Mid
dle Georg' - !, if they arc honest, peacea
ble, well-behaved citizens, they will meet
with a heariy ,-r lcome; will not be mur
dered by the Ku-kffix, neither will they
i and their families be ixo.uied from good
i society. Lands arc advancing and will
! continue to advance as our people improve
j in circumstances, and ail those who will
! come South now, will fare better than
| those who defer it to a future day. Good,
! well-improved farms can now be had at
i from ton to twenty-five dollars per acre,
owing to locality and the character of the
improvements, which two or three years
hence cannot he had at any price. We
then, invite all honest, industrious, well
meaning etnigra ts from the East, North,
West, or from Eu. ope, to come and make
their homes with us and wc will do ail in
our power to rco >er their change of resi
dence both pr '-.table and agreeable to
them.
laui Agout for the Dollar and a-ball
“Pocket G'orn-Siieller,” a yood
Send in your orders soon In 158 or
Bro street.
w.