Newspaper Page Text
CljronttH anb gmtmel.
WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 24, 1873.
JUDGE SPEER.
It is with great pleasure that we pre
sent to our readers this morning a letter
from Judge Alex. M. Speeb, of Griffin,
on the subject of a Constitutional Con
vention. Judge Speeb is one of the
purest and best men of the State, as he
is undoubtedly one of the ablest, and he
is a powerful ally to any cause which he
esponses. It will be seen that he is
strongly in favor of a Convention, and
gives many strong reasons for the faith
that is in him. We commend his letter
to the careful attention of our readers.
THE CAPITAL IN ATLANTA.
Just now, when Atlanta is fighting
the calling of a Convention because she
has a well grounded apprehension that
if the people are allowed to express their
opinion they will favor the removal of
the capital to Milledgeville, where it
rightfully belongs, it may not be unin
teresting to give a brief account of the
causes which influenced the so-called
Convention to make a change in the seat
of government, and of the manner in
which the city of Atlanta has kept faith
with the Htate. On the 26th of Feb
ruary, 1868, the City Council of Atlanta,
at a special meeting, passed resolutions
"agreeing, covenanting and binding the
city of Atlanta to furnish, free of cost to
the Htate for ten years, suitable build
ings for the General Assembly, for the
residence of the Governor, and for all
the offices needed by such officers as are
generally located in the State House,
and also suitable rooms for the State
Library and for the Supreme Court.
That we also agree to donate to the State
the Fair Grojnds, containing twenty
five acres, as a location for the Capitol,
or any other unoccupied ten acres with
in the city limits.” On the following
day a resolution was passed accepting
this proposition, and declaring that
the State would hold the city to
a just and full compliance with its
terms. With the prospect of having
no expense whatever to incur for
the space of ten years, the people
of the State may have looked more fa
vorably than they would otherwise have
done upon the scheme for removing the
capital. Let us see how far the terms
of this contract have been observed.—
When the Legislature assembled in 1868
it met in the Opera House owned by H.
I. Kimball and rented by the city of
Atlanta for the use of the State. In
1870, under the act to perfect the recon
struction of Georgia, Bullock as
sembled a Legislature from which
enough Democrats had been eliminated
to give him a handsome working majori
ty. With this venal and corrupt ma
jority money could accomplish anything,
and by its assistance were all the frauds
of the Bullock regime perpetrated upon
the people of Georgia. Kimball wished
to sell the Opera House, Bullock, for
his own reasons, wished to purchase a
house then owned by Mr. John H.
James, and the city of Atlanta desired
to be rid of its contract. Having se
cured the location of the capital in that
city by a cheap promise of ten year s
entertainment, it wished to get rid of the
burden which it had voluntarily as
sumed. July 23d, 1870, Bullock sent
a special message to -the Legisla
ture, stating that the city of Atlanta
was willing to make "amicable ad
justment of any matters of misunder
standing” arising out of the absence
of specifications as to the exact kind
and character of the accommodations
that would be reqnired for State pur
poses, and asking the appointment of a
jointecominittee to consider the matter,
and to consult with the City Council
and with "Mr. Kimball.” Bullock re
commended that the State unite with the
city in the purchase of the Opera House
property in order to “definitely and per
manently close agitation upon the sub
ject of the removal of the capital back
to Milledgeville.” Through this mes
sage We also learn, for the first time, that
the magnificent grant of “ten acres with
in the city limits,” as a site for a Capitol,
has dwindled in some mysterious way
to five acres, as Bullock suggests that
the "five acres of ground to be donated
by the city” be laid out, beautified, etc.
It seems a little singular that an uncon
ditional offer of twenty-five acres in the
Fair Grouuds or ten acres iu the city
aoeepted by the State should prove to
mean five acres, but the Legislature does
not seem to have thought there was any
thing strange about the matter, nor did
Bullock and Kimball. The next step
is the report of the joint committee ac
cepting a proposition of the City Coun
cil of Atlanta to donate $130,000 of
bonds, any ten acres of unoccupied
laud in the city free of cost, for ten
years, and au Executive Mansion in lieu of
her original oontract. In other words,
Atlanta having agreed to furnish for ten
years suitable buildings for the General
Assembly, a residence for the Governor,
all the offices needed by State House of
ficers, a State Library and Supreme
Court room, and also a building site of
twenty-five or ten acres, gets a release
by a promise to issue $130,000 of bonds,
to furnish au Executive Mansion and ten
acres of land. The report was adopted
by a vote of 78 to 48 in the House. Al
most immediately afterwards a resolu
tion was offered charging that the adop
tion of the report was the result of bribe
ry, Under this arrangement Kimball
sold his Opera House for the snug sum
of $380,000 —of which amount the State
paid $230,000, aud the city of Atlanta
agreed to pay $130,0000 in bonds. But,
by a private agreement between the City
Council and Kimball (we quote from a
writer in the Telegraph A- Messenger),
only SIOO, OOO of bonds were issued by
the city, which Kimball agreed to place
in the hands of BnAocK, in order to pro
tect the State against a mortgage on the
building for $60,000 held by the North
western Insurance Company. Atlanta,
therefore, realizeds3o,ooo at the expense
of the State by this “private arrange
ment” with the virtuous Kimball. In
point of fact, these bonds were never
used to pay off the mortgage, but
were sold by Bullock and Kimball
on th«^^£tw u account, and the pro
ceeds doubtless used in facilitating
legislation. The mortgage remains un
paid, and now amounts to about SBO,-
000. If the State shall pay this in bonds
at ninety cents we shall have $470,000
for a house in which legislators are afraid
to sit, which cannot be heated in Winter
nor cooled in Summer. Let us see what
became of the Executive Mansion, which
the city of Atlanta again solemnly prom
ised to furnish free of cost for ten years. ;
Soon after the Opera House transaction
it was discovered that the residence oc
cupied by Mr. Bullock was not suitable
to the dignity of that illustrious thief,
and a joint committee was appointed to
look into the matter. After a little look- 1
ing the committee was made to “see it” j
in the most favorable light. A report j
waa made and adopted that the Gov-.
ernor should purchase the house of Mr.
John H. Jambs for the enormous sum of
one hundred thousand dollars, and to
“transfer to James the claim of the
State upon the city <>/ Atlanta, under
the contract of said city to furnish an
Executive Mansion.” How such a con
clusion should have been reached by
any human beings is one of those mys
teries inscrutable to mortal vision.—
James was not only paid 8100,000 for j
his house, but was entitled to a douse j
from the city of Atlanta suitable for an j
Executive Mansion, and certainly good '
enough for a prospective Governor, 'ree of !
rent, for a term of ten years. The fraud was j
so palpable—at least it seemed so to a j
large number of tbe members of the |
Legislature—that they withdrew from '
the hall and left the House without a |
quorum, pending the vote. While they
were gone, Mr. Speaker McWhorter
decided that thof» present, though not j
constituting a quorum, were competent
to pass upon the question, and that i
therefore the resolution was adopted.—
A protest was put upon the minutes,
but there the matter ended. Instead,
therefore, of Atlanta complying with
her contract and furnishing all the build
ings necessary for the State government
for ten years, she has given SIOO,OOO iu
bonds from which the State derived no
benefit whatever, aud about two years’
rent of the Opera House. A cheap thing
has the capital been for thrifty At
lanta.
MISTAKEN.
The Atlanta Herald is in error when
it states that “the Chronicle and Sbs- i
tinel insists that the (Convention) mat
ter shall be settled on tbe first Tuesday j
in January next, hardly two weeks off. ’
The Chronicle and Sentinel has done j
no such thing. The Chronicle and
Sentinel knows that the people are
powerless to settle the matter now. A
Convention, we take it, can only be call
ed by the Legislature; or, rather, the
Legislature has alone the right to sub
mit the question to a vote and obtain a
legal expression of opinion from tbe
people. Wbat the Chronicle and Sen
tinel has recommended, what this jour
nal still recommends is simply this, that
the people in the counties composing
the Eighth Congressional District of
Georgia should hold meetings at the
different county sites on the first Tues
day in January for the purpose of con
sidering the matter and instructing
their representatives in the Legislature.
This is all. The same suggestion has
been made by leading papers of the
State, and the indications seem good for
a general movement of this character. —
The Herald is also afraid that the
“demonstration” in "Richmond coun
ty will be made by drumming up
the negroes and loafers “who hang
around Augusta.” The Herald evidently
makes the somewhat common mistake
of judging other people by itself. Be
cause “demonstrations” in Atlanta are
manufactured by negroes and loafers, it
imagines that the same Bystem prevails
everywhere else. This is incorrect. No
other city wishes to infringe upon At
lanta’s patent.
THE EXPENSE OP A CONVENTION.
So far, the only argument advanced
against the calling of a Convention has
been the “expense.” Every reason
which has been adv anced in favor of the
movement, has been met with this stock
cry, the expense. It is true that the
present Constitution 'was the work of
people who did. not respect the State of
Georgia—but, then, the expense of
assembling the true representatives of
the people. It is true that under the
provisions of the present instrument
the of the Treasury have been
thrown open to thieves and the State
pitilessly plundered of millions of dol
lars—but then it will cost bo much to
throw effective safeguards nround the
property of the tax payers. There is
no doubt but that our judiciary system
needs remodeling to a certain extent —
but then improvement, will cos t so much
that it is better to live under a bad
than to go to the expense of framing a
good system. This is the argument,
the one argument, the only argument of
the anti-conventionists. The sylogism
runs thus : It is wrong to spend money;
a Convention, though it can accomplish
a great deal of good, will necessitate
the expenditure of money; therefore it
would be wrong to hold a Convention.
These sapient economists estimate the
ocost of a Convention all the way up from
two hundred thousand to half a million
of dollars. They do not deign to inform
the world upon what data these wonder
ful estimates are based, but it seems to
bo generally conceded that they get their
figures from the cost of the Convention
of 1868. Why was it that this Conven
tion cost the State so much ? Because
it was composed mainly of ignorant ne
groes and unprincipled adventurers,
utterly unacquainted wijli public affairs,
influenced by outsido rings, greedy for
the munificent compensation which they
had voted themselves, and anxious to
remain iu the golden-shower as Bong as
possible. They did not know Sow Tong
to work, and they were eager to remain
in Atlanta while their pay went on. Why
do not the economists—some of whom
oan swallow the bond compromise but
strain at a Convention—inform us what
the Convention of 1861 cost us ? Why
do they not state what the expenses were,
which the Convention of 1865 incurred ?
This last body, as we are informed upon
good authority, sat fifteen days, and
cost the State less than thirty thousand
dollars. If the virtue and intelligence
of Georgia can be assembled again they
can reform existing abuses and furnish
safeguards for the future iu a very short
time and at very small “expense.”
THE MORALITY OF THE “SALARY
GRAB.”
Mr. Alexander H. Stephens had noth
ing whatever to do with the passage of
the “salary grab” bill—he was not a
member of Congress at the time, aud
neither voted for nor received the five
thousand dollars extra compensation
which certain Congressmen appropriated
to their own use from the national
treasury. But he has gone out of his
way to take a part in the quarrel, and
lie should not be astonished if he gets
the hard blows which usually fall upon
intermeddlers in affrays. He lias sig
nalized his entrance into public life by a
defense of the legality and morality of
the retroactive features of the salary bill.
The full text of his speech lias been re
ceived—a copy apparently issued by his
authority—and he cannot go behind its
lauguage. Mr. Stephens says that Con
gressmen had a legal and moral right to
vote themselves back pay for their ser
vices. The people—in their conven
tions—and the press of the country have
said that it was a wrong and improper
act. Who is right? Let us examine
the facts of the case and see. Congress,
; acting under a pressure which it dared not
resist, abolished the franking privilege,
i This was done a very short time before
the final adjournment of Congress. A
salary bill was then introduced and
passed increasing the compensation
of members from five thousand to
seven thousand five hundred dollars per
annum and abolishing (we believe) all
allowances for mileage. The Authors of
the measure urged this argument in its
support: that the franking privilege—in
other words, the postage—of members,
and their mileage amounted to fully two
tliousaud five hundred dollars per an
num, and these having been done away
with, it was only just and right that the
salaries of Congressmen should be in
creased to a corresponding amount. Mr.
Stephens himself, in his speech, says
that postage will amount to twenty-five
hundred dollars per annum, and the in
creased pay is really less than the former
salarv. This we do not believe. Mr.
Stephens may expend that sum in send
ing pub. docs, to his constituents, bat
there are few of his brother members
who will. So far as Georgia is concern
ed, the supply of Patent Office and other
valuable reports has been almost entire
ly out off since the repeal of the frank
ing privilege. But let us return to the
point at issne. Mr. Stephens says, jnst
as the authors of the original salary bill
said, that increased pay was needed in I
order to meet the expenditures of mem- j
hers on account of postage. Granted.
Who, then, had a moral and a legal right:
to this additional compensation ? Clear
ly, those who would be deprived of the
benefits of franking mail matter—
those who wonld have to pay
mileage to and from the national
capital. The members of the Forty
second Congress were not entitled to one
dollar of it, for the simple reason that
they had drawn their mileage and nsed i
the franking privilege during the entire i
term for which they were elected. They j
had not only not spent twenty-five hun- 1
dred dollars, but they bad not spent
twenty-five cents for postage and travel- 1
ing expenses. They had received their j
full salary plus all their perquisites, and 1
had no right to one cent of the increased
pay. But in order to get the bill passed, j
a section wa3 inserted making the in
crease retroactive so far as to apply to
the Forty-second Congress. With equal
propriety, equal justice and equal mo
rality it could have been applied to the
Forty-first, the Fortieth, or any pre
ceding Congress. This is a plain state
ment of a transaction, the morality of
which is defended by Mr. Stephens.
The back pay grabbers received five
thousand dollars each for services which
had already been fully compensated, and
the press and people have rightly pro
nounced the act a shameless and unlaw
ful appropriation of the public funds by
those who were expected to guard aud
protect them. It is not astonishing that
in attempting to bolster up so bad a
cause Mr. Stephens has made so lame a
speech. He has in no way removed the
stigma from the guilty parties, and if
some of the odium which attaches to
the original grabbers has been trans
ferred to himself, he has no one but
himself to blame.
NO TIME FOR SUBSIDIES.
The telegraph informs us that a power
ful ring or lobby is at work in Washing
ton City for the purpose of getting
through Congress another subsidy for
the Southern Pacific Railroad. This is
no time for subsidies. In slang par
liance, the thing is played out. The
lesson of the panic has not yet been for
gotten, nor will it be forgotten during
many years to come. If that financial
collapse taught anything it taught the
folly of attempting to build railways on
paper and with Government aid. It was
this suicidal policy of constructing rail
ways, with no other capital than that
furnished by bonds and land grants,
which paralyzed trade, destroyed credit,
and caused the greatest commercial con
vulsion of the century. The Southern
Pacific Railway lobby very greatly mis
takes the temper of the American people
if it supposes that they will submit to
another such swindle. Let those who
wish railroads build them and pay for
them with their own money—not with
the money of the public. It is time to
ery halt! We afford to develop
our resources by the practice of such a
ruinons policy. Let us have no more
subsidies and no more internal improve
ments prospected and carried on at such
a ruinous expense.
JUDGE HOOK’S LETTER.
Judge Jas. S. Hook gives his views
upon the Convention question in to
day’s issue of the Chronicle and Sen
tinel. It is certainly one of the ablest
articles on this subject which has yet
appeared. Judge Hook, like Mr.
Dutcher, Judge Speeb and Hon. M. J.
Crawford, presents the strong side of
the question. A Convention is neces
sary for the correction of existing evils
and to give future protection to the
people of the State. Experience has
shown that Legislatures—National and
State —cannot be safely trusted with
too much power. One Legislature may
be honest and wise, but its
may be corrupt and loolish and do
damage in a day which years cannot re
pair. It is, therefore, the part of pru
dence to make the Legislature, as far
as possible, powerless for * evil. Let
the Legislature have no authority to
contract debts or issue bonds for any
purpose whatever, except to liquidate
the actual and necessary expenses of
government. We must have no more
endorsements for railroads—no more op
portunities for the fraudulent issue of
bonds. Wo must have a positive inhi
bition against tbe recognition of the
fraudulent bonds ignored by the Legis
lature of 1872. The authority of muni
cipal corporations to issue bonds must
be limited by constitutional enactment,
so that the debt of a city cannot be in
creased beyond a certain per centage of
the value of its property. J udge Hook
is right. The time has come when the
people must be protected against the
acts of unwise or dishonest Legislatures.
A Radical victory at the next election
.would be financial ruin to the people of
‘ Georgia. We cannot afford to take such
chances. While we have the power let
us protect ourselves.
THE CORRUPTION OF POWER.
The corruption of power was never
more shamefully exemplified than iu the
failure of the Radical party in Congress
to punish its partisans for flagrant sins
of omission and commission. Defalca
tions and peculations on the part of
Government officials are scarcely or ever
punished, where the parties are promi
nent Radicals. This immunity from
punishment for crime is strikingly illus
trated in the case of Gen. Howard, of
Freedman’s Bureau notoriety. The Sec
retary of War proves beyond a doubt
that Howard is a defaulter in the sum
of several hundred thousaud dollars, and
reports all the facts to Congress. And yet
the Radical majority refuses to instruct
the Military Committe to report a bill
for the trial of General Howard by court
martial. Howard is a sanctimonious,
Pliarasaicnl man, aud a shining light of
the Radical party, but that does not pre
vent him from being a thief and default
er. The Secretary of War submits proofs
of his rascality, and a Radical Congress
refuses to order his trial by a military tri
bunal, the offense having been commit
ted while connected with the military
service of the Government. General
Howard is a prominent offender, but his
services to party will shield him from
justice. He will swell the ranks of the
illustrious thieves of the Radical party
who have preceded him. Why make an
example of him? Radical Judges have
accepted bribes and performed the ser
vices of paid lobbyists. Radical Sena
tors and Representatives havs bought
their seats, aud have been counted in by
fraud and usurpation. Radical Senators
and Representatives have accepted bribes
from the Credit Mobilier Company,
which defrauded the Government out of
millions. Radical Custom House offi
cials, postmasters and marshals com
bined together and did rob Louisiana of
its sovereignty. Robbing a State of its
liberty aud plundering the Government
of its money are not crimes to be pun
ished by the Radical party. They are
virtues which elevate the perpetrators of
them to places of profit aud honor, and
influence and power in the ranks of the
dominant party. In order tJD preserve
its consistency, the Radical party must
white-wash Howard. His services iu
behalf of the party are too well recog
nized to merit condemnation.
THE BANKRUPT LAW.
The news from Washington indicates
either the repeal or the modification of
the present law so as to deprive it of its
obnoxious and expensive features. The
New York Tribune contains the follow
ing sensible remarks on the subject :
The original bankruptcy act was pass
ed in 1841 and served as a model for
the present one of 1867. In each in
stance the reason for enacting such a
law was precisely that which is now to
be urged for its repeal; the relief of the
mercantile community. The form of
relief afforded by such an act has always
been regarded as among the possible
consequences of commercial crisis, and
the Constitution adverts to it in terms
indicating an expectation that it
might at some time be required. A
good Bankruptcy act, faithfully and
economically administered, should
serve to aid and ease, rather than op
press those who are struggling with ill
fortune. The Bankruptcy Courts of
England sot only release the honest
debtor from the clutches of his grasping
creditors, thev add a certificate of char
acter which frequently serves as a letter
of credit to start the unfortunate man
in business again. Our present bank- [
ruptcy law was largely advocated at the !
time of its passage as a measure of re
lief to the South and to merchants who ,
had been engaged in Southern trade at I
the outbreak of the war. It was argued,
aud with justice, that a great wrong to
individuals, as well as injury to the
communitv. was inflicted by holding
this class of debtors in a position where
their business tallents and energy were
permanently repressed; where every ef
fort to better their condition and regain
their standing in business did but draw
npon them again the hungry brood of !
creditor*.
But in the actual working of this act
it would seem that anew class of op
pressions has originated. The law is
needlessly and astonishingly expensive
in execution. It is a notorious fact that
in the vast majority of bankruptcy cases
there is little or nothing left after the
forms of law are satisfied and the law
yers are paid. Only a rich man should
attempt to pass through bankruptcy;
the fees, the references, the percentages,
the thousand and one minor expenses,
are far too much for an honest, poor in
solvent. Merchants, recognizing the fact
that they will get little or nothing from a
baukrupt, are placed at the mercy of a
designing debtor who only threatens
bankruptcy; and to accept whatever he
may offer as a compromise, as better
than such an alternative.
A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
A Strong Letter from Judge James S.
Hook.
Sand Hills, Ga., Dec. 15, 1873.
To the Editors oj the Chronicle and
Sentinel :
Your letter asking my opinion upon
the question “Shall the Legislature call
a Convention for the purpose of amend
ing the instrument known as the Consti
tution of 1868?” was received several
days ago, and I now seize the first leis
ure moment I have had in which to
reply.
My own want of time, and the just
limits of a communication of this char
acter, forbid an extended statement of
the reasons which influence my judg
ment in favor of an early call of a Con
vention. The wisest government is that
which best protects the governed against
tbe. errors, oppressions or wrongs of its
agents. The best means for accom
plishing this end is to withhold . license
and consequent temptation. Especially
is this true of that element of govern
ment which relates to its financial func
tions and operations. The world’s ex
perience has vindicated the truth that
“the love of money is the root of all
evil.” No government is wise or safe
whose Constitution does not in terms
forbid its agents to use the public credit
for purposes other than those which are
actually essential to keep it4own*ndbee
sary machinery in motion. The present
Constitution has a feature which ignores
this principle and leaves the State in
this vastly important particular, at the
mercy of unwise speculative or corrupt
legislation. I allude to the 3d clause.
sth paragraph and 6th section of Art. 3d
of the Constitution, as arranged by Con
ley. This clause allows the General
Assembly to pass laws granting or loan
ing the credit of the State to private
corporations. True, there are three
conditions stated as conditions prece
dent, to-wit: Ist. That the whole prop
erty of the company shall be bound for
the security of the State. 2d. That
there be an equal amount invested by
private persons; aud, 3d. That the ob
ject must be a work of public improve
ment. We have had some serious les
sons of the practical workings of this
power thus unwisely conferred upon the
Legislature. And we have seen, too,
what the conditions precedent were
worth. The public debt of Georgia on
the 4th day of July, 1868, was $5,827,-
000. The Constitution of 1868 went in
to force on the 21st of July of that
year. In three years and three months
thereafter this debt of the State
was swollen to the immense sum of $lB,-
183,000. And nearly six millions of
this new and additional indebtedness re
sulted from endorsing railroad bonds.
Unfortunately in the former Constitu
tions of Georgia there was no express
prohibition of State aid to private cor
porations, aud, mor# unfortunate still,
those who then controlled our State af
fairs, won by the specious arguments of
internal improvements and development
of our great resources, and inspired by
patriotic desire to see our grand old
Commonwealth take position with the
foremost, and doubtless believing this
policy would achieve that result, found
the power by implication and exercised
it.
It was apprehended by many of our
people, long before the Constitution of
1868 was adopted, that this policy would
at no distant day in the future load the
State with heavy liabilities, to be met
by burdensome taxation. The dangers
incident to it were evidently felt by
some of the more prudent and thought
ful members of the Convention of 1868.
But instead of a clause forbidding tlie
State to lend her aid by endorsement or
otherwise—the clause already referred
to was introduced, which, in terms, re
cognized the power in the Legislature,
but, upon the conditions heretofore
stated, and which were doubtless de
signed and deemed sufficient to shield
the State from loss. This clause should
be stricken from the Constitution, and in
its stead a prohibitory clause forbidding,
endorsement by the State altogether. If
it is ever proper to aid railroads, and I do
not say it may not be*, for I am Mr from
being an enemy to railroads, let the
State aid them, as it is now aiding new
factories, by relieving them from all
taxation for a term of years. Railroads
are like most other enterprises they will
be apt to find capital to build them
wherever they promise to pay good divi
dends. In other words, when a rail
road shall be demanded by the exigen
cies and wants of the section through
which .it will pass and those sections
which it will bring together in the bonds
of a remunerative commerce, it will be
certainly built, State aid or no State aid.
Two of the grandest lines in the State,
and that have contributed vastly to its
prosperity, never had a dollar of State
aid by endorsement or otherwise. I al
lude to the Georgia and the Central
•toads. Avery large proportion of the
present bonded liability of Georgia, per
haps as much as three-fourths of it, has
accrued through this pernicious policy.
As long as the power remains in the
Constitution and the influence of private
corporations with their associated money
power are left to invoke its exercise, we
are in danger from it. If it had not been
for the heavy interest account thus
mainly created, to be paid by our people
every year the rental of the State Road
alone, would almost, if not quite, meet
the annual legitimate expenses of the
rsta f e government. The citizens of
Georgia have a right to complain when
such heavy burdens are imposed upon
them nominally for the public good, but
really, iu many, if not most instances,
for the private advantage of stock job
bers and speculators. No State can be
said to be well governed whose people
are or may be taxed beyond the actual
and necessary wants of government
under which I include not only the civil
list, a wise system of public education,
and all the rightful machinery of gov
ernment, but also the care of her un
fortunate poor, her blind, and otherwise
helpless. The actual wants of Georgia
have created since the war little or no
debt. Her debt, her enormous debt, is
the result mainly of her aid to private
enterprises. Mr. Calhoun said, “The
best government is that which draws
least from the people, and is scarcely
felt, except to execute justice, and to
protect the people from criminal viola
tion of law.” Let us remember this,
and abandon a policy which makes the
State draw heavily from the people. A
government becomes intolerable that is
only known through its burdens !
If we go a step further tracing the
evil results of this policy we find the
State debt in 1872 increased to some
thing over twenty millions of dollars.
Fortunately upon deliberate and careful
investigation eight millions of this
debt was shown to be fraudulent and
void aud the Legislature of that
year so declared it. It js ap
parent, however, from what has
already transpired, that every Legisla
ture (unless some effectual stop is put
to it) is to be importuned aud lobbied
on the subject through all coming time.
Would it not be well for the people in
Convention to put a quietus on the
whole matter by declaring that the Leg
islature shall not entertain the question
in any shape whatever ? Why pay $1,500,-
000 by wa vof compromise as is proposed,
if none of it, is a jnst debt ? What better
proof do we want that it is bogus than
the offer to take so small a proportion of
$8,000,000 in settlement of the whole? —
The time and expense involved in the
future discussions before vonr Legisla
ture of this proposed compromise will
probably cost more tljan tbe session of
a Constitutional Convention, which, if it
assembles and is wise, may stop the agi
tation and discussion forever. These
two objects are sufficient of themselves
to make a Convention desirable to our
people, aud more than compensate them
many times over for its cost.
I find this letter is already growing
longer than I intended the whole of it
should be. I will add briefly that the
judiciary system established by the
present Constitution, while good in
many of its features may, and ought to
be chaoged in some important respects.
A return to onr old system of
allowing an appeal to a second ju
ry, is desirable as tending to the
better ascertainment of _ rights and
would certainly result in the settle
ment of many cases short of the Su
preme Court, and thus relieve that tri
bunal of much of the heavy labor now
imposed upon it, besides saving large
amounts to suitors in the way of costs,
fees and other expenses. It is quite
obvious that -under tbe present system
of only one trial in the Court below, the ‘
amount of business before the Supreme '
Coart has increased to huge proportions. ,
Parties should not be required when
sued in actions "ex contractu,” as in the
present Constitution, to file issnable plea
or pleas on oath, and in default thereof
be denied the right of trial by jury.
No good result has been attained by in
creasing the jurisdiction of Justices of \
the Peace. It should not extend be- 1
yond thirty or fifty dollars and the right I
of trial by jury should be had there,
whenever the amount involved was j
twenty dollflte or upwards. The Con- \
stitution should be so amended in re
gard to the power of municipalities, as
to throw greater security around their
citizens touching compulsory contribu
tions to pubbe works, Ac. Though a
necessary, ib is yet a dangerous power
conferred upon the agents, servants or
representatives of a city or town, which
enables them to deal with its credit and
bind its citizens to pay what they
pledge, and it should be hedged in by
wise restrictions and prudent safeguards
justly limiting its exercise.
The provision in the old Constitution
in regard to Executive pardon, Ac.,
should be restored, and thus leave no
question as to when that power may be
exercised. That provision says "in all
cases after oonviotion.” I have briefly
stated some df the reasons * Inch, in my
judgment, ca& for a Constitutional Con
vention. The first two I consider of the
greatest practical importance in the
present junettare of our affairs, and if
adopted and made part of the organic
law of the State will do more to keep
pure the fountain of legislation and re
duce the expenses of government than
any other policy that could j ust now be
pursued. * Jas. S. Hook.
SPEECH OF
HON. rffeX. H. STEPHENS,
08? GEORGIA,
On the Repeal of Increased Congres
sional PaymDelivered in the House
of RepeaeAttives of the United
States, DecHnber 11, 1873.
The House having under consideration
the bill (HyR. No. 471) to repeal the
increase of certain salaries and to reg
ulate the same, and to cover undrawn
balances izto the Treasury, Mr. Ste
phens said:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few re
marks upon t|iis subject now under de
bate. They will be general, as Ido not
know whethw my strength will enable
me to extemflthem as far as I would
like to. For little as members of the
House of the subject, iu my
(judgment ißHEjkes a greay^noiple;
As was remarked by the gentleman
from New York, who opened the debate
yesterday with so much eloquence [Mr.
t'remaine], I am utterly disconnected
with that branch of the subject, tbe
“back pay grab,” as it is called, which
has so entered into and pervaded this
discussion, bat upon that branch I have
something to say. Therefore my re
marks will be confined, first to the moral
principle involved in the question, and
then to the political expediency and
policy of the increase of salaries adopt
ed by the laßt Congress.
Now as to the moral aspect of this
case, a vast deal has been said, and very
loosely said, as I think, in the papers
about tbe salary grab. But I believe I
have not heard any gentleman upon this
floor make or apply any such .epithets or
cast any imputation upon those mem
bers who took this retroactive back pay.
I refer to what has appeared iu the press
generally and of both parties. Os the
press I would say nothing in derogation
of its character, power, and usefulness.
The position of a journalist in this coun
try is, in my opinion, one of the highest
in the land. The “fourth estate” does
in this age do a v ast deal, and rightfully
too, iu the control of public sentiment;
but I would in all earnestness say to the
press and its conductors that nothing is
more impoitaut than that in treating
subjects for the masses of the people
they should look well to the truth and
correctness in principle of what they say.
Even partisan journalists should con
sider this well, for no p ermanent good
can be effected by urging a false or un
sound issue.
Now, sir, very broad rind severe de
nunciations have appeal ed in many of
the newspapers of the country against
the morality of taking this back pay. I
read them at my home soon after the
passage of the bill, charging, in sub
stance, those who voted for the bill as
thieves and robbers, and using like
epithets against those who took the pay
allowed under it. And I saw one carica
ture, or parody in rhyme, the wit of
which was much better than its wisdom
or justice, representing this raid upon
the Treasury, as it wa3 called, very much
like the charge of the “six hundred” at
Balakiava. The wit of this, I say, was,
as I thought, much more to be admired
than its logic.
In treating on this subject my remarks
will be desnitory; and here I will take
occasion to allude to another point pre
sented yesterday by the gentlemen from
New York [Mr. Tremaine] in speaking
of demagogism. I maintain, Mr. Speak
er, that there never was a statesman who
was not a demagogue. In the original
and primitive meaning* of that word,
demagogue means a lender of the peo
ple, being derived from fiemos, the peo
ple, ftnd Us)%o lead Or direct. Peri
cles was a demagogue, if you please.—
Mr. Speaker, there are two kinds of
demagogues—the sham and the genuine.
The genuine or true demagogue is the man
who does indeed lead tb e people, but
leads them in the paths oif virtue, truth
and honor. This is the j >rovince of in
tellect, combined with c< >urage and all
those ennobling qualities which should
secure the confidenae and trust of those
whose pursuits in life do not enable them
to be so well informed o:u public qnes
tions.
Under all democratic ins titutions it is
the high duty of men of superior intelli
gence and ability to lead and guide the.
people upon all questions involving their
rights and interests. The difference be
tween the real demagogue and the sham
is that the sham demagogue, the mere
politician, seeking his own ends, panders
to the errors and the prejudices of the
people, and contents himself with fol
lowing instead of leading, and is satis
fied with seeming to lead by “following
iu front,” as boys seem to lead the drum
and fife in the streets by keeping ahead
in all the turnouts. The real dema
gogue, the statesman, doca not fail to
consult the people; he is with them and
of them. He cannot be a statesman un
less he understands theirwants, their er
rors, and even their weaknesses and in
firmities. The real statesman is the po
litical Melchisedec oi humanity. He
feels all the changes of the people’s
pulse; and if it is feverish he administers
the proper remedy as the good physician
watches and administers the physical
body’s remedy. This is the real dema
gogue, or the statesman. The sham, the
man who merely courts popular favor to
get the spoils of office, feels the pulse of
the people that he may know how to
pander to the patient’s whims or ca
prices, giving him whatever he wants,
even though he knows it may destroy
him. He either does not care for the
patient’s real welfare, or does not know
how to advance it.
Now, sir, of all the real statesmen who
ever lived in England, Clutham was,
perhaps, the first, the ablest; and there
was not a man in England, from him
down to John Wilkes, who rave more
close attention to the popular feeling
than he did. In one of England’s great
est emergencies, during the Spanish war,
it is related of him (whether correctly or
not I do not know, but it illustrates the
principle) that when he made up his
“budget,” his financial scheme for the
next campaign (and Chatham was a man
who, iD the financial government of Eng
land, paid as he went, or provided a
proper sinking fund)—when, I say, this
great statesman, or demagogue if you
please, had perfected his “budget,” on
a memoiable occasion, while leader of
the Commons, ready to be brought into
the House—that “budget,” by which he
had to raise large taxes, extending even
to the taxing of window lights, which
had never been resorted to before—he
was nneasv. One member of the admin
istration was not present on that occa
sion. Chatham, or Pitt as he then was,
missed him, and asked where the absent
member was ?
The answer was, “O, it makes no dif
ference whether he is here or not; he is
a fool, and his opinion amounts tft noth
ing.” “That is the very reason,” replied
the premier, “why I want him hire, be
cause the way he thinks about tlis sub
ject is the way the majority of the peo
ple may think; and I want to know his
sentiments.” He wanted the sentiments
of that man as an indication of the sen
timent of the people, not that ie might
pander to the popular views, bit that he
might go before the people (and his
voice was heard as no other nan’s ever
was in England) and rouse them to an
understanding of the propriety, the ne
cessity, the justice of the measure.
That was his object. ,It wal to know
and to elevate if need be, the sentiment
of the English people to an alpreciation
of the importance of the measure, that
they might come up and sustain the
credit of the country. No floubt there
were sham demagogues at that time
ready to go among the jjeopfe and say to
them “It is all wrong to taiour lights;”
but when the great commoier —the true
leader of the people —appealed to their
intelligence, their virtue afid patriotism
—to honor, to truth —the Bind and heart
of the English masses recognized the
rightfulness and the justice of the meas
ure, and it was sustained. That was
statesmanship.
So much for this episode on detaa- |
gogism in connection with the business ,
before us.
I stated that I should speak first upon i
the moral principal invdved in this j
question. Sir, I was uttery astonished
the other day when some gentleman un
dertook to speak of this question as a ,
party question. In my opxion neitbe’
party is responsible for the measure of ,
the increase of salary at thelast session.
I believe that the DemoAacy, in the
proportion of votes, accoiting to the
analvsis I have seen, are * much re
sponsible for it as the BepubSeaas. Per
haps some of our Republican friends at
the time the bill was passed -ware a little
shy—a little timid—anxious to have the
measure pass, but at the same time not
wishing to take what they deemed the
risk of popular disfavor by voting in ac
oordanoe with their personal convictions.
But, sir, to come at once to the gist of
the morality of the sea. The gentle
man from New York [Mr. Tremaine]
yesterday made some important admis
sions which cover the whole oase. He
admitted that by the Constitution of the
United States each Congress for itself is
empowered to fix the pay of its own
members. This, sir, is a wise pro
vision of the Constitution, which the
States, after its ratification, refused to
change. This provision of the Constitu
tion has been acted on from the begin
ning of this Government. Congress lias
repeatedly inoreased the pay, and at
every increase the back pay was con
sidered as legitimate as the front pay.
This the gentleman also admitted. This
saves me from going into historic de
tails. I therefore confine myself to
principle. If if was not immoral to
take it on all former occasions, how can
it be on this? The principle is the
same. Whenever the pay has been in
creased it was necessarily retroactive
and extra. Were the men who did this
thing in the last cenairy and in the ear
ly part of this century, the brightest or
naments in our history for intellect, for
talents and for virtue were they
“salary grabbers?” Were they “thieves”
and “robbers,” for doing just what was
their constitutional right to do ?
Mr. Speaker, one of the first great
things to learn in this life—in Greece it
was taught in the schools, according to
Xenophen in his Cyropcedia—is to dis
criminate in morals between the seem
ing and the real—between what may ap
pear to be right and that which is right
in itself. Upon this depends everything
pertaining to true reputation—every
thing pertaining to honest trade, to
character in its every phase—to every
thing pertaining to the proper organiza
tion of society, from which civilization
springs. Most pe pie are much more
sensitive as to what the multitude may
think than as to whether the thing itself
is right.
Jjow, sir, \ifi tfiere isyptnything (prong,
■fcGytbing immoral, anything dishonest,
anything which would reflect disgrace
upou a mau’s memory for taking this
legal appropriation, I must confess I do
not see it. One gentleman said that he
returned it because it was too much
pay, and the inquiry was promptly made,
how much he thought would have been
admissible.
If it is wrong to take the whole it was
wrong to take a single cent of it. The
principle is the same; and if it is wrong
for the present House to take what the
law allows them to take, where are we
to make the distinction between right
and wrong ? During my life I have en
deavored to pursue the right, and when
ever I am acting in pursuance of the
right I do not consider I am committing
any offense whatever which would sub
ject me to tliechargeof “grabbing” what
did not rightfully belong to me.
These remarks, as I have said, do not
apply to me, for I was not here, but as
a citizen of Georgia, and thus a citizen
of this great Federal Eepublic, I feel a
deep interest iu the dignity and cliarac
terof this Congressof the United States.
In this assembly are the Representatives
of the greatest people on earth, the
guardians of the common American
character and American institutions—
what, then, have the Representatives of
the people of these .thirty-seven States,
forming the grandest galaxy ever seen
in the firmament of governments, done
in this matter of pay which should sub
ject them to the charge of being “grab
bers,” “robbers,” and “thieves?”
Sir, I feel an interest in the public
character of this House and of its mem
bers.
I say, #Mr. Speaker, when Congress
passed the retroaotive law at its last
session it was their right to do it—their
constitutional right. lam not now say
ing whether it was expedient to do it, but
I do say that no blot should rest upon
the name of any man or be cast upon
that of his children or upon his memory,
if, after it passed, even against his vote,
he took what the law gave him. I have
nothing to say of those who, after tak
ing it, returned it, for that is a matter
with themselves. All that I mean to say
is, that if I had been here, whether I
voted for it or not, I would have taken
it, and I should have felt I was justly
entiled to it, just as though it were eight
dollars a day or one dollar a day, if the
Congress voted it.
It was a constitutional law, constitu
tionally passed, and those who are enti
tled to it are as much entitled as at any
other time to the pay then fixed. If
there were those who thought it was too
much, it was, of course, their right to
refuse to take it. I would not attempt
to cast a slur upon any gentleman who
saw fit to'return it; I am only speaking
for myself. So much for the morality
view.
My strength is failing; but I wish to
say something on the other branch, on
the expediency or policy aspects of the
question, and I conclude the first view
by repeating that there is no immorali
ty in it. it is well known that every
Congress which has ever increased the
pay increased it from the beginning;
anil I think I may say that every Legis
lature in the United States which has
increased its pay increased it from the
beginning. There is not a single case
of exception that I know' of; therefore I
trust that the press, that the men who
attempt to lead the masses of the people,
will perceive where the right is, and not
attribute wrong where there was none.
If they think it was inexpedient let them
discuss it from that point, and not al
lege there was any immorality.
This brings mo to the second view
which I proposed to present to the
House. lam not going to state what I
deem my services here worth, but I do
intend to state what I think the ser
vices of a Representative of any people
in any district iu the United States
ought to bo worth; and perhaps I will
go far above the figure of any law which
has ever been passed upon the subject.
I will say this : that Representatives in
this Hall ought to be men of mental
caliber, that moral caliber, that infor
mation, that education, that virtue, of
that trustworthiness—of all the quali
ties that make men fit for the highest
pursuits of life. The Representative
ought to be of that character which
would entitle him to the highest amount
of wages, if you choose to call it so,
which is given to the highest grades of
skilled labor in the country. There are,
Mr. Speaker, various kinds of labor,
skilled and unskilled, and there are
various kinds of power—water-power,
seam-power, muscular and mind or
brain-power.
My standard of wages for a member
of this House would be that amount
which the higher grades of skilled
labor, combined with the brain-power
and virtue, usually commands. And I
am satisfied that when the people of this
country understand the nature of the
duties and proper character of a mem
ber of Congress, when they understand
the importance of Government, and
good Government, and wise Govern
ment, there are none throughout the
length and breadth of the country who
will dispute this proposition.
Why, sir, the salaries of managers of
railroads reach 825,000. There is hard
ly a master mechanic in any of the ma
chine shops who dots not receive $lO,-
000 as a compensation for his skilled
labor, his brain labor. There is hardly
a town in which there are not merchants
who make from 810,000 to $15,000.
There is hardly a district in the United
States, I suspect, where there are not
one or more lawyers whose income is
not as much as 810,000 or 815,000. —
There is hardly any place or district
where the most eminent physicians do
not make SIO,OOO or 315,000. There is
hardly any business of life requiring
skilled labor or brain labor which does
not command that compensation ' the
income of many journalists greatly ex
ceeds it.
Now, sir, when you teach the people
what government is, the science of gov
ernment, the nature of the duties of a
member of Congress, the interest that
everybody in the community feels and
every member of society has in good
government, in the laws we pass here
within the sphere of Federal limited
power, touching more or less the inter
est and the pGcket of the humblest hu
man being now within the jurisdiction
of these States, they will say that legis
lation should be in the hands of men of
character, of virtue and integrity, who
understand their duties—men who un- •
derstand the science of government.—
This requires study, it requires labor, it
requires an immense deal of thought;
and therefore, if the government is
maintained rightly in the Senate and in
the House, the rule of filing the pay
under the Constitution should be such
as to afford an arena in these halls for |
the virtue and talent of the highest grade i
in our country.
Some sham would-be leader of the
people may go to the poor man driving
the plane or the plow, and tell him he
is getting only a pittance for his daily
tou, while a member of Congress is get
ting sl6 a day and he may induce that
man, in the humblest but honest walks
of life, to vote for him on his promise to
rednee the pay. But that same man, if
he were ill, would send for a skillful
physician in preference of a quack,
though the former was making twice as
much as the latter. So with the other
learned professions ; and when the peo
ple properly understand the importance
of good legislation, they will have as lit
tle use for a cheap Congressman as for a
cheap doctor or a cheap lawyer.
What, Mr. Speaker, is the motive pow
er of all humanity that prompts action-I
mean that inward force which stirs hon
est, virtuous aotion ? It is a desiru for j
status. It is a desire for honorable po- j
sition, with its attendants. It is tbede
sire of a man not only to provide for
himself, but for his family. Status in
society is the great object. What are
the elements of atatus ? Income and
honor. Honest acquisitions and meri
torious deeds.
Now, sir, to return to the question be
fore the House, in fixing a salary of a
member of Congress, of a President of
the United States, of the Judges of the
Supreme Court, and of all your diplo
matic and foreign servants, the basis on
which the whole should be placed is, as
I have said—the standard of salary
should be, in my opinion, upon the basis
stated and according to the grade of ser
vice The Government in all its depart
ments should offer fair competition for
the highest virtue and intelligence with
all the other vocations in life. The
youth of the country, in selecting pur
suits, should not be" driven from the po
litical field for want of those induce
ments offered bv other kinds of employ
ment. The political arena, with just
compensation, affords the broadest,
widest and grandest field for intellectual
action. With that view it is necessary
that the Government should offer the
highest inducements to skilled and brain
labor in all its departments.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. Kellogg. I ask that the gentle- 1
man from Georgia be allowed to proceed
by unanimous consent.
The Speaker. If there be no objec
tion the gentleman from Georgia will
proceed with his remarks.
There was no objection.
Mr. Stephens. I did not know that I
had occupied the time of the House so
long. I have a few other things, how
ever, which I desire to say. The House
has got my idea that the field shoud be
open just as wide in the business of gov
ernment as in any other department, and
I will not enlarge upon it. With that
view the salary should correspond. How
is it now ? A young man comes from
college. His father toiled, and even his
mother, spending their earnings—l
know of many such cases—and using
their means to educate their boy; and
when he comes out of college their ob
ject is tlia£ get into sqme busi
ness, something that will repay tneir si
cralices. Such young men, Mr. Speak
er, do not, of course, come into this
field. As long as the law offers a better
opening they will go to the law. If
mercantile business offers a better open
ing they will go there. If the profession
of medicine otters an opening they will
enter that. At present the mania is for
engineering in connection with railroads
and otherwise. Speak to’them about
studying government, and they will tell
you that they cannot afford to go at
that. Why, sir, in my own district I
have known men, with families to pro
vide for, who never could think of com
ing to Congress. They were among the
ablest intellects in the district; but they
could not think of leaving their business
—when living was really a vital question.
Their means were not sufficient to sup
port them.
I said that I would not estimate my
services when I came here; but I will
have this much to say of myself per
sonally, with the indulgence of the
House, that when I came here first,
thirty years ago, I made it a rule, a fixed
principle with me, never to make a dol
lar except what was allowed by law. I
made it a principle never to charge or
demand a cent for professional services
rendered here.
I collected claims during the sixteen
years I was in this House to the amount
of yery nearly, if not something over,
$500,000, (half a million of dollars), for
constituents, and I refused to receive
any commission upon any of the sums so
collected. This I state only to show
that my present views spring from no
personal mercenary motive. But to-day
there are many who could not afford to
come to Congress, even at the present
salary. I can, and hence I am here.
But the idea I wish to impress upon the
House is a general principle. Let the
salary be fixed upon a principle thut will
enable the Government service to come
in fair competition with the other enter
prises of this age of progress, as it is
termed.
I will state another thing. It so hap
pened that one of the last things I
ever said upon this floor, fourteen years
ago, was upou this matter of salary. It
grew out of a debate on a-proposition to
increase the salary of the Jud&e of, I
think, the Western District of Vir
ginia. I was so to speak, delivering
my valedictory to the then members of
this House, never expecting to return
hero again, and therefore I could speak
disinterestedly. I gave it as my opinion
then, and I will give it to you now. At
that time the expenditures of the Gov
ernment were about $80,000,000 per an
num, and the expenses for the whole
civil, diplomatic, judicial, and legisla
tive departments of the country were
not exceeding, I think, $3,000,000. I
gave it as my opinion that if the salary
of members of Congress was SIO,OOO,
and of Senators $15,000, and of the
Chief Justic $50,000, and of the Presi
dent SIOO,OOO, and of the Associate Jus
tices of the Supreme Court $25,000,
and of our foregn ministers twice
or three times what it was, the ex
penditures of the Government would be
$60,01)0,000 instead of $80,000,000. Sir,
no man—l feel almost reluctant to say
it—no man, it is well known who has
not a fortune himself, can hope to repre
sent the United States at any foreign
court, even with the increased salary,
and maintain the dignity of the Govern
ment. I gave that as my opinion then.
It is the brain part of the Government
that yon should nourish; the legislative,
judiciary, and exeoutive parts of it form
that brain-power that is to condnct you
srfely, if you attain high success in
the future. In the human body the
brain is the one-eleventh part of the
body, and it is the brain portion that
you should nourish. Sir, if we had
spent more upon this department of the
Government, statesmanship would have
been more studied—more a matter of
science. Our Government in 1859 was
becoming, as I said, a sort of moustros
ity—all arms, body, and legs, while the
brain part was dwarfed. I included the
foreign diplomatic service, and I in
cluded also the judiciary. And to-day
I give it as my opinion that the Presi
dent ought to have at least SIOO,OOO, the
Chief Justice ought to h ive $50,000 at
least, and the Associate Justices $25,-
000.
Now I am not going to say what the
salary of members ought to be. You
have heard my ideas ou the principle,
and also ou the expediency. Certainly I
shall not vote for the bill as reported by
this committee. What shape this thing
may take I do not know, but my opinion
is that the bill of last session, of which
you have heard so much complaint, is
really a reduction in fact. I know it
will be to me, because of the postage on
what I anticipated to do in the distribu
tion of knowledge among the constitu
ents that I represent. I think the
amount of postage will cover $2,500, and
therefore, unless gentlemen wish to re
duce the pay to below what it was be
fore, they will not reduce it. My oyvn
judgment is, that the un wisest part of
the legislation of last Congress was the
repeal of the franking privilege. One
word upon that. Ours is a Government
founded upon tiie enlightenment of the
people. No representative government
can last, except where the people under
stand its nature, are devoted to its prin
ciples, and have the patriotism to main
tain it. Those three elements are es
sential to the existenee of all representa
tive governments; in other words, they
must depend upon the virtue, the intel
ligence, and the patriotism of the peo
ple. Light, political light, they must
have. The Constitution declares that
our public proceedings, onr journals,
shall be published, or given to the peo
ple. i
In the view laid down by all the most
eminent writers on government, the first
consideration with all is the proper di
vision of the powers of the government,
so as to make them independent of each
other ; that is, the legislative, judiciary.
and executive ; and the very next one is
that the people must be informed. Every
avenue ought be opened up so as to let
in light to the people from every possi
ble quarter. Let the man in his work
shop, let the man at his plow, let the
people—the honest, virtuous people of
all classes—get all the light they can.
Hence the franking privilege, in my
judgment, ought not to have been re
pealed, and ought to be restored. It is
one of those great instrumentalities in a
free representative government to aid in
the enlightenment of the people and add
to the stability of our Government. If
errors are disseminated, if it is
an abuse, why, it is an abuse like
others incident to life. It is like
the abuses of the press, of which some
people complain; and, by the way, that
same bill of last session also struck a
| blow at the press, which I think was ex
; ceedingly unfortunate. I would open
every avenue of light to the people. If
there are abuses they will be just like
the abuses of the press; and, after all,
the people are not deceived even by the
abuses and errors that are disseminated
among them. As Mr. Jefferson said,
early in our history, ‘’Errors cease to be
dangerous when truth is left free to com
bat it.” Let the American people hear
all sides, and if their be error here, there
is truth there. And what does it all
amount to ? They will sift it from and
easily find out the truth from the error.
Here comes a ray of light which is red;
here comes another ray which is violet;
here comes another ray which is orange;
but when they are all blended and com
mingled together, they form the white
light, which is the truth.
I will detain the House no longer, and
I thank them for the attention they have
given mo. They have my views upon
the general question, first on the moral
aspect, and then as to the expediency.
The question of the franking privilege is
not now before the Hotuen, but I believe
its repeal was the greatest error of the
legislation of last session.
TUK VIRGINIUS.
Surrender of the Vessel to the United
States.
Kht West, Deoember 18.—The small
steamer Dispatch, Capt. W. D. Whiting,
which had been assigued by the United
States Government to the duty of receiv
ing the surrender, sailed from Key West
Sunday evening, and arrived iu the har
bor of Bahia Honda the uext morning,
where she found the Virginias in charge
of the Spanish sloop-of-war LaFavorita,
Senor De La Camara commanding.—
Shortly after noon the latter came on
board thu Dispatch and made arrange
ments with Capt. Whiting for the sur
render, at 9 o’clock Tuesday morning.
This visit was returned later in the day
by Capt. Whiting. The intercourse was
of the most oourteous character. On
Tuesday the weather was bright and
dear. The onlv spectators of tho scene
about to take place were the men on the
Dispatch and LaFavorita and some
ragged and dirty Cubans in fishing
smacks, apparently intent upon fishing
alone. At half past eightthegig came
over from LaFavorita to the Virgiuius,
containing an oarsman and a single officer.
As the latter stepped on deck a petty
officer and half a dozen men who had
stood watch on the Virginius during
the night, went over the side, and re
mained in the dingy awaiting orders.
Punctually as the bells on the Dispatch
struck for nine, and before the echo had
died away the American flag flew to the
flagstaff of the Virgiuius, and at the
same moment a boat containing Captain
Whiting and Lieut. Mariax, put away
from the Dispatch. As they ascended
the accommodation ladder of the Vir
ginius a single man on deck, who
proved to be Senor Do La Camara, ad
vanced and made a courteous sa
lute. The officers then read their re
spective instructions, and Captaiu
De La Camara remarked that, in
obedience to the requirements of his
Government he had ’ the hdnor to turn
over the steamer Virginius to the Ameri
can authorities. Captain Whiting ac
cepted and ascertaining that a receipt
would be acceptable gave one. A word
or two more, civilly spoken, and the
Spaniard stepped over the side, signalled
bis oarsmen and in ten minutes was
again upon the deck of his own vessel,
having discharged with becoming dignity
the unpleasant duty imposed upon him
by his Government. The engines of
the Virginius were found to be in a bad
condition and she had to be towed to
sea by the Dispatch. Both vessels left
the harbor at 3, p. m., the Spanish flag
being displayed by the fort as they
passed. At eight, p. m., they were met by
the naval tug Fortune. Steam was subse
quently got up on the Virginius and she
with the Dispatch went to Tortuga,
where they met the Ossipee and n coal
schooner Provisions will be transfer
red from the Ossipee to the Virginius
and whatever coal may be needed will
be supplied by the schooner. When
supplied with provisions and coal the
Virginius will probably be sent to a
Northern port. Washington and Nor
folk are mentioned among the prize offi
cers, much to the disappointment of
the officers. The Federal Courts are
now anxiously looking out for her arri
val. She will not enter the harbor of
Key West at all, express orders to that
effect having been received from Wash
ington. The Fortune proceeded to Key
West where she arrived at four this af
ternoon, with a dispatoh to Admiral
Scott giving a full acoouut of the surren
der. The officers aud crews ofthe Dispat eh
and LaFavorita, members of the prize
crews and a correspondent of tho Tri
bune were the only witnesses of the sur
render. Not a single person appeared
on the bay, and not an inhabitant of the
town of Bahia Honda or the surround
ing country felt sufficient interest in the
proceedings to walk or sail to the scene,
Some Americans presented themselves
at the entrance of the harbor iu a char
tered vessel, but not being provided
with clearance papers and passports were
stopped by a boat from the fort, in
several attempts to enter the harbor and
finally withdrew without witnessing the
surrender.
LETTER FROM BROOKLYN.
The Views of an Old Citizen of Au
gusta.
Brooklyn, December 12, 1873.
Editors Chronicle and < Sentinel:
You will find enclosed $2 50 for ray
subscription to the Chronicle and Sen
tinel, the moral tone and political criti
cisms of which, together with your ad
vocaoy of progressive material improve
ments, I must say I like about as well as
any paper I read; and lieipg an invalid,
confined to my house, much of my time
is occupied iu reading newspaj ers. I
live in hopes of being able to resume my
citizenship in Augusta, and but for the
local malady with which I was seized
while there last February, I would be
there now, probably.
I am glad to observe that the farmers
in Georgia are beginning to see the ad
vantages that oan be obtained (if wise
ly conducted) by associating into
“Granges.” You may have noticed an
article from my pen, alluding to
the subject, iu the Aiken Journal, of
November 1. The agricultural class
are the hope of this country. If
they would associate and act in uni
son, they could control its destiny. Their
success in their calling insures success
to every other industry. If they will
confine their efforts to the acquisition
and tho diffusion of knowledge and
truth, pertaining to their calling and
adopt every practical improvement, ex
cluding and expelling every political,
partizan demagogue, they may greatly
promote their owu as well as every other
interests. The Southern plunters have “a
heap to learn” yet, before they can be
come permanently prosperous. Less
cotton would enhance its value. More
bread, meat, forage and hpme made ma
nures would enablo them to make what
land they do cultivate so fertile that one
acre would produce as much as is ob
tained from three now. This can only
be done by diversity and rotation of
crops and the keeping of live stock —cat
tle, hogs and sheep—which should be
provided with stables, yards and pens,
where they should be kept at least du
ring the night, and with plenty of litter
or dry muck to absorb their droppings,
instead of requiring them to get their
living in the “range.” There are many
valuable products that can be grown to
advantage in the South, besides their pro
visos and forage which should always
be made at home. The two most impor
tant perhaps are indigo and rice. The lat
ter having always been cultivated in largo I
fields, where the weeds, See., could lie j
kept down by flooding. The mass of
the people have no idea that it can be
grown on any damp, flat land; but I
have a letter from a friend, planting near
Cartersville, saying that he had planted
(at my suggestion), last Spring, four
acres, which had grown finely, and that
he expected to get from forty to sixty
bushels to the acre. Rice, when cut at
the proper time, makes better forage
than Northern hay. Planted in drills, it
can be cultivated with a plow; and by
throwing a little earth over the stubble
as soon as cut, the stubble will sprout
and grow another crop equal to the first.
I hope to see all the Southern States
in as healthy a political position as
Georgia is ere long, so that they can
unite in a scheme for inviting immigra
tion that will command the attention of
Europe. The plan suggested through
your paper by Mr. Mange last Winter
might be put into a practical shape. But.
if some plan could be devised that would
unite all the Southern States in making
known the great advantages they have
to offer, they would compete successfully
with the Government ana
land grabbers, and change the current
of immigration from the Western wil
derness of savages, and secure a stream
at once towards the Christian civihza- I
tion, genial climate and fertile Jands of
the South.
Changing the subject, it occurs to me
that your fraternity at the South have u
rare opportunity for displaying genius,
in devising some practical plan for help
ing the “United States” and yourselves
at the same time. Your cities and towns
are infested with a vagabond colored
population, fit only for food for gun
powder. If onr President could be in
duced to call for volunteers to form an
army to chastise, liberate and (if con
sidered desirable) to annex Cuba, our
colored follow citizens would have an
other chance to secure that “40 acres
and a mule.” Doubtless you could also
furnish the requisite number of contrac
tors, sutlers, Ac., from the scalawags and
carpet baggers. Yours, truly,
H. W. R.
Capital Notes.
Washington, December 20. The
Committee on Appropriations will re
main here during the recess to perfect
bills. Messrs. Wilson, of Indiana, and
White, of Alabama, go to New Orleans
to investigate the affairs of the Federal
Court there. The Senate Select Com
mittee on Transportation Routes to the
Seaboard will start on their Southern j
tour on Monday next. The committee
propose to stop for two days at Atlanta, i
They have promised to give one day to '
Mobile, the business men of that city
having preferred a request to that effect.
They will spend at least four days at!
New Orleans, and will, if time permits, |
accept an invitation to extend their l
trip to Galveston.
Howes A Macy, of New York, have j
been adjudged bankrupts.
VOICE OP THE PEOPLE.
MR. STEPHENS AND THE BACK
PAY GRAB.
A Letter from tho Mayor of Richmond.
Va., December 19, 1873.
Editors Chronicle and AV itinel :
Will you allow a stranger to express
his great, gratification at the prompt and
unmistakable manner in which yoii re
pudiate Mr. Stephens’ position on the
“Salary Grab” question. Nothing has
happened since the war more thorough
ly calculated “to make the judicious
grieve” than Mr. Stephens’ position on
this matter, aud nothiug has ever hap
pened more universally shocking to the
moral sense of honest people than tha
public crime of which Mr. Stephens is
the swift aud gratuitous champion. Per
sonally, he did himself no injustice, but
he did the gravest, wrong to the whole
Southern people, who, without respect
able exception so far as I know, deplore
where they do not denounce this act.
Your manly words are a needed vindi
cation of our people from the suspicion
to which Stephens may have given rise,
that the profligacy aud venality which
have tainted Northern politics in every
Eurt have not spared the South. I have
eeu so much delighted at it that at the
risk of intrusion I cannot help saying so.
Yours, very truly,
A. M. Kbilet.
What Greene County Says.
Near Bairdhtown, 1
Greene County, Ga., >
December 18, 1873.)
To the Editors of the Chronicle and
Sentinel :
Iu looking over things that are now
transpiring, one is astonished that, there
should be one dissenting voice in Georgia
against a Convention of the people,
when the thing we are now living under
was made, in part, by strangers, and
those true Georgians who helped to
make it did so tied and bound by the
powers that then had control. It was
made in times of great excitement, when
the mass of the people were almost
afraid to think aloud. This people say,
by all means, a Convention. Some of
our people, at least those who were Mr.
Stephens’ strong friends and support
ers, politically, are very much astonish
ed at his recent course in Congress. They
seem to think him in his dotage, or be
side himself ; they cannot understand
his speech on the salary grab. Your
humble servant wns one of those who
strongly opposed the course our district
took at the election (which is familiar),
so much so that 1 stayed away from the
polls and kept all others I could away. I
do not doubt Mr. Stephens’ intellect or
biain, but I have ever doubted the pro
priety of,leaving at home men fully able
to represent us and sending a man worn
out, physically at least, in these times,
when we need the strong will of all good
and honest men to stand at the door and
watch our interest. I see some of the
press North are giving us the name of
plunderers, when I suppose nine-tenths
of the people South are opposed to tho
whole thiug, but let ns bear it, hoping
for better things. But lot Georgia have
a Convention. Planter.
What Oglethorpe County Says.
WINTBIIVILLE, OGLETHORPE Cos,, )
December 17th, 1873. (
To the Editors of the Chronicle and
Sentinel :
A few days ago a young man, a nephew
of mine, asked me if I had seen in the
papers that Mr. Stephens had made a
speech in Congress favoring what has
been called the Congressional “ grab or
steal”—that he had read it in your daily
paper. I told him I had not, nor did
I believe it. Guess my astonishment
when I received my weekly paper to see
the statement fully confirmed. The
thing fell upon my ear like a clap of
thunder in a clear sky, for I had sup
posed he would have been the last, man
in Georgia who would have supported
such a measure. The question naturally
suggested itself to my mind,what course
shall I, as one of his constituents, pur*
sne? Shall I denounce him for this one
great blunder in his life, or shall I still
confide iu him as a statesman. Imme
diately an anecdote which 1 have heard
of the celebrated Henry Clay came into
my mind. Mr. Clay, it seems, many
years ago voted for what wns iu those
days called the Compensation bill—l
think $1,500 for the session. It raised a
perfect storm in the country, pmticular
ly in Kentucky. When the election came
on, Mr. Clay was met by his old friend
Captain Scott, who thus accosted him,
" Well, friend Henry,” said Caplain
Scott, “I have stood to you in six
troubles, anil now, in your seventh,
I am going to forsake you.”—
“What is the matter friend Scott?”
asked Mr. Clay ? “You voted for that
compensation law,” replied Captain
Scott, “and I am determined to support
no man who did.” “Well, now,” said Mr.
Oluy, “you are an old man, Captain
Scott, one of the first settlers of Ken
tucky, are you not ? Yes ; had a good
rifle, and was a great hunter—yes. Well
now, Captain Scott, when you
a good sight on a buck did that rifle
never snap ? Yes. Well, what did you
do with it? Did you break it all to
pieces, or did you pick tho flint and try
again ?” Captain Scott paused awhile,
and then said, “Why, I picked the flint
and tried again, and I believe I will try
you again.” Tho thing acted like inagio.
Mr. Clay was triumphantly elected.
Now, I think, Mr. Stephens has made
a great mistake in advocating the salary
grab ; but, in view of his many virtues
and statesmanship, heretofore exhibited,
I have concluded, like old Capt. Scott,
to pick the flint and try again.
An Old Man.
What Wisp Bays.
To the Editors oj the Chronicle and
Sentinel:
In your issue of tlse 13th I was pleased
to notice your article of unqualified con
demnation of the position that our new
ly elected Congressman, the Hon. A. H.
Stephens, has taken in one of the many
schemes of public plunder which have
been forced upon us by our oppressors,
whereby the already over-burdened tax
payers are nov suffering. I believe
that it is the duty of all good people of
this State to come forwuril and nut only
congratulate you but to praise you for
your early and fearless cry from the
Sentinel Watch Tower, warning us of
•ur miaplaced|confideuco and the early
approach of our paid plunderers, as you
certainly have boldly done in this in
stance. If the intimation in your
article proves correct, which I am more
thau satisfied it will, I would like to
here ask who is responsible to the peo
ple of this country for this misplaced
confidence, if it is not the Democratic
Executive Committee of this District in
refusing to call a Convention to nomi
nate a man to fill the place of our much
lamented Gen. A. li. Wright, who, if
Providence had permitted him to have
lived long enough to have been where
the Hon. A. H. S is now, would
be a stonewall between us and our
oppressors and salary grabbers instead
of joining their baud hand and glove.
In speaking of the Executive Committee
in refusing to call a Convention, I take
its utterances from the Hon. M. W.
Lewis’ letter of January 29th, in which
he speaks authoritatively on this
point. If he and the balance of the
committee did not know they should have
known that Mr. S was not nor has
he been the choice of the Democratic
voters of the Eighth District since the
war, and certainly his Benatoral contest
proved that lie wus not for the State at
large. Nevertheless, Mr. Lewis stated
that the people, with but few exceptions,
were clamorous for his services in Con
gress. Notwithstanding this lam satisfi-d
that Mr. 8 could not have beaten a
third rate man had he come before a Con
vention at that time of the Democratic
party if one had been called, and I so
stated in a communication of January
26th, in which I begged them to stick to
the old custom and call a convention.
Thereby they would get a representa
tive man, who would represent the peo
ple who sent him. In inclusion, gen-
tlemen, allow me to encourage you by
saying “keep on,” Hpeak out and con
demn every political trickster and show
him up in his true light and you will
make the Chronicle and Sentinel not
only a welcome fireside companion in
every honse in Georgia, hut a power in
the land, to be feared by all evil doers,
| home and abroad. It would not here 1 e
amiss, if reports be true, as well as son a
recent events, for you to keep a watch
ful eye on some officials closer home,
who have not the manliness to show
anything but their cloven feet. You
may find out other corrupt parties tha
it would enure to the credit of your
valuable journal to expose. Hoping
that yonr expressions in the future wil
be as honest as ti.ey have been in the
past, I am, respectfully and truly,
yours, ' Wisp.
An Alabama Muddle.
Montgomery, Ala., December 20.
In the case of the United States vs.
Louis Fritz,on trial before United States
Commissioner Dresser, the testimony
shows that Fritz confessed having in
his possession a note given to Francis
Widmer for the sum of $2,500, also
a note of Hinds, late mail contractor, for
82,000, besidea other notes amounting to
$2,500 more, nearly enough in the
aggregate to cover reported amount for
which Widmer defaulted. Widmer’s
administrator demanded these notes, and
Fritz denied having them, and the case
againsthim rests ou the chargesoilmaking
way with’papers of value,etc.,ana premia
est o involve several officials in serious
difficulty.
< - /
