Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About Weekly chronicle & sentinel. (Augusta, Ga.) 1866-1877 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 24, 1873)
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. < - /
