Newspaper Page Text
amronicle anfr jgenttntt.
WEDNESDAY MAY 10, 1876.
The gentlemen who got left for St.
Louis say the train didn’t stop at the
stations for them to get on, as it should
have done. Sad I
Messrs. Bryant and PRises, with
possibly Fannin, lead the cohorts of
Mr. Blaine, of Maine. Our private
opinion is that Georgia Republicans will
cast their votes for Blaine or for Bris
tow.
Will the few newspapers that are so
much disgruntled by the election of
Governor Smith, Messrs. Barnes, Les
ter and Wofford as delegates to St
Louis trom the State at large please sug
gest a better ticket?
The leaders of the Conkling party in
Georgia are said to be District-Attorney
Farrow and Collector Atkins, of the
Port of Savannah. We think that these
two will be able to kill Conkuno very
comfortably between them.
The McDuffie Journal (we have to
quote a good deal from that paper,
somehow) says “the State Executive
Committee received a severe but well
merited rebuke” in the preamble aDd
resolutions which were unanimously
adopted by the Convention of the Eighth
Congressional District.
We publish this morning an article
from the Milledgeville Union and Re
corder, headed “Our Next Governor,
which we commend to the consideration
of our readers. Of its author the Union
and Recorder says: "He is a distin
guished Georgian—one whose name and
residence were we to mention them
would give additional weight to the
truths he lays down for the calm consid
eration of the people.
Tan neoDle of Georgia must their
faces as a flint against all independent
candidates in the coming campaign if
they wish to perpetuate the rule of the
Democracy in Georgia. They should be
crushed like young vipers as soon as
they make their appearance. With in
dependents in control of the Govern
ment the rule of the Radicals would soon
be restored. The safety of the State
lies in a strict adherence to party lines,
implicit obedience to party discipline,
and united support of party nominees
for every position.
Col. Hardeman has also been strength
ened by the withdrawal of Governor
Smith. The Telegraph and Messenyer
says : “The prospects of our talented
townsman continue to brighten daily.
His eminent services to the party in its
darkest days of adversity, his ripe expe
rience as a legislator, his big hearted in
terest in behalf of agriculture and edu
cation, his brilliant eloquence and genial
manners, his malignant persecution by
Farrow, in short, his superior claims
upon the people of his native State, are
fast commandingtbat attention and con
sideration to which they are justly en
titled.” <
The editor of the Rome Courier is
not in favor of independent Democrats.
He says: “We hear a great hue and
cry among the so-called Independents
against Democratic trickery, party
chicanery and electioneering jugglery.
We have watched these fellows and
listened to their talk, and a more shame
less set of wire-pullers, wind bags and
pot-house tricksters than themselves
are cannot be found in even the most
disreputable slums of a rotten town
•ward. They are controlled entirely by
one or two midnight conspirators, who,
in some back caucus, put forth their can
didate and then cry out the next day
against the tyrany of nominations. Fel
ton was nominated by just such a set,
and ‘Sleepy Hollow’ is mumbling his
gums in praysr for just such a nomina
tion. The Democracy makes its nomi
nation fair and above board and ia the
light of day. It publishes its calls and
invites the presence of all. Not so the
Independents; they meet at midnight,
two or three together, and fix up the
slate, and then they cry out to the peo
ple, ‘Behold your man !’ They are
Independents sure enough, for they do
uot depend upon the people for their
nomination—they make them them
selves. _
WII.KES COUNTY.
During the past week we had the
pleasure of spending some days in the
beautiful
fown of Washington.
The county of Wilkes is one of the
best in Georgia, end as a necessary con
sequence Washington is a thriving, pros
perous town. The citizens are educated
and cultivated, aud are not excelled for
probity and worth by those of any
other city or town in Georgia. The pro
fessional and business men stand high
in their respective callings. The bar of
Washington is a credit to the State. It is
-composed of gentlemen of a high order
of talent—whose reputations are not lo
cal but national. Among tlie business
houses, there are several that would
compare favorably with those of Atlanta
or Augusta—not in the volume of busi
ness, however, although some of them
do a large trade for a town, but in com
mercial standing and the system which
characterizes the conduct of their -af
fairs.
Court Week
Usually attracts the people from the
surron.uding country, but the present
term of Wilkes Superior Court failed to
withdraw t be farmers from the field, aud
the numbe v in attendance was therefore
small. The people were too busy to take
holiday, and there were only those in
attendance whose business compelled
them to be present. Court commenced
Monday and adjourned Saturday. Judge
Pottle’s charge to the grand jury ws*
pertinent and forcible. There was one
portion of it that will commend itself to
the hearty approval of all right-thinking
people everywhere, and that is the
Right ofßeU*l*us Liberty,
WhiciL' every man is guaranteed by the
Constitutions of the State and of the
United States. The fanaticism that
would ostracise a man for worshipping
God according to the dictates of his
conscience will find no toleration among
the good people of Georgia. The isms
that cursed the country were eraAi and
nurtured in the North. The Soath
always been tolerant, allowing eve,*7
man the widest liberty in matters of re
ligion. Political fanaticism found oonge- 1
nial climes in Old and New England, and !
its wrath and vengeance impoverished
and desolated the South. The rained
homes, the desolated plantations, the
-widows’ wails and the orphans’ tears
have been seen and beard all over this j
fair Southern land. The latter day
teachings of Exeter and Faneuil Halls
are responsible for the blood that was
shed and the property destroyed in our
late fratracidal war. The disciples of
this school, who have come South since
the war to foment discord and engender
strife, will fiud neither toleration nor
enoouragemeof- among the people of
Georgia. Harmony aud peace dwell
with our people, am] he who would at- 1
tempt to sow the seeds fanaticism by j
making war on any religion# denomina
tion, is au enemy to society aad to our 1
Government, which guarantees ci-vit aud ;
religious liberty to all citizens.
The Bar.
The visiting members of the bar were
Judge D. A. Yason, Albany; W. G.
Johnson and Samuel Lumpkin, Lexing
ton; S. W. Seidel, Hartwell; J. A,
Hat let, Sparta; J. E. Strother, Lin
coln. The local bar was represented by
Gen. Toombs, Gen- Dcßosb, Messrs.
Wm. M. AM. P. Reese, J. C. Reed, F.
H. Colley, 8. H. Hardeman, B. S.
Irwin, E. T. Shubrick, W. M, Silts, S.
M. Wynn aad Wm. Wynn.
The Ihdifc
Several important oases were eon
tinned, among them the Pounds case.
The following were disposed of; Bum
Smith (colored), convicted of burning
a dwelling house, was found guilty,
with a recommendation to mercy, and
sentenced to the penitentiary for life.
Frank Stone (colored) plead guQty to
larceny from the house and was sen
tenced to eight year* in the peniten
tiary. He also plead guilty to an as
sault with intent to murder, for which
be waa sentenced four years. Simon
Bird (colored), who was found guilty
of hog stealing, was sentenced to the
chain gang for four months. Marcia
H. Fanning vs. W. P. Fanning—appli
cation lor dower —granted. H. C. Ma
thews vs. Luther G. Smith —appeal
referred. Bank of Washington vs.
Frank Arnold— appeal—judgment for
costs. Mary M. B. Stone vs. John V.
Stone —divorce granted to both. Pol
lard, Cox k Cos. vs. John D. Coxwell
verdict for plaintiffs. John T. Wimj
field, administrator, vs. the heirs at
law of Nicholas Wylie—bill for direc
tion—compromise verdict. Fannie
Heard vs. Arnold k Dußose suit on
note and plea of discharge in bank
ruptcy contested —verdict for defend
ants. Several judgments were rendered
on unlitigated cises.
The Crops.
The crop prospect generally is prom
ising, and bids fair for a large yield, es
pecially of cereals. I find that there
tias been an increase in small grain
in wheat, oats and barley. There has
been more corn planted and less cotton
than last year. Ths area devoted to
sorghnm is greater than any year since
the war. Gnano has been used more
generally—perhaps the consumption has
increased fully one-fonrth. It has been
used on grain as well as on cotton.
Some of the farmers are cramped for
money, bnt all of the industrious, wor
thy men in the county will make a crop.
1 It is believed that none of the land un
der cultivation will have to be abandon
ed for the want of accommodation.
There are men of means in the county
wuo are making advances, ana iu this
respect Wilkes is better off than almost
other county in Middle Georgia. There
are large numbers of, farmers in this
county who make it a rule to raise their
own supplies. They never buy bread
and meat, bnt always make it the first
consideration to raise their provisions
on their own farms. These men as a
rule never ask for advances because
they never need them, and they are
in a position to be independent of the
stringency of the money market. The
men who suffer most in Wilkes and in
the other ootton producing counties are
those who are afflicted with the unfor
tunate mania of exclusive ootton cul
ture.
Political Notes.
Wilkes will support Gov. Johnson as
the first choice, but if he is not in the
field Gen. Colquitt will probably carry
the county. Col. Hardeman has some
friends, but no strength. If Judge
Augustus Reese will make the race he
will go into the Convention with a
strong following from the counties in
the Eighth District.
Gen. Toombs and Hon. A. H. Ste
phens are said to favor the (nomination
of Senator Eaton, of Connecticut, for
President. He is a dyed in the wool Demo
crat, of the old school of States Rights,
but it needs no prophet to predict that
he will not receive the nomination. No
man can be elected President of the Uni
ted State ß who was not in thorough accord
with the Modern people, or, in other
words, loyal to the Union, during the
war between the State#, dominating a
candidate for President who wto in
sympathy with the South would be like
shaking # red flag in tte f ace ol au en
raged bull. A loyl man-though in
sympathy with the corruptionists
would find no difficulty ip dfefestjng
Senator Eaton, who is one of the purest
as he is one of the ablest public men in
the United States, Tb* South would
support Senator Eaton with unanimity>
but the South alone could hot
Messrs. Colley and Bin*#, who serv
ed the oounty of Wilkes in the last Leg"
i islatnre, will be re-elected, if they de
sire to ye turn to Atlanta. Mr. Colley
is a yoiisg hut prominent lawyer, de
servedly popular with fll classes of the
people. Mr. Binns is a respected citi
zen aud substantial farmer. Wilkes bad
one of the best delegation 3 in the
Legislature, with Judge W M, M- Reese
as the Senator from the Twenty-ointh
Distriot. When this distinguished
jurist was nominated for Congress from
this District fie declined the honor, pre
ferring to serve hf# people in the Senate
thau to occupy a seat in (the Congress of
the United States. Suoh instances of
unselfish devotion are rare in these days
of greed for office, hut they deserve to
be preserved with pride a# examples to
shame the brood of hungry office-seek
ers, During Judge Reese’s term ip the
Senate no man has rendered more signal
service to (he State. Our laws for the
last six years b?ar the impress of his
vigorous intellect and accomplished
legal mind. If he desired to represent
this Distriot, iu case of the resignation
or inability of Hon. A- H- Stephens to
serve, the people would readily tender
him the nomination. He is in the merid
ian of life and in the possession of a
vigor of mind and strength of character
that would reflect honor upon onr Dis
trict. The mantle of the illustrious
sage of Liberty Hall conld not fall upon
shoulders more worthy to bear it.
INIPSBESTINCJ INSURANCE FACTS.
The St. Loaia Republican says the
proceedings of -the National Board of
Fire Underwriters that mat and held a
three days’ session at New York ;ast
week furnish some interesting informa-i
tion on the condition ot the insurance
business in this country. Gas surpris
ing fact is the increase in the amount of
risks assumed over the year 1874. This
increase is 8290,127,000. The capit.il
employed by 199 home and 14 foreign
companies was 855,383,000, an increase
of 82,331,888 over 1874. The dividends
for the year 1875 avasnsged for New York
State companies 13 71-108 per cent., and
for those of other States 13 W-100 per
cent. But this is the bright side ot the
subject. The tables show a decrease of
the ability to write of the American
oompanies from $239 in 1874 to 8228 in
1875; and the loss rate* lor ffrst three
months of the present year is eq aad to that
for the first six months of 1875. It is
almost inconceivable, bat tbs reports
declare it to be an indisputable fstft
fpnt the aggregate losses by fire in lo7 R
'u ajpc United States were $78,102,2- | 5.
This >s a loss than that sustain
ed by the great feo*w fire j 1872, and
it represents an actual and utter anni
hilation of property to that extent. A
very large proportion of the fires that
inflated this loss are attributed to “lack
of intelligent caution." Thirty-five per
cent, of the number are charged to in
cendiarism. The committee have no
reason to hope that the losses for the
present year will be any less than those
of last; that is, they think we shall barn
up another $78,000,000 of wealth in 1876.
The Sandersville Herald does’nt seem
to regret that the District Conventions
“fixed” the delegation to St. Lonis in
sU4 of allowing the Executive Com
mittee U.&) the “fixing.” It says; “The
unanimity wist yhich the Distriot Con
ventions voted for delegates from
the .State at large is remarked indeed,
and shows • oneness of purpose on fee
part of the greed Democratic party ot'
Georgia. The entire .4 allegation ia a good
one, and Georgia’s honor Ihe inter
ests of the whole oountry a*e in
their hands.” t
_ -■ J" 1 -
The MeDnffie Journal calls attention
to the fact that somebody has beep
palming off aa excellent add poem, “The,
Moneyless Man," pR the Atlanta;
Times as an original contribution. We
hope Col. Waddell will properly resent
the i*dignity, and either mangle the
thief with* tin quotation or braiw
him with a Greek EMt
SOUTH CARQLLNA.
THE DEMOCRACY IN COUNCIL-
Meettus f the State Caavwittou—A *pre
aeatatiTe Bady—PUtl—lihrA Dele*ate*—
Pernaaent Oraaiaatiaa —Kerakaw Preal-
Itat-BafMl Reedy far Beat af Drm* ar
Blast at Bogle—Pawera ef the Ceereetion
A Secret Session Ordered.
[Special Dispatch to Chronicle and Sentinel 1
Columbia, May A— In accordance
with the call issued by the State Execu
tive Committee of the Democratic par
ty of South Carolina, a St:te Convention
of the Democracy assembled here to
day for the purpose of sending dele
gates to the National Democratic Con
vention. Every county in the State was
represented, and among the delegates
were some of the best and leading men
of South Carolina, including Gen. J. B.
Kershaw, Gen. Johnson Hagood, Gov.
B F. Perry, Gov. M. L Bonham, Gen.
M. C. Butler, and Col. T Y. Simons.
The Convention did not assemble nntil
this evening, and met at 9 o’clockjin the
Hall of the House of Representatives in
thecapitol building.
Col. D. Wyatt Aiken, Master of the
State Grange, was chosen temporary
Chairman.
The proceedings were opened with
praver by the Rev. Dr. Meynardie.
The State Executive Committee and
the Chairmen of the County Committees
were invited to seats on the floor, with
out the privilege of voting.
The roll of the delegates was called by
the Secretary and a large majority found
present.
A resolution for permanent organiza
tion was adopted and General J. B.
Kershaw was unanimously elected per
manent President by acclamation.
Gen. M. L. Bonham, of Edgefield;
Col. T. Y. Simons, of Charleston; Col.
J. A. Hoyt, of Anderson; Col. J. A.
McQueen, of Darlington; ex-Governor
B. F. Perry, of Greenville; and General
Johnson Hagood, of Barnwell, were
elected Vice-Presidents unanimously.
Mr. Geston, of Chester, and Mr. Fox,
of Colleton, were elected Secretaries.
A committee of three escorted Gen.
Kershaw to his seat. On taking the
Chair he assured the Convention that it
was a matter of as much surprise as
gratification to him to be called upon to
fill so distinguished a position. He felt
that the most distinguished position
that any man in Smith Carolina oould
occupy at'the present time was to be pre
siding officer of a Convention of that
class of ostracised citizens whose voice
shonld always be heard in shaping the
destinies of the State. He excused him
self from saying more than assuring the
Convention of his heartfelt thanks. He
felt that this was not the occasion, if it
was otherwise proper,thathe shonld offer
measures or counsels for the considers
tion of the Convention. When the battle
for the redemption of the State in which
the Democracy expected to be victorious
was so far distant, as a military man
he should not indicate his plan of battle
nntil the enemy had somewhat devel
oped his plan of campaign. Without pre
suming to indicate what should be the
plan of action by the Convention he an
nounced the Chair ready for business.
General Johnson Hagood, of Barn
well, offered a preamble and resolutions
preparing the business qf the Gonven
i tion: First, eleotion of delegates to St.
Lonis; second, election of a State Execu
tive Committee; third, a secret session
on the plan of action of the State Demo
i cratic party. Each Congressional Dis
i triot to elect two delegates to St. Louis
| and the Convention four from the State
at large. ,
1 A Tong discfissiqn ensued, partici
i pated in by Messrs. Tilman, But
ler, Gary, Aiken, O'Conner and others,
in which the power of the Con
vention to adopt a platform and declare
1 the principles of the party met with
r much favor and equal opposition. There
■ seemed to be a general desire to discuss
the matter in secret session to-morrow,
’ which no doubt will be done.
General Butler offered a resolution
) tbat a committee of fifteen be appointed
- to consider the resolutions, whioh was
1 tabled.
General Kershaw was made ex ofticio
Chairman of the State Exacntive Com
mittee.
General Hagood said the people of
the State were ready to respond to the
blast of bugle and beat of drum when
the summons was given.
There are three colored delegates to the
Convention. The lobby and gallery
were filled with spectators, white and
colored, and many visitors were on the
fioor. The intelligence of the State was
represented from all classes of society.
It is a finp looking, dignified and order
ly assemblage. 4 great many aud
lengthy speeches were made. Torch
light pavis was in the lobby and Swails,
colored President pro tem. of the Sen
ate, woe op fee floor. Pfle Convention
adjourned to tpn o’clock to-morrow
morning, when a secret session' will be
held.
John McCammon, an old resident of
Columbia, died suddenly this afternoon
of apoplexy.
What Waa Done Yeaterday—The Caucus—
Tbp !£uolutioiiß of Ed*efleld—A Plan of
Speaks—The Dele
gates at Larae —Np Ipiruptions.
[Special Dispatch to the Chronicle ami Sen\,ii\el 1
Columbia, 8- C-, Muy s.—The Con
vention reassembled at ten this morning,
President Kershaw in the Chair- The
first business was the resolution to go
into secret session. It elicited a long
discussion, when, as a substitute, a reso
lution was adopted that the Convention
adjourn to 12, m. The caucus was then
held, outsiders being excluded. The
plans anil p,Q%y of the Democratic par
ty were discussed in th,e caijcns, but no
definite shape was giyen tq'tflp yiews
expressed. At 12, m., the Convention
reassembled. A resolution for a secret
session ya# tabled. A committee
of one tfQtp each delegation was appoint
ed to whom all reaolati.ous V e F e referred
without debate, .
M. P. O'Ooouer, of Charleston, intro
duced resolutions charging the prevail
ing misgovernment in Stats and nation
on the Republican party; urging tbat
they be hurled from power by the ballot
box; that the National Republican par
ty be overthrown at the next election;
that tha Democratic party of South
Carolina align themselves with the Na
tional Democratic that stand on
the platform adopteu at and
pledge non-interterenoe with the
of guaranteed under existing ;
laws. Beferf„ ~ _ ,
J. C. Sheppard, of Ragefleld, offered a
resolution of the jEdgese(d ppmocrats
pledging themselves to sustain <?W F el ]
known Demoorat# for office—State and
National. Referred.
E. McCrady, Jr., of Charleston, °ffer
ed a preamble and resolutions proposing
a plan of organization and defining the
course of action for the Democratic par
ty qf South Carolina. Referred.
A resolution was adopted rescinding
the aotion qf jiiut Convention in electing
President Kershaw Gtairman, ex officio,
of the State Executive Co^iftiftee, and
giving the committee, when selected,
the fiftoiaP fff its Chairman. This was
in aecordaftqe j request of General
flygfc aw.
J. N. Lipscomb, of Newtiewf, offered
resolutions urging continued toy
feet organization of tbe State T)ej#o
cratic party. Referred.
Mi. G. B. Lartigue, of Barnwell, offer
ed resolutions declaring it inexpedient
for the Convention to adopt any specific
plan of aotion nntil after the meeting of
the National Democratic Convention at
St. Lodis, ia .order that the Democracy
of South Carolina may act in harmony
with the National Demcuratio party,
but urging the preservation of .township
and ppgnty clubs for prompt and de
cisive Sffiiop, find that when delegates
to St. topis ap4 Executive Com
mittee axe .elected i±yj Convention ad
jOBFP, subject'Jo ,t£e call is# gem
''era of Uusptiye Coin*i%e. Me-
ferreu. _ . ...
Colonel fieitt, of Newberry, M?o
--dneed resoluHons which had been read t
in oauous. Referred without reading in
Convention.
The President then 44UijBlJb ce “ ,
readiness to receive nomumtfpns for
delegates to the St. Louis Conyentfwß—
two from each of tbe five Congressional
districts and four frpm tbe State
at large. The delegates at large
were first elected by ballot.—
While counting ballots, on motion
of General Conner, tbe Convention '
went into oaucas for the purpose of as
certaining from the delegates tha views
of their constituents as to the course to
be pnrsned by the Democratic party of ■
the State, and bo consider the plans tor
the approaching campaign. At 1)30 the
Convention went into caucus. Exit re
porters and spectators. The canons re-;
mained in session until 3, p. sa. When
the Convention reassembled the follow
ing result of the balloting was an
nounced: Delegates from the State at
large—General John Bratton, Fairfield;
Hon. W. D. Porter, Charleston; Coloael
D. W. Aiken, AbbeTUle; General J. D.
Kennedy, Kershaw. Alternates Gen.
M. Q Butler, Edgefield; ex-Governor B.
B. Ferii, .Greenville; Col. J. A. Hoyt,
Anderson'; General M. L. Bonham,
Edgefield. At 3:15 Convention ad
journed to 5, p. ni., to give Jige to the
Committee on Resolutions to eoa&Apr
the sujtifiTS before them.
The Convention Reassembled at 6, p.
m., and proceeded, to el* two delegates
and tiro alternates .from each at the uve
Congressional T>istricts.by aoffiamsGon.
with result: J’lratXhatnet,,
J. S. Richardaoa/qf Snmtsr; J. G- Mc-
Lucas, .of Marioa; alternates, R.
McLrsr, of Darliqgton;/. B. MbLaunn.
Second District, M. P- Q of
Charleston; John F. Fwken, of G^aylqp-.
ton; alternates, John L. Manning, of
Clarendon; J. F. lalar, of Orangeburg
Third Disi rict, S McGowan, of Abbe
ville; W. B. Stanley, of Richland; al
ternates, B. W. Ball, of Laurens; Samp
son Pope, of Newberry. Fourth Dis
trict, J. H. Evins, of Spartanburg; B.
F. Perry, Greenville; alternates, W. H.
Wallace, ot Union; Gabriel Connor, of
Spartanburg. Fifth District, J. C. Shep
pard, of Edgefield; Wm. Elliott; alter
nates, J. J. Fox, of Colleton; Paul F.
Hammond, of Aiken.
Governor Perry declined as alternate
at large, and Wm. Wallace, of Richland,
was elected to the vacancy.
The Convention proceeded to the elec
tion of three members of the State Ex
ecutive Committee from each Congress
ional District, with the following result:
First, W. W. Harllee, J. A. Law, T. B.
Fraser; Second, T. Y. Simons, J. F.
Izlar, James Conner ; Third, A. C. Has
kill, J. N. Lipscomb, J. B. Moore;
Fourth, W. L. Depass, T. Stobo Far
row, B. H. Massey; Fifth, A. C. Izard,
J. D. Tillman, T. J. Counts.
The Committee on Resolutions asked
further time, whioh was granted. The
committee then (8:30) went into secret
canons.
The Convention reassembled at 8:40.
The Committee on Resolutions deemed
it inexpedient to take aotion on the res
olutions referred to them, bnt urged onr
county organizations to preserve them
selves compact and to be ready for
prompt and decisive action when the
time arrived.
General Gary submitted as a substi
tute three resolutions, as follows: Tbat
the platform of the National Democratic
party be adopted as the platform ef the
Democratic party of South Carolina;
that the Democratic party of the State
make a straight-out fight on the State
ticket, and that county conventions
make such nominations as they may
deem expedient, and be governed
by the circumstances surrounding
them. General Gary then advocated
prompt action in the adoption of a plat
form and straight-out Democracy.
General Kennedy defended the report
of the committee, advising caution and
prudence and deprecating precipitation
of action at this time.
Butler, Ball and others favored the
adoption of a platform and prompt and
decisive action.
Cothram, of Abbeville, favored the
adoption of the committee’s report.
The committee’s report was adopted
by a vote of 70 to 42.
Hoyt’s resolution that the State Exe
cutive Committee call a State Conven
tion when deemed proper, to nominate
candidates for State officers and issue a
platform, was adopted. The Convention
will probably adjourn to-night.
OUR NEXT GOVERNOR.
[For the Union and Recorder .]
It is perhaps unfortunate that so
much has been said and written in re
gard to various aspirants for the posi
tion of Governor of the State of Geor
gia. The discussion we think has
been premature, and has already, we
fear, produced a degree of bitterness
and dissension whioh seriously
jeopardises the harmony of the Demo
cratic party. If there ever was a time
when the honest and true men of the
country should band together for the
common good, this is the time—with
onr State burdened with taxation and
debt, o.ur agricultural interested pros
trated and the people impoverished to
an alarmiDg extent, it is high time that
all bickering and quarreling about this,
that or the other favorite shonld cease,
and that the wise aud prudent men of
the oountry should consult as to the
beat means of averting the threatened
danger to the oountry, and if
possible oenter npon some man to
whom all will concede honesty, in
tegrity, and talent. .One upon whom
all good people may unite and who
will consequently be enabled to har
monize conflicting interest, to retrench
and economise, to rednoe taxation and
interpose the barrier of a determined
will to the tide of extravaganoe aud
corruption, whioh unchecked, must soon
engulph us all in one oommon bankrupt
cy and ruin. He should be a man whose
antecedents are good, and who being
free from the entanglement which in
volves so many otherwise pure men,
compelling them to confer place and
honors upon political friends and neigh
bors who are known to be professional
aDd constitutional intriguers, destitute
of principle and every qualification to
fit them for position. The condition of
things demands a man who can discharge
his whole duty to the State, looking
solely to the publio interest, having no
regard to the claims of tricksters and
demagogues—a man whose intellect and
character will plaoe him above and be
yond the reach of suoh influences.
It will require such a man as this to
bring order out of the confusion which
now prevails—to restore the financial
standing—regain the reputation and re
new all the drooping interest of the
Commonwealth. The people of Georgia
oannot in this emergency allow the trick
sters and demagogues to write inoompe
tent or dishonest men into office having
in view solely their own private aims
and objects. Parties who thus write are
generally bad men and expect to be re
warded for their work. Editors have a
legal right to subsidize their papers and
advocate, and endorse the man who pays
them the most money, but it is the duty
of every honest man to refuse or endorse
or aid in tbe support of suoh papers and
editors. It was said by one of Geor
gia’s noblest Divines that when
bad men are eleoted to office, the
people are bad who elect them ; upon
the same principle when weak, unedu
cated men are eleoted to office, then the
people will be regarded as weak also
who elect them. The people of Geor
gia, the great Empire State of the
Soufe, cannot afford to make themselves
liable tq either charge, for the reason
they are neither meat) Q)’ weak—they
are as houest and are as weH, if not bet
ter, educated fean the people of almost
any pther State in the Union, especially
the women; therefore, we must honor
them anfl protect ourselves by placing a
man in the Gubernatorial Chair who is
acknowledged by all parties, friends and
foes, to be honest and fully capable of
discharging every duty of the office.
I am proud to know that Georgia has
many sons who would honor the posi
tion and protect the interest of her peo
ple, but the one (in my judgment) that
would best harmonize all conflicting in-
I tfirest and opinions and at the same time
i preserve unsullied the honor of Georgia
and' h’er peopje is ex-Governor H. V.
Johnson. 1 '
LINCOLN COUNTY.
LiN.cqLN County, Ga., May 2, 1876.
Editorg Cfyronipfe etna Reniiifel :
t peg the indulgence qf a abort space
in the colpmus of your exeellppt journal
to give your numerous readers a few ink
lings of crop news, eta., from what is
termed by some people the baok end of
oreation. I suppose this appellation is
applied to Lincoln because we have not
the advantages of railroads, telegraphs,
daily mails, etc. While thi&is true, our
farmery, pith few exceptions, raise corn,
wheat. oats, etc., yeengh by economical
management t 6 sdppl^tjh 0 ti‘ This
is more than is done in a great many
plaoes, and if reports from abroad are
to be ielied on, we are about as well to
do agrioultura/if, financially, political
ly, religibusly an'd Socially, as a number
of otfcej: places. Tt Js frqfl, Wfi nave de
voted tod much of onr tiffie and money
to the production of cotton, out J. think
the prospects for a change are favorable,
and I hope soon to see the error correct
ed, and to see our farmers return to their
habits and customs of ante-bellum days.
Wheat and oat crops are in a flourish
ing condition, though a wetting rain
wonfij be of. great benefit to the latter.
Farmers hate fmiwiod and are
now workibg out theirurop*. yrgeds of
corn and cotton generally are good.
■Superior Court
in yefsbßf ffßply four , d , a y ß . laßt
week, apd fee preys of business
jnst dow JVA3 W Attended fh>y both
whites aud bUeks. Ip fact, .there was
an unusual large attendance of the fat
ter class, who were drawn out to witness
the trial of two cases—one, the State
vs . Oliver Parks (coh), charged with ar
son; to# pfher the State vs. Sandy Barks
dale (coh), QuAfged with larceny. San
dy plead guiltjv sentenc ® d to
eight years id the There
sras an unusual array of legal Went ififA?-
eut. Messrs. W. Mt and tfl. P- Beeee,
of WashißsfeS; and CoL W. D. Tntt, of
Thomson, get’ a f?£ e majority of the
practice at the Line&iuruu bar. It is
really refreshing to listen .to tiw wester
ly and niuy speeches of €oL Tntt is be ■
half oi his olidnwi He is a young lawyer
of talent and ability, is destined to
a prominent member .of the le
gal fraiwrffity. BanOT
THE AAR JJHEST.
The OalS NetVue BreaA-HU#is#at
Tusprmace pecuufcp.
Omaha, May 4. —A recent arrival from
the Black Hills reports a great scarcity
of provisions. Flour brings $22 per
Back in Cnstar City. Judge Dillon, of
the United States District Court, in the
case of Moore, assignee in bankruptcy,
vs. the Mntnal Life Insurance Company,
dgßi£p9 its loans in real estate of some
half ’a c of dollars are nsnrions
and the penalty provided in the statute
must be inflicted bd tns cotoLtmv. The
decision involves the load fe
t hree million dollars in this State.
We fresr Hof. "JF- A. McDougald has
aord the'mare Lucy feat ran some races
at Newnan ana Anguffi,aff which has
been here some ffionths, toa Tennessee
mn for *1,150. ' * r “
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
IMPORTANT DECISIONS RENDER
ED.
[Atlanta Constitution.]
Cowart, vs. Dnnbar & Cos., et al.
Rale vs. Sheriff, from Emanuel.
Warner, C. J.
This was a rule against tbe Sheriff of
Emanuel county, and the record contains
the following statement of facts: De
fendants in error obtained judgment
against Jno. L McLemore at the No
vember term, 1871, of Emanuel Superior
Court, on which judgments ft fas. were
issued November. 13. 1871. At tbe April
term, 1874, of said Court, a rule
was issued against the Sheriff because
of his failure to levy said fi. fas. The
Sheriff answered the rales aying, he
had made search bnt conld find
no prperty. His answer was travers
ed, and on the trial of the issue
thus formed plaintiffs in ft. fa. introduc
ed in evidence the said ft. fas. with en
tries of nulla bona thereon. They also
introduced the following oral testimony:
John M. Stubbs, attorney for plaintiff in
fi. fa , swore that at the April term, 1873,
Deputy Sheriff Cannady told him defen
dant in fi. fa. was in possession of a
horse and baggy, bat that he did know
who owned it. Witness told him to levy
on them, to which Cannady replied he
would if he (witness) wonld point oat
the property. Witness, at same time,
also instructed Cannady to ascertain if
defendant in fi. fa. had any interest in a
certain store house and lot iu the town
of Swainsboro, and that if he found snch
interest, to levy on the same. That at
April term, 1874, witness asked Cannady
if he had made the money on these fi.
fast That Cannady run out his tongue,
with an expression of surprise, and said
he had forgotton it. Witness then told
him he would have to rnlehim, to which
Cannady replied, “Well, go ahead. You
have not paid me tbe cost in these cases
anyhow.” S. A. Pughsley swore that
he saw defendant in fi, fa. in possession
of property in 1869, 1870, and 1871. He
was in possession and exercised acts of
ownership over a horse and buggy in 1872,
and early part of 1873. His possession
of horse and baggy and claim of owner
ship was open and notorious. Horse
and buggy were worth $325 or 8350.
After 1871, defendant in fi. fas. was in
possession of store house and lot in
Swainsboro. The house was built by
Sherod in 1872. Defendant’s possession
thereof was in 1872 and part of 1873.
Witness, at the time this role was
brought, and still is in employment of
plaintiff in fi. fas. John H, Sherod
swore that he bnilt the house on tbe
Moore lot, and finished the same injune,
1872, and then delivered possession
thereof to defendant in fi. fa., who re
tained possession of it about one year.
Store house and lot worth 81,000. The
dwelling bouse now oooupied by defen
dant in fi. fa. is worth 81.500, and
has been in his possession since
its completion last year. Saw defen
dant in fi. fa. in possession of
horse and buggy in 1872 and part
of 1873. Said horse and buggy
were worth 8350. The possession of all
this property was open and public. The
sheriffs office, in the town of Swains
boro, is within 100 yards of said store
house. H. M. Sutton swore that he
built dwelling house occupied by defen
dant in fi. fa. It is worth 82,500, Com
pleted it in 1874. Defendant in fi fa.
was in possession when house was com
menced, and has since then retained
possession. Store house and lot worth
81,000 or 81>200. Respondents intro
duced the following testimony: Wm.
Cannady, Deputy Sheriff, swore that he
had no recollection of conversation tes
tified to by Col. Stubbs. Don’t remem
ber to have told him that I had forgotten
to levy fi. fas. Don’t remember that
he said he would rule me, and that I
replied, “Go ahead, You havn’t paid
me the cost on these cases anyhow.” I
have not seen defendant in fi. fa. in
possession of any property since I have
been in possession of these fi. fas. I
and Cowart, the Sheriff, went into of
fice in February or March, 1873. Cross-
Examined.—Am quite positive I never
had any such conversation with Col.
Stubbs, as stated bj him. Don’t recol
lect I swore on the last trial of this case
that I would not swear these conversa
tions had not taken place. [Here coun
sel for plaintiff in ft fa. read from wit
ness’ recorded testimony on the former
trial, which was an approved brief,
agreed upon by counsel on former mo
tion for new trial, as follows: Witness
would not say tbat he did not tell Stubbs
that he had forgotten to levy and that
Stubbs had not paid costs of said suit.]
Counsel asked if this was not his testi
mony on former trial. Witness replied,
“If it is so recorded, I must have so
testified, but I do not remember it.”
Had seen defendant in fi. fa. and his
brother Lawson McLemore, selling goods
in two or three stores about town, but
don’t know which was in possesion of
the houses. Matthew Overstreets sworn:
Went in possession of store house refer
red to in January, 1873. Lawson Mc-
Lemore was in possession when I went
in; defendant in.fl. fa. is my son-in-law,
and was not in possession of the house
at that time. Chesley Faireloth sworn:
I went into possession of store house in
fall of 1872; Lawson McLemore put me
in possession; he was in possession be
fore I went in. Defendant in fi. fa.
sworn: He was never in possession of
store house; kept post office in portion
of store house. Sinoe I have been post
master I have kept post office in several
stores belonging to others; others kept
post office for me. Defendant offered to
prove by the witness, H. W. Sutton,
ealled by plaintiffs, that the house occu
pied by John L. MoLemore, defendant
in fi. fa., as a dwelling house, was built
by witness lor Ira T. McLemore, father
of defendant in fi. fas., and that the de
fendant in fi. fa. was in possession
merely as a tenant of his father, Ira. T
McLemore, who was then, and has been
ever since, the owner of the premises.
To this evidence the plaintiffs objected,
the Court sustained the objection, and
refused to allow tbe evidence to go be
fore the jury. To whioh ruling and de
cision of the Court the defendant
excepts. Defendant offered to prove by
the "witness, John L. McLemore, that
he, the defendant in/?, fas., was not the
owner of the horse and buggy testified
to by the plaintiffs’ witnesses, and that
he never exeroised aots of ownership
over said property, nor had the same in
possession, except when he had borrow
ed them for a short time, and that L.
A. McLemore, his brother, was the own
er of said proper y and in possession of
the same. To this evidence the plain
eiffs objected, and tbe Court sustained
the objection, and refused to allow the
evidence to go before the jury. To which
ruling ani| decision of the Court, in re
jecting sail} eyideneg, defendant excepts.
Defendant then offered to the evi
dence of John Sherod, introduced by
tf)e plaintiffs, as to (he bujlding, posses
sion snfl owuership Qf th.e store house
by fep wjfeeai. John L- MoLemore, by
whom defenflaut offered tg prove that
the witness, who is defendant mft fas.,
did not oontract for the building of said
honse, and that he was never in posses
sion of the same, bnt that witness’
brother, L. A. MoLemore, had the house
built, and is the owner of the same, and
had been in possession of the house ever
since its construction. To this evidence
the plaintiffs objected, and the Court
sustained the objection, and refused to
allow the evidence to go before the jury.
To which ruling ana decision of the
Court, in rejecting said evidence, the
defendants except. The defendant
. having offered no other evidence,
the jyas sijbmittpd to the jury.
The Judge charged fep jury as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury—Two fi. fas.,
the one in favor of J. L. Falk & Cos.,
and the other in favor of T. J. Dunbar
& Cos. vs. John L. McLemore, were
placed in the hands of the sheriff for
collection early in the year 1873. Having
failed to make the money thereon, a
rqle nisi was issued against him at the
April'term, 1374, to show cause why,
&c., &e. In rfeipohse iu fef£ UrrC W®
sheriff answered that he ‘naq searched,
and oould find no property whereon to
levy said fi. fa*. Ti** plaintitf m fi. fa.
traversed fcaid answer, and alleged' that
when caljed on by plaintiffs’ counsel ana
asked >£y he hafl not Collected the /?.
fas., the 'sheriff aiis jered “that he had
forgotten it," and a3ded, “yhn not
paid the cost on these fi. fas. anyhow.
The issue thus made up forms the sub
ject matter of your present deliberation.
The sheriff having answered the rale of
ficially under oath, and in response to
pfEiop&' call, the presumption of law
is, that bm (HfeVs# is true and that pre
sumption eonefttfitfa traversed
and rebutted by proof. 1 Hence the trav
erse in this case. On the-one hand, the
sheriff say ß be searched and could find
no property fo levy said fi. fas. On the
other hatfd. the-piiintiffs say his an
swer is not true, btko far tfom
any “search” f<r property, tuuconfessed
to tbe ulsintifis’ counsel that he forgot
** " ancl urged M an additional excuse
;s.t th. 35?
the cost on said.#. /“.* to this
gentlemen, if the sheriff's
rtUe nSt be trde. then he has done
dnty-rJhe rule Vo*lff be discharged
Bnt the plaintiffs infi. fa.w fi is not
true. Wteif WegatAorf uf 1 F e P®“f **“*
tbe sheriff fe#4 feW* ? n ? ** at *“
cost on tbe ft fas. bad B°t been paid
anyhow. Now, if tbe wiegaUOß. of the
traverse be true, then tbe iberifr# an
swer is not true. If he forgot the mat
ter, it is certain that he did not search
for the property. Both cannot be true.
If yon find from the evidence that he
’du) search and conld find no property,
etc., etc.; fat rot liable under this
rule. Bub. H jntf gnd ±tk £did not,
that he said lie “forget/: an® faded to
levy because he “forgotit, or* beusef
“oosls on said fi. fas . had not been
pasp be ia liable. The defendants
counsel request me to charge von that
if the sheriff a answer is taken, he is not
liable. Ido bo charge you, as I have
once or twice already stated. The de
fendant’s counsel requests me to charge
that if you find from the evidence that
the defendant in fi. fa. was not in pos
session of property subsequently to the
sheriff’s coming into office, he is not
liable. I so charge you. This brings
me, gentlemen, to the real question for
your consideration, and that is, was the
defendant in possession of property
since the sheriff came into office ? This
is purely a question of fact for you to
determine. You have heard the evi
dence concerning the alleged posses
sion by the defendant in ft. fas. of a
horse and buggy, a store house and lot,
and a dwelling house and lot in this
town, worth, as the plaintiff alleges,
from $2,500 to $3,000 enough, as they
insist, to have satisfied their fi. fas.
The matter of evidence in this cause
falls exclusively within your province.
I intimate no opinion—would not do so
if it were my right—as to what has r
has not been proven on this question of
possession, or indeed upon any question
involved in this case. You will inquire,
therefore, what has been proved in refer
ence to it. If you find, from the evi
dence, that the defendant was in pos
session of that or any other property,
the sheriff was bound to make a faith
ful effort to levy and bring it to sale.
(Here I read one of the fi. fas. and
oalled the attention of the jury to the
language of command, viz : “We com
mand you,” etc.) From this you see,
gentlemen, that as a mere executive
officer, he was bound by judicial com
mand to levy. In addition to this, his
official oath binds him faithfully to exe
cute all writs, warrants, precepts and
processes directed to him, etc., etc.
From this you will perceive, also, gen
tlemen, that it is not necessary for the
plaintiff or his counsel to give special
order to levy; that order is embodied in
the writ of fieri facias, emanating from
a source superior to either plaintiff or
his counsel, nor is plaintiff or his coun
sel to point out property in the posses-,
sion of .the defendant, for the writ com
mands to levy it, nor can the sheriff de
mand the payment of cost in advance,
and even if he could he should make de
mand before he can act upon their non
payment as an excuse for failing to levy.
Nor can the sheriff excuse his failure to
levy by saying “he forgot;” nor oan he
excuse himself by saying that the prop
erty in the possession of the defendant
is the property of somebody else, and
npt subject to the fi. fas. in his hands.
The law does not permit him to set up a
forum in his bosom to decide the title of
property. That is a question on which
the plaintiff in fi. fa. has a right to be
heard. The sheriff cannot place himself
in the position of and take sides with
the defendant in fi. fa. He must make
a faithful effort to bring to sale proper
ty in possession of the defendant. Such
possession is prima facia evidenco of
title in him, and the sheriff must act
upon that presumption. He must levy,
If he is met and stopped by legal interpo
sition, such as a oluim interposed on an
injunction by a third party, he will be
free from blame, free from liability. I
repeat, therefore, that if you find from
the evidence that the defendant, McLe
more, was in possession of property
at any time since the sheriff came into
office, and he failed or refused to
levy and try to bring it to sale, he can
not be exonerated by setting up any
of the exouses just mentioned; he
is liable to the exlent of the value
of the property so in possession. You
will therefore (if you find such posses
sion of property in the defendant) as
certain its value from the evidence be
fore you. In considering evidence, it
is your duty, if possible, to reconcile
conflicting statements and contradicto
ry witnesses, without imputing perjury
to any. When one witness testifies posi
tively one way and another, equally
credible, testifies as positively the other
way, it is like two equal forces acting in
opposite direction. Nothing in relation
to matter thus testified of is proven.
Affirmative testimony outweighs, in law,
negative testimony; that is to say, one
witness who swears affirmatively to a
fact, outweighs the testimony of two or
more who only swear negatively.
These, gentlemen, are the principles
of law applicable to this case. It is an
importance to the parties litigant. Let
me admonish you to free your minds
1 from all bias or partiallity. Know noth
ing, gentlem' n, but the case as it is ex
hibited to you by the evidence.” To
which charge respondent excepts. The
i jury retired and returned with a verdict
i in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs in fi.
fa. made a motion for anew trial on the
following grounds, to-wit: 1. Because
the jury found contrary to the law and
1 the evidence. 2. Because the jury
found contrary to law. 3. Because the
verdict is contrary to evidence and
charge of the Court. 4. Because the
verdict is contrary to the charge of the
Court 5. Because the verdict is strong
: ly and decidedly against the weight of
evidence and the charge of the Court.
The Court granted anew trial. To
i which judgment granting anew trial
the respondent excepted.
i There was no error in the charge of
: the Court, in view of the evidence before
the jury, nor in granting anew trial on
i the ground that the verdict was con
trary to that charge, and that would
dispose of the case; but as tlr re is to be
: anew trial, aad the counsel for the de
i fendant in error having expressed a de
sire that we should decide the question
; as to the admissibility of the evidence
i offered to be proved by the witnesses,
i H. W. Sutton and John L. McLemore,
as set forth in the record, we will pro
oecd to do so. The 3949th section of the
i Code declares that the sheriffs of this
, State shall be liable to an action on the
' case, or an attachment for contempt of
Court, at the option of the party, wherev
er it appears that such sheriffs have in
jured such party, either by a false re
turn, or by negleoting to assist a defend
ant, or to levy on the property of the
defendant, or to pay over to the plain
tiff or his attorney any money collected
by such sheriffs by virtue of any fi fa. or
other legal process, or to make a proper
return of any writ, execution or other
process put into thejhands of such Sheriff.
Thus it will be peroeived, that when a
plaintiff in fi. fa. has been injured by
the failure of the Sheriff to levy on the
property of the defendant, he has his
option of one of two remedies against
the Sheriff, either by an action on the
case, or by a rule oalling upon him to
show cause why he should not be attach
ed for contempt of Court. When the
plaintiff elects to pursue the latter reme
dy against the Sheriff, the measure of
the Sheriff’s liability to him is the value
or amount of the injury which he has
sustained by the failure of the Sheriff to
levy his fi. fa. on the property of the
defendant; that is the amount for which
the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment
against the Sheriff in that proceeding,
so far as tfoe plaintiff himself is concern
ed. shoqld the plaintiff, when he
elects to pursue his remedy under the
statute by an attachment for contempt
against the Sheriff, be entitled to a judg
ment for bis beneftt for any greater
amount than the ootual injury whioh he
has sustained by the failure of the Sheriff
to levy his fi. fa. on the defendant’s
property ? Why should not the Sheriff
be allowed as well as the plaintiff, in
that proceeding, to show what was the
actual injury sustained by the plaintifl?
According to the inlings of this Court in
Dobbs vs. The Justices, etc., 17th Geo.
Rep. 624, and Currell vs. Phillips, 18th
Geo. Rep. 469, this is not an open ques
tion here. Tne Sheriff offered to prove
that the property in the defendant’s pos
session was not his property, qnd, there
fore, that the plaintiff had not been in
jured by fijs failure tp levy on it. In
oar iadgjpent this evidence was compe
tent and should haye beep received. It
is unquestionably the duty of the Sheriff
to levy on property found in the defen
dant’s possession, as a general rule, be
cause theDossession of property is prima
facie evidence of title, and when a Sher
iff is ruled for not levying a fi. fa. on
property in the defendant’s possession,
the burden of proof is on him to show
that it ■ wao pot tfie property of the de
fendant;' 4?he writ oi fier.i /acid; com ;
mauds the Sheriff to levy da the prop
erty of the'defendant, but it does not
necessarily follow that because the de
fendant has property in his possession
that it is his property: as, for instance,
the defendant might hire a hqrse and
buggy from'a liyerV staple to use fora
few days, and have the same in'fiis pos
session, and the Sheriff fail to levy On it
—should the Sheriff when ruled by the
plaintiff in fi. fa. for failing to levy it on
the horse and buggy be prevented from
showing that it was not the defendant’s
property, and therefore that the plain
tiff iraq-nct peon injured by his failure
to make the levyV We think not. It
was insisted on the argument for the
plaintiff in fi. fa. that it was the duty
of the Sheriff to levy it on any property
found in the defendant’s possession,
and fhat tojjH only protect himself
from liability to- the piajptiff by show
ing that a claim had been interposed to
the property by Borne third person.
That undoubtedly wottld have excused
the" from bringing the property
to 6^’ a - if he baa taviej ou it, but the
foundation of Uje JilamtilTs proceeding
against the Sheriff is hjs fa|iflre to levy
on the property in the defendant, s pos
seesiqnWketpbv be U§ been injured
Whether the ptotig has been injured
by the failure qt the Sheriff tq lgyt his
fi. fit. op |i property w the defen
dant’s poaseaaion, depend* 00 *b e fact
whether it was the defendant's proper
ty, or the property of some other
rarson. The prima facie legal presump
tion is that it was the defendant s prop
erty sod that the plaintiff was injured
by the failure of the Sheriff to levy on
it and the burden of proof was on the
Sheriff to rebut that prima fade legal
presumption by clear and satisfactory
evidence (as much so as if a olaim to the
property had been interposed by a third
person) that the property In the defen
dant's possession was not his property
and was not liable to be seised and sold
as snch by virtue of the plaintiff’s/!, fa.
If the property in the defendant’s pos
session was not his property, and was
not subject to the plaintiff’s ft. fa., then
the plaintiff has not been injured, in
contemplation rof the statute, by the
failure of the Sheriff to levy hie ft. ft.
thereon, and should not lie held liable
to the plaintiff for the value of that prop
erty; otherwise he would be liable to the
plaintiff for its value. Let the judgment
of the Court below, grantiug the new
trial, be affirmed. Cbas. B. Kelly and
Jesephus Camp, by Z. D. Harrison, for
plaintiff in error. John M. Stubbs and
H. D. D. Twiggs, contra.
Reid t>s. Gordon. Illegality, from Put
, nam.
Warner, 0. J.
This case came before the Conrt be
low on an appeal from a Justice’s Court
on an affidavit of illegality. On the trial
ol the case in the Superior Court, the
Court charged the jury that the affida
vit of illegality, as set forth, was insuf
ficient, and directed the jury to find a
verdict overrulling the same; in other
words, the Court sustained the demur
rer to the defendant’s affidavit of illegal
ity as being insufficient in law to set
aside the plaintiff’s execution. Where
upon the defendant excepted. The
grounds of illegality contained in the
defendant’s affidavit insisted on here
were, first, that the summons in said
case did not bear date twenty days be
fore the time of trial in the Justice’s
Court. As to the first grounds taken in
the affidavit of illegality, inasmuch as
the return of the constable of service of
the summons on the defendant is not
dated, the legal presumption is (in the
absence of any proof to "the contrary)
that the constable did his duty, and
served it within the time prescribed by
law. The main question in the case is
whether the Justice had any legal power
or authority, to render the judgment
against the defendant on the day he ren
der it. The general rule applicable to
the judgment of a Justice’s Court (the
same being a Court of limited jurisdic
tion) is, that in such the Justice have
no power or authority to render judg
ments, only when the law of the land
authorizes them to do so; that power and
authority must be exercised in the mode
and manner that law prescribes. Gay vs.
MoNeal. 12th Geo. Rep. 425. A suit be
fore a Justice of the Peace must be com
menced by summons commanding the
defendant to appear at the time and
place of trial, which time and place shall
be specified in said summons. All sum
monses, when the amount is over fifty
dollars, shall bear date twenty days be
fore the time of trial. Code, 4139—4151.
The summons in this case was dated on
the Ist of January, 1872, and the time
of trial specified iu the summons was
on the 3d Saturday in January, 1872,
and it is admitted iu the record by the
argument of the parties that the 3d
Saturday in January, 1872, was the 20th
day of that month, so that counting the
first day of the month, and excluding
the 20th, as the 4th section of the Code
provides, the judgment was rendered on
the 19th day after the date of the sum
mons, a day on which the Justice had
no legal power or authority to render
the judgment under the statute, and that
being so, the judgment was void for
want of authority of law to render it at
the time it was rendered. If a Justice
oan render a judgment against a defen
dant nineteen days after the date of the
summons, he can render a judgment
within- five days after the date of sum
mons, and one would be just as lawful
as the other. In order to maintain and
enforce the laws of the land, we feel
constrained to reverse the judgment of
the Court below in this case. Judgment
reversed.
The Georgia Railroad and Banking
Company vs. Goldwire. Case, from
Morgan.
Bleckley, J.
1. A railroad employee injured while
on duty in connection with the running
of the cars, can, if free from fault him
self, recover from the company for the
negligence of co-employees in the same
service. 2. The verdict, in the present
case, was not contrary to law, if the jury
believed the conductor negligent and
the plaintiff free from negligence; and
the evidence in support of the verdict is
not so weak as to require this Court to
overrule the Judge below ig refusing a
new trial. He used his legal discretion
without abusing it. Judgmen’, affirmed.
Bailie & Bro. vs. McWhorter. Equity,
from Richmond.
Bleckley, J.
1. Where a will provides that the
trustee shall hold and employ the prop
erty in trnst for the sole use and bene
fit of the testator’s son, during his life,
permitting him, in the direction of the
trustee, to have such control over the
property, and such only, as may be
compatible with- preserving the same
unimpaired for the maintainauce of the
son, free from all liability for any of his
debts or contracts; aud iu further trust,
to dispose of the estate, on the death of
the sou, as the son, by last will, may di
rect and appoint; and,in default thereof,
to hold in trjjst for the eon’s widow
and children, if any he shall leave,
share and share alike; and if none, then
to divide the estate equally between
the trustees of other trust estates cre
ated by the same will in behalf of other
beneficiaries, the income of the property
accruing during the life of the son is
subject, in equity, to a debt contracted
by him while managing the trust estate
for necessary supplies for himself and
family, and for the use of the trust es
tate, the debt having been reduced to
judgment aDd the execution thereon
having been returned nulla bona. 2.
The trustee being dead and no succes
sor appointed, a proper mode of secur
ing the income for application to the
debt is to appoint a receiver.—24 Ga.,
52. 3. The wife and children of the
debtor are not necessary or proper par
ties to the bill, he alone being interest
ed in the income. Judgment reversed.
Harper & Bro., for plaintiff in error.
Wm. H. Hull, contra.
Ansley & Cos., vs. Glendenning, admin
istrator. Equity, from Richmond.
Warner, J.
1. When the only occasion for going
into equity is, that the judgment sought
to be enjoined is conclusive at law in
another suit against the complainant, an
amendment to the bill which alleges
that the judgment is void for want of
jnrisdiotion in the Court that rendered
it, is demurrable. Such an amendment
is not in aid of the original bill, but in
consistent with, and destructive of it.
A judgment void for want of jurisdic
tion need not be enjoined—46 Ga., 286.
2. When the object of a bill is to attack
a judgment for something thqt trans
pired qt the term when it was rendered,
evidence of what took plaoe at a subse
quent term on the trial of an affidavit of
illegallity is irrelevant, 3,. A judgment
against an administrator reviving a
dormant judgment rendered against the
intestate is evidence of assets. 52 Ga.,
347. Judgment reversed. Frank H.
Miller for plaintiff in error. H. Clay
Foster, contra.
Twiggs, et al. vs. Chambers. Motion,
from Richmond.
Bleckley, J.
If, on a motion for property, the fee
of plaintiff’s attorney be payable, by
speaial contract, out of the proceeds of
the suit, the attorney has an inchoate
lien npon the property for his fee as
soon as the aotion is commenced, and
the olient has no right to defeat snch
lien by dismissing the action before
trial, over the attorney’s objection, with
out first paying the fee. Judgment re
versed. Barnes & Camming, for plain
tiffs in error. Joseph Ganahl, contra.
Tho Summerville Macadamized, Graded
! or Flank Boad Cos. vs. the Augusta
Land Company. Application for In
junction, fyom RichE^qnd,
Jackson, J.
1. On an application for an injunc
tion to restrain trespass, the Court be
low in refusing such injunction if the
defendants are fully able to respond in
damages, and if the hill be retained for
a full hearing on the tpal before the
Court and jury, when all the faots can
be 'fully investigated, damages for the
fact estimated and recovered, and a per
petual injunction be decreed for the fu
ture, if on snch fnll hearing snch de
cree should be found to be equitable
and just. Judgment affirmed. * Frank
H. Miller, for plaintiff in error. Barnes
& Cumming, contra.
Page, administrator vs. Haines, admin
istrator. Equity, from Johnson.
Bleckley, J.
An administrator is entitled to no re
lief in equity against a judgment at law,
on the ground that be did not know the
assets of the estate were deficient, or
because he was ignorant of the effect of
the judgment as 1 eyidencq of assets,
there being no sufficient excuse shown
for bis want of the requisite' informa
tion. Judgment affirmed.
R. W. Carswell by brief for plaintiff in
erfrff t 6* ir ? £ Bolhiil, and John M.
Stubby epn^a-
Mary J 2. Primrose vs. John Ij. Brown
ing. Claim, from Richmond,
JacKSOK, J,
1. In a claim case the harden of proof
is upon the plaintiff in exeention to
show title- in the defendant in order to
authorize a verdict that the property ia
subject; and when the plaintiff seeks to i
do so by proving that the proceeds of i
the sale of lands voluntarily conveyed
to the wife by the husband after he be
came indebted to the plaintiff paid for
the land levied on, though the deed was
made by the vendor to the wife, the
deeds from husband to wife and from
the vendor of the land levied on to the
wife, are essential links in the chain
which binds tjie land levied on to pay
the plaintiff’s debt; and proof evidence
of the character or other contents of
these deeds is inadmissible; the deeds
themselves must be introduced or ac
counted for. 2. When such a deed is
introduced, its consideration may be at
tacked by parol and though purporting
to be valuable, it may be proven to be
purely voluntary. An insolvent
debtor cannot make a legal voluntary
conveyance of lands so as to defeat ex
isting debts, and section 2662 of the
Code is appreciable to such a case; nor
does it matter with what intent the
deed be made, the debtor must bo just
before he cau be generous; he must pay
what he owes before he can give away.
Yet whether he be insolvent or not
is a question for the jury, and that
questiou being in dispute and
dependant on the facts proven,
it is error in the Court to charge
that “no debtor in the condition of
Primrose could make such a gift of his
property.” 4. An accommodation en
dorser becomes a debtor at the time he
puts his name ou the note, and not from
the time that the note matures; and if in
this case he made the deed of gift to his
wife after the endorsement, and then
owed more than he owned, he was in
solvent; and the deed to his wife, if vol
untary, was injurious to the holder of
the note and void against him as an ex
isting creditor. H. Clay Foster, for
plaintiff in error. Barnes & Cummiug,
contra.
James L. Tarpley, et al. vs R. L. Mc-
Whorter. Equity, from Greene.
Jackson, J.
1. Prior to January 1, 1863, when the
Code went into effect, a guardian had
the legal authority to Loan the funds of
his ward to solvent persons, and under
the act of April 18, 1863, he could right
fully receive Confederate interest bear
ing notes in payment thereof. 2. Un
der the act of December 11, 1862, a
guardian had power to appoint an agent
to aot for him in his absence in the Con
federate army, and any act of the agent
within the scope of his authority would
be as valid as that of the guardian.
3. Where all the parties to the pay
ment of notes b longing to the ward
well knew that the notes belonged to the
ward and that the title to the notes was
in the absent guardian, legal possession
alone of the notes is not conclusive of
the agency of the holder of them, so as to
discharge the makers and relieve the
guardian of liability. 4. The guardian,
in a contest between the heirs of a lu
natio and himself touching his adminis
tration of the ward’s estate, is a compe
tent witness, the heirs being in life and
also witnesses in the case. Judgment
reversed. A. G. &F. C. Foster, J. A.
Billups, for plaintiffs iu error. Reese &
Reese and P. B. Robinson, contra.
.WL SPENCER’S MURDER.
HIS LIFB AND FAMILY HIBTORY.
Interesting Reminiscences of the Murdered
Man—The Hon ot President Tyler’s Secre
tary of War—His Brother Hanged at the
Yard-Arm of a Brig in 1842.
[From, the St. Louis Republican, April 21<.]
Our Jefferson City dispatches contained
an account of the murder, at Linn, Mo.,
last Tuesday morning, of Col. Spencer, by
W. L. Jeffries, of Texas. The Spencer re
ferred to is Ambrose C. Spencer, son of
John C. Spencer, a former Secretary of War,
and grandson of Judge Ambrose Spencer,
an eminent jurist of the State of New York.
Mr. Spencer came to St. Louis about two
years ago, and calling on Hon. Thomas
Allen, President of the Iron Mountain Rail
road, represented that he was in impoverish
ed circumstances, and was pushed to pay
board for himself and family. As Mr.
Allen had been a particular friend of his
father, and had helped him to obtain an im
portant official position, he now came in his
distress on the score of former friendship
between his father and Mr. Allen to implore
assistance. Mr. Allen examined his letters
and papers, and ascertained that he was
what he purported to be. Spencer stated that
he once had been in good circumstances. He
had owned a plantation in the South, but
had been entirely broken up and impoverish
ed by the war. He was a scholar versed
in the classics, and had studied law. Mr.
Allen gave him a position as tally clerk in
the freight office at the Plum street Depot,
with a salary of $25 per month. He asked
at times to be promoted to some better pay
ing position, and at length threw up his
situation and took to the ■ practice of law,
but afterward left the city. The account of his
being shot at Linn was the first intimation
Mr. Allen had of his whereabouts, Mr.
Allen supposed while Spencer was her that
he had a wife, but he knew nothing and
never inquired about his domstic affairs.
John C. Spencer, the father of the mur
dered man, was not Secretary of the Navy
under President Pierce, as stated, but Secre
tary of War under Tyler. His son, who
was a brother of Ambrose C. Spencer, was
not hung by Oapt. Wilkes, the distinguished
commander of the Southern Exploring Ex
pedition. Young Spencer was a midship
man on board the United States brig Somers,
commanded by Commodore Alexander
Slidell Mackenzie, and he, together with
Cromwell and Small, were hanged at the
yard-arm of the brig by order of Mackenzie
on suspicion of being engaged in a conspi
racy to mutiny, murder the captain and
officers, and to sail to the Isle of Pines, in
the West Indies, to join the pirates in a
buccaneering cruise. This occurred in No
vember, 1842. The brig arrived at New
York with twelve men in irons, and stood
off the harbor two days. The commander
sent a messenger to Washington with his
version of the affair to the Secretay of the
Navy, and the publication was first made in
the official paper. The public was astounded
at the intelligence of the mutiny, and excit
ed to admiration by the energy with which
the commander suppressed it by hanging the
ringleaders—Spencer, Cromwell and Small.
Commodore Mackenzie landed in New York
with his crew and went in solemil
procession to the church, where thanks to
God was offered up for the great deliverance.
But John C. Spencer, father of one of the
executed mutineers, and then Secretary of
War, published to the country an entirely
different version of the affair, characterizing
the act of Mackenzie as cowardly and un
necessary. Through his influence Mackenzie
was tried by a naval court martial at
Brooklyn, but was acquitted. An effort
was made to indict him before the United
States District Court, which failed. Public
opinion in the matter changed, however, and
the alleged mutiny on a ship manned by 120
persons, 95 of whom were mere apprentices,
was received as the romance of a boy who
had been reading piratical stories.
Mackenzie, besides being a distinguished
naval officer, was a man of literary note.
He was the author of “A Year \n Spain by
an American,” “Spain Revisited,” and also
of a “Life of Pan) Jones.” Some four or
five years after this he was killed by a fall
frqm'a horse ait his country place near New
York, and among other fatalities the brig
Somers, with all on board, was founderei
on tho ocean, The distinguished Indian
fighter, Colonel R. 8. Mackenzie, now in
command at Fort Sill, is a son of the Com
modore. The service rendered by Mr. Allen
to John Spencer, alluded to by the son of
the latter, was of an important political
character. After the death of General Har
rison, Tyler retained the Cabinet officers
selected by the former. The veto of the
United States bank and other flsoal hills
caused a flare up in the Cabinet, which re
sulted in the resignation of all the Secretaries
except Daniel Webster, The Whig party
was furjoua Tyler was puzzled to recon
struct his Cabinet. Himself, Webster, John
Quincy Adams and Mr. Allen agreed that
in the storm that was prevailing the Cabinet
should be a unit. One day President Tyler
met Mr. Allen, who was then editor at the
Madisonian, the Whig organ, and accosting
him, said; “Mr. Allen, I want you to name
for me a Secretary of War—one who is
competent, effloient, anti who will give
unity to my Administration.” Mr. Allen
became satisfied that the President was in
earnest in his request, and told the latter he
would comply with his wishes in this re
sppect. Mr. Allen cast about to make the
selection, and bethinking himself that Mr.
Spencer was about the kind of man needed,
and that he was withal drifting with the
.leading Whigs in opposition to Tyteft im
mediately at fiowm and addressing a letter
to Air. Spencer, asked him if he wotfid ac
cent' tffe post of Secretary of War if tender
ed by the President, as he assured him would
be done in case he expressed willingness to
accept. Mr. Spencer, being then in Albany,
took the next boat for New York, and call
ing on Daniel Webster, at the Astor .House,
showed him the letter from Mr. Allen, and
asked his advice in the matter. Mr. Webs
ter urged him to accept the place. Mr.
Spencer forthwith posted to Washington,
called on Mr. Alien, and the latter went
with him to the President, and the result
was that he received the appointment of
Secretary of War. And this w;as the favor
which Sir. Allen did for the father of the
Mr. Spencer who had called on him for as
sistance and who was shot down the other
morning at Lion.
Circumstances of the Murder,
[From the Chamois (Mo.) leader, dprii 20.]
Our usually quiet little town was tfie scene
of a most 1 atrocious and bloody tragedy
which transpired op Alohday morning of this
week a little gfter fi o’cJqck, and which sent
a thrifi of horror and dismay through the
entire community. Early bn that morning a
stranger, by the name of J. W. Jeffries, a
railroad employee,and lately residing in Mar
shall, Texas, arrived ip town, mid made in*
qnlries for CoJ. Speqcer and family. Haying
received tfie ueefessary directions, he pro
ceeded at once tq the residence of Cant.
George W- Ropkips, who resides a short <fis
tanpe frojp town, and had a private interview
With Mrs. Spencer. From the conversation
had daring this visit, it appears that the
stranger claimed Mrs, Spencer as his lawful
Wife and her little boy as bis child, and in.
sisted that they should leave Spencer imme
diately and go off with him. His request
haing refused, he retraced his steps to town.
But a short time afterward. Col. Spencer
came into town, calling at Mr. Thompson’s
saddlery establishment, where he engaged in
a conversation with several gentlemqj.
While thus talking, the door was suddenly
opened, the stranger appearing at tna en
trance with a revolver in his hand, pointing
at Col. Spencer, and saying in a (pud ana
commanding voice: “Where is my wife, Col.
Spencer?” The Colonel had hardly time to
stammer: “ Who are you ? What do you
mean?” when the stranger fired three shots.at
him in rapid succession,none of them taking
effect. By this time the Colonel had succeeded
in reaching the street, but the stranger being
close to his heels, fired a fourth time, hitting
his mark and laying the fleeing man prostrate
When we arrived at the scene of the tragedy
we beheld Jeffries standing in the street with
the revolver in his hand. Pointing at his vic
tim and addressing himself to the crowd, he
exclaimed: “Gentlemen, that is the man who
has abducted my wife and stolen my boy,”
and turning to the Sheriff, he said: “Sir, I
am your prisoner; take this pistol, I have no
further use for it.” While the Sheriff took
his man to the jail the citizens crowed around
the wounded man, and a moment’s examina
tion discovered a ghastly wound in his head.
He was removed to one of the lower rooms
of the Court House, and medical aid provi
ded instantly, but a brief examination reveal
ed to the experienced eyes of the physician
that the wound was mortal, aud that he
could not live. He lingered until 8 o’clock p.
M.,when death relieved him from his suffer
ing. We saw Jeffries in his cell ou the same
evening,and found him to be a man of aver
age statue,well dressed, and of good appear
ance. He weare a light moustache and goa
tee, and his hair of the same color. His eyes
are gray, and his face is striking, or rather
peculiar, aud shows much independence of
spirit. Judging from his letters, written to
some attorney in this town, he must be a
very sensitive man, who loved his wife and
child almost with idolatry.
The Buffalo Courier says : Trustworthy
statements that have been received in this
city from the scene of the tragedy entirely
relieve the memory of the murdered man
from this stain, and it is perhaps only just
that they should have publication in this
State, from which he bore away an honored
name. From a letter written by a respectable
resident of the place where Mr. Spencer lived,
we are permitted to make the following ex
tract: In the matter for which he (Col. Spen
cer) was killed, after as thorough an examin
ation as it is possible for me to make with
the means at my command, I am entirely
satisfied that both he and his wife were
wholly blameless. The murderer had indeed
been married to Mi's. Spencer, but he married
her under an assumed name, and had at the
time another wife living. He did not hesitate
to desert her and live with other women; he
frequently cruelly deceived her and refused
to have anything to do with her. Years be
fore she knew Colonel Spencer they had
finally and irrevocably parted. When she was
about to be engaged to Col. S. she told him
the whole story, and wanted him to inform
her if a divorce from her former pseudo hus
band was necessary, and Col. S. told her no.
She sought other legal advice and received
the same answer. When the man again thurst
himself into her presence, she went to the
lawyer he had himself consulted and asked
whether she should obtain a divorce and re
marry Spencer, and was by him told not to
do so. She threatened to have the man arrest
ed and he ceased his persecutions and pro
mised never to worry her again. “The next
time she saw him was when, with his
lawyer, he stepped into her room, attempted
to force her go with him, and having failed,
went from her presence to kill her husband,
whom he had never seen, but whom he
hated because she had made him happy by
her love. I send you some newspaper ex
tracts containing accounts of the murder,
which are false in some important particulars
and which all emanate from one source, viz.:
the lawyers whom the man has employed to
defend him.” The fourthcoming trial of
Mr. Spencer’s murderer will doubtless throw
some light on what seems to have a most
cold blooded and unprovoked assassination.
THE TROUBLE AT BETHANY.
Bethany, May 3d, 1876.
Editors Chronicle and Sentinel :
I notice in your “State News” items
of your issue to day a short item, giving
an account of a difficulty that ooourred
at Wadley, a week a£o last night, be
tween H. A. McLeod and my son, L. R.
Battle, that does the latter suoh gross
injustice that I am ooustrained to ask
you and all other papers that have pub
lished it to correct it in accordance with
the facts. I know full well you publish
ed it as told you, without the least in
tention on your part of doing *injustioe
to any one. Mr. McLeod was the assail
ant. and gave Laa a blow over the head
with a stick, whioh he vory promptly re
sented by giving him the best fight he
had with him. It is not true that he
was discharged. He was asked by Mc-
Leod to release him from his contraot,
as the times were so hard. The diffi
culty had nothing to do with his leaving
McLeod’s. It happened at McLeod’s,
at night, and he did not call him out
and begin firing on him. He has not
fled from justice, but is easily accessible
and will appear when the proper time ar
rives. Very truly, &c.,
H. L. Battle.
AFFAIRS IN OREENE COUNTY.
Greene County, Ga., May 4, 1876.
Editors Chronicle and Sentinel:
Your subscriber avails himself of your
invitation to say a few things of general
interest to your numerous readers as
they exist in Old Greene, not purposing
to write a'long and worded letter, but a
brief and pointed one. The area of cot
ton planted in this section is somewhat
less than last year. Corn and wheat
area about the same. Oats a consider
able inorease, and much improved va
riety sown. Cotton has been about all
planted, and iu som9 places is peeping
at old Sol. Corn and wheat is doing
very well, though there is some little
complaint of rust in the latter. Oats are
doing their best, having had a good
season the past two days, whioh will
doubtless be of great beuefit to that
most important crop. From the lights be
fore me I am of the opinion that fully
as muoh fertilizers has been used iu
this section as last year, if not more.
Politically, we want a good man nomi
nated for Governor—one who is not so
anxious to step up; and we -believe, yes,
hope that such a mau will yet be nomi
nated. Suoh being the oase, let me
think who it might be. I think of
Judge Augustus Reese, of Morgan.
Will Reese do ? Echo, yes; a unani
mous yes from the people of Green®
and all who know the abilities and good
ness of the man.
This people want Judge Reese for
Governor, Judge King as President and
Coionel Johnson as Superintendent of
the Georgia’Rail road, and more money.
Greene.
THE ANTI-CHINESE MOVEMENT.
Meeting in Ban Francisco—The Outrage at
Antioch Appro veil—Warlike Information—
Ah Sin in a Bad Box.
San Fbanoisoo, May 4—The Sonth
San Francisco anti-Ooolie Club and
Young Men’s Universal Reform Society
hold meetings last night and passed
resolutions endorsing the destruction of
the Chinose quarter in the town of An
tioch, and advooating a similar course
in this city unless the Federal Govern
ment should take immediate steps to
abate the evil of Chinese immigration.
Highly incendiary speeches were made
and letters were read from societies in
the interior of the State, seeking the co
operation of the San Franeiseo anti-Ooolie
organizations. The Sergent-at-Arms of
the Young Men’s Universal Reform So
ciety said he hud received a telegram
from New York saying 2,600 stand of
arms could be delivered here at ten
days’ notice. While suoh talk and ao
tion are universally reprobated by the
great mass of thinking people in this
city, there oan be no doubt that it meets
the approval of a large and dangerous
class of the community, and that in the
event of no aotion baing taken in the
matter by theGeneralGovernment there
is grave reasons to fear serious disturb
ances here at no distant day.
The State Senate Commission is (in
session at Saoramento on the Chinese
question. O’Neil, polioeman, testified
to selling Chinese women for $450, who
laughed at the idea of becoming Chris
tians. A Chinese interpreter testified
that two Chinese were killed for testify
ing in a Court, and a reward was out for
the life of the witness. Counsel, if ar
rested, recompense for imprisonment
and money for relatives at home, if ex
ecuted, ia the reward offered the assas
sins. District-Attorney Jones gave evi
dence how the Chinese compromise
felonies, abduct women and about other
practices.
JupiTia—Tho great planet Jupiter,
now in the constellation of Scorpio, will
arrive at its perigee or nearness to the
earth on May 17th, when it will shine
with a luminosity almost equal to that
of Venus, which is just about passing
her greatest elongation. In size Jupiter
is ten times that of Venus, being 80,000
miles in diameter, while Venus is a
little over 8,500 miles. Venus appears
much larger and brighter, but this is
beoause she ia so much nearer the earth
than Jupiter. Yenus’ maximum dis
tances is 65,000 miles, while that of
Jupiter is over 400,000,000 miles. Ju
piter will appear to fall baok for the
next two or three months. This is
caused by the earth in her orbit passing
him. It requires 365 days for the earth
to perform ner orbital revolution, while
it takes Jnpiter 12 years. Venus will
reach her perigee on the 7th of June,
when aha will he an object worth gazing
at. The little ruddy planet Mars, which
shone so brilliantly last year, will barely
be visible this year. It takes him two
years to make bis oirouit. The smallest
bi the planets, Mercury, will be bright
est on the 11th of Jnly, rising shortly
before the snn. This planet is so near
the sun that it is seldom seen. The
great astronomer Copernicus, who lived
to the ripe old age of 70 years, never
saw Meronry.
There are a number of vieions ear dogs
ia the city, which do not add to its rev
enue 9? beauty.
