Newspaper Page Text
To the People of Georgia.
The Spirit of 11 'ashnigton lives in the Con
stitution of his Country.—Let it speak to,
mankind for ail time to come!—lt speaks
the voice or liberty. - As grateful lovers if
Freedom, let us heed that voice.
The Georgia Citizen, andaUiitcui,ar
headed—“ Judge Andrew's Decision—
Marcus A. Bell—Read, uow circulating
throughout the laud misrepresenting my
Address to the people of Georgia, publish
ed in the Examiner of 7th July, being
calculated to slander my reputation and
mislead the unsuspecting 'voters of the
State, elicits this my vindication evoked
by a decent self-respect, enlisted on the
part of the public good demanding their
exposure.
Claiming no higher authority to be
heard in this behalf, than the right be
longing to every American Freeman,
whose duty commands the exercise ot his
best influence against error in whatever
form it assail the progress of Truth, the
restraining sense ol diffidence is foregone in
the hope that in the sequel up excuse will be
found for the necessity which connects my
name so prominently with this appeal to
your kindlier sentiments and feelings ol
patriotism.
In a crisis like that which now pervades
the moral world, it behooves every lover ;
of liberty, however humble, to be awake )
to the gentler impulse of the age—guard
ing with watchful care the inestimable
boon of freedom from the assaults of mad
ness, by giving vigorous moral tone to
public sentiment. Thus, would 1 speak '
—not alone for my own vindication, but [
with the spirit of that impulse glowing in ;
the duty to my own honor discharging the
nobler obligation due to my country.
The corner stone of the Temple oi
Libtrty is Justice. Honor throws
around the beautiful fabric the golden
shield of protection : its proud proportions
are marked in graceful outlines by Wis
dom and Moderation; while virtue and
truth is the day-star that “pauses o’er’’
the scene 1
Whenever these great principles shall
be disregarded by a people, tyranny will
hold its dreadful sway.
It is said that “Truth is mighty and
will prevail,” and the saying is true : for
truth is eternal,—tcrushed to earth, it
will rise again in its majesty ! Yet, that
is no just reason why we should stand care
lessly by, and sec the proud Eagle of our
Liberty assailed and mangled. The true
philanthropist and patriot will never suffer
the flag of his country to trail in the dust
to be redeemed from a despotism imposed
upon future generations.
I hope I speak not the language of en
thusiasm, but “the words of soberness and
truth.” Zeal is not, patriotism.
Wisdom is the light qf reason. By this
light let us be guided in tho path of expe
rience.
The history of the past and present,
warns us against the “first dawning” of
religious intolerance. Its reign is terror!
Its food is blood. It has drunk more
blood than famine and pestilence,—it lives
upon the life-blood of the million ! Na
tions and Empires tremble at its touch,
and sink in ruins beneath its iron tread.
It has despoiled tho Garden of Eden
laid waste tho sacred hearthstone, withered
the flowers of hope, of love, and of joy,
and drenched the earth with human gore!
Our government may pass through the
fiery ordeal of every other contest, and rise
in triumph, but it cannot withstand the
raging violence of religious hate inflamed
to madness. The pension even now tires
the puplie mind. Let it bo checked and
softened into an emotion— let that emo
tion subside into the gentler sentiment of
charity and brotherly love ! for if aroused
to fury, it will burn unto “the lowest hell,’’
kindling a flame that shall consume to
ashes, wen the fair Temple of our Liberty!
Shall this proud land—the birth-place
of religious freedom—ever become the
theatre of religious war—-husband against
wife, father against son, brother against
brother, and friend against friend in bitter
strife and deadly conflict over the hallowed
grave of the father of his country! May
the fond memory of Washington, forever
forbid it. Such, fellow citizens, arc the
high sentiments rising in ambition against
the promotion of such a man as Garnett
Andrews to the Chair of State. Such
were the sentiments which influenced the
warmth of feeling in my address express
ing the hope that “future generations
.might forget that the incubus of his name
ever darkened the sky of American Lib
erty.”
Malice has been imputed to my motives.
The charge is untrue. It is not because
I hate Garnett Andrews, that I war
against him, the Editor of the Georgia
Citizen and the author of the Circular.
1 have no ill-will toward either. Such
sentiment is forever discldEed. When
ever occasion arise for forgWeness, for aid
and sympathy, for relief from distress or
woe, this heart shall ever throb with the
gentlest emotions of brotherly love toward
friend or foe, and this right hand be ex
tended in kindness to relieve. It is not
because I desire to disparage these non,
but because I love mankind the more.
Having, ns I hope, in the name of pa
triotism, premised the foregoing injustice I
to my motives, impressed with these high
sentiments it is hoped that while your
judgments shall approve, your hearts will
respond to this appeal. 1 make no ap
peal to the passions of parties, but to your
philantropy as patriots ; and while error
may receive a wound and be aggrieved,
may it not be hoped that her discomfiture
shall share the sympathies of that charity
which sooths the pangs inflicted by the
triumphs of virtue.
I'irst— The Georgia Ci tizen.
The Editor of this paper unjustly calls
me a liar simply for telling the truth—
charging that I made a position for him
and Disced him upon it.
Sometime before the irregular nomina
nation of Garnett Andrews, he was an
nounced by Dr Andrews as “The most
acceptable candidate that ‘Sam' can ofl.-i
to the hopes and indies of his friends
Fourteen years ago Dr Andrews bitter
ly denounced J udge Andrews and a de
vision he then made rejecting the oaths ot
two respectable I niversalists no rth, .■«
account of their religious principlts, de
nouncing his decision as ••tiu/<<sf,
stitutionai and absurd.”
For thus “currying favor” with such
a character, Rev. John C- Burrus rebuked,
somewhat severely, his unmanly position,
which called forth the spleen of the Dr.
iu his paper of 30th June, in which he
stated that from a cartful examination eg
the circumstances ,s■<•., he felt bound to s.y
dial he brio red in making the. decision
Judy, Andrew* acted conscientiously and
consistently with his oath as ,/iuige of the
Court. Knowing that Hr. Andrews had
occupied different ground, and exercised
different Avpoaud icuLw, sentiments, feel-
ings and sympathies, and as a public
-1 journalist had proved recreant to the cause
Qof Humanity, feeling a deep and abiding
, ■ interest in the momentous questions ot
'■(the day, 1 felt, in duty bound to lift my
; voice against the endorsement by him ot
, I such a man as Garnett Andrews for our
! Governor, and hence my address to the
,) people of Georgia.
■ la noticing this address in his paper of
114th July, in reply to my “reprehension 1 '
' J of his course in regard to Judge Andrews,
[ he remarked that “Lie is the only answer
1 deserved,’, adding—in the very teeth
of what he stated as above shown —these
words: We never have defended
Judge Andrew’s decision against the
Universalists, per se, or in itself
considered. On the contrary webe
l.IEVE IT WAS ERRONEOUS, AnTI-REPUB
LICAN, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST
TO THE CLASS DESIGNATED, AND STILL So |
BELIEVE.
Feeling conscious of having done Dr.
Andrews no injustice, and desiring to be
relieved from this unjust imputation by
submitting my address itself to his leaders,
I addressed him the following:
Atlanta, Ga., July 15th, 1855.
Mr. Editor: In response to my address
to the people of Georgia, you state that,
[ “lie is really the only answer I deserve.”
j Now, sir, iansmuch as you have the )
“charity” thus to impugn my veraetty, 1 j
demand, in the name of justice, an inser
tion of that address in the Citizen, that
its readers may be apprised of the facts of i
the case
; If I have misrepresented you, 1 desire I
J to know it, and in what particular; and if I
I so convinced, would most cheerfully ask [
forgiveness for having done an uninten-1
tional wrong. If on the other hand, you
have been provoked from the awkward
positions you have gotten into, to “villify”
me unjustly, I hope you will have a like
charity to beg pardon.
Tn the article of yours (of 30t.1i June)|
which was attacked by said address, you [
state, that AT THE TIME the decision
was made you took up your pen in oppo
sition thereto as unjust, unconstitutional,
and absurd”—-adding that you then felt
bound to say—from a careful exami
nation of the circumstances, d' e , that
you believed Judge Andrews in making
his decision acted conscientiously and I
CONSISTENTLY with his oath as Judge ■
of the Court.
After reading my denunciation of your
present support of Andrews, who made I
this decision, you now say that you never [
defended Judge Andrew’s decision against
the Universalists, ;rer se; but that on the
contrary you believe it was E RRONEG I IS,
ANTI-REPIIBLICAN IINCONSTITU
TION AL and unjust to the class designa
ted, and still so bebieve.
I have presented these large capitals for
the purpose of throwing some light on your
unhappy predicament- If you refuse to
publish the address, together with this
communication, please return this to me
soon, for I shall have a special use for it.
Yours for truth and justice,
MARCUS A. BELL
This communication, together with the
address, he refused to publish, but flarred
into the eyes of the public a tirade of abuse
and ridicule; quoting from the Address a
garbled extract, and insolently says “More
bombast than ballast, Counsellor Bell!”
Neglecting to re burn me the commu
nication as requested, 1 wrote Dr. An
drews again specially on the subject, when,
it was returned.
Notwithstanding all the above mention
ed positions of Dr. Andrews, first, that the
decision was “unconstitutional unjust
and absurd,” being once against Judge
Andrews, and then for him, contending
that yriwi a careful examination he be
lieved ho acted consistently with his
oath, and then condemning the decision
as erroneous, unconstitutional, anti-repub
lican and unjust,” he falls back again and
says in his paper of 28 July, that Judge
Andrew’s written decision itself is con
clusive proof that he was actuated by con
scientious and upright motives in making
it, and goes far to modify his previous
opinion of its injustice and illegality ; that
under the circumstances he thinks “Judge
Andrews would have been corrupt to have
decided differently.”
1 wish not to indulge iu uncharitable
reflections, but judging from the conduct
of Dr. Andrews, it seems that Justice
might justly charge him with a want of
sincerity, at least, in the various aspects
he lias assumed in shaping himself for
public favor. Here are some of
The rosrrioNs Dr. Andrews have made for
himself.
1. J udge Andrew’s decision adverse to
receiving the testimony of a Universalist,
is unjust unconstitutional, and absurd :
Dr. Andrews, 1841.
2. Judge Andrews is an upright and
incorruptiple Judge, and a man of great
practical experience. 1 think he is
the most acceptible candidate for Gover
nor which “Sam” can offer to the hopes
and wishes Os his Friends : Dr Andrews,
June, 1855.
3 From a carefi i. examination, 1 feel
bound to say I believe iu making his de
cision Judge Andrews acted conscientious
ly and consistently with his oath; Dr.
I Andrews, June 30th, 1855.
4. 1 liave never defended Judge An
drew’s decision, iu itself considered On
the contrary, 1 believe it was erroneous
unconstitutional, anti-republican’ and un
just to the class designated, and still so
believe : Dr. Andrews, Inly 14th, 1855.
5. Mr. Bell has villitied me, and mis
represented my position on the subject of
the Andrew's decision. He. has •made’ a
‘position' for me and placed me upon it.
Lie is the only-answer he deserves: Dr..
Andrews, July 14, 1855.
6. My previous opinion of the injustice
[ and illegality ot the decision is‘modified’ 1
j now' think Judge Audrews would have
: been corrupt, to have decided differently :
I Dr. Andrews, July 28th, 1855.
Propriety here suggests the following
| UEOCI ITOS FROM TUK HISTORY OF DR. ANDREWS I
' 7. lam a Minister of the Gospel.
• “l- eed my sheep Dr. Andrews, 1841.
8. L am ex-Minister of the Gospel and
the sheep may goto the—Halifax.—Dr.
! Andrews, 1855.
9. Democracy is a part of my religion,
i Dr. Andrews, 1841.
10. My Democracy has been mttdjfu
| iny for years, and 1 am n„w out of the
; dry rot concern.—Dr. Andrews 1555.
H I am a Temperance man. My
; voice is lilted in behalf of suffering wo
,! men and children. “Wine is a mocker,
. strgng drink is raging, and whosoever is
deceived thereby is not wise. " Hr. An
drews, 1851.
12. lam an ex-Temperanee man. The
women and children have my private
[ sympathies, but 1 would rather fill my
u columns with shw/and abuse, than suffer
. I them to enlighten the public mind on the
evils of dram shops, because t his uogi.l
[ diminish our vote, and shorten my list oi
I subscribers; so the women and children
are informed that my voice is noir hushed
on that subject,and they may go where
the sheep went.—Dr. Andrews 1855.
1.3. laiu a Cunslitulioioil I num man
Dr. Andrews, 185(1
14. 1 atu noic a Kninc-Aiuthtny, and
were 1 promoted to any office conferring
on me the power to do so, I would turn
out of office any Catholic simply nn ac
count of bis reliyum, though 1 might be ite
der the Const itutiunal oath nor to make auy
■religioustest a qualification to any of
fice. His re/i'i/iori would be/7ie ft-.W, for,
however trustworthy, experienced and
useful, his religion would be the reason
why I would not allow him to remain iu
office under me. If this be against the
letter or spirit of the Constitution, my
\ plcj/gcd, sat-retl honor forever forbids me
■ being a Conslifutioual Union man. lam
a Know Nothing, to all intents anil pur
poses, for the present!
Such, fellow citizens, in effect, has been
Dr. Andrews, the editor of the Georgia
Citizen! Such is the man who is claim
ing to be foremost in proposing Garnett
Andrews for our Governor, and zealous to
give chamcternnd importance to the new
Party! Has this Party much cause to
ibe proud of his affiliation■'! I indulge not
the spirit of revenge-—justice propounds
| the qustion, while even charity suspects
j her hope for better things. If the histo
i ry of the man condemns him then have 1
I not offended.
In order to give this Address a fairrep
' resentation along with any reply Dr. An
' drews may wish to make, its publication !
iin the Georgia Citizen is respectfully re- |
quested.
Before proceeding to reply to the circu
lar which defends tire Andrews decision,
in order to a clear conception of the sub
jeet, let us first see what is the religious
belief of the Universalists, and whether
they ouyht to be proscribed.
UNIVERSALISM.
1. The Universalists believe in One ( rod,
the Creator of the Universe—a God of
Love, of Infinite Wisdom, Justice and
Power.
2. That the Bible is the revealed will
of God.
3. That the will of God is the final
happiness of all Mankind iu Heaven.
4. 'That God will do ail his good will
and pleasure.
5. That man is good by nature —bad by
transgression, false education, and vicious
influences.
6. 'That belief is influenced by educa
tion and circumstances, and not due to
controling volition ; and hence, avc ought
not to be unkind towards our fellow man
for differences of opinion, but be tenderly
disposed towards the sentiments and feel
ings of others in Brotherly Love.
7. That true repentance is reformation.
That sin and misery are inseparably con
nected ; and vice .versa, virtue and true
happiness. That this holds true in regard
to individuals, as such, and as members
of families, society, or government; and
therefore, in all the relations of life, we
should conform to the rule of right from a
high sense of duty to Him in whom we
live and move and haveour being, to our
selves and to our neighbors. That
“Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin
is a reproach to any people.”
8. Difference of opinion obtains in re
gard to the extent of punishment; some
beleiving that retribution is entirely con
fined to the present state of existence,
while others admit the probability of
limited punishment in the world to
come.
9. All, howeA'er, believing, that all di
vine punishment is reformatory in its char
acter; that endless misery would be a ffix
cd destiny of irretrievable tcoe ; and could
not therefore have been conceived and or
dained’as a punishment by a God of In
finite Justice, Goodness, Wisdom, and
Power. It is Dejected because it impcach
es the goodness and justice of God. Sin
will be punished according to its demerit,
in view of the infinite God, and the imbe
cile creature man; and that God in bis
own good time, in fulfilment of his own
Great purpose, will reconcile all things
unto himself—raise the Human Family to
Holiness and happiness, and crown his
perfect work with immortal joys.
10. That in view of this glorious hope
we should be inspired with adoration to
God, our Heavenly Father, and as mem
bers of the great brotherhood of mankind
be kindly and charitably disposed towards
each other—doing good to one another as
tho most acceptable service we can render
to God, —
it vr i it iJ j
11. Not to “escape” ‘deserved' tor
ment in the world t* come, but acting al- [
ways upon the high principles of Justice,
a sense of duty, brotherly love, and a mag
nanimity of soul—reaping the reward in
the noble deed !
Here allow me to add, in response to
the charge that Judge Andrews’ decision
is attacked by “an avowed Infidel,/ that
I heartily approve and cherish the morn!
sentiments ami hopes above set forth.
• • • “The first Almighty cause
Acts not by partial but by general laws."
* • “Know then thyself, presume not God to
scan !
The proper study of mankind is man.”
If a man from the candor of his soul [
speak out his real sentiments from a con
scientious regard he has to truth, even I
though it be at the sacrifice of friend,;
popularity favor or interest, is he not en I
titled to a hearing and to credit ? Is not
his opinion worthy great consideration
for its intrinsic value— sincerity? Is not
sincerity a great virtue ? Can he be insin
cere who expresses his convictions at. such
sacrifices ? What room is left in such a
ease for sycophancy, deception or oppress
ion ? Is not a character of that kind less !
likely to speak falsely than he who seeks ;
the popular favor ?
If a man will boldly and fearlessly speak )
, what he deems to be truth at his own sae-)
| nfiee, is it reasonable that he will stoop to i
corruption to favor third Parties and stain •
[ the honor he would almost sacrifice lite to i
; preserve from the pollution of hypocrisy ? [
From the manner iu which my friend uses '
the wordjg-rjwry, as will be hereafter seen j
one night infer that he would rather sus
pect tho oath of an infidel or Universal-)
-The iearn hell s the hangman s whip.
Toh&ud the wretch in order;
But where you feel yourhonor grip.
Let that, aye, be your border :
its slightest touches instant pause.
Debar a’ side pretences ;
Anti resolutely keep its laws.
I ucarring consequence*."
-THE CIRCULAR’*—“DECISION*’
First Quotation : “Mr. Bell says it i
is well known that Judge Andrews is the ]
Judge who excluded two respectable Uni- j
i ver.ali-’t' irotu ih-ir o.il'isin n Comt tt-.a i
i wliii-5 tie piooh-d, Ml.i-.i-:t.» on aocoux'i
I>r thi-..it i:i.i.o-i-.h - . ihn-’-it-i.i-'s « d.-oy
jtlial •lud-'t: '.iniiews , »>-r made .niy such
; a di-e.iai.ui. ami lelc;-to tile deei«ion lie !•!•»
I uiuke below, to prove wlt.ii. I say.
j Mom . lot its ..;n-i T. his ..l ilti-n I. >.-r -
lion appi-uded toiitc ctiTubu-. and see what
a p etext-thi.- is. Judge Andrews re
marks . ■ The Uoiut h,id, it dtd out
exclude to. witne. .-cs qn the g.-..ui.G o:
their being Uiovi-r-.diai.s. b-.»t on ilo.-j<ri:i
cipl-.- of Hi.- -. -iMeii law th.-t makes (he.
belief in .’ 11 ia nF r> l i or ItEV. YIID and
ri Nisii.Mi'.xt theiesl as to the eoiupeteney
of u wil ness objected to on rhe ground ol
religious beliei.’
I This quibble does not merit a serious
[answer. It reminds me ol the obi ”ta>m
luon law” tesi- oi aWi i cH. Tile a. cils
ed was cast into a river or pond ol cold
water ; anil if she sunk she was aeqiliited:
but if she floated without any action oi
swimming, she was hung. Bltickslone.
calls this, “Drowning them toprove their:
iinioeciice.” They were liiitui —mot be-.
eau.se they were WitcHF.s, but lii-<-..u-m ■
they happened to h.oat !
! Second Qi.o-i-.’.tion : “Mr. Bell asks
under the Constiiutii.m and laws of this
[ State, in absence of any statutory provis
ion, would you deny the oath ot a Baptist, -
Methodist, Uuivesalist. Catholic or idpis
coplain ? i would, not because ol his re -‘
ligious belief, unless he believed like this
rejected witness did, that there was no pun-:
isiimeut for perjury in the world to ■
come Ido not know of any denomina- j
tion of Christians, except the Universal-[
its, who do not believe in a future state,
lof punishment, for crime, in a world to !
| come.”
Thisgitra tremendously against the sub- j
sequent assertion that Judge Andrews)
held that a belief in a future slate, of r?-:
ward and punishment, even iu this life ;
was sufficient test; but harmonizes beau- >
tifully with Judge Andrew's decision, and i
his law quoted to sustain it. His first)
law quoted asserts, that belief iu punish-'
ment, in this life, was not the test; that!
The proper question was whether the i
witness denied all punishment after !
this life ; and that he must believe in a I
God and a future state of reward and pun- ■
ishment, to be competent His next law i
insists on punishment “in the world to >
come; and the next of his old common i
law speaks of a future reward and pun- [
ishment. Bouviers Law Dictionary de-1
fines “A future State’’—to be “A statejof [
existence after this life;” and it is always |
so understood, unless qualified by express,
words.
Judge Andrews says, that he excluded I
the witnesses on the common law princi-j
pie that makes the belief in a future state |
of reward and punishment Hie test of com
petency; and that “it. was plainly proven
by compent testimony, that the excluded
witnesses did not believe in a state of fu
ture rewards and punishments.” Now, I
here offer a reward of one thousand dollars
for proof that it was proven plainly that
these excluded witnesses did not believe
in a “state of future rewards and punish
ments,” in this life.
Third Quotation: “Mr. Bell says,
The Legisleture of 1841, have placed the
Universalists on the same footing as all
other persons.”
This is what Dr. Andrews said, in or-;
der to raise the inference that before the •
passage of the Act. they were incompetent; j
and this is what I most distinctly denied,
stating most clearly and unequivocally,
that in passing the. Act the Legislature
had better sense than to assume that the
Universalists had been outlaws in the
State of Gergia.
The Act only speaks of any religious
opinion, in general, and no more places
Universalists on a footing with others, than
others on a footing with them. Why
j charge me with what 1 expressly denied ?
i Such misrepresentations, “wit so lit.
[ttle truth,” must have been suggest
ed by a Know-Nothing hid away insomc
dark corner witli a blind bridle on! It
must be a desperate decision that solicits
foreign inferences drawn from blind mis
representations to give plausibility to its
OUTRAGE !
Fourth Quotation : “Mr. Bell does
not pretend to blame the Legislature for
saying, in ease were witnesses are sworn,
who do not believe in a future .state of re
ward and punishment, that the jury may
j believe or disbelievesuch witnesses as they I
may think proper.”
1 n speaking of such disabilities, the Act
speaks of no class, nor assumes any thing
in regard to any class before that time, at
that time, or in the future ; and it says
not a single word about witnesses “who
do not believe in a future state of reward i
and punishment''—not a word ; audit' it
doos I will give another reward of one
• thousand dollars.
Another flimsy inference is drawn from
a presumption, that, in passing the Act
of 1816, the Legislature must have had in
mind the common law of England.—
Whatever construction may be due to this
Act iu the limited sphere in which it is
I bound to be applied, evidently it had no
i legitimate bearing upon the question be
fore the court, as did not, the old form of
an oath to which reference is had, which
is conceded; yet the spirit of foreign in
ference is thence evoked iu the face of the i
law, ami constitutions, to screen from pub-
I lie odium the hideous deformity of the de
cision. Are our civil rights secure when
[ the law of the land is thus abused and our
i constitution turned into a cold instrument i
of oppression ? When fresh facts and
plain statutes are thus misrepresented,
what confideuee can you have in their
garbled extracts from the body of thecom
m.m law :
‘•For, if they do these things in a green
tree, what shall be done iu the dry ?
; Let us see
The Common Law
• Fifth quotation : “In speaking of the ;
[decision; it is stated iu the Atlanta Ex- j
j amiucr of 7th July, that Judge Andrew ,
) was either ignorant of the law, or govern- i
)ed by n-ligious intolerance ; and in this '
i publication it is stated that Otuichund vs.
' Barker is the only ease clearly to the con-1
itrary.”
I Another thousand dollars reward is of
fered on proof of this statement!
lie commences on the common law
' with the same ignoring disposition and
i endeavors to forestall the question by
i stealing my own thunder
; Most fortunate for truth error will quail
j before investigation.
It is insist'.l that Omiclmind is. Bar
i Avr was the •■• ry com mini laic, and stood
as tin English laic from 1744 to 1823,
and that our Leyislatnr' passed an net a
dopting this very Law as the law of this
State, and that thence so the law stood in
; ) this until after the decision of Judge
j I Andrews.
■ j Judge Andrews remarks thus: Starkie
>ays, (1 Vol ctarkie's Ev. page .'o,it In-lien
it. follow-i, that ail persons may be sworn
who belli ve in the existence of God.
.in t l-trure sti!.- in' r.-wnd. and
|.<i: i-linieiits, and in tin- ol.ii r:ii ion of an
ibiit is, that divine pttnishnieut will
be the t:< nseque.rii-o of perjury.'
Jndge refers, in liisimiy, to
Phillip: old Ed vol I, p. 16. On'r ] ;IW
tfiiiiTJole, 'ike that of most othe.-civilized
; count:ies, requires a witness lo believe
th.it tiler - i- a (rial and n fiitill'e state of
n-ward ami piutisllt'ient.
; Very Mull. Now we Late a point. Judge
> Andrews says his decision is founded on
://><■ rw/onr-n .’ur; Dr. Andrews says the
■amp? the Author of the circular savs
; the Saule, and that. Oniichund vs
Barker was the very hue of Georgia, at
i the time of the Andrew's decision.
1 And it seems that he ought to he
i admitted it lie believes tn the existence
i of a God who will reward or punish him
.in this viold, although he docs not.'be-:
: licve in a future state: I vol Starkie’si
• Revised Ed. Published 1834, page 9:j.
2. All doubts on this subject have long i
; since been set at rest, and it may now be i
considered tin established rule, that not!
only Jews, but all Infidels of any country. |
believing in a God who enjoins truth and I
- punishes falsehood ought to he received as
: witnesses: 1 Phil. Ev. page 11. Revised :
! Ed. leaving-out Andrews quotation, and!
■ refers to Om. vs. B.
3 “All witnesses of whatever iMligion I
; or country, that have the use of their !
reason, ate to be received and examined)
Blackstone, English Law Commentator j
1760
4. “Thu rule as m.w settled, appears to j
he, that, as far as regards this kind of in
competency, infidels of this and all other
eounlries, who yet believe in a God the j
avenger of falsbood are admissible as wit- I
nesses :” Russel on Ur., page 970, refers I
to Omichund vs. Barker.
5. “Jews, Turks, luiidels ami Heretics,)
and indeed, to use the vulgar phraseolo
gy, “Persons of all denominations,” ex
cepting only utter A (heists [or such as
proses so to be,] may be witnesses; Omi-!
chund vs. Barker, i Atk 21; 8. C. 1!
Wils. 84. U. C. Willes 538. Greeley’s
Eq. Ev., Pagi* 65 note.
6th “It seems sufficient if be believes
in a God who will reward or punish him
in this world-," 2 Saunders, page 940,
refers to Om. vs B
7 All who believe in a God, the aven,
ger of falsehood, are admitted to give (
evidence.’ Wharton's Law Die, page
710.
8 “It may be considered as now gen-
I erally settled, in this country, that it is
I not material, whether the witness believes
! the punishment will be inflicted in this
world, or in the next. It is enough if he i
has a religious sense of accountability to I
the Omniscient Being, who is invoked j
by the oath.’
1 Note. The proper test of the compe-1
tency of a witness on the seofe of religious ■
belief was settled, upon great considera
tion, in the case of Omichund vs Barker,
Willes 545, 1 Atk. 21. 3. C., to be the
belief of a God, and that he will reward
and punish us according to our deserts.”
(See host of other authors quoted.] 1
Greenleaf, Page 468.
9 As to the degree of religious faith
; required, it is now settled, that when the
i witness believes in a God who will re
l ward or punish even in this world, he is
competent. Omichund vs Baker, Willes
545; S. U- I Atk- 21; Wakefield vs
Ross, 5 Mason, 18; 4 Phil, by Cowan &
Hill, page 1503- 3 Bouvier’s Institute,
444.
Such is the opinion of the legal world!
Andrews and his defenders stand driven
back and appalled at its enunciation. A
humorous spirit here suggests an “Old
Common. Law” case of a bullfrog in
which, two cruel boys Omichund and
Barker pelted his Frogship severely "-ith
stones, when, bleeding at every pore, he
raised his head and cried out, Otuichedund
Omichund, it may be fun foryou, and
sport for Barker, but its death to me!
Ou the first of October next instead'of
“bombast,” Judge Andrews will find in
his discomfited ranks, about eighty
thousand bursting bond, shells, when, he
will cry out like his Frogship, oil! Overby,
Overby, it may be fun for you and sport
for Johnson, but its death forme!
Let us refer now to “this wry ta w" it
! self. “Such infidels who either do not
j believe a God, or if they do, do not thiuk
that he will either reward or punish them
,n fhis world or m the. next, cannot be wit.
nesses in any case, nor under any cir
cumstances, for this plain reason, because
an oath cannot possibly be any tie or obli
! gation to them.’’ Omichund vs Barker
Willes’ Hep. 549.
This is the disqualifying test which the
objecting parly must prove against the
witness, and one thousand dollars is offer
ed for proof that this was done in the
case of Andrews decision.
Lord Coke said, “That au Alien Infi
del can be no witness.”
“If my Lord Coke had by an Infidel
ineaut a professetl Atheist, 1 should have
been of opinion that he e mid not he a
witness. Lord C. Baron, Om. vs B. I ,
Aik. page 40-
* * * Lord Coke is plainly of
opinion that Jews as well as Heathens
were comprised under the same exclus
ion” [As to Infidels.] * * * “tfiis
notion though advanced by so great a
man, is contrary to religion, common
j sense, and common humanity; and I think
the devils themselves to whom he has de-;
iivered them, could not have suggested I
any thing worse” * * * j found my i
opinion upon the certificate, which says ;
theGKNToOs believe in a God as the
creator of the Universe, and that he is a |
rewarder of those who do well, ami na
avenger of those who do ill.” Om. vs B.
Ch. J. Willes iv, page 42-3.
The garbled extract insisted on by the
) Circular —that “the witness must believe i
I iu a God, or in a future state of reward '
I and punishment, if construed as he I
! does, makes nonsense of the whole Je
; vision.
“It is ever good to rely upon the book !
! at large; for many times Compendia sunt :
j dispendia, and melius e<t petcre fontes
| quam sectari nivulos.’’
-I This case of Omichund vs. Barker was I
I• of vast importance involving not only
i "67. 955 Rupees," but a sacred principle
’ infinitely more valuable. In its investi
i j -ration, therefore, Lord Chancellor Hard-
1 wick called to hi- assistance Chief Jus-,
- -tice Willes, Chief Justice Lee, and the ;
< [ Lird Chief Baron Parker, and the opinion)
. [ announced was unanimous; and if any one
■ | doubt its having application to criminal
* i cases in reference to witnesses 1 have un
i [ questioned authority that it has
s I Now as to the excluding test found in
i this decision, the reader is referred to
: I “Smith’s Leading cases,” page 204,
11 where, aiter e..Herting folly from tfi>- de
i ; cisiim Uputi Itii.: point, the qu-i'ini.m
'above termed the IHSQU v lIFYiNG ten: i.-
I deduced. i-ie.id the whole us the case
and the note appended, iu which one ot
! th -authorities referred to by Andrews,
ih combatted, and pronoutic.'d ;ni“'>in
- n.i< dictum. ' Read all tin 1..w, :iii«l
t.ell inc if Hie Andrews decision i» ><>t
an unblushing outrage:
And now fellow citizens, is sueii inlol
ierable grievances, even sought In be
justified by public written cfi'oris :>i de
i'eiic.o by the oppressor and his irien l;:,
i and that too, by garbled extracts from old
j cases, and by niisrepresentation ami false
intereuees, to be fosiered iu (in-light of
‘ your couiiternuw.i, mid encouraged by
your support?
1 speak not for ilie Universalists alone.
• hut for principles, for justice, lor
- humanity. Read the law on the subject, I
- read tho history of our revolution, rend
: our constitutions, and behold out iroe '
I institutions, and then tell me that The )
[ Andrews decision was consistent and ■
i right! What must have been the fi-am,
j of uis mind to induce him to the wanton i
i outrage?
( I have shown by their own pretensions !
I that the decision is false. If it were ig-!
; norance, such ignorauce is dangerous tn :
: the bands of Power.
We want men at the head of public '
! affairs with a different cast of mind. The
! law that existed, was only made more !
j potent by our Constitution which declares 1
I “No person shall be denied the enjoy- :
inent of any civil right, merely on ac-!
count of his religious principles.”
Even this sacred law was mocked and ;
insulted. Judge Andrews says that, it I
[was the witnesses duty not his right to ;
swear. That the i-iril rights mentioned )
were not denied in tho denial of their )
oaths.
Blackstone defines civil rights different-1
ly. Hi- culls them civil rights or “civil:
duties ;” rights when duo to, and duties !
when due from, a member of the social [
compact. These rights anil duties are le
gitimate to the existence of society.
Judge Andrews furtner says, that in
such cases the witnesses had no right to
swear, because, if their oaths were denied,
they had no remedy; that the law pro
vides a remedy for the denial of all rights.
And how does it provide many of these
remedies? By Courtsol' Justice. And
if these Courts, before the Establishment
of our Supreme Court, should have denied ;
you your right in law—the most solemn, [
sacred civil light, where would you have [
appealed? Suppose Daring prejudice in;
such ease should ignore your palpable right ’
and upon a quibble, leave yon without ■
reputation and without borne? Where j
would be your remedy ? 1 suppose your ;
Adequate remedy would be to turn the
Judge out of office. Perchance if you
were one of nature’s noblemen who- had
the independence to speak out your real
sentiments like a man, you might find a
little opposition to your patriotism by jeal-:
ous neighbors '.
Were not the witnesses part and parcel;
of the Community which had been injured '
and outraged by the murder committed ? |
Did they not have a right to the Peace, )
quiet, and good order of that community ? :
Did they not. owe to that community their !
support of that Peace and good order as a I
civil right due to that community and to
themselves as part of that same communi
ty ? And had they not. a right to perform
these civil rights and duties I Has not a ■
man a right to perform his duty to him •
self and society ? And if in performing
that duty to society of which he is a part,
his happiness is intended to be promoted,
has he not a civil right to perform that
civil duty ? The construction placed up
on the Constitution is contracted and “un
republican.”
It is said that the “ civil rights” men
tioned, was “ meant, only” to secure all
classes a right to a “ seat in the Lcgisla-''
ture.”
This construction may be favorable to
Demagogues, but surely not just to the
honest farmer and Mechanic—nature’s '
true noblemen, many ot whom, together [
with myself, might be denied all our civil [
rights (except one) “ merely onaccoitid of]
our Religious 2»riiu:\vles f and that one al- I
so, by not being quite able to acquire its |
possession!
Hi order to complete the shame ot this
Decision, Judge Andrews refers to the
argument of counsel alluding to AV ash
ington’s Farewell Address, in which it is
said, “If the sense of religious obligation
desert the oaths in courts of justice where
is the security for property, reputation and
Life?”
What an ungrateful insinuation upon
the sacred memory of Washington. 1 [
cannot belter reply to this farfetched in
sinuation than by giving an interesting j
portion of the history of our revolutionary |
struggle ’ it is interesting because it!
speaks of the liberality and magnanimity I
of Washington I
I must be brief. Bev. John Murray,
Universalist Preacher, came from England j
in 1770 —was respected, cordially received ;
and loved by Vvashington. Officers oil
Rhode Island Brigade i.olicit him to Ire- ;
come their Chaplain —stating, “ We have, :
tlierefon?, selected you as a Chaplain to our I
Brigade, well convinced that your ex ten-:
sive"Benevolence and abilities will justify [
the choice.” His first sermon was on [
Sabbath morning, at the (,'amp, Jamaica)
Plains, from Psalm X Liv. 1,2, 3. lie ;
was successful. The habits of swearing j
and rough manners among the soldiery i
gradually yielded to his christianized do-1
quenee. He was a father to the helpless
aud ministered unto the sick and the dis
tressed ; he was beloved fur his great “ bc
ninuity and benevolence.” “Murray was
despised and persecuted by the popular
clergy,’’ but “ found a cordial reception
m Washington,” who honored the Preach
er with marked and uniform attention.”
•• The Chaplains of the army finally uni
ted in petiUoningthe Chief for the removal
of the Promulgator of Glad tidings:—the
answer to this petition was banded them,
in the general orders of the ensuing day,
I which appointed .Mr. John Murray Chap
: lain of the three Rhode Island Regiments,
with a command from his Excellency,
1 George Washington, that he should be
[ respected accordingly!’
This was a deed, worthy a Washing
ton ! After the struggle was over Mr.
Murray founded “The Universal Church,”
and in behalf of that society, addressed a
i letter to his revered friend Washington I
; congratulating the “ Father of his couu- 1
i try " on the auspicious years of “Peace
Liberty and free Inquiry,” enclosing
; him a pamphlet of their doctrine. In re
i spouse to that Letter, Washington, among
other good things, remarked : “It gives
me the most sensible pleasure to tiud, that
in our nation, however different are the
sentiments of the citizens on religious doe-
■■ trines. I by generally c-ftetir in prm I hi ng:
|..t lh:-.< p..:iti.,-'i piotu-.-and'pia.-f !>•<>}•.
,•!••• sinio.o. universally B7 r..!iy m tlm or
<ic; ati.i happiness <•; our civil im-titui i.ais.
I ant ti« tl |i-ippy in (iudin;., this disp - ition
piirtii u'.ir!y e-.-itic-<l 1-v •'•nil society ”
Such the io' tiii'O, feeling and con
, dn-ji ol tV.i-<l.i;>>>l<iii tuWi.id the founder:
of I niv- i“:Ji in in Amvio t!
It. speaks voliiinos against even flic spi
rit of ia-li;;i..ii- intoter.inee- -it demon
. -irar.es lis injn-iii-e. and it denounces for
iVi-i- a derision that would have even do- )
. oied the rath of the Immortal Fiunklin
: and •ithei' noble spirits that in the pros-'
■ enc.o. ol that saiiio Washingion hallowed
(he Constitution of onr country !
In conclusion, allow me to say that to-'
I ward th. individuals belonging to the
: American Party I have no ill-will, for;
liheir motives may be good, but surely not
j ill aeconlatie-' with the spirit, and objects;
lof our government. I once belonged to
- this Ni-w Parly myself-— uttia ovt rjwruunded;
Ito join by a high minded, good and trite
. man. —and I remained in that Order for;
: several weeks, though expressed positively ■
i to him my dissatisfaction with certain fca-1
[titres ami proscriptions, which he con-i
; strued -• a little differently," ami expressed '
' the hope that the national council would •
relieve us from these obnoxious features— i
I tremblingly hoped that it would, lor I;
felt that 1 had committed the error of my i
life ! but it failed to bring the relief; and j
the secret nomination of Garnett Andrews, j
a religious proscriber, only brought hor- !
ror upon tho sad picture ! I resolved to be '
a freeman ! And the friend who overper-!
suaded me to join has also withdrawn.)
Had I graphic powers of description I)
might tell you what it is to ho impercepti j
bly ensnared, to be enthralled, to be bound, [
and the free spirit longing to be free, no- ’
ble and generous, chilled and discomfittcd!;
1 need not tell you that to be confined in )
the dark dtlngcon’s depths, and bound I
hand and foot, to move only at the com-!
maud of the jailor, is grievous to the free [
spirit. I propounded this question to the;
friend who now like myself breathes the)
free air of Liberty: Would Washington!
have used a sign or a password to tell!
that he was an American ?
The true Patriot is known by his open
advocacy, his valorous deeds in the defence
of the liberties of his country. J con
scientiously believe that the movement is
wrong. It may have some good princi
ples, aims, and objects, but it contains ele
ment* of destruction to the Union it pro
fesses to love Uis anti-Republican, be
cause it commits the reserved rights of
the states to the keeping of the general
Government., —itignorestheGa Platform,
in effect, while its devotees may profess to
stand firmly upon it, becatjsc if Su
preme Court of the United States be untie)
the tribunal to determine upon our re-!
served rights, and we arc bound to pay rev
erential obedience to its mandate, what
becomes of our republicanism ? 1 am no [
advocate for disunion. God forbid the
disloyal thought; but yet we should not
forego our sovereignty. States'arc like[
Individuals, as they part with their sov
ereignty they lessen their dignity. Lei
us beware of specious pretences, however
fair, for oft beneath the fragrant rose is
coiled the deadly serpent whose fatal ven
om may dart, in subtle poison throughout
the whole system and lay it prostrate e’en
as westretch forth the hand of joy to cull
the sweet flower I
Friends, let us patisu and consider! These
secret., covert meetings arc wrong. They
cause jealousies without, and engender
within themselves a spirit of oppression
inviting resistance. The Peace and good
order.pl' society can never be maintained,
so long as they exert their baneful influ
ence.
The faculty of Veneration in man is one
of the highest powers common Io tho hu- [
man mind. When disturbed in its peace- ■
ful exercise, it becomes the lightning dis-;
engaged from the cloud, passion that fires :
the highest ambition of the human sou); — I
the world in anus cannot subdue its pow-'
er; "tis love turned to madness-r-brothcr-'
ly love can alone restore it upon the gen- j
lie throne of reason '
This New Party, fellow citizens, is a [
positive Protestant Political Organ
ization. Such an organization is em
phatically an Uni.oNstiTUtional Parti
in fact, and therefore cannot but tend to
direful consequences. So long as this
Party shall maintain an identity, so long
will your wives, your children, your fa
thers and your mothers be endangered
and annoyed by riots, dissensions and
broils—these are the fruits of religious in
tolerance. There is no just cause for the
existence of such a party. Let every man
worship God, unmolested, under his own
vine and fig tree, not made afraid by re
ligious intolerance and proscription Why
should we wish to usurp the rights of oth
er men’s consciences? And is it not wrong
and unkind to manifest a spirit of bitter
hostility to our brothers from distant lands
'seeking a home from oppression? Is it
' charitable ; ought not this unbrotherly
;agitation to cease among mankind? Let
every religion defend itself by its own in
j lierent virtues. If the aggression succeed,
[ who next will be the victim ? And who
next? Already it is charged that the Moth
; odists are auti-republican. Because you
i cannot outnumber them in the moral vine
yard, will you assail them by the sword ?
'1 speak not for any sect —the humble tri
: butc is given to the cause of Humanity.
: “ For inodes of faith let graceless zealots
I fight :
; He can't be wrong whose life is in the
! right:
In faith and hope the world will disagree,
But all mankind's concern is charity !”
“ How vainly seek
“ The selfish for that happiness denied
To aught but virtue! Blind and hard
end, they
Who hope for peace amid the storms of
care,
Who covet power they know nut how to
ÜbCy
And sigh for pleasures they refuse to
give.”
MARCUS A. BELL.
Atlanta, Aug. 6, 1855.
{©“•The brilliant letters of William How
ard Russel from the Crimea to the Times, have
been gathered aud published in a book.
-They say that diarrbuas are so common
in the camp before Sebasto]H») that a dyspeptic
man is an object of general envy.
B@fa.Dr. Dalton, lately exhibited to the
New-York Pathological Society, the heart of
an infant, with but two cavities, one auricle and
one ventricle. The child was born at lull time,
appeared quite well for twelve hours, except
coolness of skin, and died in twenty-four hours.
The blood passed from the right ventricle through
the pulmonary artery, which sent the small
branches to the lungs, aud then continued on
ward, by the ductus arteriosus, as a large truuk
to the aorta, &c.
u.i'rrs <h- i
ItfjHu'lt'd umt fri-lrirrtoly
L. L. WRIGHT.
IhFhnngn utt Northern Uilierf, 5 purcrnl
“ on S:iv.inhHh, f pi*r ♦•unt
“ on I p< rr< nt.
HHC’E <>F ohooeriem I
ATI.AN’I’A.
('orrcth'ff Iri-ivcfklf/, by E. H’.
Wimlt'mlr ('iHiuiu stfhifi Mtrcfuntl/i, Athmta.
No. I Rt<» Onircp, iljlo I eta. per lb.
Snlt p-r Sack, 2.00
Star CjindU*. 26 Hh. per lb.
N. O. SutfflN— Frtir, bhd. 5.1 |M*r lb.
“ Prime, <• 6s ( . JM .r Ih.
•• Choice, Mid., 7c per lb
i N. O. Sy’i tip, hl>l\ 40c |**r gftlloii,
Extra Kitw Whiwky, 50r pci gallon
America Brandy, 75 to W.
vrhivt’A ccicKJKvr.
CoHuird J nun the rfpwtu of J. t<. Wallace
! Iho ~ J. E. William*, A Co., ami J. HeJ. Lynch'
Cotton, extremes 10 to 12
; Bacon bides 12 to 12}.
Hog round, 1 H Io 11}.
Ham* 10} to 12}
ShouhleiM, 10
Lard, per bbl. 12} cent*.
[ Corn, |wr bualiel SI.OO p. $1.05
Meal, SI.OO to $1.20
; Sall, per Sack, 200 $2.10
' Sugar per Hhd., 1\ to 9}
' Culice. 12} to *
• (/lijrified Kto 10
! Syrup 15
’ VfolflMHCH 35 tu 40.
Mackarol No. I, in Kite, 4,50.
“ •» 2, $12.00 to 15.00
•• “ 3 per Barrel, 9,
.. .* 4, H U
• ChceMc, 12}.
• Bagging, ib to IH.
! Rope, 12}. told
; Manilla Rope, 20 to 22J.
Tobacco*, 15 to 75.
: *.*tndler. Adamantine to 20i03n
i Zbur, 3}
I ‘nuj, 12}
Butter 20
i :.t>n American, sto 6}
** Swecda, 5} to o}.
“ Band, 6}.
Caatinga, 4} to 5.
Steel Caat. 20.
• “ (•ennr.n, I*.
“ American, Bto 10.
Naila, 5} to perkrg
i Powder,Blasting, per Kvg, 4.20 4.50.
Safety fuse, 50 ctfi. per 10<» t •
! M Rille, pur keg. 800. t«» 050.
I Teaß, 75 to 125.
Factory Yarn 85 to 00.
Oanaburga, 9 to 10.
’ Chicken 21} to 15.
Cuts, 35 to 40.
Fodder,l2s to 150 pet <nvt.
Hny, 1.50 to I.7sper <;wr.
Applet Dried, 1,00 1.25
“ Green. 50 to 60.
Feathvra, 35
Liquors.
•Keported- by J. dr J- Lynch.
Brandy, (Cognac) per g«d«,2.50 t 04.00
“ (Domestic) “ “ 65 to 70
“ (Cherry) “ “ 75 to LOO*
Gin, (Holland) •• 1.75 to 2.25.
2 (Domestic) H “ 60
Rum, (Jamacia) •• “ LOO to 3.00.
“ (Domestic.) “ ** 65 to 70.
Whiskey, (<sorn) •* “ 50
u t Western) *• *• 45 tn 50. and
“ (Monongah ” 2 7 ga1.,80 to i.2fj
Wu-pu, f “ala) per sto
Four Horse Loach Lino from Marietta:
to Cumming.
travelling public are in
j formed that the h«s
placed u|h»ii the above line a •’plcndi.l four-horac
coach, hy which ptiMaengers nre put through in
aliortvr time am! with far greater convenirnrc
than formerly. Every attention will be pa id their
comfort, and no exertion spared to make thia line
equal to any in the South. This line ennneeta
with the Vv. & A. R. R. trains at Marietta Mon*
day#, Wcdncwlays, and Fiidays, tor ('umnutig.
and returns Tuesdays. Thursdays, and Saturday:..
(Connecting alsn on some dayxat < ‘innming, with
hacks to and from Dahlonega.* PcrHonsdesirous
of ci'OHaing the country will be supplied with Con
veyance up in application to Agent at Marietta.
H. T. MARTIN.
jt;!y 28. ’55. d.»w-ly.
.MEDIC \f. B(k)K8.
We have ecen at Mr. Kav’s store* a large anil
’! iclcried aMrtortnient of Medical Books, which,
.ira ttdviwd, will be sold on 'most reaNonnblc
Fi.’.'iis. The Medical profrsrtion, n fine* up)>orti**
nity im here pnwntcd of eecuiing rave and stand
ard books. We advise them, and the Studm’
attending tho Medical lectures in our city, tocull
and examine these publications, ere they pur*
chase claewhera.
WANTED, 20,000 Subscribers!
NEWPIU)SPJ£CfIJ S
OF THR
ATLANTA WEEKLY EXAMINER
A New Southern Enterprise!
SUBSCRIPTION ONLY
One Dollar per annum.
The Weekly Examixkii will after the fir«t .lay
of AttgUHl next, be isHUed tu subacriherH, at the
low price of ONE DOLLAR per annum, paya
able invariably in advance.
Many reaaona have induced tin, proprietor ot
this paper to embark in an I'litcrprisc never be
fore iittcniptcd in the South, and which hns
proved, not only successful in the Anti-Slavery
States North and West, but has received a pat
ronage in the Slave States, that had better be con
fined, though at greater expense, to the South
ern Press.
To obviate, then, tho objection, as far as wo
can, to the price of the Weekly Examiner, we
from and alter the period designated will forwaid
it to subscriber, at one dollar, jier annum, and
thia will place it within tho reach of the poor, as
well as the rich.
To politics, news, and literature,the Examiner
will be devoted. Our position in regard to the
first is already well understood. It is unnecessa
ry, therefore, to sty more than that it sustains
and will sustain, the DEMOCRATIC ANTI
KNOW NOTHING PARTY of Georgia amt
the I.uion, to which the South can look, with
coniiilenee, to the maintenance of hor rights, and
a strict adherence to the Constitution.
The NEWS DEPARTMENT of this paper
shall la* unsurpassed by any weekly pajsT in the
South. Atlanta occupies a position, and embra
ces fuciliti.*, for the receipt and transmission of
NEWS, unequalled in tho South. Every ad
vantage will betaken of these, to make the EX
AMINER a valuable netor paper to our farmers,
who, in the main, subscribe tor weekly paper s
only.
The Literary and Miscellaneous Department
will also receive a large share ol attention.
During the of our Legislature, one of
the Editors will be present to report the proceed
ings of that Body, 101 the Daily Examiner—these
reports will be transferred to the weekly ami each
subscrilwr to it, willthus have a complete history
of the session.
A correspondent lo furnish the proceedinge of
Congress, and » New York correspondent, have
also been engaged. In short, every thing that
can reasonably l>e expected of a weekly paper,
will be luid before the subscribers to the Exam
iner.
A large and fine assortment of new type has
l>een ordered, and is now on its way from New
York. We hope to receive it in lime for our
next week’s issue, when not only will the ap
pearance of our Daily and Weekly be greatly
improved, but a large quantity of reading matter
will be added lo Ixitii.
In adventuring upon thianov 1 enterpiisc—one
so important to Georgia, and theKollth—the Pro.
prietor anticipates a generous support. It is the
first established paper in the State, or the South,
with a largo circulation, that has reduced its
terms, that it may be within the reach rd any man.
As such, it is hoped and believed that the enter
prise will proaper.
We appeal then to the people to subscribe ; .
particularly du we call upon the DEMOCRACY
and ANTI-KNOW NOTHINGS, to standby
us. Send in your orders, by tens and by hun
dreds, and we will send you a large, well printed
paper equal in its every department,toany week
y Southern paper.