Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.