Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

/ "BY HUGH WILSON. ABBEVILLE, S. C., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1886. VOLUME XXX. NO. 30. .;:?| CHARLESTON'S USURPATION. AN ABLE DEFENSE OF THE HOtfSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM CHARGES WHICH WERE NEVER MADE. ? The Friendly Hand, In nil its Reality and Symmetry In Gracefully Held up to Pttblie CJaxe, while Charles(on'N Deformity, which Did the Wroiift:, Is not Exposed. 'The Hon. Edward McCrady, of Charleston, Writes the following letter to the editor of the iireenvillc Ncw.%, As nobody, as far as we have (noticed, has primarily charged Charleston's Representatives with being a party to the wrong which was perpetrated on the country, Sn the refusal of the.Senate to take the census, the object of Sfr. McC'rady's letter would seem to us to be to direct attention to the anp-country Senators who joined Charleston's ?,|fh f|?. Senators in mo reiumti iu vimup?j .. .v~ ...~ plain mandate of the Constitution, whldt tliey had sworn to obey. While the statementsof Mr. McCrady are in cxact accord with the facts, so far as they go, yet it will be observed that he makes no reference to the action of the Charleston Senators>, to whom alone thedefeat of the bill may, in our opinion, be justly charged. Notwithstanding the remarkable fact that the Charleston Representatives were almost ;a unit for the census, yet It is not denied by Colonel MeCrady that Charleston's Senators had much to do in thedefeat of the census bilL His letter does not alter the fact that Cliarteston has double representation in the Senate, and almost, if not quite, douhSe representation in iheHouseof Representatives. His letterdoes not show that any Charteston man has ever ?t any time sought to reduce the representaaion in the Senate to a*i equitable basis, nor does his letter make ut clcar that Charleston Senators have made any effort to take the census whereby Charleston would have to surrender the seats in the House of Representatives to which she is not entitled. Col. McCrafiy speaks so plausibly and so sably that he can almost make the wrong the right appear, but a simple pertinent fact, is worth much fine argument and maDy irrelevant rccitalK Here is the letter: To the Editor of the Greenville Xcws : ?v?i,r <wiits\riuiK in rci/nrd to the census question are founded on a misapprehension of lhe facts which J beg you will allow me to <?orreet. In 110 sense was tlie question one between the *p-country and low-country. The 8iistory of "its introduction and discussion will <Iemonstritte this. What are the facts? On the 29th November, 18<4, Mr. Kaysor, of Orangeburjf. ami Mr. Lee, of Sumter, each 5ave notieeof a bill upon the subject.. (House, ournal 'SI. p.76,7R.) Kach of these gentlemen, it will be observed, is from the low-country? jfr<>m the low-country, even if you restrict, as | .you seem inclined to do, that designation to the counties or districts In which the parish system forwierly prevailed: for Orangeburg, you will remember, was divided into the par Sshes of Oraug?* and .St. Mathews, and Sumter into those of Clareinont and Clarendon. So the proposition for the taking of the census under the Constitution to which his Excellency the Governor haii called attention in his messages, canse from the low-country?indeed Jrotn the parishes. Mr. Ravsor on the 2d lVcejnber introduced his bill?a bill which he stated had been care* fully prepared byMr. I?ibble(the member re|>resenting Charleston and Ornnct-burc in Congress) so as to conform to the United States law, and entitle the State to the appropriation 1>y the United States allowed if the census vhould be taken in 18S5. ((House Journal, I8S4, Jiage 97.) This bill was at once referred to the udiciary committee and reported favorably upon by Mr Simon ton, the chairman, 011 the 31. <H?use Journal, 18KS, page IN.) Mr. Lee introduced his bill on the.5th. This bill pro*? orirl ohntinar mfthrwi r\f ink > 1UCU (V OHU|/i\>i (fciiu V<?VW|'VI ? ? ? Jug tlie census than that required by the statute of the United .states, and was designed to meet what was the recti obstacle to the taking of the census, viz: Its expense. (House Journal 38X4. page 13(>.) Mr. Lee's bill w:is referred to 1 lie Judiciary committee and reported without recommendation on December 13th. ?< House Journal, 1884, page 2.">9.) Both these in Us wpre laid on the table on the 10th, for on rthe Ilth the judiciary committee had introduced a biil of its own, which had been prepared by Mr. Simonton, the chairman, alter a very careful consideration by the committee, jind after hearing Ma"jor Harry Hammond, nvho appeared before the committee In the intterest of accurate statistical information, to unre a strict compliance with the provision of the general government upon the subject. Tlie debate on the question in the House on ithe 18th December, took place on this bill of the committee drawn by Col. Siinonton. So ithe subject was considered on a bill drawn by smother member from the low-country?indeed from Charleston. Your correspondent, "Carolina." in his letter of Nov. 12th says: "I do nat recall tliat a single Democratic Representative from Mie tidewater section raised his voice in behalf of compliance with the fundamental law." This Is mortifying, but the fact is that I, for one. did. on this very occasion and repeatedly afterwards, raise my voice, however feeble, and did urge as earnestly, Mr. Editor, as you or he 3i;ive done that it was ourduty under the Constitution to provide for taking the census. The bill prepared by Mr. Simonton wax pass?ed and went to the Senate. Did the attack upon it there come from Charleston or the iow-country ? I read from the Senate Journal, jpage .'J5S, "Mr. Maxwell moved to strike out tthe enacting clause of the bill," which was J ? *--- ? ? ?*'? ~e ?/v i" woe XTr <nme uy u vuiodi ia iu m. u unv ? . Maxwell from? From the up-country! From Abbeville! The Senators from Oconee, York, "Williamsburg. D&rlinsrtoivMarlon, Union and Pairfield voting with Mr. Maxwell against the *>ill, while the Senators from Horry and Georgetown voted for it.- Upon the defeat of the bill in the Senate and the renewal of the discussion in the House on a motion byMr. Lee to take a recess until January, 1885, inMead of adjourning, so*s to make auot her effort to provide for a census, I again tceonde.d -At'.* effort. But. again, when tie subject was renewefl in the daily papers in April last, by ati article arenerally attributed to Mr. Lee, urging the Governor to take the census under the law as itstood, both Mr. Slmonton and myself again Joined hint in hisappeal. Mr. Slmonton w?iling under the signature of 44S," and I under t hat of "A.membwof the House from Charleston;" Mr.Simonton urging an extra session of rthe Legislature; I agreeing with Mr. Lee that nt could be doue without. If you have a flleof (the News and fy>urirr and will turn to the is oue of the 7th May last you will And our communications. When the legislature met nt Its Inst session sind Mr. Lee au&in Introduced his bill aud it came up for consideration a* a special order on thc5t.h December, the motion to strike out the enacting words did not come from Charleston or from the low-country, but from Newberry. Mr. Pope made the motion,and the only votes for the motion were Irom Mr. Brawley from Charleston; Messrs. Mclverand Pettlgrew from Darlington. Mr.Schumpert from .Newberry and Surratt from Union; while Mr. Speaker Simons. Messrs. Baker, Burke, Flcken, Kennedy, McCrady, J. Ancrum Simons and Slmonton put ourselves on record for the bill. Messrs. GojakuIijs, McHugh and .Moares were absent Only six In the House, Including but one from t^jnrleston. Twofroni Newberry, two from Darlington and one from UnIon were opposed to the measure. Eighty voted for it, including the ?eiote Charleston delefjatisn present, bnt one. When the bill again reached the Senate, where did the opposition again first show Itself? From the low-country? No. But from the up-country. i?ir. iuaxwen, junior m>m Abbeville, Hgain moved to strike out theenj?oUug words, and he was azain supported by The Senators from York, Darlington, Kershaw, Chesterfield and Union. Surely a vote in which these counties unite cannot be considered at? in the interest of tiie iow-country against the up-country. Tho bill failed in the Senate, and the House recalled the appropriation bill fromtheScnaite for the purpose of allowing Mr. Lee tc move an amendment providing for the cen^ sub. On the return of the bill from the Senate Mr. Lee made his amendment appropriating tnit two cents per a?me enumerated instead ol Jive as provided ill the 8Sth section of the General Statutes, and also changing the provision ?s to the manner of taking the census so as tc .allow the Governor to make his own res*ula Hons for taking it instead of following the provisions of the law as it stood. This amend anent. though constitutionally objectionable, was allowed to p;?ss the House without the tfdlirhtest opposition from Charleston or the low-country; indeed p;ussed without a discussion. In theSenate the amendment wns struck out, the constitutional objection having been ntised that it was "a rider'1 which the constitution prohibited. When the action of the Senate whs reported to the Tlonse, the Houst sigain, without division, refused to concur and Uio "dead Hock" was iuangurated. Without rehearsing the parliamentary steps by which ; this "dead lock" was maintained and hy which it was ultimately solved, I can say that, the line wits not drawn by the limits of the up-country and low-country. The journals of the last two days of the session have not yet been published, so 1 can not give the names of those who voted for and against the House receding on the amendment. Butu listof tho*e who spoke for and against tiie action of the House will show that lam correct in the averment. Those who spoke in favor of receding?that Is giving up further elloit to take the census at the time, were Messrs. Hoggs of Pickens, Farrow of Laurens. Pope of Newberry, ItutI land of Kairtleld. Blue of Marlon, Matter of I Barnwell, Haskell of Richland, iiutson 01 Hampton, ana myself from Charleston. Those who wore lor refusing were Messrs. Bo wen of Pickens, I{ticker of Anderson, Wharton 01 Lauren*. Blake and Grnydon of Abbeville, Thompson of .Spartanburg. Ready of Edgefield. Lee of Sumter, Aldrlch of Aiken, and Bellinger of Barnwell. It will be seen by this that on this final question of Insisting or not on the census at mis time, as represented in the House by those who spoke, Pickens, Laurens and Barnwell were divided. Abbeville, Anderson,Spartanburg, Edgefield and Sumter were for iusisfcing and Newberry, Fairfield, Marion, Rich* land, Hampton and Charleston were for receding. There were no lines of up and low-country here. In the Senate, on the similar vote, the counties stood?for receding?the Senators from Oconee, Pickens, Anderson, Union, Newberry, Abbeville, York, Fairfield, Marion, Darlington, sunuer, Williamsburg, Clarendon. Richland, Aiken, Lexington, Orangeburg, Hampton, Colleton, Beauibrt, Georgetown, Berkeley and Charleston. Against receding?the Senators from Greenville, Spartanburg. Chester, Chesterfield, Edgefield, Horry and Kershaw. If we take out all the low-country counties in the vote, the question would have been decided in the Senate by a vote of two to one against in*istimr on the census at this time by the up-country counties themselves. The fact is, the question so far from being a sectional one, has divided the representation in the General Assembly in esich and every county in the State, except, I believe. Greenville, Spartanburg and Edaefield,and these counties have been more genernlly supported by the low-country counties ol Sumter, Beaufort and Berkeley than by any others. The real obstacle to having a census taken has been economic?not sectional. The members of the Legislature have never be**n willing to make tne necessary appropriation, it was early calculated that another census would probably make but few changes in the prescntupportlonmcnt? indeed by tiiatof 1.x,so the old parish counties would lose but two in all, and it is known that they have increased in population since. Charleston it was supposed would lose the most, but her loss would probably he gained by Beaufort. Berkeley and Sumter?the first a negro county, the second I scarcely less so and Ihe third a very doubtful! one. Under this belief the state at large was unwilling, especially Ihe members from the up-country, to go to the necessary expense to make these and a lew other changes. This was I the real cause of the defeat of the census at this I time. Mr. Lee. the chief advocate of a census, fully realized this, h^nee the introduction by him of the bill to provide for its being taken at a less cost than required by the General Statutes, and hence the low tisrurcs of his amendment to the appropriation bill. Mr. Pope, of Newberry, one of the truest and ablest men in the House, openly avowed his opposition to the measure on this ground. Had the Legislature desired the census stifhciently to pay for it, a simple clause in the appropriation bill providing the means to enable the Governor to carry out the provision of the law now on the statute book would have bccH sufficient. But a majority of the Legislature were unwilling to pay for having it taken properly, and many were unwilling to have it done improperly. Is it wise or patriotic, Mr. Editor, to excltea feeling of unkindness between the ditlerent sections of the State? As I write this, there lcanson my desk aflag that was carried from Fort Sumter and planted in the town of Gettysburg. Its folds ureall stained with the blood of south Carolinians from all parts of the State, an.l when I think of the noble men Irom Abbeville, from Edgefield, from Newberry, fr?>m Marion, from Richland from Barnwell, from Charleston and Beaufort I have seen lay down their lives under this flag, and then turn to such editorials asyour's on this subject, I begin at last to believe these men died in vain, for I hey died for a State whose people, having no longer enemies froui without, now turn tD rend each other. EDWAKD McCllADY, Jll. ? THE QUESTION OF SECTIONALISM. Editorial Reply of tlie "Greenville Sews"' to tne lienor 01 inc nvu. Edward Mct'rady, Jr. Colonel Ed word McCrady Is a fair and patriotic man ami we print his letter Willi sincere pleasure. His evident lear and hatred of sectionalism Is shared in the yews otttee, in Greenville county, and in the up country. With him, we consider editorials like that of the yews to which he relers dismal presages that the blood, the intellectual power and the splendid courage spent by Carolinians lor Carolina have been in vain, for that editorial, written with sorrow enough, expresses the feeling of hostility and distrust toward one section of the .state existing in another. That feeling does exist. Ktl'orts to conceal its existence or to smother Itself are useless and foolish. It is expressed by the public men and newspapers of the up country : who would not and could not, even if they had no higher motives than their own immediate advancement, say such things without, a public sentiment to back them. Admitting that there is a feeling in the up country againt the low country, there must be a reason for it. The people of the up country are honest, intelligent, patriotic Carolinians. They are not so ignorant, brutal and malicious that they would hold and nourish illwill and hate against their brethren without cause or provocation. Admitting that the feeling exists and that there is reason for its being, the wise and patriotic man will seek to discover that reason, examine It and elfect its remoyal. A sane physician will not attempt the cure of an eating ulcer or a dangerous wound by covering it from his sitrht or plastering it with bread and milk poultices and denying its existence. Man is weak and fallible, liabie to error and always disposed to look 011 his side of a quarrel. Therefore we shoulu consider this quarrel under the assumotion that the wrong may really be on our side or on both sides. Ihit from our standpoint we are compelled to believe that tbe existing feeling in the up country Is the fault of the low country, and more especially of Charleston. We accept Colonel MeCrady's statements ns absolutely correct and not requiring verification from the records. He shows that in the house, where there was an assured majority for the census, Charleston was tor the census; while in the Senate where Charleston's two votes would have carried thecensus they were persistently cast against it, her Senators leading the opposition ; and that when it came to a close vote in the House on the question of receding from thecensus rider, when Charleston'!* members could have been ot actual service to the census, they were against it. The facts that the Senators from two up country counties. Union and York, voted against tlie remaining ten or eleven of their section and the census and that in the House half a dozen members from the up country were against the census lias no bearing on the question that we can see. The question of Hcunoiny was discussed and it may have influenced half a dozen men. liut the House passed the census lull by an overwhelming majority; the senate deleatcd it, and nobody lias ever accused that body of being squeamish of expenditure. This census action is one incident of many and only a crowning outrage. The up country is surely the suttcrer by it and the low country is as surely the gainer. So of the canal, the university, the citadel, and the division of the State ofliccs. U.i..n?fn <V>lr.n/.l \f tU V.I H 1' cllrt 111 <1 fl'U <1 TlOW plan. Suppose he should say : "There Is feeling between the up country and the low country ; let us recognize It- like honest and manly , men and seek to heal it by removing the cause; let us bejrin nt tlie beninnin^ and hereafter base representation in our Democratic conventions on white population so that they may represent Democratic votes| let us in tin* ! low country be content with halt the State of flees; let us build our own universities coli legs and other educational institutions and pay for them as our brethren have done; let. i hs develop our own manufacturing cnterpris; es as our brethren did that we may compete r with them fairly; let us respect the poverty and poor, foolish, parsimonious ideas of our t brethren and limit expenditures from the > general fund to the actual necessities of a government economically administered; let us >; give our brethren the representation to which j they are honestly entitled under the constitu,' tion and be satisfied with the same, in House >' and Senate. They have done us good service; s ] they pulled us trom the slough of despond j against our resistance and have always come : | to our aid since; they have been faithful to us uand have yielded patiently. Now let us be > Just to them.'' j| Micht not that put down this hideous spee?I tre of sectionalism, heal all our wounds and I make us the united, strong, glorious people we ought to te? THE BULWARK OF LIBERTY. THE JURY SYSTEM--WHAT IT IS-ITS HISTORY-ITS ADVANTAGES AND ITS DISADVANTAGES-ITS DAY OF USEFULNESS GONE. Essny Rcn<l I>y D. L. Mnbry, Esq., Before tlic Abbeville literary Soeiety, nt its Regular Seetint; ou the Kvcnin^ 01 April a-?, iss>). The; regular monthly meeting was held at the house of Mr. W. A. Lee on the evening of April 21, 1.885. Dr. II. D. Wilson, President; Walter L. Miller, Secretary. Members present were: S. C. Cason, O. T. Calhoun, G. C. Hodges, W. H. Parker, M. I,. Bonham, J. C. Klugh, Hugh Wilson, L. W. Smith, A. W. Sin 11 h, II. T. Ward law. W. A. Lee, L. W. White, M. P. DeBruhl, E. B. Gary. W. C. Benet,H. D. Wilson, J. W.Thomson, W. II. Ilanckel, J. S. Peril 11, W. L. Miller. D. L. Mabry, J.S. Cothran, and A. B. Wardlaw. Visitors present: Judge B.C. Pressly, E. G. Gray don, Esq., W. N. Graydon, Esq., and Master Mclntosn. The routine business was then transacted, when the President announced that the reading of the essay was next in order. Mr. D. L. Mabry, essayist for the evening, proceeded, as follows: Mr. President and Gentlemen: Tile Jury, according to an approved definition, area body of laymen, selected by lot to iiKcertuin under the guidance of u Judge the truth in questions ot fact, arising either in a civil litigation or in a criminal process. TheII, ii.n.? nv.. f-imMrip.l to ilir> i-rtDsklern VI t'CIVltl ?J 1 HIVJ u*v vw tion of questions of fact, exclusively, and to such matters as are proved before them in the course of the trial. It often happens, however, that the law and the fact are so intimately blended that in par-slng upon a question of fact, they pass necessarily upon questions of law. although they are bound to submit to the decision of the Judge as to what the law is and the manner of lis application. The Jury system is divided into two leading classes, (I) Hie Grand Jury and (2) the Petit Jury. All other Juries may be grouped in one or the other of these classes. The province of the Grand Jury is to present indictments for trial by the Petit Jury. At common law this J ury tr.i'jht be composed of any number from twelve to twenty three Inclusive, but a presentment could not be made by less than twelve. In South Carolina the maximum number is eighteen, with the common law rule that twelve must concur in order to find "a true bill." Petit Juries consist of twelve approved citizens, liberos et legalos homines, as she early writers delighted to term them. This, however, is not at common law u necessary number, although so considered by many text-writers. Doth the Jury of the Gmnd Assize and the Jury of Inquest of Office were composed of sixteen, with the right of aflorcing them by the addition of new Jurors, until the necessary number concurred. Lord Coke finds surprising virtue in the number twelve, and chilms for it a divine origin, it is supposed to be in analogy with the twelve tribes of Israel, the twelve prophets to foretell the truth, the twelve apostles to preach the truth, the twelve discoverers who were sent into Canaan to seek and report the truth, and the twelve stones that the heavenly Jerusalem is built upon. Several of t he States have in wanton disregard of these ssicred analogies reduced the number to six. An anomalous Jury which deserves mention is the Jury of Matrons which is resorted to in the Writ de Ventre insplciends, and when a female prisoner condemned to death pleads pregnancy in stay of execution. The explanation of the exception which the common law makes in this case to its usual intolerance of women. t,\ .ill iivr.ont fr>Tll(>S.SOlf> I1T1V lnL'Ml CX istence whatever, is found in that, delicate feeling and chivairic regard for the sex, which break down even tlie barriers of the law.? The Origin of Trial by Jury. Down to a period comparat ively recent, there was great contrariety of opinion as to the origin of Trial by Jury, There is scarcely any information to be had as to the practical adniinitiation of Justice in England prior to the conquest by William the Norman, and for some time afterwards. Nearly all the learning of the time was confined to the Clergy, and the monkish chronicles were rarely burdened with anuht save visionary legends and ghostly spiritualities. The indetatigable attempts of many have nevertheless brought to light much valuable material on this subject. It is curious to note the many elidtns which have been made to the honor of originating this venerable institution, hike the score of cities which contended for the distinction of being known as the birthplace of Homer, there is scarcely a country on tbe face of the ; earth which has not at some time or other declared itself tin? founder of this time-honored system. It has been contended by a certain school of Antiquaries that Jury trial originated on "the eternal blue hills of Cambria." Tney base this claim of Welsh extraction on the authority of the triads of I)ynnwal Moelmud, supposed to bo old enough to prove themselves. Others have argued with some ingenuity that the Jury may be traced back to Greece,and that It was thence transported to that nation of lawyers, the Romans. The advocates of tills theory contend that when the Greek orators addressed the Judicial men. they are not to be understood as addressing the Judges or Presidents of the court, but a body of men specially set apart, like our modern Jurymen, for the determination of the questions submitted to them, and who were empanelled and sworn to try the cause uprightly. Tiiey wore supposed 10 ue ussiMeu iu their deliberntion by the Judges who expounded tlie law and by witnesses who deposed the facts. When they had formed an opinion, they delivered It to the President of the Court who pronmmced it. In like manner it is asserted Unit the Judiecs in the Courts of Koine who decided controvert matters were an order of men distinct, from the Praetor or Judex qualstiouis, whose province was to preside over the deliberations of the court and pronounce the opinion of the .Indices. Tiie great majority, however, who have given the subject serious consideration agree that the institution Is of Ten tonic origin, although they differ very materially in I heir accounts ! of its formation and crystallization into ils modern state. The popular mind of England long regarded It as indigenous in that kingdom, and assigned the honor of originating it to the unaided genius of Alfred, their mythical impersonation of legal lore in all its departments. Many contented themselves with the assumption that it was brought over ready-made by Hengist and Horsa, while still another class ot tneonsis comcnucu umt it was borrowed from certain kindred institutions in certain German or Scandinavian lands. Tlic Offspring of Two Systems. Historical investigation has now rendered it practically certain that the Jury trial is the olt'-spring of the t wo systems of Recognition and Compurgation. The system of | Recognition consisted in questions of fact, relating to tiseal or Judicial business being submitted to sworn witnesses who rendered their decision from a consideration of facls within their personal knowledge. The recognitors or sworn witnesses were not, like our modern jurymen, triers of the facts alleged upon the evidence adduced, but were summoned to rccoynize from their own personal knowledge as witnesses the truth with respect to the issue made up between the parties, llence arose the common law rule that every allegation of a material fact upon which issue mi?ht be Joined in the pleadings must, be stated with a place and a time; with a place in order to acquaint the snerirt with the hamlet or neighborhood whence to summon the Jurors, and with a time in order to discover which of the inhabitants had knowledge of the matter. The system of Compurgation depended very much on the same principle. liy this practice, iiw. In iii 111'tiniiK \v??: ullowiul I iiu unuiuiiuv ? .. .w ? to bring into court eleven of his neighbors, culled compurgators, who substantiated the defendant's oath of denial of the charges by swearing that, they believed he swore truly. Thus were had the oaths of twelve men, and the presumption of innocence created by this practice discha god the defendant withoutiuriher investigation. The Judge** and Lnw}'<;rs of England Shaped the Modern Trial by Jury. From these two systems of trial the Judges and lawyers of Knglund shaped the modern trial by Jury. The principles embodied in this Institution are derived from the Northern nations of Europe. The earliest historical accounts of those nations show that question* of'civil right and criminal ollence were decided through the intervention of a Council or witenagemote and notaccording to arbitrary will of the reining chief. The principle proclaimed by them and manifested in its practical operation in this case, that it If indispensable to the liberty ol the individual that unlimited power shall not bo placed in the hands of one man. or a body of men acta' a ted by a common interest, lias been develop ed Into that ehiborate system of Checks and balances which enters so largely in the construction ol all free governments in modern times and notably in our own. The seed sown by these primitive chain plonsof freedom have germinated and grown into ii magnificent tree ol'liberty, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. The poll 11cal significance orthe Jury trial and its sturdy adherence to the liberty of the subject, together with its tendency to resist governmental oppression hro the sources of that strong affection which the English people have always cherished for it. No conquest, political upheaval or revolution lias ever prevailed upon them to abolish it. It wai one of the chief grievanccc alleged esalnst King John by the Barons at Runnymede that lie had deprived them of their ancient, and immemorial right of trial by Jury. And It was I accordingly provided In Magna Carta that "No freeman shall be arrested or Imprisoned or disseized of his freehold unless by the lawful Judgment of tils peers or by the law of the land." And this rl^ht has been farther guaranteed by its subsequent reiteration in all the principal charters of English liberty. This ardent attachmenton the part of the English people has not been without many and most weighty reasons. Down to the time of William III, the Judges and Attorneys-general of England held their offices during good pleasure. and not as they must. In every fi ee-governinent. by the tenure or good behavl :>r, or a fixed and determinate period. Their handsome salaries were dependent on the unchecked caprice of the crown, and might be increased or diminished according to the stato of his digestion. Transplanted in tlic Xow World. Now, tlicre is no maxim more generally true than that a power over a mini's subsistence is a puwer over his will. Under these circumstances what power was there to withstand the crown in the execution of his schemes of tyranny and oppression ? Itmust be an institution Independent of the crown and In sympathy with the people. The jury system met this want and while it has its imperfections. and very glaring some of them are, the English can never cease to honor the venerable Institution which has so often championed their rights and preserved their liberties. "What is more natural than that the English emigrants, their memories fresh with the I benefits of this system, should not forget to ; transplant in the New World an institution, which had proved itself of such priceless value in the Old. And when the American colonies attained their legal majority and determined to break the tie of filial submission and obedience, it was thought proper to incorporate into their organic law a guaranty of its perpetuation. The federal constitution provides in Article III, Section II, that "the trial of all crimes, except In cases of impeachment, shall be by Jury , and such trial shall be held in the State where the salJ crimes shall have been committed, but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed." This provision is supplemented by Articles V and VI in Amendment of theConsMtution. "No person shall be held to answer lor a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unlesson a presentment or Indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger," and "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial Jury of the State and district where the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by Jaw." These provisions being found to apply to criminal prosecutions only, and some indignation having been expressed at the omission of a guaranty ot Jury trial in civil causes, also, the sixth Amendment was inserted, pro1 viuiiiK that "In suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exoei'U twenty dull iirs, the right of trial by Jury Khali he preserved, and no fact, t ried by a Jury shall he otherwise re-examined In any Court of the United Slates, than according to the rules ol' the common law. The constitutions and laws of the several states were not less emphatic in securing the right-of trial by .fury in u!l matters pertaining to their local concerns. The constitution of South Carolina provides I in sweeping terms that "the right of trial by jjury shall remain inviolate." lias the Jury System Outlived its Usefulness ? Having briefly glanced at the history of the Jury system and some of Its essential features, let us address ourselves to the consideration i of a few questions, which for some time past I have encaged the serious attention and cou'slderatlon of the most thoughtful men of the I : age, and are gradually assuming such pr< por| lions as to agitate all classes of society- IIas the Jurj* system outlived Its usefulness? Do ! the ends of justice and the interests of sor'ety I require its abolition? Can it not be advo itaigeou.sly supplanted In favor of some o .her i mode of trial which will unite in itself not | I only the material advantages to be derived ! from the jury system, but also other desir ible I elements in which that, institution is unf< rtu| nateiy deficient. I shall attempt to an.;wer these questions In the Affirmative, although the task is approached with some rcluctr nee, born of a reverence for an institution w licli has received the applause of so many ccaturies. Advantages of the Jury System. j I I shall first discuss seriatim the ad ^nnI tages which have been claimed for tbe system, and afterwards sum up my objections. | The first advantages claimed tor the lcstitution is its great antiquity, together wit-a the fact that a guaranty of perpetuation has been I Inserted in all the great charters of English | and American liberty. Prima facie, this consideration is entitled to much weight. 3t is with great propriety that we approach re verently the institutions which have come d 3wn to us from an immemorial past. The fu< t that they have survived the change of dynasties and the wreck of empires, and what is i iore the successive revolutions of social and political Ideas, proves them entitled to 110 inere parsing notice. On the other hand is U not I highly possible that an institution which was ! eminently titled to primitive state of joelety j may prove utterly Inadequate to meet! he inI creasing wants of a progressive and etillghtj ened people, the complexity of whose relai tions and necessities demand correspoi idingly progressive and enlightened reir edies. Moreover is it not probable that a system which produced beneficent results in a monarchy, at a timo when the interests of the I crown were antagonistic to the rights of the I subject, may prove but a huge imbecile in an j enlightened republic wliereall power proceeds i directly or indirectly from the people. I A second advantage is its proved vaJun in j times past as a safeguard ngainstgovermopntal oppression. It will be observed thf t this ! argument is based 011 tbe past rattier tt in the ! present. There can be 110 doubt bat. th it at a j time when the monarch# of England were little less than despots, tr'al by jury was al' - - ' rl.wli.M,!,,,.! lU.rvrtv j most l lit? J?UJU CllMllipiWU VI iliUlf IUUIU * vv VJ . j The weight ol the position rests on the double j assumption of both power una inclination on i the part of the government lo oppress the citizen. A government which merits the proud boast, of being of the people, for the people and by the people, is desMtutcof any re asonable motive to conceive, or power to execute plans subversive of the liberty of the citizen by whose friendship il exists. The ballot-box has a piece of news to te 1 periodically, which imposes a wholesome restraint on the actions of any over-zealous official, with a tendency to tyrannize, The danger in this country lies rather in a too slavish submission to the vox populi. A third advantage claimed for the system is that it accommodates iiself to public sentiment, and that ttejurors being drawn from the community at large voice the verdict of public opinion. It, is certain that an institution which conforms to public sentiment, right, or wrong, lias always a strong hold on popular favor. Unenlightened pul>lic opinion is generally a safe guide in matters of public concern, but it. is questionable whether in matters concerning individuals, ! or a small pari of the community, it is expedient to follow a public sentiment, which, from the nature of the case cannot be sufficiently enlightened. The correct determination of litigated questions requires a knowl| edge of the particular facts of the case which can never be possessed by the community at large. Besides, Is not public sentiment couI iiiivjiiv in il state of fluctuation and very of ten materially in error? Whatpower Ik it that ! shields Irom deserved punishment the cold| blooded murderer who slays his victim with all punctilio and courtcny in tlio duel? The argument that jury trial is useful because, it is the tool of a public sentiment, founded In ignorance, and based on the reports of llumor with her traditional hundred tongues, is, to say the least ot it, open to much doubt. A fourth consideration which bus been advanced is that a jury is indispensable in those eases where a man is technically guilty ot a crime, and has rendered himself obnoxious to the penalty of the law, but where tiie common principles of justice and light, derand bis acquittal. If this evil cannot"he repaired by wise and judicious legislation, the proper course Is to appeal to the executive clemency. 1 It was with a view to its exercise under these Identical conditions that the executive was given the pardoning power. llesides, what 1 higher right has a jury to transcend the limits of the law. and violate their oaths to render a 1 verdict according to the evidence. So help you God, than a bench of judges? Tho assumption of such a position Is an admission that ' judges are more rigid and undeviating In their "findings of fact as well as of law" than juries, and certainly ought to be the most promineut characteristic of the administra thin of Justice. The undefined discretion even j of a good man is truly said to be the veriest tyranny. An incidental advantage, which has been urged in favor of the system, is its I utility iu educating the masses of the people, besides teaching them to think of the dlstlne" tlons of right and wrong. to discern the necessity of punishing crime, and to consider themselves mainly responsible for social order. It Fail!) in Attaining the Ends for Which it naN Created. These ndvnntnges are collateral to the prime object of trial by Jury, which is to ascertain the truth in questions of fact, Undoubtedly, in a contest between two rival systems. other things being equal, an incidental advantage attaching to one should give it the preference. But if it falls in attaining the end for which if, was created, nil collateral considerations must be ignored. Education ought to be eneournged, but to contend that we should employ an ignorant and incompetent tribunal adjudication of our dearest rights, because such employment Is good mental exercise, and tends to increase the Intelligence of the instSftes, Is carrying the argument dangerous:y far. That ihe massps should consider themselves mainly responsible for social ord( r js indeed "a consummation devoutly to be wished." So far as this feeling of individual responsibility for the public weal lias advanced in our country, we are inclined to assign the honorof promoting It to the influence of our representative Institutions, ta ken as- a whole rather than to any casual participation i-i the administration of Justice.* j Hnvins: considered some of the advantages claimed for the jury system, let us look at some of the objections which may be urged against it. The Difficulties of tlie Juror?lie is Expect?*! to <lo In Fifteen Minutes, What it Takes a Jud^e Three Months to do. Tlic fact that Justice should be administered with certainty, economy and promptness, v.*e take to be self-evtdent. A mode of trial laaking in any of these necessary attributes c e serves unhesitating condemnation. Juroi * are selected Indiscriminately from the comt mnity at large, without reference to any definite qualifications, although the design of the law is that they shall possess aiedivere intelligence, and such morality as it may have pleased God to endow them, witl al. As a rule, their minds arc utterly untrained. For days, perhaps as often happens, for weeks, they listen to a confused mass of testimony intended establish some nice point ItL the case, not clearly comprehended by tlreix Their heads being sufficiently addled by ^ ain attempts to unravel the tangled web ol"e\idence, th"y are exposed to the sophistry of counsel. After this hath of refreshing sunshine, they hear the grave and sonorous lecture of Ills Honor, the Judge. Being conclusiv< I f presume*.! to have mustered the facts of thee ise, and to fully grasp the law applicable, toget Der with all the modifications, qualifications and exceptions thereto belonging, they retin and are e.-pectcd after a hrief consultation io bring inio court in the shape of their verdict the result of a careful and exhaustive consii eratlon ot'the case. Under similar clrcuinsi anees, a judge would require days, perlians reeks of reflection and consultation of nut-bo 'ltlcs before arriving at his decision. 11 Is n-in torious fact, that juries may be very material. y influenced by considerations wholly forelg.i to the merits of the controversy. Tickling the Vanitj- of Jurors. Lp v yers are aware of this weakness, and rarely fall to take advantage of it. The attorney \ 'ho falls to tickle the vanity of the Jury by ei ipty compliments and fulsome flattery oil ihcir unparalleled intelligence and high mo-sil convictions, l? a glaring exception to t.ho rule. The red-handed murderer, trernblii g for his life in the dock, rarely falls to brl tg before the eyes of the sympathetic jury his >-orrowlng wife and weeping babes. A litigant in the selection of his lawyer, keeps ills weather eye open in this direction, and is no unfrequently guided mainly in his choice, by such considerations ns political popularity or identification with a certain religious sect or mcret- society. The undue susceptibility of Jul ies to the Intlnence of extrinsic considerations has given rise to an alarming distrust ill the fair and impartial administration of | tti?* law, which, feeds, and not with soporific dt? t, that, cerberus of modern, society, the lyr.ich law. Ho long ns the daily experience ot on courts proves the utter farce and (utility of faith in the justice and strength of the arm of t he law, so long will that loathsome disease in the body polilic remain to our perpetual sha ne and confusion, and the once boasted jury system deserve the application of that j fearful figure, "a wlilted sepulchre": It very frequently happens that- litigants, conscious of their claims, prefer to compromise them at I a disastrous discount, rather than run the unI certain gaunt let of a jury trial. This want of faith in the efficacy of the law on the part ot our business men can result, only in serious I iiiinrv to our commercial prosperity. There is a gradually increasing conviction among our people that Justice is Obtained nt too Great Coat. Tlic present machinery of justice may be described as unwieldy, cumbrous, complicated and expensive. It not only imposes an unnecessarily burdensome expense on litigants and taxpayers, but subjects the Juror himself to serious pecuniary loss. In civil causes, when the trial is pr >longed for several days,even victory is ruinous, and the position of the losing party is disastrous in the extreme. In criminal prosecutions, the worthless tramp, charged with purloining a crust of bread, is entitled to a trial by his peel's. Th? frequency with which gentlemen of the colored persuasion are brought upon pelty charges, and put themselves upon their country for a safe deliverance, is a source of enormous expense to the tax-payers. On the other hand, the pittance which the Juror receives for his services and discomforts is inadequate to defray even the necessary expenses of his attendance at court. Hut this is immaterial, compared to the serious loss which he often sutlers by beiui? compelled to absent himself from home and business during perhaps the busiest season of the year. The store of the merchant must be closed and his business permanently crippled, the plantation of the farmer remain untitled, and the establishments of the mechanic and manufacturer reduced to | a stand-still, In order that a cause involving a | mere trifle may be adjudicated. The indirect I !< .?? which ihn entire country suiters in this way can not be lightly estimated. The opportunities which the Jury system offers tor successful attempts to delay the rendition of Justice constitute a serious defect lu its character. The various steps to be taken preliminary to its organization, in which fatal mistakes may he made, the chances that a Juror may | be taken sick or die during the progress of the trial, the stupid obstinacy in some, and the honest difference or opinion in others, likely to happen even in the plainest cases among men ot untrained minds, which may make a mistrial, all combine to render this mode of trial peculiarly acceptable to that,classof litigants who attempt to defeat the opposition b> hindrance and delay. A Prncticnl Evil in the Jury Law. One notable feature of the Jury system which has been productive of much evil in practical operation is the necessity of unanimity in order to render a verdict.. This was (tenet ally very speedily accomplished in old time by keeping the Jury without meat, drink fire or candle until they were all unanimously agreed. 11 the jurors did not ngree until the judges were about to leave the town, they were not bound to wait for them, says Blackstone, but. might carry them about from town to town in a cart. This barbarous custom originated the forced and compromise verdicts, which have remained with us although the cruel practice which began then has long since passed away. The necessity of unanimity gives to a single obstinate juror the power to materially modify or even entirely change the well-dclined opinion of the other eleven, provided a verdict is rendered, at all. If there Is no agreement, the other j horn of the dilemma Is encountered, we have I u mistrial and a consequent delay of justice. A few of the foregoing objections may be materially modified by judicious legislation, but the prime objection to the system Is inherent in its very nature, and admits of no remedy, short, of Its entire abolition. I refer to the prevailing ignorance of juries. It is a serious reproach to the law that while the most ignorant man, in search of relief, is aware that it Is to his interest to consult authorities specially adapted to meet the necessities of liis case, site selects her agents with entire disregard of peculiar fitness or qualification. 1 am aware that many writers consider this quality I one of the principal advantages of the system. I The function of a Jury is to determine I.tr i.tAonu unl>. | l|Ul'?lnins m mui/ kj mcMii.i ... , , I mittcd to them. Jinny of the rules of eviI deuce appear to the uninitintcd unjust and I arbitrary, but when the broad mid ample foundation of reason and experience upon ! which they rest is understood, they recom| mend themselves to the mind as eminently ! sound and sensible. The Jury, perceiving the 1 rulings of the Judge, admitting and rejecting , testimony, do not always divest themselves of | any Impression made upon them bv evidence discarded by the Judge with an instruction that they disregard it. Kven when sutlicientI ly plastic, which in the majority of instances | Is a violent presumption, is it reasonable to expect from them such extraordinary mental I effort, which is no light task even to men of logical minds. j We now come to the consideration , of the last question to be discussed. Can llic Genius of this Age Devise a Mode of Trial which will unite In Itself not only the principal advantages to bo derived from the I jury system, but also other desirable elements J which that institution unhappily Jacks. Fortunately, we are compelled to resort to no a priori reasoning toauswerourquestions. The1 experience of Courts of Equity for many cen-1 turies furnishes us with ail ample solution of i the problem. Jury trial was never a ci?nstl-| tuent element of that court and yet Kqnlty| has always "delighted to do justice ana not by halves." While the verdict of u jury has often been received in that court, it has been I merely advisory, and was never binding on I the conscience of the Chancellor, who ultimately passed upon the facts, himself. J5y j giving a Judge or bench of Judges power to pass upon the facts as well as the law, 11 Is believed that the three cardinal desiderata in the adminlst.-Htiou of justice, certainly, economy and promptness, would be materially promoted. Advantage* In Favor of the Jndge. | What reason can exist why Judges can u<?t determine questions of facts as well as Juries? It may be objected that Jurors bring to the aid of their investigations a store i of practical experience ami a fund of infor! matiou about men and things not to beliopeu for In a bench of Judges. Bur. the modern Judge is no recluse, or hermit. He is often a thorough man of the world, and his experloiipm in t.hp nffnii'R of life is invariably wider thnn that of the average juror. Besides, he has the additional consideration in ills favor, which can not he value.d too highly, of a trained mind which otlen enables him to detect fallacies mid expose inconsistencies, entirely hidden from the eyes of the simple and unsuspecting juror. Tbe Aristocratic and Tyranical Feature#. But another objection is some times interposed that Judges are inclined to be arbitrary and tyrannical, and that the proposed charge would Introduce an aristocratic feature in our government, utterly at variance with the genius of our institutions. A plurality of Judues sitting together would entitely obviate this difficulty, us they would act as wholesome checks to each other. But the saieguards against these evils would bo too numerous and potent to allow them to assume dangerous proportions. Not only would the Judge"have continually before his eyes tae foiir of a reversal of his decisions, which Is always Intensely mortifying to his professional pride, but the possibility of removnl from otllce, or even of an omission on the part of the people to re-elect him would impose a salutary restraint on his actions. Judges are not chosen at random from among the people, butare selected with special reference to their learning, ability and integrity. Occupying a prominent position, he is the cynosure of all ey.?. Hte outgoings and incomings are zeulotwly watchcd, and none of his actions escape a lynx-eyed public. They have a pride of position anil an official dignity to sustain, which are altogether wanting in the Juror. Tlicy arc handsomely salaried, which is no inconsiderable Item in estimating t he sum of considciatlous tending to keep them in the upright and impartial administration of l heir duties. The tendency of the inpv uvctimi tn ilolnv thn rendition of iiiKtiee has been already adverted to. S'otoniy would the process of actual trial be rendered shorter and simpler by allowing the Judge to pass upon questions of fact as well as law, but in case an appeal should be taken, the case would be in much better condition to be reviewed by the appellate court. There would be fewer grounds of appeal, and a consequent reduction in the amount of business which at present crowds the Supreme Court. A large proportion of appeal cases co up on some matter connected with Jury trial, such as misdirection by the Judge, refusals to chargc, misconduct In the Jury, and countless other points arising out of that system. Jury trial costs the litigants aud tax-payers of this county, at a low estimate, an average ol' two thousand dollars a year, making the very considerable amount of ten thousand dollars for its maintenance in the entire Judicial district. The addition of two Judges In each circuit even at tlic annual salary of thirty five hundred dollars would be a substial pecuniary saving. This gain is very materially increased when we consider that, the trial of causes would be rendered speedier and simpler, the number ot appeal cases considerably lessened, ai.d that the business interests of the country would suffer no interruption by the sessions of the court. In view of these facts. I believe the jury system ought to be abolished. A cautious and conservalive public opinion may not be prepared at present to sanction any sweeping innovations on an institution which it has learned to regard as the palladium of civil and political lil>erty; but let the work of reform proceed gradually and surely until not a vestige ol this antiquated and unreliable system shall remain to mar the symmetry ion The Discussion of the Essay. At the conclusion of the reading of the essay, the President Invited each member and cnch guest In turn to make any criticism of the paper which he thought proper. Without any reference to the order in which they come, and any effort to exactitude of expres. sion, the following report is made: Mr. Kills (J. Graydon said he was in lavorof trial by Jury, and would be opposed to any change. lie thought trial by jury absolutely essential to the peace and security of society in criminal cases and in actions connecting in tort. It would not be objectionable to refer many actions ;on contracts to a Jud>re or a bench ol Judges. One of the main arguments for Jury trial is that Juries, from their very organization, arc less liable to lean to power. They are drawn from the masses of the people, and when the term of the Court ends they no back amongst the people. They are not responsible to anybody for their verdicts, and never are more certain to act with Independence. Another argument for the Jury system is that it has been tried fora longtime and has been found to work well. He would confidently assert, and believed nny lawyer present would agree with him that the percentage of improper verdicts rendered by Ju ries is very sinuii. Judge Pressly upheld the present Jury system. He thought that nineteen times out of twenty the juries rendered verdicts whieh accorded with his own opinions. He would dislike very much to see the law changed so as to make It the duty of the Judge to render verdicts. He thought upon the whole, that the submission of causes to the Jury was safer and better than in the hands of an oflicer of the government. Jud;:e Cothran concurred in the views of the essayist. He thought that the personal popularity of the client had about as much to do with the verdict as the justice of the cau^e. The vote in the jury room depended too much on the popularity or unpopularity of the parties to the issue, and lie was in sympathy with the proposition of the essayist to make the Court officer Judge ot the fuels us well as of the law. Mr. W. H. Parker thought the jury system the best that had ever been devised. He prefprred to trust his cause to the Jury. If the jury should make mistakes ot law the Court could correct them. Mr. S. ('. C'ason supported the Jury system. It was the administration of justice by the people?by the neighbors and friends of the parties at issue. Even if the administration of justice should be no better by juries than by Judges. It would be more satisfactory to the oeople than if administered by an oflicer of the government. Col. 0. T. Calhoun was entirely In favor of continuing the Jury system. He teared the l ,.? rl/.Bi.lnn tlio nonnlii flip rifrllt tO {irOpUMUUii VI UCII.) nip, n?% ...? . -!->- * | Kit on Juries. He knew from personal ex peri -1 enee as a lawyer, that, it would be dangerous I to trust the decision of ciiukpk to Judges. He defended the parties charged with the Maddox murder. They came into Court throe times, and lie believed that the Judge would have hanged them, but the jury turned them loose. Mr. \V. X. Grnydon thought the present, system good enough. Old laws, like old wine, were often better l Man the new. Mr. M. I'. PeBruhl had faith in the old sys torn. He had been impressed with the danger allowing Judges to decide cases. Mr. lie not thought trial by Jury was better than trial by newspaper. He thought,however, there was no danger of the overthrow of the present system of trial by jury,and it was therefore unnecessary to combat the able arguments of the essayist. | Colonel K. It. (Jury thought the jury system was good, even If there were onjecuoiis io 11. i Mr. \V. A. Ij'm? referred to the antiquity of the Jury System, and tlint It hud always been , h cherished institution ot' tlm English people and is now jealously guaidcd by the Constitution of the United States, and that of ev. ery State in the I'liion, as proot ot its excelI lenee. Ill criminal case* especially It. has ev| er been regarded as ihe Palladium of our lib|ert?es. Kven in civil fuses, he thought, it better that the law and the tact should be deelded by different tribunals; the facts especially by a tribunal changing with every term [ j of the Court. It. preserved the administraI tlon of just ice free from the danger and even the imputation of corruption, and hence from the odium which must attach to a tlxed tribunal. Its defects might be lessened by restricting the present large number of exemptions from tlit! performance of Jury duty : a.ul perhaps in a measure by the introduction I of the majority rule. He referred to the feet I that the Slate of Pennsylvania, where the op! t ion of taking or refusing a Jury was allowed in but in 2U eases out of l t,(XX) in eighty years, | was the Jury rejected. The attendant evils of the system, he thought tound their correction laigely In the power of the Circuit Judge to | grant new trials. The contests of the Forum iu the preseuce of Judge ami Jury, he' thought, (lie best system ever devised for 'M eliciting truth iind exposingfalsehood. Mr. \V. H. Hanckel was not wedded to the Jury system as at present constituted. The theory helm? that every man Is tried by ,*vj his, peer*," he thought murderers, thieves, and ether evil doers would f-tre lightly if tried by their "peer#*." In one sense he thought, few men were ever tried by y their ^ The above expressions are merely intended to show the estimate in which the Jury system Is held by the people. In no instance it pretended to give the exact words of any speaker. During the evening very many plen?wnt things Were said of the address. The ability of the essayist, and the force with wbicli he presented his arguments were no less complimented than was his choice nse of language. As we presnnt the pajxr entire, it would be a work of supererogation for us tcr . ypeal* of its merits in any waif, ' The meeting w(is an exceedingly plensant * v 13 one in every way. After the usual refreshments the club adjourned. THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.' THE PAY OF TEACHERS?THE AVEfcAfi? M ATTENDANCE OF SCHOlAES?THE SCHOOL AGE/ Tlic School Commissioner1 Of Abbeville County Slakes Many SngKeti* |Sj tlouH of Vital Importance to the ~S,:':i. People. . Office of School Commissioner Ahbkvii.le County, Abbeville, 8. c., Jan. 14, 1&>6. The County Hoard of Examiner* have agreed that the monthly pay of teachers shall beac- ^ cording to grade of eertilicate, or grade of , VsS school,as follows: First Grade, Twenty-Five Dollars. Second Grade, Eighteen Dollars. Third Grade, Ten Dollars. That the minimum average number of jm~ .a pils per month that shall entitle a teacher to- . full pay in country schools shall be Id; li>incorpoiated villages and towns 20, In ensv# where the average number between the age* of 0 and ltf falls below the minimum tfeetruH- "> \-2& tees shall pay a per capita sbareof the mouth' Vlie^ following changes of general import' , IS ance to trustees and teachers havtf been rew cently made in the School Law ; 1. Certificates granted by County Boards arw -uSa valid for 2 years, and are renewable with or without examination, at the discretion1 of thor "tys said Boards. 2. It shall not he lawful for any person who vSl is less than six or more than eighteen years of age, to attend any of the freo public schools. The law requires ine irusree* u> lueci?? r>w ly jis practicable in the year, In order to locate the school** and elect teaclwis. This ought to ; be done before the 1st of February of cacli year, so that by that time all the achooisof the district Khali have beeu established and all the teachers employed. No school ouaht , .>& to be opened after the first week in February unless under peculiar circumstances. The up- . J'i'M portionment of the school fund to the several school districts is inaduon the 1st of February, ' or as soon thereafter as practicable. Unless >* t he trustees fix some limit to the time during which they will contract with teachers of public schools, they cannot know the number of j teachers nor their grade in time to ascertain, with the accuracy that the subject demands the length of the school term for their district. The trustees, t herefore, are urged to ascertain ns soon as the apportionment is made the length of the school term for their district and report the same to all the teachers and to the School Commissioner. Theschool term of each school of the same district, for the time it i? ' '* operated as a public free school, should be the same. There hits been a gicar defect in thcadmlnistration of the school law in respect to the location of schools. In some places the school* are located too near each other. This distribution of the forces and efforts of a community. as well ns the distribution of the public funil has had the effect of shortening the school term, and depriving socii unfortunate communities of the influence and advantages of $ """ ii-nll nnlH luoll^inninnpil mill u'oli UJIC ^l,vx,y n v'i4 )/u,ur " v" v,iw,i'i' ?? sustained school. I recommend totlietru*tees the sentiment of a distinguished comnmndcr, who, when asked the secret of his success, promptly replied, "i concentrate my forccs In some placos, on the other hand, tho school" are too far apart. The effect has been, probably, more disastrous than in cases whero the schools are too near each other. It has lessened, alarmingly, the attendance in tho county schools, and, doubtless, smothered the spark of genius in many a worthy youth. This part of the school law isasdiflicultof administration as It Is Important. While tho law requires the trustees to pay due regard to any school house already built, or sites procured, it also requires them to have regard to "other circumstances proper to be considered so as best to promote the educational interest of the district." I am disposed to believe that there are schools in the county that ought to ' be removed from their present locution, and I established in places accessible to a lartrer I number of children who are not now within ! a convenient distance of any school. No two public free schools lor the same race ought to be within le?s than five miles of each other. Two and a half miles is not too great a distance from a good school. A very few only will be required to go even this distance, and they can, surely, well afford to do so, 11, oy naving fewer schools, we increase the length of the term and the efficiency of those that we have. It Is a lamentable fact, known even totho casual observer, that in some sections of the county there Is an increasing disposition, on the part of parents, to shift the responsibility , ' of their chlldren's.education from themselves, where it properly belongs, to the public, whera it belongs only in cases of extreme poverty and misfortune, or wilful ncglect. They demand that the publtc, which exacts from them a few dimes lorschool tax,shall in return educate their children, build and repair their school houses, and even pay the incidental expenses of the school. This disposition ought to be checked at every point, and especially in the matter of building and repairing school houses. It is a manifest injustice to the teachers to take any part of their already too small salary and appropriate it to building and repairing school houses. The school house fs a local matter, and the community ought to build it at their own expense. The circumstances (night to. be very exceptional indeed, which would induce the trustees to appropriate any part of the public fund to building and repairing school houses. I feel sure that my views on this subjest will not be well received, hut I believe them to bo right, and that is a sufficient reason for me to recommend them to the earnest consideration of the trustees. The trustees will please 6ce to it that tho teacher's monthlv re|H>rts are properly tilled out, as the School Commissioner's annual report is based upon these monthly reports. " *>' Any 101UT COJI vcywiK Misnrsuim.- ?111*.i .vvommendations to trustoos is ossentially dcfeoMvc, that does not ask their Ilearty support In the propor administration of the school law, in raising the standard of teachor's certificates, in increasing the efficiency of the schools, in arousing an interest in the all-important subject of properly rearing and eduontingour children,anil in making during the short period of ourofliee, unmistakable advances nil along our own lines in the grand . march of education. Respectfully, GKO. C. HODGES. School Commissioner A. CIf von want a good breech loading shot gu i at New York cost, call on 1\ Rosenberg & Co. A small amount invested in window gla.?s ami prepared putty will make your houses much more comfortable for the winter. Glass cut to lit any sash by Speed & N cutler. 12-51. Always on hand, a large lot of white lead, * - ?l.?~I1 ??ln( hnwliuu prepurt.il piliiu.;*, nu.-vcu *m, !>? ? , which yon can buy in any quantity fronv Speed .Vt Neuller. 12-9, Buy ttic Golden Machinery OH for engines^, gins, Ac., sold by .Speed & NcuU'er. 12-9. Jewelry! Jewelry!! For holiday presents* Just received a most beautiful assortment of ladies scarf pins, bangle pins, bracelets, necklaces, ear drops, lace pins, oxydized pins, Ma-, kudo's infant bib pins, infants pot name pins. These are the handsomest and best goods we have ever shown. 1{. M. 1IAD?H0X & CO. I2-2t Thomas McGkttigan. of the old reliable Palmetto Saloon, has greatly reduced tho prices of his fine old pure goods. Give him a call and see for yourselves before buying adulterated liquors.?Adt'. Just received. 20 Ladies Circulars, l."? Ladies New Markets, at lowest prices. It. M, 12addon & Co. 12-2 The prettiest thing out?black llsse with gold tinsel, to bo had at Hell it Ualphin's. Some late style raised edge and plain visit ing cards at Lawson's. J ust received, another lot of circulars at BcH & Galph ill's. Just received another case of millinery. It,. M. Aaddon & Co. 12-2 Cow poas! cow peas!! .Wi bushels of cow pens are wanted bv White Brothers. The highest market price will be paid for them..