Edgefield advertiser. (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, June 30, 1858, Image 1

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

Sg Inorratic 3ournaL, Detwtev to tlr Soutil Anv S0nItrn aigi~tz, Boti5, fat JtWS, Citeratirt, -*oraif, Smperince, rvientnc, & "6We will cling to the Pillars of tie Templerr Libertes. and it it must fall,w SEMKINS, DURJESOE &CO., Proprietors. - EDGEFIELD, 9 C. ,JUNE 30, 1858. O.xu..* s Written for the Advertiser. YOU CA1WT UNTIE THE KNOT. n' RUTH. A captive Parrot sat within -A gilded cage and sighed; The prison-door was wired o'er, Though with a ribbon tied. Polly had grown quite discontent, And thought to quit the spot, So with her beak and feet essaytd To loose the silken knot. She picks and scratches, but the knot To loosen dont begin; She'd give her feathers to get out, But must remain ithin. Poor Polly mourns and sighs in vain So wearysome her lot And tl.en at intervals exclaims "I can't untie the knot." Wed'ock is quite as much a cage As those made but of wire, And though all enter willingly, Soon very many tire; Then they would fain get out again Would gladly change their lot; But like the bird in cage immured They can't untie the knot. And so they beat the bars of life, And grievo and sigh in vain, And weep and wish a thousand times That they were free again. Now ladies "look before you leap," Nor be this truth forgot: E'en with the might of woman's right, You can't untie the knot. All pictures have at least two sides While some have three or four; Other's again have five or six, A nd many even more. If we had tried the brighter side Such happiness would be our lot, We never would, e'en though we could, Untie the nuptial knot. SPEECH OF THE 0 ILLEDGE L. BONHAM, OF SOUTH cARoLINA, In the V S.-of Rcpreaentatices, May 9, 1858, on . ,e Kansas C W Comnittee Bill. Mr. Chairman, tIiot, for various reasons, participate in thie debate on the Kansas Senate bill; nor did I expect to take part in the dis cussion of any branch of that question. On the passago of the Conference Bill, T moved the previous question, but forebore to occupy the time of the House to give my reasons for my vote. Perhaps I should not have troubled this House at all with these reasons. But a few days after the passage of the bill, my honorable colleague (Mr. Boyce) delivered a speechin eply to the honorable member from -Mississippi (Mr. Quitman) in whose views I concurred, and who and myself alone of all Southern Democrats stood with the opposition on that question. I do not complain of the course my colleague thought proper to pursue. But that, with other subsequent events, makes it due to my constit uents as well as to myself,in my own judgment, that I should ask the indulgenee of the House whilst I now briefly state those reasons. The argument for and agaipst the Senate Bill had been exhausted in a discussion exhibiting a degree of ability seldom surpassed in these de liberative bodies. And I think an impartial * posterity will bear me out when I say that the preponderance of the argument was largely in favor of the advocates of the bill. To my mind it was conclusively proved that the constitution of Kansas had come up to us with all the sanc tions requisite to a valid constitution. The en tire Democratic party, with the President at its head, (the Douglas Democrats excepted) en dorsed it. It was clearly shown, by precedents -and sound argument, that the convention had 'the right to submit that constitution to the pe. ple for ratification or rjection, in part, in the whole, or not at all; and in either event it would be binding on Kansas and acceptable to us. That she had not the requisite federal pop ulation, rand was presenting herself without a formal enabling act, might, and ought, under all the circumstances, to be waived, was conce ded by all-denied by none. It was not ques -tioned that she would agree to abstain from the exercise of all right of taxation, and that the extraordinary claim of seventeen millions of acres of. land over and above what other States similarly situated had received, would be aban doned, and the four millions gladly accepted. - The Senate bill was the embodiment, as was . supposed by its advocates, of all that was use ful and needful for her admission. The Green Pugh amendment was distasteful to many of us; but to secure unity of action among the friends of Kansas, it was acquiesced in, after some mod ifications~. This amendment was, however, a concession which brought no strength to the bill, but on the contrary weakened it; for it led the opponents of the bill to hope for further concessions on a conference upon the disagree ing votes of the two Houses. It was, however, considered by many that, although we might, in the language of the late lamented Evans, be " fighting for a shadow, so far as any ultimate good could come to the South ;" nevertheless, we were contending for "a principle of vital importance," viz: the admission of a State with .a pro-slavery constitution; the importance of which principle was enhanced by the fact that such admission might prove-though I do not myself think such would have been necessarily the case--a barren victory to the South; and that in proportion as she would gaiul but little by it, so much the greater the wrong to the South of refusing Kansas admission with the Lecompton cons.titutionl. The passage of the bill was opposed by the Republicans, on the ground of the slavery feature in the copstitution. The Douglas Democrats opposed it, mainly, as they alleged, on the ground that the whole con stitution was noksubmnitted. But I think they deceive themel . I say it with respect, as I do not mean to assail the motives of gentlemen, the f.,rce and power of abolition feeling at home .unconsciously and imperceptibly operated upon their judgments. The precedents of the ratifi cation of the federal constitution by the thir teen original States by their respective conven tions alone without submission to the people, and the aoption of their State constitutions, by more than half of the States of this Union, is the ame manner, It would seem, ought to have been sufficient to have determined this question in the mind of any unbiased person. The Democratic party, however, with a portion of the Southern Americans, were satisfied with the constitution upon both the slavery clause and the' question of submission, and should, therefore, have insisted upon the adopton of the Senate bill. They would ultimately have suc ceeded. But if they had failed, then, on the defeated Senate bill, they would have gone to the country with a better issue than on the vic torious conference bill. But, sir, the Senate bill was defeated, and a conference committee, at the request of the Senate, was appointed. After-many meetings and much disagreement, they reported the bill, the merits of which I now propose to consider. The first objection to the bill is, that it sub mits the whole Lecompton constitution back to the people of Kansas for adoption or rejection, in spite of the declaration of the people in con vention assembled, that they desired admission, at once, under that constitution. The first sec tion of the bill provides that the admission of Kansas shall be dependent on "the fundamental conditiorgrecedent," that the people of Kansas shall accept a specific proposition contained in six clauses of the bill respecting lands, taxes, &c. The bill provides further, that on a major ity voting "proposition accepted," at an election to be held, " The President of the United States shall announce the same by proclamation; and thereafter, and without any further proceedings on the part of Congress, the admission of the State of Kansas into the Union, upon an equal footing with the 'original States, in all respects whatever, shall be complete and absolute." Whilst, oi the other hand, if "a majority of the votes cast be for proposition rejected, it shall be deemed and held, that the people of Kansas do not desire admission into the Union ioith said constitution, under the conditions set forth in said proposition." And then, regarding the adoption by Kansas of this last alternative as a rejection of the constitution, the bill goes on to authorize the pdople to form a new con stitution. Does this statement alone not make it palpable to the plainest understanding that, though not in so many words, this is virtually a submission of the constitution ? It does not matter whether the voting be on the land grant, the taxing power &c., or on some totally indif ferent question; still, if the result be that Kan sas, with the Lecompton constitution, would, on the one hand, be admitted, and on the other rejected, by reason of that rote, unquestionably the constitution is virtually submitted back to the people for ratification or rejection. Besides, if it were intended to submit the propositionsgrowing out of the ordinance dlone, why introduce into the bill the words " admis sion of the State of Kansas into the Union," &c., at all? ~ Again, the Douglas Democrats, as before stated, based their opposition to the Senate bill mainly upon the ground of the non-submission of the whole constitution to the people. What other feature, then, I ask, is it in the conference bill that commended that 'bill, rather than the Senate bill, to the support of the English branch of the Douglas Democracy ? Surely not that feature which' propomes to admit Kansas under the 14onmptnaconsmitution-thpoplet the approacliingXugust election, giving a major ity for- "proposition accepted ;" but if, on the contrary, they should give a majority for " pro position rejected," proposes to keep them out indefinitely? But, sir, as to the construction which the English branch of the *Douglas Democracy place on this bill, we are not left to inference alone. " The naked and unqualified admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution," said Mr. English, in presenting the Conference report to the House, "he could not vote for;" that "before Kansas is admitted her people ought to ratify, or, at least, have a fair opoiortu nity to vote upon the constitution under which it is proposed to admiteher ;" that "he would make reasonable concessions provided the sub stance be secured; which is the making of the constitution, at an early day, conform to the pub lic will, or, at least, that the privilege and oppor tunity of so making it, be secured to the people beyond all question." It would puzzle human ingenuity to discover any other meaning in these words, than that Mr. English considered the Conference bill as in effect submitting thewhole constitution to the people for acceptance or re jection. Would Mr. English, or any other ad vocate of the bill, have voted for an amend ment declaring it was not a submission ? I ap prehend not. Mr. Groesbeck and Mr. Cox, of the samne wing of the Douglas party, and Mr. Gilmer of the southern Americans, said they regarded it in effect a sulymission. All the op position say, that it is a virtual submission. Other distinguished members of the committee, it is true, say there is no submission of the con stitution to a vote of the people. The members of the committee disagree. We are, therefore, free to place our own construction upon the bill. To my mind, it is a virtual submission of the constitution back to the people for acceptance or rejection, which view, I think, I have shown to be correct. The most plausible argument in favor of the Conference bill, which 1 have heard or seen, is, that if Kansas, by rejecting the proposition in the conference bill, should be kept out of the Union; still, if she had~ been unwilling to ac ept our proposition, in the Senate bill, she would, in that event, also hato been out of the Union; and that we could not compel her to come in. That is true. But, it was admitted on this side of the House-denied by iio Demo. rat so far as my knowledge or information goes -that Kansas would have assented to our prop osition contained in the Senate bill. It was re.sonable-the same that was made to Minne sota-and Kansas could ask no more. [Her proposition was unreasonable, and such as no State ever laid claim to before. It was never questioned that, on the passage of the Senate bill, the Legislature of Kansas would be con vened ; that her Senators would be elected ; and that they and the member elect, would, as soon thereafter us practicable, take their seats. Now, the instant that these delegates should have taken their seats, Kansas would, I submit, with cofidence in the view, have been in the Union with the Leconmpton constitution-there would have been an acceptance of our proposition, and an unconditional assent to the terms of the Sen ate bill, by such sending of delegates-a waiver to all intents and purposes, of all right to tax the public lands ; and an abandonment of any elaim to land itself beyond the four millions of acres. No one, up to the failure of the Senate bill, saw any dificulty as to the ordinance, which was in fact no part of the constitution; and there was no reason to suppose there could be any; for Kansas had herself proposed to come in with the Lecompton constitution, amnd would have been in, and been received by Congress as a member of the Cenfederacy, by the act of sending her Senators and member here to take their seats ; and need never again (and probably would not) have alluded to her ordinance. No vote by her people, in such case, would have been necessary to ad mission. Or, she might, if she had preferred so to do, through her State legis lature, have assembled a convention, and through that have abandoned her ordinance, and have accepted our proposition. In the other case, by the Conference bill, the people of Kansas must ..ae annii, before they can get into the Unioa under the Lecompton constitution. Herremain ing out, under the Senate bill, would have been voluntary on her own part; but her being out, under the Conference bill, is compulsory on ours. But suppose Kansas had said we will come into the Union, and will send our delgates to take their seats, but will negotiate as to the ques. tions of taxation, the land grants, &c. She would unquestionably have thus been in the Union. You could not have refused her admis sion. If, then, the terms of adjustment could not have been agreed upon between the parties, who would have been the arbiter? The United States courts, who could have done nothing more nor less than have decided that Kansas had ac quiesced in our proposition. If Kansas had been content with the decision, that would have been the end of the matter. If she had insisted upon her proposition, she would thereby have placed herself out of the Union, and would have had to forego the benefits thereof. But suppose she had said, upon the passage of the Senate bill, she preferred staying out of the Union to accepting the terms of that bill? The South would have lost nothing, as it turns out, and Congress could then, with mu'h better grace than by applying such rule to Kansas in the conference bill, have passed a general law to exclude all new States till they should have the federal ratio to entitle them to admission. It is supposed that the right to tax the public lands is an attribute of sovereigntv of which Kansas could not be deprived, or deprive herself, and yet be "admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original thirteen States in all respects whatever." It must be borne in mind that the difference between the original thirteen States and the Territories is very marked. Those States were independent sovereignties. possesied' of the right of eminent domain outside of the Union and anterior to the adoption of the Fede ral Constitution. Sovereignty of the Territories, on the contrary, is in the States of this Union, the right of Taxing the public lands along with it. Now it seems, as has been done again and again, that Congress may reserve this sovereign right of taxation in the enabling act, or in the act admitting a State, carved out of these Ter ritories. But if we grant the position to be true, that the withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States confers upon a new State at once this sovereign right of taxation, still Kansas, as any of the other States have done, might waive the exercise of it in consideration of the land grants and other advantages arising from incorporation into the Union. It is further said for the Conference bill that its first clause admits Kansas into the Union. That clause is as follows: " That the State of Kansas be and is hereby admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever." The Critten den Montgomery amendment does the rame thing in the same words. But what is such ad mission in the Conference bill worth when the bill goes on to prescribe a condition precedent which must be fulfilled before she is admitted, and failing to fulfil which, she will not be ad mitted, and will never have been admitted There is a condition to be performed, preedent to ad mission. How can the State be said to be now admitted into the Union when she is told in the bJjj, your peopJe must vote again, and if they4, don't vote 'propoation accepted you smust stay out 6f the Union till you have the federal ratio, after which you may form a new consti tution, and then " be entitled to admission into the Union as a State under such constitution ?" Does any one pretend that Kansas is now actu ally in the Union ? This bill in truth subjects the constitution to a vote of rejection. Indeed, its adoption by Congress was the adoption of a measure of exclusion, for the result of the vote of the people of Kansas under the Conference bill in August next., is scarcely now problemati cal. .No, sir, so far from Kansas being admitted, we are no nearer the end of our difficulties now, than we were before the passage of the Conference bill. Kansas will send up to us next winter, in all probability, a free State con stitution, formed by a convention called by the Territorial Legislature, having the other sanc tions of the Lecomnpton constitution, (except so far as it will be restricted by the Conference bill as to the federal ratio,) with the addition of having been submitted, ent!ire, to the people for their approval. And I now ask, gentlemen, will that constitution be rejected by Congress ? I think not. This Conference bill will Ehus secure to the opposition within one short year, and if not so-soon, at some day not very distant, the victory for which they have from the first contended, and the South be shorn of the i umph of principle in having a slave State ad mitted. It is claimed, moreover, that-the Conference bill recognises the right of a slave State to ad mission. The Crittenden Montgomery amend muent can lay claim to equal merit ; for that bill provides for the asinission of K-nsas under the Lecompton constitution, if upon " that constitu tional instrument" being first submitted to a vote of the people, a majority shall assent thereto. But to what end is this recognition in either bill? What republican would ever have supported the Crittenden Montgomery amendment but for the certainty that the Le compton constitution would never again have sen Congress? And what Douglas Democrat would ever have supported the Conference bill but for its securing virtually to the people of Kansas the opportunity of voting down the Le compton constitution ? This bill is further objectionable as not being a manly, straight-forward measure. It is to be construed one way in one section of the Union, and a different way in the opposite seetion. This double construction prevails here, already, as I have shown. It is a mode of legislation I can not admire-one w~hich can never re .ult favorably to the establishment of sound principles, or in benefit to the weaker section. To preserve the constittioial rights of the South in this Union, the legislation should be plain-unmistakeable. I further object to this bill because, in accep ting that, instead of making our stand upon the defeated Senate bill we abandon the ques tion, in this case, of the admission of a slave, State north of 30 degrees 30 minutes-a con cession which, it strikes rme, the South should have avoided even the appearance of making. It is no answer to say that the Southern States, which were committed to secession in tho event of the rejection of a slave State, would have receded from their position because of the fact that the anti-slavery party in Kansas so greatly outnumbers the pro-slavery party. Those States would have been then in no worse condi tion than they are now. The people of the whole South would have felt indignant at the rejection of the Senate bill; for it had been made plain to them that if rejected, it would be owing to the slavery clause contained in the constitution. The conference bill faintly pur ports to i-ecognise the principle that a slave State may be admitted, and thus furnishes the ground, though such was not the purpose of itA advocates, upon which the tone of the South will,"'I fear, be let down from its former eleva B ut gentlemen say the Conference bill isa bet ter bill than the Senate bill. Had it been submit ted as an amendment to the Senate bill at the tim we expected to pass the Senate bill, by a Republican or even a Democrat, I doubt if it would have received the support of ten South er Demcrts. It would have been regarded as ilving the abandonment of the positions talen in the Senate.bill. What makes it a bet ter bill? Is there anything in the bill itself, or in its passage, from which the most sanguine can auger the future admission of a slave State from the Territories north of 36 degrees 30 minutes-or even south? Rather the contrary. As for myself,'Mr. Chairman, I see no reason to doubt the correctness of my convictions, but much to confirm it. I voted against the meas ure with regret atseparating from my colleagues and so many other true Southern men; but with my views Ti should do the same thing again, under the same circumstances. The bill commands nomofet myapprobation now than it did at the time i$,its passage. I voted, it is true, with my ho(iorable friend from Mississippi, for the motion to-lay upon the table, a motion to reconsider the: vote by which the bill was passed; thus indicating our indisposition to pro tract a contest in which we differed from so many of our frids. But if any practicable good could have een attained by the amdnd ment of the con.ence bill, or by the substitu tion of the Senate bill, or something more desi rable, of course yo would have voted for the reconsideration.: I do not recognize mere party success and party supremacy as paramount to all consideration of principle. I would con cede much for-the harmony of the party I am acting with-a great deal for the harmony of the party of the$South-but what I would con cede must fall short of the concession of princi ple involved, inrny conception, in the confer ence bill. I think these measures should be fairly can vassed, -in order that-the' South shall clearly comprehend th , and realize the complexion of her probable uture. But she can now make no issue upon iem with the North. Can the making of such. ues at the South be produc tive of any goo4 there. Moreover, much as I dislike the me4ii, I have no words of com plaint against t e who felt it their duty to support the conrence bill. They are as deep ly interested in, nd as true to, the interests of. the South as I, *d probably better judges of her best policy. -. This whole Kansas controver sy but exhibits he difference of opinion which will exist amo gentlemen who look with equal solicitude!io the welfare of their section. The Conferenue bill is .now the law of the land. The SojIi is in the Union with no issue before the coustry tending to its immediate dissolution. H policy should be to keep stead ily in view the Upking of her destiny into her own hands wh4 the occasion which requires it shall present itielf, and the meantime, to gird her loins for thk race which is set before her by the High Priests of Republicanism, and to co operate with tlit party, which alone of the two great parties of the country, professes to abide by the Cristitution as our fathers left it to us, so long -ah' that party is true to the con stitutional rigitof the South. The next two years will decide'the fate of this Union. The. Democrtie par, somewhat crippled by its di vision on the Spnate bill, though perhaps not to be subjected. to a Waterloo defeat, is-the last hope of those Aho think the rights of the South be preserved 6.he Union. The battle of pre ponderance '' bers of the free over the slave-ta i 9 has been fought and Won." But the battle of preponderance in the two Houses in Congress between the friends and enemies of the Constitution is now upon the country. If the Republicans shall win the day, the greatest battle df them all-the battle in defence of the institutions of the South will have to be fought-should the Repubicans make food their threars--on - another and a different held. The discussion of principles is always healthful, but a division of the South, at this juncture, into bitter parties on these questions, would be deeply to be deplored and should ear nestly be avoided. It is the part of wisdom in her people to profit by the knowledge of the past, and to prepare for the worst in the future. Mr. Calhoun, in his last great speech delivered in the Senate, begun by saying: "1 have, Senators, believed from the first, that the agi tation of the subject of slavery wo4&1, if not prevented by some timely and effective meas ure, end in disunion." And in speaking of Washington's example, in deciding to resist British oppression, he says: " We find much ini his example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity of deciding between submission and disunion." That great states man and re patriot -was then fast approaching his fnal issolution. With the vision of' a seer, he predicted the existing state of affairs. And could he have survived, and have heard the an nouncements which have been made in this, and in the other end or the capitol, during the present session of Congress, as to the future policy of the Government under Black Rep-ib lican rule, he would have said to his country men, the period is now near at hand when you. must decide between "submission and disunion." RELToTOS ISANITY.-Oflieer Shaw arrested a young Mexican and placed him in the cala boose for safe keeping. We wecnt over with Marshal Russel to take a look at him, and found him calling devils, "to set down anid hear him preach in the name of himself; Jesus Christ, the crucified Son of God." From desultory remarks it appears that he was a close attendant of the Presbyterian Church of Mr. Palmer in New Orleans, where he says "ie gave up all to follow Christ," even leaving his carpet bag and all his clothes, and when he had got converted, he found out that he was Je sus.Christ himself. He says he does not wanit any money, nor anything to eat or drink, all he wishes is, " to go up the river and breach Jesus Christ." He is some 21 or 22 years of age, apparently quite harmless, and of a pleasant disposition. If he has any friends they should look afler him. His name used to be Jose Silaas, but niow it is " Jesus Christ," and he wants no other namie till God calis him home.-Natchez Courier. N~issiaiPer "SEA IsL.AND Corrox."-Thie New Orleans Picayune, of the 6th instant, says : " We yesterday examined the samiples of 22 bales Sea Island cotton, sold in this city a few days since. This cotton was grown upon the plantations of Col. J. Fi. H.. Clairborne and Maj. Andrew Jackson, on Pearl river, Hancock Couni ty, Miss., and was sold at the handsome price of 35, 40, and 44 cents -16 bales brimging 40 cents per pound ; the whole consignment of! 22 bales netting to the enterprising plainters some thing over $2250, after deducting freights, corn 'missions, and all other charges. We understand that Col. Clairborne and Maj. Jackson will pro duce a handsome crop of this beautiful' deseni: tion of our great Southern iltaple this year, and we wish them the most complete success in their enterprise." Fo half a cedury, it is said, not' a boat or ship has passed Mount Vernon where lies the illustrious dead, without tollinig the bell while passing the sacred shade.___ AN enormous fat woman, who was recently exhibited about the country, has been married at St. Louis to a man almost as large as herself, named Rogers. The happy couple weighed, together, nearly twelve hundred pounds, and if their happiness equals their size they must enjoy marriae prodigiously. From the National Inielligencer, June 18. JIUSTICE TO AN HONORABLE SENATOR. We give place with pleasure to the subjoin ing letter from the ion. Arthur P. Ilayne, and the accompanying papers, in correction of a per version of his views in reference to the Bank of his own State, by some writer fhr a Charles ton paper: To my Fellaw-Citizens of the State (f South Carolinia. ' With feelings of deep emotion I address you. Words have been set down for me as spoken in the Senate which I never uttered, and senti ments attributed to me which I never enter tained.. The occasion was one of conversational and desultory discussion, by question and an swer, remark and rejoinder, which might have called for leniency of judgment upon words spoken by even a practised debater. I might well throw myself upon your indulgence, there fore. I might ask you not to allow to be at tributed to me a want of patriotism and State pride, contradictory of the whole course of my life and actions, and of all the known sentiments of my heart, upon the evidence of words tfius spoken. But I have no need so to appeal to your indulgence. On the contrary, I only ask to be judged by the severest rules. I ask that you will scan the words really spoken, and not those substituted for them. My real words will, I am surg, be found to express sentiments of duty to you and of devotion to the interests of the State. The error of the reported debate was an un fortunate one for me, and the moment I saw it I requested its correction, which was at once made. It was one of those mistakes which at times unavoidably occur, and for which no one should be censured when prompt correction is made. I am charged with alleging the insolvency of the Bank of the State of South Carolina and of attempting to injure its credit. The charge I utterly deny. I made no such allegation ; my convictions are just tLe reverse, and any attempt such as charged is inconsistent with such con ictions. My renarks in the Senate were in reference to a motion of Mr. Simmons, of Rhode Island, to substitute a home valuation for the ad valo rem principle of the present tariff. This mo tion was a blow struck at free trade, a blow aimed against the South and in favor of the North. In the course of his remarks Mr. Simmons stated the failures in Charleston in the recent crisis to amount to nearly one million of dollars, and endeavored to show from the condition of the banks in South Carolina at the time of their suspension that the proportion of coin to liabili ties had nothing to do with that suspension. To refute this theory was to show that the facts upon which an important part of his main ar gument was founded were loosely gathered, and would not bear examination, and thus to sap the very foundation of the main argument itself. It was necessary for me to refer to the State action upon the banks, which had been inaccurately given by Mr. Simmons, and to the uspension itself, which I did as follows: "Not altogether, sir. The penalty on the first two instalments was exacted by the State; the banks were required by the Comptroller General of South Catolina to-pay, and did pay, and never refunded. I am of opinion that the cause of a portion of our banks having suspen ded is to be traced to this fact: we have a bank, the capital of which is owned exclusively by the State, and must partake of the character, more or less of a political bank, subject to no responsibility, and, at the period of the crisis, its circulation was so large it was compelled to suspend; but if the Bank of the State had not been the very first to suspend-no bank sus pensions-none of our banks in South Carolina would have refused to continue to pay specie." You will see that this is very different from the language attributed to ine in the Charleston Courier in the article referred to, following the Congressional Globe of June 3d. As promptly corrected it stands in the official report of the Appendix t the Congressional Globe, page 442, where it is given substantially as spoken. I cannot imagine how this can be construed in any way into an attack upon the. credit or solvency of the State Bank. I could have wished, fellow-citizens, that before assailing mae, absent on your service, for strange, unpatriotic sentiments, founded upon words reported to have been spoken, these persons had inquired of mec in relation to the words. My course in the past might even have required that they shoulil assume there was seine mistake, and have consulted me in reference to it. I would have given an immediate reply. I most hearti ly regret, fellowv-citizens, that they assumed the words to be thus, my sentiments to be unpa triotic, andl so became my assailants, andl con dened me without a hearing. 1 appeal to you, nd ask that hearing from you which they While I have ever been opposed to the bank on principle, upon expediency, and upon policy, I never imagined that the Bank of the State of South Carolina was not as sound as any other in the country. On the contrary, the whole capital of State, the wealth of every man in it, is pledged to sustain the bank and to make good its capital. No expression of opinion by any individual could hurt the credit of an institu tion so sustained. But I expressed no doubt of its perfect solvency ; none whatever. That my remarks did not produce any such impression upon the Senate will appear from the letters of Senators Simmons and Fitzpat rick, copies of which I append, with that of my letter to which they are replies. Senator Sun mon, being engaged in the discussion, was of course alive to all that took place im the course of it, and he expressly says that " nothing was said by (me] on that occasion which cold be regarded as reflecting upon the character of the State, or upon the credit of any of its moneyed institutions." Senator Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, who occupies the seat next to me, had no such impression made upon him.. In facet, nothing contained in my 'remarks would bear such a coistruction. I feel that I have been deeply wro'nged in the c~urse which has been' taken thus to condemn me hastily and without inquiry, when doing my duty at a distance from my hope and bat tling for the principles of the people of South Carolina; and I confidently appeal to you, fel low-citizens, to repel by your might this un generous and unprovoked assault. I am, with high respect, fellow-citizens, your obediet servant, A. P. IIAYNE. Washington, June 15, 1858. SENATE CHAUID.R, Washington, June 12, 1858. My Dear Sir: I have your note of this date, inquiring if, in the course of the debate upon a proposition for ma home valuation of foreign imports, you said anything which, in my opin ion "was injurious to the character of the State of South Carolina, or to the credit-of the Bank of the State of South Carolina." In reply I have to say that I themn regarded or allusion to the Bank of the State of South Carolina as havingreferenice only to thesoundness of the policy of the State in placing an institu tion holding so large an amonof the funds of he Sta under the control of directors having no individual interest in the successful manage ment of its, affairs. It must have been apparent to you and to the Senate that I regarded the liberal policy pursued by that Bank during the late monetary troubles as highly creditable to that institution. Nothing was said by yourself on that occasion which could be regarded as reflecting upon the character of the State, or upon the credit of any of its moneyed institu tions. I am, dear sir, with high respect, your obe dient servant, J. F. SIMMONS. Hon. A. P. Hayne, Present. N. B.-The institution referred to being sup ported by the whole resources of the State, its credit must of course be indisputable. Yours, J. F. S. SENATE CIIAMBER, June 12, 1858. My Dear Sir: Your favor of this date has just been received. I was present when you made some remarks on the home valuation bill in the Senate some time since. I did not tax my memory at the time with what you said; nor can I now undertake to say what your pre cise language was on that occasion. As well as my memory enables me to speak in regard to the matter to which you refer, I can say that there is no impressiwn on my mind that you said anything injurious to the character the State of South Carolina or the credit of South Carolina. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, BEN. FITZPATRICK. Hon. A. P. HAYNE. WASHINGTON, June 14, 1858. My Dear Sir: In reply to your note, received to-day, I must say that, in your discussion of the " home valuation bill," I understood that you were resenting what you supposed to be an imputation on South Carolina. Your seat being at some distance from mine, and your back towards me when you spoke, I did not hear all that you said, but I have read it since, and the impression then made is not removed that you referred to the bank as a political as well as banking institution; and that, having a controlling political influence, it was managed on diffeent principles from other banks; was not subject to the same responsibilities, and was for these reasons less able and less willing to hold out in a financial crisis. I did not un derstand you, and do not think any one here did, as putting in question the ability of the bank to redeem its notes ultimately, or the faith of the State, which every one knows is pledged to their redemption. Very truly and respectfully yours, J. U1. IIAM4OIND. Hon. A. P. HATNE. WASHINGTON, June 15, 1858. We, the undersigned, concur fully with the lion. Mr. Simmons in the impression made by the remarks of Col. Hayne in the Senate on the 21st of May, that nothing was said by him which could be regarded as reflecting upon the character of his State, or upon the credit of its moneyed institutions. In fact, the tone taken by Col. Hayne in the various discussions of the Senate has always been of that elevated character which should belong to the body, and which makes the true representative of a great and chivalrous State. R . M. T. HUNTER. JEFF. DAVIS. J. J. CRITTENDEN. J. M. MASON. TIlE CilEAPEST IND TIlE BEST. The following article, we clipped sometime since, from a Georgia exchange, we believe but failing to place the proper credit on it at the time, we have concluded to adopt it, making only such changes t!:erein as to suit our own case, at the same time we do not wish to be accnsed of wholesale plagarisin ! A newspaper, once a week, fifty-two weeks for two dolilars, is the cheapest thing any man can buy. The paper, withougt a mark upon it, is almost worth the money. Yet, how very few consider a newspaper of sufficient impor tance to be paid for. There is scarcely a week's issue that does not afford (s subscriber, in some way, information worth a great deal mnore than ie pays for it the whole year. Hlundreds, and it is no exageration to say, thousands of dhollars have been secured to many a man, by one do zen lines in a newspaper, which cost less than four cents! Did the reader ever seriously ask himself the qjuestion, how much money has the publsher of the paper I hold in my hand, ex pended to get it out ? lbs he any- idea? Think of it reader, to get out the paper you are now looking at; the publisher has gone to the cash ex pense of nearly one hmundred dollars. D~o you wonder, nowv, how essential it is for every man to pay for his paper ? Many persons who have read a newspaper for years, have no correct idea of the time, labor, and money that are spent upon the paper which they have opened fifty-two times in the year. It is printed, they know not how-and comes to them regularly as Sunday does-but they see nothingof the toil,anxiety, mental and physi cal exertions, that have been undergone to give them the paper. How fewv readers of weekly papers are aware of the simple fact, that more than one half the type tbey see in the paper before thenm, has to be distributed one by one into separate boxes, and put together again in new shapes to please or instruct them the next week ! Yet it is true. Week after week this tedious and monotonous work of putting up and taking down little pieces of lead, goes on. There is no rest for the printer. In sickness as in health-in sunshine as in storm, the paper must not be neglected. Since we have had this paper, we have not failed to issue it every week;~and we are singular in this respect. Why should not the printer be the rery first to be paid ? Hie has done more, for the money, than any other creditor has. is bill is so small that any man, not actually disabled by -Providence, or helplessly lazy, without sacri fice, can pay it. If thoreader, will, after searching the columns of each number of the paper he subscribes for, place it on file, and preserve it until the year expires, and then take two dollars for it, he is not of our way of thinking by a great odds. It is not unfrequently the case that old files of papers have been carried back and forth to dif ferent courts, to be usedi as evidence in impor tant cases where large amounts of property were pending. And yet the price of the paper that carried the eases was, when it was issued, butfive ccnis ! and without the copy in posses sion of the proprietors, the right ful owners of the property would have lost it. Our advice to every man, is, take some good paper--pay for it in advance-and keep it on file. It pays better than any other investment, considering the amount invested.-Flag of the Union. p0-A olor~ed Airmuin Newark, N.J., having sufi'er l samo pecuniary omibarrassments, recently closed busites, and the senior member gave the following "notis"' to the public: " Do dishohution of co-parsnips heretofo resisting twit me andh Jones, In do harber perfesalon, am hretofo resolved. PUssonS who cue must pay the inscriber. Dem what the ihrm oso must call on Jones, as th fim I. Inanlved. JOHNSON.? TERRIBLE FLOOD AT CAIRO. The telegraph has already given an account of the destructive flood at Cairo, Illinois, by which the city has been nearly swept away. A letter from that place, dated .une 13, to the Chi cago Times, has the following interesting addi6 tion particulars: It has rained almost incessantly for the past three months, swelling the rivers out of their banks, carrying desolation in their pathway. Thousands upon thous-indsof acres of land,above and below, have been laid waste, and millions of dollars worth of property lost. Yesterday ' morning a distinct shoek of an earthquake was felt here, and at six o'clock in the evening the "cross levee" broke, when the water, which wra twelve feet above level of the town outshie, came dashing, foaming and seething invide. The break was so unexpected that the inhabitants were taken by surprise, and muany of them only had time to escape, with their families, to the levee, before the torrent swept away their homes. In many instances boats'and rafts had to be re sorted to for the means of' escape. To-day every person is busily engaged in rescuing what property they safely cain from the floating houses. Breakfast was served to the guests of the Tar. lor House in the second story, knee deep in wa ter, the culinary department being carried to the third! A few families,.who resided in two-stoiy houses, remained in them until noon to-dai. They have. now to get out of their up-stalis windows into boats and water being almost on a level with them, and rising at the rate of four inches an hour. The Ohio levee is the only place of refuge left, it being only some seventy-five feet wide, and three-fourths of a mile in length. At one..o'clock P. M. nearly one half of the (unfinished) hotel, on the levee, fell with a de fending crash, preceded by a report equal to a six-pounder. [he building was of brick, five stories high, with attic rooms, iron door and wir dow frames ; cost nearly one hundred thonsand dollars. The remaining portion was consid.era bly swayed. Total loss. Gov. Matterson's new bank building, five slo ries high, also on the leee, shows Aignu of fa' ling. It is an unfinished building, and cost ser enty-five thousand dollars. The " Springfield Block," adjoining the bank still stands firn, but will propably come down with a crash soon, as the water is softening the ground at the foundation. Nine tenements are within this building, all occupied. The post of flee is one of them. Cost some three or four hundred thousand dollars. WILLIANMTON SPRINGS. We understand that this popular -watering place, on thbGreenville and Columbia Railroad, will be opened to visitors on 1st July. The splendid and commodious hotel is nearly ready for occupation,- and under the superintendence of Mr. F. A. Hoke will no doubt give full satis faction. The main building is two hundred and twenty feet by forty-five, with two piazzas, ex tending the whole length, supported by fourteen circular columns of brick. The edifice. is fouu0 stories high, has a dining room one -hundred and tweifty feet by forty-four, ball room fifty-one feet by forty-four, ladies parlor fifty by eighteen, and severaf smaller parlorw-with one hundred and forty-four chambers. -The whole building will be furnished- with gas. The opening of this fine establishment, at an acceptable and valua-, ble spring, well known for its detergent and me dicinal qualities, will be a great addition to,the attractions of home travelers, who can reldily procure its privileges on short notice, and save the expense and inconvenience of distant locali ties. A little attention to our local resources is all that is needed to develop their peculiar ad vantages, and keep our funds in local circula tion.-Soulk Carolinian. HAnn TIMEs AT THE WEST.-In some dis tricts in Illinois there is said to be searcely enough money to pay the taxes. Michigan, Iowa and Minnesota are even worse off. There is no currency at the West, other than the bank notes, which have but little or no specie value yet are kept in cir-culation of necessity. The commnercial cities, St. Louis, Chicago, Cincin nati, Detroit, St. Paul, Dubuque, Davei.port, In dianapolis, eg., absorb all thre actual money, be cause the country is greatly in -debt to them, and is constantly drained to pay its liabili ties. . Money is so scarce there that it can be readily loaned out at fi om 20 to 40 per cent. per ain mnm, with the prospect that it will stay loaned out for years to come. Where monecy commands such exhorbitant rates of interest the country certainly cannot be in a prosperous condition. I'arm pr-oduce is worth almost 'nothing. We read a letter several days age from a former cit izen of Easton, who now resides in a town in Wisconsin. Hie says butter is selling there at 10 cents a pound ; eggs S c-nts a dozen ;, pota toes l2v cents a bushel, and other things im pro portion, and as to money, lhe does not believe the whole population of the town, numbering sonmc 2,500, could raise over $500 in cash. DISTaSSs AMuoxo THE CrLrncy ix iEscLAD. The Rev. WV. G. .Jervis, secretary to the cleri cal fund. tells air awful story about the distress of the workinig clergy in England. Four huni dred of these poor feillows, knownr to Mr. Jervis, in one year applied for any sort of relief-mon ey, clothes or food. Tire Bishop of Sodor and Mann states that the poverty of his clergy is so great that fresh meat is a luxury to~ them; arid another Bishop lately stated that lie'knew many dlergymen in his diocese who, together with - their wives and families, seldom tasted meat. The Rev. G. Radcliffe, recently sentenced to ten years, penal servitude for forgery, had a wretched "living." Don't entertain tire idea that the editor is a man of leisure, and has hours to idle away in idle gossip. If you have anything to say to him, out with it and be off. Many a time the editor has to work far into the night~to make up for time fizzled awnry in idle conversation with self inflated persons, who hamving nothing else to do themselv-es, imagine that the editor can listen to them and their basswood. AS HIoNEST CoNFEssxoN.--A man named John George took laudanum in St. Louis on Sunday, at the European Hotel, and wheni dis covered was too far gone to recover.. He was aged 26, mand had been at the hotel but two day. The following memorandum, found on his per son, tells the sad story in a few words:--"The last of John George. Please bury me by chari ty. I have been the last two years a dissipated inan. My mind was destroyed from the effets of liquor. Lot the rising generation take warn ing by.me-pecuniary embarrassment and fear of want. I have a mother and three sisters living at Pittsburgh, Pa. " THE GRnvE BURIEs Ev~aY REsENTNENT." A Washington correspondent says that Senator Houston, upon whom devolved the duty of pro nouncing a eulogy on his deceased colleague, and who umainifested so much of feeling on thre occasion, had not spoken to 'jm in' ten years. A bitter feud had existed htwen them for that long period. Mir Gerard Stith was inaugurated Mayor of . . New Orleans, on Monay the2s is.