The Charleston daily news. (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, June 21, 1866, Page 2, Image 2
The Daily News,
THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE 21, 1866.
METHODIST CHURCH IV COURT.
ARGUMENT FOB THE DEFENDANT, BY COLONEL C.
H. StMONTON.
May it please the Court:-I cannot deny that I approach
the present discussion of this case with the greatest ,
reluctance. The questions involved present points of ]
law of such intricacy, require the investigation ot prin- <
ciplesof such importance iud carry with them inter- ]
esta of such magnitude, that they demand a court of <
ample jurisdiction in which full opportunity wou'd be (
afforded for cloBe Investigation, elaborate argument, j
and careful decision The matters now in controver- (
.' ay have been debated by the first minds of the nation, ]
and have been dtcided in our highest courts. Such c
oourts still exist, whioh, so far from offering any inipe- i
diment, aff ird an opportunity l'or a fair and impartial 0
examination of this caso. In such an examination the c
lights of every party in interest could be adjudicated, t
and a final decision could be obtained. The questions y
involved are pure questions of law, upon facts admitted v
or cleary proved. Nothing of the praot Ice or machin- t
ery peon lar to this Court is needed to secure justice
The Oourts of this -<tate, and of the United States, are B
open to tho plaintiffs, and can afford ample relief. In- /
deed, the issue ls not ' between persons of color and |.
whites, growing out of the peculiar relations between I
.. . thom, but between two great sections of a great bier I a
archy, either of which OOH 3d go into any of tho courts t
of the country, assured of a calm, fair, and impartial fe
deoiBioi of their rights. ' I v
The claim s t up by tbe petitioners is a claim for ti
property. lt is a demand for tho possession b'ased on h:
the title; ah assertion that they are devisees under the j c
'will of test i tor; as such entitled to hold as against the j s
' administrator with the will annexed, anet empowered i c
to demand and to obtain an account, I respectfully sub- i
mit, therefore, th*t the cat-e is not a proper oho for this y
Court, and that it is not within the soope of its powers, f
Having: beon'ordored, however, to try the case here, I <
lespeetfolly ask your attention, while I touch as briefly e
- as I oan upon the points which present themselves) feel- .1
j . lng confident that you will extend to the argument the r
same psfjhj?be which you gave to the long and tedious c
examination of the witnesses. 1 h
John MoKee; a oitizun pf Charleston, and a promlnont (
-member pf the Methodisl; Episcopal Church In that city, 0
. departed this life in lt-SK, leaving in force his last will, 0
in Whioh he devises very nearly all of his estate to his b
, son, David Gibson McKee, "and the lawful.,hoirs of his j
, vi Dody begot in matrimony, if'white, forever." If his a
son, "as aforesaid, bath no surviving heirs; issue begot B
-' as aforesaid, then to his brother, Abel MoKeo, and his t
heirs or Issue " Shoul i bis son and brother "die with- t:
? '. Ont heirs aa aforesaid," be elves.two lots of laud to the I t
Q Methodist Episcopal Church, near Charleston,.for cer- ?
tain specific objects, and the remainder for th&promo- g
? tion of the Gospel of Christ or iiisslons, to be man iged 0
' by two ot their number, to be selected by the Board of t
? ,, ? Trustees, of ti.e Methodist Episcopal Ohuroh in Charles- 11,
ton. At.tho date of th? will, and for many years after-11
! ? ward, there was but one Board of Trustees of the M. E. I c
Ohuroh in Charleston, and all the churches of that de- J r
nomination were connected with the M. E Church of I g
th? United States. In 1844. this M. E. Church of the 0
United states was divided Into two great sections upon I ti
i the issue of slavery. The seotion in the slaveholdlhg
States was ot) led the M. E. Church South-that In the I e
.. 'npn-slaveholdlng Mates retained the name of the M. E. I f,
Church. AU the churches in Charleston of course fol- t:
i : lowed the M. E. Oburoh South, and there were no I B
churches of the M. E. Ohuroh, so-called, until one was j d
; eatablishf-d In 1885, upon tho entrance of the Union u
5orces into Charleston. In 18% a congregation was y
?rmed and a Quarterly Conference,1 who appointed the
' petitioners Trustees of .the M. E, Church, in connection D
( . / with the.Church, North. Abel "MoKee ls dead without %
issue, dying lu 1859. Duvid Gibson McKee died with- ti
out issue lb 1863 or '64 'Abel McKee had qualified on tl
' the will Of John MoKee as his exeoutor, and on his tl
.death the defendant, who had been named as executor
of the will of Abel M 'Kee, also qualified as administra- p
tor de bonis non, with the will annexed, of John McKee. a?
';,'' Tbe petitioners claim froth him the dellverv of the pro-1 ai
p?rty of his testator,'John McKee, and an account of I
. his administration, alleging that, as Trustees of tho 1,
Methodist Episcopal Ohuroh, they take under'the will. I
. It most bo rememo'erbd that the defendan t is a True- j vj
'?> tee under bonds for the proper administration and'dis- it
tribution of the estate-that he is liable to . claims of 0<
other parties who are not parties to this suit-that he I A:
has actual notice of suoh olalms, and that he is entitled Cl
to the protection of the court. Now I submit that the I ls
? ; ? petitioners are not entitled to the claim they set hp. m
1st. Because the attempt by John McKee to dispose [ bi
, of his estate after the death of his son David, is void as I pi
tho limitation is too remote. ot
2d. Because the title is really in the old Board of BC
Trust?e? which waa In existence during the life of John
. - McKee, at tho period of lils death, and from that period vi
to the present time. th
3d. Because if this r?d Bosrd is excluded and, none Sc
other than persons suoh as the petitioners, Trusties of I B
: the M. E. Church can take, the devise lapsed, inasmuch Ct
, , as at..he death of David McKee there were no such ai
Trustees of the M. E. Oh itch in Charleston in existence, tn
?> 4th. Beoiuse the administrator, with the will armex^J-J-Au
ls legally In p ?aseaaion-<if theogtnu n ?,??" at
? >f fSSbjl ?hmiid-nnt ht, .agHTT?u to aeltver possession
- isnrnHJSis lUlly reimbursed f >r all such advauces, and di
the debts of the estate are paid. . hi
I will proceed to discuss these points in their order, sc
$. 1st. As to the validity of tho limitation over. .John It
HoKee first gives his esta e, consisting now altogether ni
of land, to his son, "and the lawful heirs of his body,
begot in matrimony. If white, forever." He thus;oreates ni
In his son an estate In fee simple conditional nt oom- il
mon law. It is decided in South Carolina that when a tl
testator gives his estato to any one In fee simple con- oi
ditional, he exhausts his power of disposition over tho I g)
?State, and cannot make any further directions concern- I w
lng it, based on a failure of heirs of the first,taker. I pi
Will not dwell on this point, bot give tho authqMles.
Di Mazyck vs. .Vanderhorst, Balley Eq 48, there c<
was a devise of real estate to testator's daughter and "to ti
the heirs of her body forever," but if she should depart
this lite, leaving no lawful heir or heirs of her body, tl
then over, it was held that the limitation over was too ti
remote and void. The court say, "a devise to one and Iv
the heirs of his body causes, in this State a tee con- l b
ditional, and suoh estate cannot support a remainder, tl
Nor can a limitai ion over,, upon the determination of
that estate be supported, as an executory devise, being tl
too remote, ihe question has been fully-considered,* <M
and the decision lu this case recognized in several to- b
staue s, and he question must now be regarded a? set- b
tied. See Bedon vs. Bedon, 3 Balley Lav Hop. 281; \U
Adam s vs. Chaplin, 1 Hill, ch. 865; 11 dwarda vs. Barks
dale, 2 Hill, ch 181; Deas TM. dorry,-2 Sill,-ch. 244. O
If these oases be law, and the; unquestionably are, h
then the t fiori whlob John McKee made to dispose of g
Iiis es ate ou the contingency of the death of his son u
without heirs of the body must fall, and the limitation p
over, in such an event, to the Trustees of- the M. E.
Church in Charleston is too remote abd void. Thoy
cannot take under this will. i ' u
2. But mippoao, for t e sake of argument, that the tl
limitation over is good, we come to the second and the 01
main question In the case I. lu
When John MoKee made his will In 18D1, by which 0
he evidently wished all his property to go to the M. E
Church lu Charleston, and to be managed by its Tras- 0
trees if his son and his bro her left no issue, the Board I ot
of Trasteen <>f that ohuroh tn Charleston: consisted of lo
Wm. Bird, 8. J. Wagner, John 0. Miller, Abel McKee, ti
and the others mentioned In the ans-vcr. These men Itt
were his personal associates; members with(himself of n
' this same Board, all of them known ro him,! ana all en-1 N
joylng.no doubt, his confidence. They wore also the T
associates and friends of his,brother and executor, Abel I di
McKee, upon whom the management of tho i und was o'
imposed, and would, very'iLtturally, be ful y acquainted bi
with his wishes and plans! There can be no doubt, u
therefore, that it was his iritoution that these very indi- hi
vidual^-thia same Board1 ot 'which he had been one- 4t
should fulfill his wishes sud d'.rtot his bounty, At that tf
time they were- unquestionably Trustees ot the M. E ti
Churoh in Obarleston, and if any body could tase; they tl
could and did take, under'tbe very words of the will, ti
Has anythil g ooodfrad since 'the death of the testator, (t
and since their acquisition of right under this will, aB gi
actually at that time the ?only Trustees of the M. E. al
Churoh in charleston, which can.deprive them of the tc
rights so acquired? It i ?? argued thatttt.se Trustees, bi
since 1814, have ooased to belong to the M. E. Church, fi
and hava connected thems.-lyoB with the M. E. Ohuroh tl
South, aud that In this way they have deprived them- pi
selves of any rights they otherwise may have had. m
Now, I contenu that the division of the M E. Church hi
in 1844, and the addition of the word, "rfoutb" to the di
name of the Southern Methodist episcopal Churoh to
cannot oeprive Trustees of a Local Board of their rkht tl
10 local property, to beustd tor local purposes. And if
this conclusion 1B drawn both f'om the character of the N
dtelslon aud from the express stipula ions under which n
it'.was made How was the separation effected? In 01
1844, lu view of tho agitation ol' the question of slavery rn
and tho consequ nt ill feeling generated iu thu Church hi
tho General Conference of the M. E Church ot the D,
United Slates, reprtseutiug all parts of tho country, tl
almost unauimouBly adopted a pian of s-paratiou into t"
two General Conferences, which plan w is to ho sub- w
niitted to the southern conferences tor their approval ),
Ihoydid.iu fact, approve it and tho separation 110k w
place on that plan. Thus the division was effected uu- ci
dur the auspices of tho highest judicatory of the huron, el
in pursuance of the plan pr >posed by it, with its lull a>
sanction and approval. It was no secession-no aban- tt
donmoutofan established locicty by schis unties- bu1
a separation of an unit into two co-ordinate parts, with a
full recognition of the right? of each, each bel?g'within ti
its own limits th? lawful representative and successor
ot tho original Ohuroh. i(
Now, what says the plan of separation? bereit is; read tl
lt, aud tho 9 h anido provides, "that all the property ot ni
the ll. E. Church In meeting bouses, parsonages, col- v
leges, schools, Conference funds, cenietorits'and of b
evory kind within tko inuits of the Southern organiza?
tion shall be forever free from any claim set up on the i:
part of the M. E. Church BO far as this resolution eau J
be cf force tn tho promises. Now tho proporty convjeM t
under thi will was the property of the M. E. Church j
within tho limits of tho Southern organization, and by t
id? airtiole lt ia forever free from ?ny olaim
Starthern Ohuroh, end ls declared the propertj
jonthern Church. Can anything bs stronger?
Intimation has been given t at it will be coi
that this Plan of Separation was unoonBtitutior
this I make these observations:
1st. It has been acquiesced In by the whole
for more than twenty years. The Southern
jeted directly upon lt and formed its orgai izatic
the Northern Ohuroh have never made olalm
property or attempted to establish ? Oonferen
mee and that a futile effort) in the limits of the
3rn organization. Considi-r the immense valu
3hurch.es, parsonages and other property, all heh
name of Trustees of the M. E. i huroh in the Soi
fore 1844. That all of this property passed ii
aandB of the Church Bouth, and was taken out b;
That not one effort can be shown on tho par)
?orthern Ohuroh for over twenty years to
jlaini to this property, although du lng all the
he State and United StateB Courts were open to
ind how can you explain thia course bf couduct
ither ground than that tho Northern Church felt
)y tho stipulations of the Plan of Separation, wi
:ured all this property to the Southern Ohuroa ?
mt until the demoralizing effect!) of war had be
ind the love of plunder, which lives In the hearts
lamp followers, had buen, nurtured-it was no
he tempting object of a prostrate and conquei
vas presented-it was not uutil the conflict o
ras inaugurated, that any such claims was mi
ured.
2d. The whole question has been judicially
dined and the Plan of Separation austained. I
rom the case of Gibson vs. Armstrong, 9 B. Mc
kentucky Reports. That case arose In this wa;
'lan of Separation provided that the northern boi
f the limits of the two divisions of the Church i
e determined by tho votes of a majority of the
ere of each congregation. At Mays ville, Ken
rae oneof these congr?gations, and a majority ac
? the Church South. Tba ohuroh building wai
a the hame of Trustees of the Methodist Bpi
Ihuroh, and a question a-ose as to the right of p
ibo arid use of it. The^ninori'y, who adhered t
Ihureh Nortb, contending that as the building wa
n the name of the Trustees of M. B. Church, thi
arity who had'loined the M. E. Ohuroh South h
iirther right. Tue case was carried to the Su;
lourt of Kentucky, sud it was solemnly deoided,
lab?rate and able opinion, that the General Conic
tad full power and authority to make the Plan of
atlon, and lo divide the Ohuroh. That the "Sou
ihuroh stands not IIB a seceding or schismatic
ireaking off violently or illegally from the or
ihuroh and carrying off uch members and such i
nly as it may succeed in abstracting from
thor, but BB a lawful ecclesiastical body, ei
iy the authority of the whole Ohuroh, with pi
uri ad lotion over a designated portion of the ort
asoclatl n, recognized by that Church aa Its p
uccessor and representation within its limits." '
he Sonthern Church, retaining the same raith,
Hue and discipline, and assuming the same orge
lon and name aa the original Ohuroh. is not C
lethodist Bpisoopal Ohuroh, ut ts, in foot, tc
loutit, the Methodist Episcopal Church, as truly a
ther Oh'irch is so to the North, and is not the le
iy the addition of the word '.south,' to d?sign?t
ocality." "That the members of a local sooietj
(tied to the use of local property under this or
?tl.er f imilar deed before the division, do not lose
ieht by adhering to the Methodist Episcopal Oh
outh under the resolutions ot the General Confer
f 1844," and the possession of th* property was g
a the persona who went with tue Ohuroh South."
8. Xt waa again most ably and elaborately argu?e
minent bonnsei-in the case of Bascom O?. Lane,
)re .fudge Nelson, of the Suprome Court. We havi
be record of that case, but it is in evidence, that th
alt was a reference of the matter to referees, ai
i vision of the Book Concern, aa provided in the :
f Separation. This case was settled in 1851, BC
ear? after the adoption of this plan.
4. When the Baltimore Conference came into i
ection with the Sonthern church a few months
tie Northern Ohuroh claimed that they had forfe
tie property held by them. Why? Clearly beoi
aeir act was not in accordance wita the Plan bf Sep
ton.
ff. It is not in violation of any restrictive article,
owers of the General Conference are supremo, ex<
a restricted by the Six Restrictive Artioles. These
t follows. [Read them] :
The Plan of Separation does not run counter to
2, 3. 4 or 6. Does it to the 6th ?
A. The Plan of Separation contemplated a
[aloa of the Church, a setting off to each soot
s own territorial property, and a division of the Bi
craoern and the Chartered Fund. The 6th Beatriol
rtiolo relates only to the last, the Book Concern t
bartered Fund. The property lu question in this o
not oonneoted with these. The Plan of Separat
ay by possibility be void as to tho Book Concern, ?
it this surely would not affect the validity of the otl
iris of the Plan of Separation-the surrender of
her property and the consequent surrender of t
>w In question.
B. The 6thl Restrictivo Article does .not forbid a
.ion of these special funda. It forbids their appli
on to other than certain specific purposes. Now
tuthern Ohuroh has the same discipline with the ea
astrlotive Articles. Of course Its share of the B(
meera, &o, would be bound by the same restriotlo
?the?^^
utwuiaef to purposes hot authorizod by the 6th Artic
id it would not be infringed.
0. Aa I have ihown before the matter haa been ,
dally deoided, has been acted on for over twenty yea
ts, until very receutiy, governed tho action of bc
lotions, audit ls now too late to reopen the discus sh
ia submitted that, at any rate, this court shot
)t do BO.
Thus vro Bee that by the Plan of Separation the Ohui
aw oalled the M. E. Ohuroh solemnly surrendered
tat section of it now oalled tho M. E. Church South
ie Church property lying within the limita of
.gauization, and this properly involved In this ca
ven by a will which went into effect in 1831, and une
hich the right vested, if lt rests at all before 18
mses under and 1B controlled by this plan.
Much testimony has been introduced to show that t
)lored people did not favor the division in 1844. '.
iii I answer:
Ut. The 1st Artiole ol the Plan of Separation provid
lat the question of the division shall be determined
ie m-?Jori ty, in case of churches lying ou the borde
but not to Interior changes, which shall, in all case
a loft to the oare of that Ohuroh within whose territo
ley are situated."
2d. No expression was given to their dissatisfaction
ie time of the division, and none until 1865. On tl
tmtrary, they expressed in their deliverances u
ounded love and affection for their "fathers ai
rethren" of the Southern Church. It is now too la
> raise an opposition for the sake of property plunde
3d. It is in evidenoe that the colored membership .
harleston, in 1864, was large, by over 5000. Mr. Lew
i$ succeeded In getting some 1800 of these. The re
o very naturally and properly to the African M, 1
burch, BO that not even a majority of the colore
eople favor the "old Ohuroh."
We oome now to the third position :
3rd. Because If this old Board is excluded from takir
nder tho will, and none others than porsons such t
ie petitioners who are Trustees of tho M. E. Ohuro
an toko, the devise lapsed, inasmuch aa at the death <
'avid McKee lhere were no suoh Trustees of tho M. 1
burch in Charleston.
The petitioners claim that the old Board although i
ne time Trustees of the M. E. Ohuroh, and, therefor?
impotent to take, yet when they adhered to the M. t
burch South they lost their rights under tho will, an
tat none can take under this will but suoh as are Trill
tes of tho M. E. Church as now existing. There wer
D Trustees of the M. E. Church BB it existed at th
orth in Charleston from 1844 to 18?6. If none bu
r?steos of that Church can take under that will, In oi
ar to do so they must have been in existence ii
harle?ton at the death of David McKee. There mue
a no interval between the death of tho first taker. a ni
io existence in being of the porsons who are to take a
Is death. This is the inevitable law of remainders. Ii
h Kent Common., p. 248. it is laid down that "the in
irest to bo limited as a remainder, either vested or cob
ngent, must commence] or pass out of the grunter ii
ic same instrument, and at the timo of the creation o
io particular estate, and not afterward. It must ves
i the grantee either in esse (or in oeing) or by right o
i try, during the continuance of the particular estate oi
! the very instant lt determines. If an estate be giver
i A for life, remainder to the eldest son of B, and A die
afore B has a son, the remainder ls gone, because the
rat estate was determined before the appointment ol
ie remainder." Apply this to tho case in hand. Ifthe
asition of tho petitioners be correct, then John McKee
ive the estate to his son for life, aud if he dh-el without
airs, to the Trustees of the Church in Charleston. Un
ar this rule lt was necessary that such Trustees should
ice at the Instant of the death of David McKee, or else
ie rernatndor is void, But.Davld MoKee died lu 1803 or
184, o,nd the petitioners were not Trustees until 1866.
or were there lu Charleston any other Trustees of their
huroh. Their interest, if any they had, is gone fer?
rer. This is unquestionably the law. "There must bo
3 Interval or meantime," as Lord Coke oxprosaes it,
'tween tho particular ?slate and the remainder sup
?> ted by it, If the particular estate terminate before
ut remainder can vest, the remainder is gone
.rever." 4 Kent, 248. lu Festing vs. Allon, 12 Mees &
'tisby (English Exchequer Reports), 279, it was ad
idged that if there be a tenant for lifo under a dovise
Ith a contingent remaindor in fee. for such of her
uldron . s should attain the ago of tweniy-ono, and no
did attained that ago ut her death, tho ostate, as well
Tibi limitation over, were divested at her death, and
ie estate wei t to her ho<r-at law. This was only the
icoKUition of a well establishi cl priuclpie.
We como to the fourth and last ground-the prayer of
to petition should not be granted:
4. Because the administrator, with the will aunexod,
i legally in possession of tho o tato, and is iu advance of
ie c-tate, and should not be required to deliver posses
iou to any one uutil ho it reimbursed for all such ad
anees and the debts of tho esiate for which he is liable
e paid.
1. 1 he defendant administrator, with tho will annexed,
' legally in possession of tho estate. In the case of
ones vs. Wightman, 2 HUI, Law, 079, it is said: "Oil
ho construction given to tho Statute 5, Goo. 2, Ch. 7 (P.
J. 25(1), of force in this State, lands and porsonal cuat?
es are equally liable for the payment cf debt0, and arc
assets invine nanda o? the personal representatives; and
if the lands hsve'not been, partitioned, and are not in
the exclusive possession of the heirs, they are liable to
execution on aJudgment JSgainst the executor or admin-l
istrator, on the ground that he has/or wkht to haver
the 1 gal possession. -fj^fpr . ga?^
2. It ia abundantly proved by they&disnce thaVijiffiF
estate ia indebted to the adminlatttrtoWfii the'stan of
-dollars;, that he has incurred ?bUgat?ousto a
much larger Stent. These obligations were>T??rred
and advances Were made on the faith of the eaf?taT?h'd'
he must be r-imbursed. . ffPiSf?
I have thus attempted to touch on the prominent/
points of this case, aud as far as I am able have adyo*.
cated tbe grounds upon which the defence relies. /tfh>
aubjr?dt has ne en by no means exhausted;,, but I will np'
longer trespass on the time and patience of the Court,
I addressed myself withoutpassion to the fair discussion
of the legal aspeofof ihe case, and have resisted every
temptation to indulge in rhetoric, or to gd into person
alities. The action hus been brought nominally for
persons of color, but the whole trial demoustrated has
been inspeotod managed, and controlled by white men,
agents of i. E church at the North. This forcing the
jurisdiction of .this court can have been Induced solely
from the nipr|jalon that in this tribunal we would be
exposed to prejudice. I dare hope that this expectation
will be fouud ?oundloss, and that we will receive at
your hands ananbiassed and impartial decision, ~
SPECIAL NOTICIES.
^ARTIFICIAL EYES.-ARTIFICIAL HU
I HAN EYES made to order and inserted by Dre. E.
I BAUCH and P. GOUGELMANN (formerly employed by
i BOISSONHBAU, of Paris), No. 699 Broadway. New York/
April 14_lyr
COLGATE'S HONEY SOAP.-THIS CELE?
BBATED Toilet Soap, in such universal demand,
s made from the choicest materials, is mild and
.mollSOntln its nature, fragrantly scented, and
extremely beneficial In its action upon the skin. For
Mle by all Druggists and Fanoy Goods Dealers.
February 7_ '_lyr
4ST MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY,
an Essay of Warning and Instruction for Young Men.
' Also, Diseases and Abuses whioh prostrate the vital
powers, with sure means of relief. Sent free of charge |
in sealed letter envelopes. Address, Dr. J. SKILLIN
HOUGHTON, Howard Association, Philadelphia, Pa.
April 17 ? ?_3m?
?9" SPECIAL NOTICE.-"GREATOAKS FROM
little acorns grow." The worst diseases known to the
oman race spring from causes so small as to almost I
efy detection. The volumes of scientific lore that fill
the tables and suelves of tbe medical fraternity only go j
to prove and elaborate these faots.
Then guard yourselves while you may. Tito smallest j
pimple on the skin Is a tell-tale and indicator of disease;
It may fade and die away from the surface of the body,
bul it will reach the vitals, perfiaps, at last, and, death
be the result and final close. MAGGIEL'S BILIOUS j
DYSPEPTIC, and DIARRHEA FILLS (rare where all
others fail. While for Burns, Scalds, Chilblains, Outs,
and all abrasions of the skin, M?GGIFL'B Salve ls in?
fallible. Sold by J. MAGGIEL, No. 48 Fulton-street,
New York, and all Druggists, at SS cents per box.
September 90 '' lyr
tar BATOHELOB'S HAIB DYEI -THE ORIGINAL
and best in the world I The only true and perfect HAIB
DYE. Harmless, Sellable and Instantaneous, Produce?
immediately a splendid Black or natural Blown, with?
out injuring the hair or skin. Remedies the iU effects o
bad dyes. Sold by all Druggists. The genuine ls signed
WILLIAM A. BATCHELOR. Also, >
REGENERATING EXTRACT OF MTLLE?LEURS,
For restoring and Beautifying the Hair.
CHARLES BATCHELOR, New York.
August 17 lyr
??.THE SALE OF THE PLAN^ATIjMJ BIT?
TERS is without precedent In the history of the world.
There is no secret in the matter. They are at once the
most speedy, strengthening health-restorer ever dis
covered. It requires but a single trial to understand
this. Their purity can always be relied upon. They
^ "_5_." ^v.v"?^^n? vauoajo iMna, uasoanila
Bari, Dandelion, Ohamomiie Flowers, Lavender
Flowers, Wintergreen, Anise, Oloverbuds, Orange-peel,
Snake-root, Caraway, Coriander, Burdock,
S.-T.-1860-X. &e.
They are especially recommended to clergymen, pub
lio speakers, and persons of literary habits and seden?
tary life, who require tree digestion, a relish for food,
and olear mental faculties.
Delicate females and weak persons are certain to find
in thefee Bitters what they have so long looked fer.
They purify, strengthen and invigorate.
They create a healthy appetite.
They are an antidote to change of water and diet.
They overcome effects of dissipation and late hours.
They strengthen the system and enliven the mind,
They prevent miasmatic and intermittent fevers.
They purify the breath and acidity of the stomach.
They care Dyspepsia and Constipation.
They oure Diarrhea, Cholera and Cholera Morbus.
They ours Liver Complaint and Nervous Headaohe.
They are the best Bitters in the world. They make
the weak man strong, and are exhausted nature's great
restorer.
The following startling and emphatic statements can 1
be seen at our office. J
Letter of Rev. E. F. CBAKE, Obaplain of the 107th New |
York Regiment:
NEAR ACQUIA CBBEK, March 4th, 1863.
Owing to the great oxposure and terrible decomposi?
tion after the battle of Antietam, I was utterly prostrat?
ed and very sick. My stomach would not retain medi
olne. An articlo called Plantation Bitters, prepared by
Dr. DRAKE, of New York, was prescribed to give me
strength and an appetite. To my great surprise they
gave me immediate relief. Two bottles almost allowed j
me to join my regiment. * * * * I have sinoe seen j
them used in many oases, and am free to say, for hos?
pital or private purposes I know of nothing like them.
Bev. E. F. CRANE, Chaplain.
Letter from the Rev. N. E. GILDS, St. Claireville, Pa.
GENTLEMEN:- You were kind enough, on a former oc?
casion, to Bend me a half dczzen bottles of Plantation
Bitters for $3 50. ' My wife haviig dorived so muoh
benefit from the use of these Ritters, I desire her to
continue them, and you will pleats send us six bottles
more for the money enclosed. -
I am, very truly, yours,
N. E. GILDS, Pastor Ger. Ruf. Church,
SOLDIERS' HOME, 8 nPEBINTENDENT'IS OTOIGE, 1
CINCINNATI, OHIO, Jan. 15th, 1863. j
*********
I have given your Plantation Bitters to hundreds of
our noble soldiers who s'op here, more or less disabled
from various causes, and the effect is marvellous and
gratifying.
Such a preparation as this is I heartily wish in every
family, in every hospital, and at hand on every battle
field. G. W. D. ANDREWS, Superintendent.
Dr. W. A. CHILDS, Surgeon of the Tenth Verment Re?
giment, writes:-"I wish every soldier had a bottle of
Plantation Bitters. They are tho mest effective, por
feet, and harmless tonio I ever used."
A WILIIABD'8 HOTEL, 1
WASHINGTON, D. C., May 22d, 18?8. f
GENTLEMEN:-WO require another supply of your
Plantation Bitters, the popularity of whieh daily in?
creases with thc guests of our house
Respectfully,
SYKES, CHADWICK & CO.
&o. Ac. Ac ic. Ac.
Bo sure that every boiitle bears the iac-slmiie of our
signature on a steel plate label, with our private stamp
over the eork.
P. H. DRAKE ft CO,
No. 202 BROADWAY, N. Y.
Sold by all respectable Druggists, Physicians, Grocers,
Saloons, and country Hotelsdoalers..
April 19 > . thstulyr '
IMPORTANT NEW INVENTION.
AUSTRALIAN CRYSTAL
SINGLE AND DOUBLE VISION
SPECT^CaLESii
THE ONLY PERFECT LENS IN EXISTENCE.
Superior to any other in nae-constructed in accordance
With tho science and philosophy bf nature in the pecu?
liar form ufa
I CONCAVO-CONVEX ELLIPSIS?
' Admirably adapted to tho Organ of Sight, and perfectly
natural to the eve, affording altogether the best artificial
help to the human vision ever invented.
Sold only by the Professor of Optics and Specatcle
Manufacturer,
THE ADVANTAGES
Of these Spectacles over all others, are :
lat.-The only true Leng known, being
perfectly tree from chromatic light so ? el', known to be
tho cause of injury t ; the vision, aud which makes the
chango from Spectacle* t<> Qiauses of stronger powers 80
often required, while both near and distant objects aro
seen With equal facility through the same Glasses.
Md.-Can lie worn with pri-fcct ease for
any length of time at one sitting, giving as tonishing
olearnens of vision, particularly by candle or other arti?
ficial light-comfort to the spectacle wearer hitherto un?
known.
3d.-When the eyea ache or pain through
the action of a bright light, such as is reflected from
enow, sunny weather, white paper, and in reading,
writing or sewing, or vivid colored bodies, these.lenses,
by softening the rays, effect a most agreeable sensation
and give great relief.
4th.-In all nervous affections of the eye
causing dull and startling pains in the eye-ball or tem?
plo, appearance of luminous and dark spots in the at?
mosphere, aohlng or feeling like sand in the eye, the
disturbed nerves are quieted and soothed,
5th.-Ground hy peculiar machinery, got
up at great ooHt, mathematically calculated expressly
for the manufacture of this lens, BO aa to produce it with
the true spher cal accuracy, and ita focus is at the exact
centre, a point of vital importance,, and which no other
lens possesses.
6th.-Proof of superiority over the old
kind of Spectacles. The) are used exclusively at all the
hospitals for diseases of the eye, in Berlin, Pr us ala, and
elsewhere. '
TESTIMONY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
From Medical gentlemen, Professors of the highest
Opthalmio talent in Charleston, S. C., and in the Union.
CHARLESTON, S. C., May 28tb, 1866.
I have examined a great variety of Glasses manufac?
tured by Professor M. BERNHARDT, and In justice to the
Professor must say, that his Glasses are of a superior
quality, adapted to meet tho wants of almost every eye,
where tho vision ls in any way imperfect. The Profes?
sor selected for me a pair of his Australian Crystal
Glasses which are of a very superior quaiu? vj* "J?i?.
.SSEMtUJ^OTt^ in favor ol the
Professor's Glasses most cheerfully,
E. GEDDINGS, M. D.
, I cheerfully concur in the opinion above expressed ol
the value of Professor BBRNHARDTB* Glisses, and their
adaptability to all defects of vision, aud also to his skill
and judgment in adapting the glass to each special Im?
perfection. H. W. DESAUSSURE, M. D.
CHARLESTON, 8. C., May 28th, I860.
I do most willingly bear my testimony in favor of the
superiority ol tho Australian Cn still-single and dou?
ble vision spectacles ovi-r all other kinds. They are
constructed upon the best established and understood
principles of optics, and their adaptation to tho human
eye in its different, conditions of vision is BO perfect, as
to render sight easy without effort. In my opinion,
none others should be used since the eyes once used to
those do not seem to grow old, and by having a focua
at any point of the surface, ihey appear to rest o'or the
eyes to their youthful onergy.
T. L. OQIER, M.;D.
CHARLESTON, S. C., May 28th, 1866.
I havo examined Professor BERNHARDTS' very com?
plete assortment of Spectacles and Louses. They are
bettor adapted than any I have before se> n to remedy
the imperfection of vision that can be bouefltted by the
use of Glasses. The pureness and clearness of the Crys?
tal used, 1B an item worthy of special attention, aa I can
testify from uersonal experience. I recommend Profes?
sor BERNHARDT with confidence and great cheerfulness,
to the patronage of the public.
JAMES P. JERVEY, M. D.
CHARLESTON. S. C., May 28th, I860.
I have examined a gr at variety of Glasses manufac?
tured by Professor M. BERNHARDT, and consider them
superior in quality and adapted to meet the wants of
almost every eye, in which there is a defect of vision. 1
cheerfully recommond Professor BERNHARDT'S Glasea
to those requiring assistance.
W. H. HUGER, M. D.
CHARLESTON, S. C., May 28th, 1808.
I have examined an extensive assortment of Glasses
in the possession ol Professor BERNHARDT, and consider
them of superior quality. They aro adapted to
every age and suitable to tho various delects of vision,
in which glasses are indicated. I take great pleasure in
recommending them to the attention of those In need ol
suoh articles. R. A. KINLOCH, M. D.
. CHARLESTON, S. C., May 28th. 1866.
We have examined the Lenses of Prof. BERNHARDT,
and consider thom superior to any we have soen. They
are admirably adapted not only lo improve the imper?
fections of impaired sight, but to rolievu tho weariness of
vlslnn which constant study produces. Many of the
Glasses are of now and ingenious con tri vat ce. We cor?
dially recommend tho Professor to all those who require
scientific optical assistance.
ELIAS HORLBECK. M. D.
WILLIAM 0. HORLBECK, M. D.
WM. T. WRA?G, M. D.
F. PEYRE PORCHER, M. D.
F. M. BODERTSON, M. D.
CHAS. HANCKEL, late Rector of St. Paul's Ohuroh,
Radcllfieborough, Charleston,
THOMAS SMYTH, D.D., Pastor of 2d Presbyterian
Ohuroh. .
J. 8. HANCKEL, Professor.
W. B. HOWE, ReotorSl. Philip's.
0. P. GADSDEN, Rector St. Luke's.
Testimonials similar to tho above may be seen at Prof.
BERNHARDT'S ofneo, from
JOSEPH H. PLUNKETT, Pastor of St. Paul's, Ports?
mouth, Va.
Hon. JONATHAN WOBTH, Governor of North Carolina.
Hon. A. G. CURTIN, Clo vernor of Pennsylvania.
Hon. O. P. MORTON, Governor of Indiana.
Hon. H. A, SWIFT, Governor of Minnesota.
Hon. ALEX. RAMSEY, Ex-Governor of Minnesota,
Hon. RICHARD ?ATES, Governo- of Illinois.
H. SEYMOUR, Governor of New York.
R. E. FEN ION, Governor of Now York.
And other distinguished gentlemen,
i Many years of public practico and study in the hospi?
tals in Europo, adjusting (.pectacles to pationts under
every aspect of defective visiou, as well us exporienco
I in an extensive, long-establishod business in his optical
stores, both hero and in Europo, Prof. BERNHARDT eon
aidera it a suffloient guarantee ot' his ability to apply such
I glasses as are best calculated fur tho assiatauco or re?
covery of Imperfect sight.
Office Hours from 9 A. M. to 5 P. M.
MU^LS HOUSE, LADIES' ENTRANCE,
Second Floor, Private Parlor No. 3.
N. B.-Owing to engagements olsewbero, Prof. BERN?
HARDT will be able to remain here but a short timo only.
I May H Imv
Wm
UBLISHERS OF
Beg respectfully to reta
publtofer its liberal sup$p?f to their Jo?
"ti
promise that in the future"'
./
be their aim to make
past,
THE
MOST DESIRABLE
& ? .'? : v /
in the country. I,t Has now
r:V"" ,! "' ML,
fjljjjjj Tr ? irl'ri m':i'?Mw?k#ii
of any Newspaper issued in the State, andie
THE LAR?E|lt IN S???
ot any Paper, published in the State-issued in.
folio form of eight pages, andlhe size of the New
York Herald. ^&$M$?: ? >'
It ia universally conceded that' ~ ,, . " '.? '
m
IS THE
.MOST. ENTERPRISING^
11ST 3D B ?> E 1ST ID E 3>T T,
AND THE
BEST COMMERCIAL NEWSPAPER.
published in the South. It is '
A SOUTHERN PAPER,
WITH
SOUTHERN PRINCIPLES.
A TRI-WEEKLY.
Many of our friendo have spoken and written to
j as concerning the publication of a Tri-Weekly. We
have thought of doing this for some time, bat
owing to the general disarrangement of postal af?
fairs, we have concluded not to do so until tho
I commencement of next season.
On the first of September we will commence to
publish a country edition of THE NBWS,"and t
shall be our aim to make the paper the best ever,
issued in this State. We intend introducing^en?
tirely new features in this enterprise; it winnot
I be a summary of the daily, but will bo oompleter
! and original in itself, and we are certain5 that ito
I patrons will be as well pleased with it as are
! ?nr present?patrone pleased with the daily.
TERMS OP DAILY:
One year.$10.00
Six months. 6.00
Three months. 2.50
(In Advance.)
CATHCART, MCMILLAN & BCRTON
PROPRIETORS,
No. 18 HAYN?-STREET
CB itfLECTOR % Ct