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.

COLUMBIA, S. C. Taeaday MomiuR, August 3, 1869. --? -? ? ? - -- r^TT--:-7 ' The Canard ship Russia, has just made the quickest trip on record across the Atlantic. She sailed from New York, on the 7th instant, and reached Liverpool' in eight days, four hours? and forty-five minutes. In this trip she beat the Scotia, -which had made the fastest time on re? cord, either way, by two hours and a half, that vessel having made the ran in eight days, seven hours, and fifteen minutes. DEATH OF ISAAC To cc EV.-Tho death of Hon, Isaac Toucey, of Connecticut, is announced. He was one of the war horses of New England Democracy. With Tom Seymour and Frank Pierce he fought radicalism from its inception, and, though he lost many battles, he never lost his faith or his courage. His career was long and distinguished, be? ginning almost with the beginning of the republic and before the formation of the old Whig and Democratic parties. He was born in Newtown, Conn., No? vember 5, 1790; received a thorough classical education; was a Representative in Congress from Connecticut; Governor of the State; Attorney-General of the United States} Senator in Congress, and Secretary bf the Navy. The spaco given in Northern papers to the discussion of the Chinese immi? gration project, not only shows that its importance is duly estimated, but also that it cannot escape being made one of political strife and dissension. Tho radical journals have already raised a howl of indignation, and point triumph? antly to the law passed by Congress against the coolie trade, while the D?? mocratie papers, almost with one voice, favor the project An examination of the Congressional law referred to, and upon which the radicals, at the first blush, rely to defeat the movement, will be found, upon closer examination, en? tirely inapplicable. It was passed with direct reference to enforced servitude in this conntry, bat can have no bearing upon any contracts entered into by the mutual consent of capitalists and labor? ers. In fact, a special clause is engrafted upon the Act itself, by which il is ren? dered inoperative in case the emigrants manifested their consent to-extradition before the American Consul of the port from whenoe they sail. We must not bo surprised if the next Congress seeks to pass some stringent laws against a mea? sure so entirely inimical to the party in power and to the section controlling the destinies of the nation; but the subject is one HO delicate to handle, in the face of the long avowed and acknowledged policy of encouraging immigration, that we may well doubt their ultimate suc? cess. It is now evident that no extended scheme of Chinese immigration can be carried out other other than in tho face of a bitter opposition and a decisive battle on tho floors of Congress between the two opposing parties. This should bo properly understood and propared for by our people, since on its issue hangs all our hopes for social, coninier ciurnnd political redemption. A FRESHET IN THE MISSISSIPPI.-Tho Mississippi River, on account of tho heavy rain fall, it is reported, is higher now that it hus been at any timo this season, und is within two und u half foot of tho high water mark of 1861. Tho low hinds opposite Quincy, Illinois, ure iuundutod, several houses having been floated from their foundations and car? ried down the stream. The water covers the Hanuibal und St. Joe liailrond truck, ?iud trains have experienced great dilli culty in running. A CHILD FALLS OFF OF A PIAZZA AND LS KILLED.-On Saturday afternoon last, a little child of Mr. Kennedy, (conductor on the South Carolina Railroad,) about eight years of age, fell from the piazza of tho second story to the ground, re? ceiving injuries which occasioned death a short time after.-Charleston Neics. It is said that the cholera which broke out in Teheruu, Persiu, in July last, is milking its way Westward. Tho number of deaths rose to thirty daily. During its prevalence in Europe and America in 1832 and 1849, September und early Oc? tober are reported to have been its worst 6enson. Tho Southern Express Company was robbed of $4,900, on the lino between Augusta and Savannah, IL few days ago. While messenger Mayes \, ns nleep, tin thieves abstracted the greenbacks. A white man named John Wheeler, engineer of the steamer Islander, and i colored man, whoso namo is unknown, have mysteriously disappeared from Sa van uah. Foul play is suspected. Trivutc Johnson, while tinder tho in? fluence of liquor, shot and mortally wounded Sergeaut Skinner, in Casth .Pinckney, Charleston harbor, on Satur? day lost. Johnson has been urrestod. Two lads, named Cain, were buntine squirrels near Mount Carmel, Abbevilh County, recently, when the gun of tin older accidentally went off, killing tlx younger almost instantly. Father Qavizzi, in a letter to a fricnt iu the North of England, says, "thut t crisis in Italy is approaching, and "thu he is preparing for a groat crusade." I e?J?dg?Orr. We hare been furnished with the an? nexed extraot from a decision of Judge Orr n?on th?>ome>tead law, which will be of special interest the legal frater? nity: QOONKK GQfHTT^fTjtT TXBM, 1869. In the Common Pteas-Equity Side. Joseph R. Sholor vs. John Mason, Sr., and John Mason, Jr.-Bill to Foreclose Mortgage. # ? * # ? * The report of the special referees sub? mits for the consideration of the Court whether the defendant and his family now residing on the mortgage premises are entitled tc claim and reserve a home? stead in the same. They submit the evi? dence taken on reference, bot make no recommendation to the Court whether or not a homestead should be allowed. Is the defendant Mason and his family entited to hare set off and assigned to them a family homestead of the value of $1,000 within the mortgaged premises, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Assembly of 9th September, 1869, enti? tled "An Aot to determine and perpetu? ate the Homestead?" The single bill and mortgage wero exe? cuted on the 25th day of August, 1866. The constitution of 1868 was ratified by the legal voters of *'je State on the 14th, 15th and 16th of April of tba! year, and was rvcoepted by Congress without alter? ation or amendment the July following. The 82d Section of Article II provides that "tho family homestead of the head of each family residing ia this State, such hoc itead consisting of dwelling house, ont-ouildings and lands to the value of $1,000," Ac, "shall be exempt from at? tachment, levy or sale or any inesne or final process, issued from any Court," &j. No exception is made in favor of any lien, debt or execution existing at the date of its adoption. In all cases where land was to be sold by any process from any Court, after this section was ratified by the people and accepted by Congress, the head of the family became entitled to a homestead. The Act of Assembly to carry into effect this section, entitled "Au Act to deter? mine and perpetuate the Homestead," leaves no ground for construction on this question. The first section provides that "whenever the real estate of uny head of a family residing in this State shall be lovied on by virtue of any inesne or final process, issued from any Court upon any judgment, obtained upon any right of notion, whether arriving pre? vious or subsequent to tho ratification of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, if the same be tho '<\mily homestead of such person, the Sheriff or other officer executing said process shall cause a homestead such as said person may select not to exceed the value of Si,000," &c, "but the residue of tho lands and tenements of the head of the family, if nny more or other be shall have, shall be liable to attachment, levy and sale." Tho General Assembly has further ma? nifested its solemn and deliberate deter? mination to have the constitution and the statute already referred to enforoed in all cases therein provided for, in ac Act entitled "An Act to punish Sheriffs and other officers for violating the home? stead," approved 15th January, 1869. The first section provides that no Sheriff or other officer shall enforce execution in any other manner than is prescribed in sections 1 and 2 of the Homestead Act. The second section provides that if any person shall sell any real estate without complying with section 1 of the Home? stead Act, he shall, for the first offence, be deemed guilty of malfeasance in of? fice, and on conviction shall be fined not less than $500 and not moro than 81,000; and for the second offence shall be dis? missed from office. Tho constitution and these Acts pre? scribe so clearly the duty of public of? ficers in making sales under process from uny Court, it would seem to bo hardly necessary in a decree to direct, tho oflicei ordered to sell to set off and assigu n homestead to the head of a family, as a failure to do so would be at bia peril, without an order. But as the question is raised in thc pleadings, in the report of the special referees in this case and ia tho argument of counsel as to defendant's right tJ have the family homestead set off and assigned, I will state my views on tin question. It is objected to tho Constitution ol the Stat o and the Acts of Assembly secur? ing a homestead as to antecedent debts, lions und judgments, that they are a vio lat ion of that clause in the Constitutior of tho United States which prohibits a 113 State from passing "any law impairing the obligation of contracts." Is not the objection met by numerous authorities in the Courts of sister States, and by eminent legal writers, recognizing the right of State Legislatures to pas: laws exempting property of a debtor fron levy or salo even for antecedent debts and is not tho principle rocognized in va rions decisions of tho Supreme Court o the United States? In Morse rs. Gould, 1 Kornau (X. Y. 281, Judge Denio, delivering tho opi uion of the Appeal Court, said: "I re gard the Act of 1812 (extending tho ex emption law of that State to a team um additional household effects) ns a provi sion clearly within tho competency o tho Legislature, and one which the; might lawfully apply to all futuro pro* ceedings in Courts, whether such pro ceedings shall relate t? existing or futur causes of action." In this ouse jndg meut and execution bad beon obtaiuc< in an inferior Court before the exemptioi law was passed, and tho Court he! tba the exemption was valid oven as agains I such judgment. Tho abstract of Judg Demo's opinion is: " "First. Tho Act ex I empting certain property from levy o salo on execution (N. Y. Statutes, 1842 193) applies to judgments and execution on debts contracted beforo, os well a after, its passage. Second. This Ac morely modifies the remedy for enforcini contracts, and neither destroys it no substantially impairs its efficiency. Thoreforo, it dos? not conflict with the f-.ovisiouB of the Constitution of the /uitod Stetes forbidding any State to. palp e hm impairing the obligations of contracte, aid is Talia. In Bigelow 9?. Pritchard, Judge Put? nam, delivering tho opinion of the Su? preme Court of Massachusetts, said "that the Legislature might lawfully dir m i nish the creditor's remed y to enforce payment by exempting a pari of the pro? perty of the debtor from attachment or mesne process, or levy or execution." In Rockwell vs. Hubboll, 2 Douglass 197, in the Supreme Court of Miohigan, it ia held "that property may be ex? empted from ex?cution for debts con? tracted before the lew of exemption was enacted." The Supreme Court of Georgia, in a recent case, has decided that the ex? emption of a homestead of tho value of $2,DOO, authorized by tho constitution of that State, from levy or sale even for antecedent debts, lions and judgments, is valid, and does not impair the obliga? tion of contracts. The same point has been ruled, or the same principle in? volved has been decided, in other States of the Union. In 3 Parsons on Contracts, 552, tho learned author, after reviewing many of tho cases decided in different States, says: "At tho same time, however, it is admitted that a State may viako partial exemptions of property, as of furniture, food, apparel, or even a homestead." Again, on the same page, ho says: "It is to be observed that as to the remedy, there can be no difference between a debt existing before and ono contracted after the law is made." In the Planter's Bank vs. Sharp, G Howard, 301-830, Jndge Woodbury, in delivering the opinion of tho Supreme Court of the United States, admits that "laws may be passed by the State Legis? latures exempting tools or household goods from levy or salo under existing contracts." If the principle is once conceded that property of small valuo can be exempted from levy for contracts existing before the passage of the law, how can such an enactment be said to be unconstitutional when the Taine of the property exempted is enlarged ? The exemption of household effects, of small value, under what was popularly designated tho "cow and bed law" of this State, more effectually hindered and defeated the creditor, in many cases, than a homestead exemption of Si,OOO would do in others. The principle upon which the consti? tutionality of the homestead law is main? tained has been admitted by the Su? preme Court of tho United States, in cases where tho State Legislatures have passed laws changing tue statute of limi? tations; discharging insolvent debtors; and abolishing imprisonment for debt. It is said, however, that such legislation effects only the "remedy" of the creditor, but does not impair the obligation of tho contract. Will not an examination of tho result of such enactments show that the ex? emption of a part of the debtor's goods and lands hinders, delays and defeats the creditor in many cases in a less degree than tho enactments referred to, whidh have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States ? The debtor contracts a debt; his pro? mise is to pay the money; the creditor is entitled to demand and receive it when due. He has his remedy, as the law exists at the dato of the contract, ugainst the property of the debtor then held, and all his subsequent earnings, until the whole debt is paid. He may hold but little property when the credit is given, but being a skilled nrtisan or me? chanic, the creditor relies more upon his future earnings for payment than upon tho property thea held. Suit is insti? tuted and judgment rocovored. In tho meantime, the Legislature enacts un in? solvent law, which authorizes the debtor to surrender his effects, which may be only nominal in value, to the creditors, and be forever discharged from all lia? bility ever to pay another cent to the creditor, all his future earnings being protected from liability for tho unsatis I tied portion of the dobt. Is the original contract impaired, or tho crelitor hin? dered, defeated or delayed by tho enact? ment? The Supreme Court says no. So, too, of the statute of limitations; when the debt is contracted the statutory term ia a given number of years; the Legislature reduces it, and if it possesses the constitutional power to reduce it from six to three yours, why not less than three, and if less, how much less can they declare it? Tho creditor, by accident or ignorance, fails to sue under the amended statute, and on the theory that the Legislature has only modified the "remedy," he loses the debt, is the original contract impaired, or the creditor delayed or defeated by this subsequent legislation? The Supremo Court says no. So, too, of imprisonment for dobt. Tho debtor has no visiblo property upon which an execution may bo lovied. His effects consist of money and choses in action. Ho obtains credit; tho croditor knowing that under existing laws ho can enforce payment by his execution of capias ad satis/aciendum; tho creditor obtains his judgment, and issues his ca. sa.; the debtor is arrested, and before ho makes his assignment, tho Legisla j ture abolishes imprisonment for debt; tho prison doors aro opened, tho debtor departs, and tho creditor having no com? pulsory process against tho body, where? by an assignment of tho choses in action or payment of the money can bo en? forced, loses his entire debt; and the legislativo Act producing tho result, and affecting only tho remedy, is constitu? tional! Is tho original contract impaired, or the creditor hindered, dolaycd or en? tirely defeated, by thii subsequent legis? lation? The Supreme Court says no. Is the enactment of a homestead law, which is sanctioned by a generous hu? manity for tho wives and children of un? fortunate or improvident husbands and fathers, any more obnoxious to tho con .ti tattoos! objection, that it i na pairs the "obligation of contracts" when applied to existing contracts and liens, than the legislation commented ou above and sanctioned bj the Supreme Court of the U?Hed States? F In the ease under consideration, the remedy is changed by tho, Act to secare a homestead. Tile defendant is entitled to a homestead daring1 his life, if he con? tinues in possession of it. Under the former law, the complainant, on Sling his bill to foreclose Lis mortgage, and making proof of his demand, was enti? tled to an order to sell the mortgaged premises, or a sufficient portion of them to satisfy his debt, and the defendant's equity of redemption was forever barred. Tho State, believing that it was an emi? nently wise policy to secure a homestead to each head of a family, and prevent the immigration of her citizens conse? quent upon the general and indiscrimi? nate sale of their homes, postpones the remedy of foreclosure as to that part of the tract wbioh may bo assigned, during the life or ocoupauoy of tho defendant. He can forthwith proceed to sell that part of the tract not assigned, and when the contingency provided for in tho Act arrives, terminating the rights of tho defendant, he can sell the balance Could not tho Legislature, in organiz? ing tho judicial system of tho State, have provided that no judge .should havo ju? risdiction of an application to foreclose a mortgage for one year? And if for one year, why not for ten or twenty years? If for one or twenty years, would it not havo been equally competeut to have mado tho prohibition continue during tho life or occupancy of each mortgagor in the State? It might have been very unjust or oapricions to huve made such an enactment, but who can deny their authority to have done so? In Sturgis vs. Crowuinshield, 4 Wheat, 200, Chief Justice Mut shall says: "The distinction between the obligation of a contract und the remedy given by tho Legislature to enforce that obligation, has been taken at tho bar, and exists in the nature of things. Without impair? ing the obligation of the contract, the remedy may certainly be modified, ns the wisdom of the nation shall direct." There is nothing unjust or immoral in conceding this power to the Legislature. "All contracts are made with a full know? ledge of the parties that tho law-making power may modify the remedy." The foregoing views are presented npon the assumption that tho Constitution of the United States was operative, and the supreme law of Sonth Carolina, from the surrender of the Confederate armies in April, '65, to July, '68, when the present constitution was accepted by Congress, and the State admitted to representation. But is such assumption true, in law (I mean the legislation of Congress) or in fact? Take the reconstrnction Acts of Congress, and upon examination, what feature do they present compatible with the theory that the constitution was of force or that its guarantees of the rights of the States was recognized by Con? gress? The legislation was even more absolute than any previously applied to the territories when organized, or tc their enabling acts when about to apply for admission into the Union, lt dun icc the State representation in both brauchet of Congress-each State is entitled by th? constitution to representation; and in thc Senate, no State can be deprived of itt equal representation without its consent It denied the right of the State to pass and ignored all laws existing, fixing thc qualifications of voters. It prescribed i class of voters, constituting a large ma jority, who should exercise the privilege who had never before been recognized a; citizens. It denied the right of suffrage to a large class of the most intelligen citizens and excluded them from holding office under tho new government. I ignored tho constitution and all laws ol the State prescribing the timo, place ant manner of holding elections. It estab lished the military power superior to th civil, and mada tho latter entirely subor dinato to tho former. The de facto go ver nm cut then existing was declared ti be only provisional. Tho military wa invested with nearly unlimited power and not unfrequently exercised it with out stint in superceding and annullinj existing laws in the State, and in military order ordaining and onforciuj uew laws. It removed State officers with and without lawful cause, and np pointed their successors. Tho Governor of Georgia and Mississippi were removei early in 1867, and the Governors o North Carolina and this State in IStVS und successors appointed. Judges wer removed because they refused to carr out military orders in their Courts. Th citizen was not only liable to be arrested tried, convicted and punished by milita ry tribunals for violation of civil lu\ alone, but this extraordinary power wo put into force against many of the citi zens, who, if the Constitution of th Uuited States had been of force withi: the limits of South Caroliua, could hav appealed to the civil tribunals-to th writ of habeas corpus-to tho jndgmeu of their peers, to relievo them from th clutches of the military. Tho war was onded in Muy, ISC'}-th last Confederate soldier had laid dow; his arms. If tho Constitution of th? Uuited States was of force in this State to protect tho rights of tho citizen an< State, until July, 18GS, why was it tba the military power during theso thre long years was not only not snbordiuat to, but actually superior to, tho civil av thority? Is it not manifest, from tili review of tho legislation of Congress an tho action of tho military authorities that tho government under which w lived was military; all civil functions i every department tolerated and recoi nixed no longer tuan they were cousis out with the wishes and opinions of th military commandant. If this bo true, then tho coustitutio adopted in this State could not conflit with any clause of tho Constitution < tho United States, because it wa3 not < force at tho time, to restrain tho Convei tion or protect the people. But after it? ratification by the people, it WM to have no fore? or effect until Congress accepted it It was presented, and Congress did accept it uncondition? ally. If the clause scouring a homestead, or the .clause prohibiting the collection of debts, the consideration of which was th? purchase money of a slave, bad been obnoxious to tho charge that they im? paired the obligation of contracts, they would have been stricken out by Con? gress, or the .Legislature required by solomo Act, and as a condition precedent to admission, to repeal the clauses, AB they did in the case of Georgia. The Constitution of Georgia, when presented for acceptance, contained two paragraphs practically repudiating all debts. These clauses Congress required Georgia to re? nounce, which was done by her Legisla toro, but no exception was taken to tho homestead sootion in the same instru? ment, though its value was fixed at $2,000-double that provided in this State. As already stated, the Constitution of tho United States was not recognized as of force in this State. Even the rights and immunities uniformly accorded to tho organized Territories of the United States, and to persons residing without the States and Territories in the Indian country, were repudiated by the acts of Congress and practico of the military. Protection of person and property, of the right of trial by jury-of being con? fronted by witnesses-of presentment by a grand jury before being held to answer a criminal charge-of making our own laws-of imposing our own taxes-of representation in a State or National Legislature-of choosing our own officers -of executing our own laws-of making contracts with our laborers, uud of en? forcing such contracts by any known law -of appealing to the writ of habeas corpus-all were denied to us a:; lights, and such ns were enjoyed were permis? sive only. Whut single feature in any paragraph in the Constitution of the United States spread its protection tcgis over the terri? tory or inhabitants of South Carolina ? Cnn it be gravely urged, in the face of thia review of the condition of affairs from May, 1805, to July, 1866, that such clauses of the Constitution ns restrained the powers of State and citizens were of force and those giving them protection were not of force ? Can it be seriously insisted that the clause prohibiting any State from passing a law impairing the obligation of contracts was operative to restrain the Convention that formed tho new Constitution, when none of the per? sonal or political rights, privileges and immunities of its members, or of their constituents, were recognized or enforced by and through the remaining sections of the same instrument ? Surely not. Tho Constitution in this Territory was dormant, sleeping, in abeyance. The government was military. Tho recon? struction Acts of Congress and the will of tho military commandant was the only constitution of force-the supreme law of the land. It was as absolute as though we had been a conquered province, wrested from a neighboring nation. If the Constitution of the United States was not of force when the Consti? tution of the State was framed and rati? fied, and did not become operative until accepted by Congress, then there was no constitutional restraint on the conven? tion, and none of the provisions of the State Constitution can be held to bo vio? lative of any olause in the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States held, at an early day, that State laws passed prior to 1798-the date of the adoption of tho Constitution-im? pairing the obligation of contracts, were valid, as tho Constitution did not, pre? vious to that time, exercise any limita? tions upon the legislation of tho States. After the admission of Texas into the Union, tho same decision wus made by thc samo Court, affirming tho validity of a law passed by tho Legislature of that State prior to annexation, which, if passed subsequently, would have "im? paired the obligation of contracts." Thc Convention of this State might have declined, however unjustly, to re? cognize any debt, judgment or lien that ' existed by virtue of the laws of tho pre? ceding governments of tho ?tate, and what remedy could have been found for the omission or refusal? If they had the power to refuse altogether, could they not, when recognizing debts, liens and judgments, annex conditions to such re? cognition? No more has been dono here. It is said in effect to tho complainant, your mortgage is recognized, but subject to tho condition that tho defendant shall enjoy a homestead, conformably to the constitution, and the Act of the Legisla? ture perpetuating and defining it. I, therofore, adjudgo that tho Consti? tution and laws of this State, securing a homestead to each head of a family, whether the debt or lieu existed at tho dato of tho adoption of the Constitution or has been subsequently created, is no violation of the Constitution of the United States. If I had grave doubts on the question, I should feel it my duty to solve thom by pronouncing the Constitution and laws of tho State no violation of the Consti? tution of tho United States. When the Circuit and Supremo Court Judges of a Stato decido a State law unconstitutional, no appeal lies to tho Supremo Court of thc United States, and tho citizen is thereby denied tho privilege of vindi? cating tho constitutionality of the State enactment before that august tribunal. ***** (Signed) JAMES L. ORB. JULY 21, 1869. A mun committed suicide in England, a day or two ago, by throwing himself auder a railroad train. On his person was found a number of tho securities robbed from the New York Ocean Bank some time ago. Tho tea-making colony of Japanese, in El Dorado County, California, is get? ting along finely. Zjooal Items. A few ?op?esof the 'Sack and Desirae - ?ion of Colombia' can be obtained at the Phoenix offloe. Price twenty-five cents. UNITS? STATES COURT.-Hou. George S. Bryan authorizes us to state that the United States Court will sit in Green? ville, on Monday, the 9th instant, in? stead of tho 2d, as heretofore announced. MERCANTILE PRINTING.-All kinds of mercantile printing, such as circulars, letter heads, cards, bill heads, state? ments, Sic, for counting-rooms and offices, promptly nttented to at the Phoe? nix job office. BRIDGE OVER WATEREE RrvER FINISH? ED.-The bridge over Wateree River, on the W. and M. R. R., about four miles from Kingsville, was finished last Friday and a passenger train crossed it for the first time. Major LasSalle, of this city, was the constructor. The house-breakers continuo their operations successfully about Columbia. On Saturday and Sunday nights, the dwellings of two or three of our citizens were entered and thoroughly overhauled, but nothing of value carried off-money, apparently, being the only object. CRUMBS.-Two plucky gentlemen of this city were aonidently left by the rail cars at Chester, on Sunday; but nothing daunted, they hired a buggy and drove through-time 11.55. The new teu and fifteen scrip has made its appearance in this city. It is au improvement-in paper, at least-on the old issue. Mr. Gambril has speci? mens of the issue. Columbians who have absented them? selves from home, in search of a cooler place, can safely return. OUR BOOK TABLE.-Messrs. Bryan and McCnrter have kindly laid upon our table a copy of "Cord and Creese," by the author of the "Dodge Club." "Cord and Creese" is a sensational story, which, in our opinion, may be spoken of favora? bly. Viewed as a novel, it is slovenly in plot, improbable and marvellous in de? tail, and inartistic and imperfect in workmanship. On the other hand, it contains chapters arousing the most in? tense excitement and interest. "Cord and Creeso" is a history of vengeance, located alike in England and India, of wonderful arrangement of circumstantial evidence, put together at one time in the lamest manner, and at another with singular skill and adroitness. It con? tains some strong dramatic points, in spite of the exaggeration of fiction. "Cord and Creese" is well worth the pe? rusal, though scarcely the clever book which might be expected from the racy pen of the author of the "Dodge Clnb." HOTEL ARRIVALS-August 1-Columbia Hotel-TV. T. Blako, W. T. Jones, N. A. Heywood, C. Barnum, city; T. L. Mur? ray, E. M. Grimkie, H. V. L. Spriggs, W. A. Bradley, Charleston; T. E. Thames. B. T. Aliud, Augusta; T. N. Gadsden, Littleton; W. H. Jeffers, P. G. Chappell, Richland; A. A. Winn, Savan? nah, Ga.; J. P. Adams, S. C.; W. J. Boyd, Baltimore; T. Zimmerman, St. Matthews; Alex. McBeo, Greenville. National Hotel-E. W. Blance, Flo? rence; J. A. McSweon, Darlington; A. B. Joyner, Gadsden; T. H. Belonger, Edge field; Mrs. D. M. Lawton, Albany, Ga.; J. O. B. Dargan, Darlington; John J. Bran the, Jr., Mercer University; Madam Moore, Macon, Ga.; J. T. Howard, Ora? ngeville; Peter Critz, Augusta, Ga.; Thomas Richardson, Sumter; Capt. L. H. Bloget, Camden; Nat. Bynum, Rich? land; Gen. J. B. Kershaw, Camden; F. A. Connor, Cokesbury; W. A. Brun9on, Darlington; J. A. Crews, Greenville. Nickerson House.-J. Norton, Chester; Mr. and Mrs. Wm. J. Hume, Charleston; James O. Meredith, Greenville; Julius T. Coit, Charlotte, N. C.; E. Thomas, Frog Lovel; Thos. Stovall Davant, C., C. & A. R. H.; J. G. Hall, Havana; J. A. Gay, Salisbury, N. C.; Rev. Wm. D. Thomas, Greenville; Hon. Jam s L. Orr, Anderson; C. Clacius and wife, Charles? ton. I NEW ADVERTISEMENTS.-Attention is I called to the following advertisements, published tho first time this morning: S. B. Thompson-Adm'r Notice. Mrs. A. H. Chapman-Notice. T. J. LaMotte-School Notice. Meeting True Brotherhood Lodge. Meeting Palmetto Fire Engine Co. University of South Carolina. NIL DESPERANDUM, HOPE!-Hundreds of cases of Scrofula, in its worst stager, old cases of Syphilis that have defied tho skill of eminent Physicians, Rheu? matics who have been sufferers for years, and the victims of tho injudicious use of Mercury, have been radically cured by DR. TUTT'S SARSAPARILLA AND QUEEN'S DELIGHT. It is tho most powerful alter? ative aud blood purifier known. It is prc. scribed by very many Physicians. J31 G Mr. A. H. Leo, the lucky winner of the. Crosby Opera House, died very sud? denly in Cincinnati, ou tho 17th ult.