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.

DEBATE IN THE SENATE. ! THE CASE OF MCLEOD. Friday, June, I i, 1941. The business before the Senate being the motion of Mr. Rives to refer so much of the President's Message as relates to our foreign affairs to the Committee on Foreign Affairs? Mr. Calhoun said : I rise with the intent ion of stating very briefly the conclusion to which my reflections have brought mc on the question before us. Permit me, at the outset, to premise that I heartily approve of the principle so often repeated ih this discussion, that our trne policy, in connexion with our foreign relations, is neither to do nor to suffer wrong, not only because the principle is right of itself, but because it is, in its ap. plication to us, wise and politic, as well ? - '> : ?i.. ?... as rigor. reace is pre-eiuiiiciiujr um policy. Our road to greatness lies not over the ruins of others, but in internal mtercouse throughout our widely cxtcn. ded country, and in drawing forth its unbounded agricultural, manufacturing mineral, and commercial resources. In this simple field, all the industry, ingenuity, enterprise,and energy of our People i may find full empiovmcnt for centuries to come; nnd, through its successful cultivation, we may hope to rise, not onlytoja state of prosperity, hut to that of greatness and influence over the destiny of the human race, higher than has ever been attained by arms by the most renowned nations of ancient or modem times, War, so far from accelerating, can but retard our march to greatness. It is, then, not only our duty, but oui policy, to avoid it, as long as it can b< with honor' and a just regard for our rights; and, as one of the most certain means of avoiding war, we ought to oh serves trie! justice in our intercourse with others. But that is not of itselfsuflicieni We must exact justice as well a9 render justice, and be prepared to do so; foi where isthe/e an example to he found of eithor individual or nation, that has preserved peace by yielding to unjust de ma nds ? i It is in the spirit of these remarks that I have investigated the subject before us, without the slightest party feelings, but with an anxious desire not to embarrass existing negotiations between two Governments, or influence in any degree pending jucicial proceedings. My sole object is to asce'taio whether the principie already stated, and which all acknowledge to fundamental in our foreign policy has in fact been respected in the present caso. I regret to state that the result of iny investigation is a conviction that it has not. ( have been forced to the conclusion that the Secretary of State has not met the peremptory demand of the British Government for the immediate release of McLeod as he ought; the reasons for which, without further remark, I will now proceed to state. 1 That demand, as stated in the letter, 1 rests on the alleged facts, that the transaction for which McLeod was arrested, is a public one ; that it wad undertaken by 1 the order of the colonial authorities, who were invested with urn limited power to defend the colony, and that the Govern. ! rnont at home has sanctioned both the 1 orJer and its execution. On this allega tion, the British Minister, acting directly under the orders of his Government, demanded his immediate release, on the . broad ground that he as well as others ; engaged with him, was "performing an i act of public duty, for which he cannot j he made personally and individually re. sponsible to the laws and tribunals of any foreign country; thus assuming as a uni-. versat principle of international law, that' where a Government authorizes or ap. ! proves of an act of an individual, it makes it the act of the Government, and thereby exempts the individual from all respon. sibility to the injured country. To this demand, resting on this broad and uni. versal principle, our Secretary of State j assented ; and, in conformity, gave the I instruction to the Attorney General, which is attached to the correspondence, and we have thus presented for our con. siderntion the grave question, do the laws of uations recognize any such principle ? I feel that I hazard nothing in saying they do not. No authority has been cited to sanction it, nor do I believe that anv can be. It would be no less vain to look to reason than to authority for a sanction. The 1 iws of nations are but the luws and morals, as applicable to individuals, so far modified, and no further, as reason may make necessary in their application to nations. Now, there can be no doubt that the analogous rule, when applied to individuals, is, that both principal and agents, or, if you will, in. struments, are responsible in criminal cases; directly the reverse of the rule on which the demand for the release of Mc Leod is made. Why, I ask, should the . rule in this case he reversed, when applied to nations, which is universally admitted to he true in the case of individuals ?? Can any good reason be assigned ? To reverse it when applied to individuals, all must see, would lead to the worst of consequences, and, if I do not greatly mistake, must in like manner, if reversed, when applied to nations. Let us see how it would act when brought to the test of particular cases. Suppose, then, that the British, or any other Government, in contemplation of war, should send oqt emissaries to blow upithe fortifications erected at such vast expense, for the defence of our great commercial marts?New York and othJk ?? ers?and (hat the band employed to Mow i up Fort Hamilton, or any other of the fortresses for trie defence of New York, should be detected in the very act of firing the train; would the production of the most authentic papers, signed by all the authorities of the British Government, make it a public transaction, and exempt the vidians from nil responsibility to our laws and tribunals ? Or would that Government dare make a demand for their release ? Or, if made, would ours dare yield to if, and release them / The supposition, I know, is altogether improbable; but it is not the less, on that account, calculated to test the principle. But I shall next select one that may ' possibly occur. Suppose, then, in con- j templation of the same event, 1 black emissaries should he sent from Jamaica, j to tamper with our slaves in the South, and that they should he detected at midnight, in an assembly of slaves, where they were urging them to rise in rebellion j against their masters; and that they j should produce the authority of the home j Government, in the most solemn form, j authorizing them in what they did : ought j that to exempt the cut-th-oats from all j responsibility to our laws and tribunals? : Or, if arrested, ought our Government to ; release them on a peremptory demand to j Jo so? And if that could not be done j forthwith, from the embarrassment of j State counsel and to use its authority and I influence to effect it? And, if that could ; not accomplish its object, would it be ' justified in taking the case into their own tribunals, with the view of entering a ' wile prosequi ? But, setting, aside nll supposition cases j t shall take one that actually occurred? hat of the notorious Henrv, employed by j iie Colonial authority of Canada to tam- j >er with a portion of our people, prior to j he late war, with the intention of alien- ' * * iting them from their Government, and ; "'fleeting a disunion in the event of hosilities. Suppose he had heen detected ( md arrested for his treasonable conduct, ind that the British Government had nade the like demand for his release, on he ground that he was executing the or. lers of his Government, and was not, herefore, liable, personally or individual. y to our laws and tribunals: I ask, would jur Government be bound to comply with he demand ? To all these questions, and thousands jfothers that might he asked, no rightninded man can hesitate for a moment :o answer in the negative. The rule, Inen, if it does exist, must be far from jniversal. But does it exist at all?? Does it even in a state of war, when, if iter, if we may judge from the remarks >f gentlemen on the opp??sitc side, it nu8t ? They seemed to consider nothnc more was necessarv to establish the >rincip!e for which they contend but to show that this and all other cases of armsd violence on the part of one nation or ts citizens against another is in fact war; nfnrmal war, as they call it in contralistinction from one proceeded by a dec- 1 aration in due form. Well, then, let us inquire if the principle for which they contend, that the luthority, or the sanction of his (Jovernnent, exempts an individual from all re9Kinslbilitv to the injured (Government exsts in case of war. Turning, then, from a state of peace !o that of war, we find, at the very threshold, a very important exception to the rule, if it exists at all, in the case of spies. None can doubt that, if a spy is detected and arrested, he is individually and personally and personally responsible, though his pockets should he filled with all the [ authority the country which employed him could give. But is the case of spies ths only exception ? Are they alone personally and individually responsible ? Far, otherwise The war may be declared in the most solemn manner; the invaders inay carry with them the highest authority of their Government, and yet, so far from exempting them individually, officers, men, and ill may be slaughtered and destroyed in ilmost every possible manner, not only without the violation of international laws, but with rich hexnor and glory to ' 1 * ' 1 fUn i?Aar\AncikiI cneir oesiroyers. jam ui mc icc|/uh<ii<uiity of the Government, exempting their instruments from responsibility ! How, let me ask, can the Government he made responsible, out through its ngents or instruments? Separate the Government from them, and what is it but an ideal, intangible thing ? True it is, when an invading enemy is captured or surrenders, his life is protected by the laws of nations, as they now stand ; but not because the authority of his Government protects it, or that he is not responsible to the invaded country. It is to be traced to a different and higher source?the progress of civilization, which has mitigated the laws of war. Originally it was different. The life of an invader might be taken, whether armed or disarmed.? -- ? i 1 _ He who captured an enemy imu a ngm to take his life. The older writers on the laws of nations traced the lawfulness of making a slave of a prisoner to the fact that he who captured him had a right to his life ; and, if he spared it, a right to his service. To commute death unto servitude was the first step in mitigation, which spares the life of a prisoner excepting the case of spies, to whom the laws of war, as they stood originally, are still in force. But, because their lives are spared, prisoners do not cease to be individually responsible to the invaded | country. Their liberty for the time is It <r forfeited to it. Should they attempt to < escape, or if there be danger of their ' being released by superior force, their 1 lives may be still taken, without regard 1 to the fact that they acted under the au- j thority of their country. A dema.id on the part of their Government for the im. ( immediate release, on the ground assum- j ed in this case, would be regarded as an ( act of insanity. , Now, sir, if the Senators from Virginia j and Massachusetts (Mr. Rives and Mr. i Choate) couid succeed in making the t case of the attack on the Caroline to be / I an act of war, it would avail them nothing in their attempt to defend the demand of)( Mr. Fox or the concession of Mr. Web. I stcr. McLeod, if it be war, would be a f prisoner of war, which, if it protected his J life, forfeited his liberty. In thatcharac- j ter, so tar from his Gevernment having a < r right to demand his immediate release, [ under a tiireat ef war, our Government would have the unquestionable right to { detain him till there was a satisfactory s termination of the war by the adjustment ^ of the question. I To place this result in a stronger view, 1 suppose, after the destruction of the Car- c oline, the armed band which perpetrated r the act had been captured on their retreat i !>y an armed force of our citizens, would j thev not, if the transaction is to be regar. 1 (fed as war, justly have been considered j t as prisoners of war, to be held as such, in a actual confinement, if our Government 3 thought proper, till the question was ami- t cably settled ? And would not the de- r mand for their immediate release in such c a case be regarded as one of the most in- t solent ever made by one independent [ country on another ? And can the fact t that one of the band has come into our f possesion as McLeod has, if it is to be ( considered as war, vary the case in the ^ least ? Viewed in this light, the authority r or sanction of the British Government t would be a good defence against the r cnorge of murder or arson, but it would c he no less so against his release. c But, this is not a case of war, formal or ^ informal, tuking the latter in the broad- t est sense. It hfls not been thought so \ nor so treated by either Government, and * Jfr. Webster himself, in his reply to Mr. 'J Fox which has been so lauded by the two } Senators, speaks of it as "a hostile in. t trusion into the territory of a power at 1 peace." The transaction corned under a c class of cases fully recognised by writers t on international law as distinct from war c ?that of bellige.ents entering with force t the territories of neutrals; and it only re- r mains to determine whether, when view- t ed in this, light, our Secretary has tak- r en the grounds, which our rights and hon- a or required, against the demand of the t British il/inister. t Thu6 regarded, the first point presented t for consideration is, whether Great Bri- < * ? ?? lain, as a neuigerem, was jusmicu m en. c teringour territory under the circumstan- \ ces she did. And here let me remark that [ it is a fundamental principle in the laws \ of nations, that ever^ State or nation has ( full and complete jurisdiction over its own r territory to the conclusion of all others? a a principle essential to independence, and % therefore held most sacred. It is accord- c ingly laid down by all writers on those \ laws who treat of the subject, that nothing ] short of extreme necessity can justify a c belligerent in entering, with an armed t force, on the territory of a neutral Power, f and, when entered, in doing anv act c which is not forced on them by the like e necessity which justified the entering, c In both of these positions I am held out by * the Secretary himself. The next point c to be considered is, did Great Britain enter r our territory in this case under any such 1 necessity, and, if she did, were her acts t limi;ed by such necessity? Here again c I may rely on the authority of the Secre- J tary, and, if it had not already been quo- e ted i>v both of the Senators on the other v side w ho preceded me, I would read the \ eloquent passage towards the close of his f letter to Mr. Pox, which they did with so e much applause* With this high authori- j tv, I may then assume that the Govern- * ment of Great Britain, in this case, had c no authority under the laws of nations c either to enter our territory or to do what , was done in the destruction of the Caro line after it was entered. i Now, sir, I ask, under this statement j of the case, what ought to have been our 1 reply when the peremptory demand was * made for the immediate release of Mc ^ Leod ? Ought not our Secretary to have told Mr. Fox that we regarded the hos- C tile entry into our territory, and what was n pepetrated after the entry, as without war- 1 rant under the laws of nations? That j the fact had been made known to his Government long since, immediately after the transaction? That he had received no explanation or answer? That we ( had no reason for believing that his Government had sanctioned the act ? That f McLeod had been arrested and indicted 1 under the local authority of New York, without possibility of knowing that the ( transaction had been sanctioned by it ?? That we still regarded the transaction in jj the light we originally did, and could not even consider the demand till the conduct i or which we had complamedwas xplainedf But, inthc mean time that McLeod might 1 have the benefit of the fact on his trial, that ' the transaction was sanctioned by his Government,andit would be transmitted in g due form to those who had charge of his S defence? J Here let me say that I entirely concur with Mr. Forsyth, that the approval ofUhe a British Government of the transaction in question was an important fact in the trial oi McLeod, without, however, pre- j tending to offer an opinion wheather it j would be valid reason against a charge of i murder, of which the essance is killing with malice prepense. It is a point for the court and jury and not for us to de. cide. Nor do I intend to venture an jpinion wliethervif found guilty, with the inowiedgeof the fact thathis Goverrxnenl ipproved of his conduct, it ought not to be rood cause for his pardon, on high consid. nations of humanity and policy. I leave >oth questions, without remark, to those ;o whom the decision properly belongs, except to express my present convictior :hat there is not and has not been the leas! langer that any step would be taken to wards him not fully sustained by justice, lumanity, and sound policy. Any 9te[ which did not strictly comport wit! :hese would shock the whole communi y- . Having taken the ground, I have indi ;ated we ought to have received explana ion before we responded to a peremtor) iemand; there we ought to have restet ill we had first received explanation t is a maxim, that he who seeks equit) nust do equity ; and, on the same princi )le, a Government that seeks to enforce * ? 4* ? * - ?w?h/*nlor r?oc( lie laws 01 nations in u j/ai uv,ui?< v..?? igainst another, oughttoshow thatit ha; irst observed them on its own part in the Lime transaction; or at least show that il >!ausable reasons for thinking that it had, fono, but a proud and haughty natior ike England, would think of making the lemand she has, without even deigningtc inticeour complaints against herconducl n connexion with the same transaction; md I cannot but think that, in yielding tc ier demand, under suoj| circumstances he Secretary has not only failed to exacl vhat is due to our rights and honnor, a? in independent People, but has, as far a? he influence of the example may etFect it nade a dangerous innovation on the code >finternational laws. I cannot but think he priciple on which the demand towhieli le yielded was made is highly adverse tc he weaker Power, which we must admit >ur selves yet to be, when compared with Jrcat Britain. Aggression are rarely by the veak against the stronger Power, but the cverse; and the practical effect of theprin:iple, ifodmitted, would he to change the esponsibility ofdeclaing war from the agpressor?the stronger Power?to the aggrieved, the weaker; a disadvantage sc treat, that the alternative of abandoning he demand of redress for the aggression vould almost invariably toenforced on the veaker, rather than to appeal to arms.? rhis case itself will furnish an illustration, We have been told again and again, in his discussion, that in yielding the denand to release McLeod we do notsurren lerour right to hold great Britain responsi >le; that we have the power and will t< ixact justice by arms. This may be so; put is not felt on all sidesthat it is, I wil >ot say empty boasting, but that it is al alk? After yielding to the peremtory de ncnd for his immediate release ; aftei ending the Attorney Genera) to look af er his safety, and employing able counse o defend him against the laws of the Stat< he public feeling must be two much lei town to think of taking so bold and responsible a measure as that of declaring var. The only hope that we could hove lad for a redress for the aggression would lave been to demand justice of Britisl jovernment before we answered her de nand on us; and I accordingly regard the icquiescence in the demand for release vithout making a demand of redress or pur part as settling all questions connectec vith the transaction. Thus regarding it must say that, though.I am ready tr concede to Mr. Webster's letter in repl) o Mr. Fox all the excellence which his rieds claim for it, the feelingthat it was put of place destroyed all itsheauties in m} ?ves. Its lofty sentiments and strong con lemnation of the act would have shown t( idvantage in a letter claiming redress or >urpart beforeyielding to a peremptory de. nand; but, afterwards, it looked too muel ike puttingon airs when it was too late; af er having made an apology and virtually :onceded the point at issue. In truth tlx etter indicates that Mr. Webster was nol ntirelv satisfiedwith his readycomplianec vith IVfr. Fox's demand, of which the par vhere he says that he is not certain tha 10 correctly understood him in demanding in immediate release furnished a striking nstance. There could be but little doubi is to what was meant; but the assumptior if one afforded a convenient oppertunit) >f nodifying the ground he first took. A LISTOF LETTERS REMAINING in the Poit Office at Ch?raw July 1, 1841, which if not called for befiri at October next will be sont to the Genera 'oet Office as Dead Letters. B?Bart'ett Emma Poleen, Bryant Williau J. Brown R. W. Bragaw Isaac C. C?Campbell Miss C. M. Clark Aiehibald 'owden Warren A. D. Chancey D. W. Chap nan Mr>, Mary J. Campbell Miss Katharim 'ampbell. D?Dodd Ransom Drako Lemuel S. Derricl X E?Evans M. F. T. Edwards John E. F?Fisher Mary. G?Gallagher James J. Gronthom Henrj iroves David Goodwin Harry Grisan John C iodbold Cade. H?Husbands Lewis D. 2 Harkness Johr larrel James 4 Husbands Rachel Husbands J ). Johnson Eli Jarrot John M, K?King George Keith Daniel 2 Kelly Jamet e y. M?McLauchlin Daniel McNahb Duncar tfaiblum M. McKay Laucblin McKay John A llcDonald MurdockJ. McAlpin Malcom Mun oe Isabella K. McCall Duncan McQuageJohc kicMillan John McCaskill John B. P? Pervis John Poore William Pired Jame( 'owe E. A. Pngues Win, sen. Powers Cyrui 1. Postal I J. C. R?Rivers Lewis Rakestraw Isaac. S?Smith John M. 2, Smith Caroline E smith Marj Smith H. H. Smith Charlotte M smith Johu Smith Martha Sweat Win. Sweal cssee Strother Mary C. Scott Nancy Stafford ilalcom T?Thomas Riee 3, Turner Margaret Turn, ige Wm, 2. V?Vandorford C. W?Wallace C. D. William* Todford Webl: iarriet Witer Miss M. Williams H H Warren oscpli, Winn Martha, Wallace Jackson. Ward ane, Wntters Harriet 2 Williams^Jesse II/HITE WINE VINEGAR If Cider do For sale by AUG. F. LaCOSTE June 7 1941 30 RET. RICHARD HJBJIAI'S t SERMON, DELIVERED in the Baptist Church in this placo in vindicatian of the doctrine and practice of the Baptis. denomination, for sale at ( \ the store of > A. P. LACOSTB. 1 * HEAD QUARTERS. 1 CLARENDON, June 4, 1941. ^ Orders No. ? The following Rr-giments will parade for f review and drill at the timos and places herein , stated, viz: The 25th Regiment at Winnsboroogh, on ' Tuesday the 13th day of July next. The 24th Regiment at the usual parade ground on Thursday, the 15th of July. The 26th Regiment at Chestorville, on Tuesday, the 20th of Ju y. The 27th Regiment at Oliver's Old Field, on r Thursday, the 22d of July. 1 The 46ih Regiment at Ebenezer, on Saturday the 24th o July. ' The 34th Regiment at Yorkville, on Tuesday, the 27th of July. The 35th Regiment at Union Court House, on J. Thursday, the 29th of July. % The 9th Regiinenf of Cavalry a* McRrideville , on Saturday, 31st of July. * The 37th Regiment at Wilkin's Old Field, on ' Wednesday, the 4th of August. 1 The 3<?ih Regiment at Timinon's Old Fiold, , on Tuesday, the 10th of August. I The 45th Regiment at the Burnt Factory, on 4: Thursday, the 12th of August. x' { The 41st Regiment at Park's Old Fit-id, on > I Saturday, tho 14th of August. 1 I The 40th Regiment at Mrs. Boyd's, on Tucs. j day. tho 17th of August. ' The 10th Regiment of Cavalry at Boyd's on * Thursday, the 19th of August.. > The 3rd Regiment ;.t Taney's Old Store, on L mi t A T> ? A. - l' 1?? ? * Di-hAMBMllla L I l nc isi negmieni 01 vavnir) i itMiuum;, j on Saturday, the 28th of August. ? The 3th Regiment at Hunter's on Tuesday, the 3fst of August. ' The 2nd Regiment at Hull's, on Friday, the 3d 5 of September The 4'2d Rigirnftnt at Minton's, on Tuesday, l , the 7th of S'!pteml>er. The 4th Regiment at Vcrrenncs, on Thursday the 9th of September. The 8ili Regiment at Morrow's OM Field, on l Tuesday, the I4th of September. 5 The 6th Regiment at Lomax's on Thurday. the , 16th of September. The 2nd Regiment of Cavalry at Longmire's, on Saturday, the 18;h of September. ! The 9th Regiment at Lowe's, on Tuesdny the 21st of September. The 7th Rogiment at the Old Wells, on j Thursday, the 23rd of September. The 10th Regiment at Richardson's, on Satur. day the 25th of September. I i The 38th Regiment at Killer's Old Field, on ; j Tuesday, the 28th of September. . J The 39th Regiment at the usual para do ground, on Thursday, tha 30th of September. The commissioned and non-commissioned officers will assemble at their Regimontal Mus. ter pounds, for drill and instruction on the day . previous to their review Major Generals and Brigadier Generals will, " j with their staff, attend the reviews in their re) spectivr commands, ; The Brigadier Gonerals are specially charged | v it h the extension of so much of this order as j relates to their own Brigades. The Commandants of Regiments will make " their annual returns to their Brigadier Goner. ls r at such times as they may direct, to eneblc them . to make their returns to the Adjutant General by ] the fifteenth of i tctober next. By order of the Commander-in-Chief. [ JAMES W.CANTEY, Adjutant and Inspector Gent rah 'r June 16, 1811. [C] f 6t. 5 i CONSl/JIPTIOX & LIVER CO.71| I PLAIffT. Tvr* in i vi /\r??cs j IJIV. 1AI bUU O balsam of liverwort. H AS been used successfully for eight years in the cure of these diseases. Remember! * { the original end genuine is made ou'y at 375 1 ' Bowery, New York,- all others arc spurious and ' unauthorized ! , Consumption and Liver Complaint! ? As a general remdey for these diseases, ! am r fully satisfied from Balsam of Livcrwort. Being purely vcgetuhle. it can be use I with the utmost safety by all persons u. every condition. It ' cleanses the lungs by expectoration, re'icves ' I difficult breathing, and seems to heal the chest. . I There can he no question but this medicine is a j I certain ? ure fo^ chronic coughs and colds. I have used it for four years in my practice, and always with success. A. F. ROGERS, M. D. 1 Consumption! The following remark* were ! taken from the last number of the iVIedicul Mag* , aziue: "The surprising oflect produced by Dr. Taylors 3 Balsam of Liverwort, in consumptive cases, t cannot fail exciting a deep and thrilling interest > throughout the world. We have so long believed | t this disease (consumption] incurable, Unit it is difficult to credit our senses when we see persons evidently consumptive, restored to health. Yet I th s is & fuct of daily occurrence ,* how then can r we question the virtue of the above medicine ? t In our next we shall be more explicit; meantime we hope physicians will make trial of this medicine and report its effect to us." Note?The orginal and genuine Taylor's j Baisorn of Liverwort is made and sold at 375 , Bowery. OBSERVE ! Buy only that which is made at the old office, 375 Bowery, New York, and ' which is sold by ^ Dr. A. MALLOY, Cheraw. S. C. 1 Hand ills &?id certificates giving a history of the medicine, accompany each bottle. ? 23 tf THE SOUTHERN HARP. CIONSISTING of Original Sacred and Moral / Song*. adapted to the moat popular Meio. dies, for the Piano Forte and Guitar by c MRS MARY S. B DAjYA. Or CHARLESTON, 8. C. " This work aupplios a vacuum which hat long been felt in the musical world. It is indeed 7 the Christian's Vocal Companion, and we hope . no family will be without it."?Bost. paper For sale at the Cheraw Bookstore hy > JOHN WRIGHT. July 5,1841. 34 if DRUGS, MEDICINES, ' Chemicals, Patent Medicines, 1 Perfumery, Paints, Oils, Dye ! ! Stuffs, &c. &c., for sale ' wholesale and retail by , A. HOPTON, CHERAW, S. C. 1 i At his Drug Store, next door to Brown , Bryan Brother. Where may be had at all times a general as sortmct of articles in the Drug line?recom j * mended to be of superior quality which will be : disposed of on very moderate terms?Physicians and others wishing pure medicines, may rely on being supolied with them. May 26, 1841. 28 RECEIVING AND FORWARD? ING BUSINESS. THE Subscriber continues the Receiving and Forwarding of Goods and Produce, his Whntf and StmA are in pood order, and the room, ample. Flu charges are 110 more than those of other Houses in the the same lino. BENJAMIN KING. Georgetown F. C. Majr 24,1841. 29 ' tf ' 9 A CARD. JOHN A. INGLIS, Attobney at Law Will practice in th ? Courts of Law for the Districts of Chesterfield, Marion, Darlington, ? and Marlborough. office is in the build* in# next below the Store of MessrA. Taylor & Punch. Dec. 141840. */ For Sale. A TRACT on the Dectrinee of Election and Reprobation, by Rev. James ThornwelL Also, a Vindication of the Proliant Doctrine concerning Justification. May 1st, 1840. . 25 tf The Subscriber has just received, and wil keep constantly on hand,Cotton Yarn and Twine at wholesale, from the Manufactory of Rockingham. GEO. GOODRICH. Cheraw, Jan. 1840. 10 tf I1TSS. BLACK,. Dark Blue. Light Blue, Red and Copying Inks, in small |Br ttlee, For sale by John Wright at the Cheraw Bookstore. October 30. 1840. 51 tf Hats and Shoes. A LARGE and well selected stock for cal by A. P. LACOSTE. ' October 21, 1940. IHJNIjAIP A MARSHALL, ? ? - i a _ HAVE just received among other deatraoj* fancy goods, the following articles, vizAHAWI.8. Super Black IJernaiii, '5-4 and 4 4, ' Handsome printed Mouselin De Laine from 7-8 roG-4. Supr. Scarlet Merino 4*4 and 5 4. Do. Mode (Plain) colored Thybet, Belvedere & Cabyle do. 6 4 and 64 gloves. A good assortment Ladies and Gentlemen'* super colored and black H. S. Beaver and Buckskin. hose, Ladies super wliireand black Merino, Cash mere and Ingrain Cotton. MOUSELIN DK LAINES. Rich Printed, Fancy black ground and Mode 41 Colors. also, Super Blue and wool dyed black rJotlw, * * ? Cashmeres and Satinettg ? - * H , Tea and Loa Svgar. SUPERIOR articles, for family use, for sale by m A. P. LACOSTE. October 2, 18W. 49 tf , Clothing. CLOTH and Blanket Overcoats, Cloaks, itc Fur vale very low, A. P. LACOSTE. October 21, 1840. Saddles and Leather. A GOOD Stock for sale low, by A. P. LACOSTE. October 21,1840. HiEW A1YD CHEAP GOODS. I Have just icceiveu a well selected assort, mentof staple and fancy Dry Goods of tbe Litest style and fashion for the season. PI -Afo call and examine my stock before purchasing. M. BUCHANAN. May 31, 1841. * *29 tf JUST RECEIVED mj ETHODIST Ilyiuns 12mo. jJM. do do 24mo. sheep, calf, and Morocco. Methodist Discipline lute edition, Wilsons Dictionary, Life of Wesley, Life of Dr. Clark, Family Bible, cheep snd calf, AI' of which will be sold at the New York prices, JOHN WRIGHTApril 10, 1841. 22 tf > Dunlap 4* Marshall HEREBY give noticeth?lthey willcontinoe to sell their Dry Goods only, on the usual credit to punctual customers. 1 hey will sell their Groceries tt the lowest prices for cash only. The very short credit at which groceries can now bo bought, amounting with the exchange almost to Cash, with their limited capital compels them to the adoption of this. Umbrellas JUST received a good assortment of Silk and Ginghams Umbrellas. > DUNLAP A MARSHALL SPERM AND TALLOW CANDLER 1]! OR sale by s 1 A. P. LACOSTE October 21, 1840. 49 t/ LADIES SHOES. DUNLAP & MARSHALL have jo?t received direct from the Manufactory (Phila.) 460 pair Ladies and Misses Kid and Seal Slippers and shoes. Lard. v4r 55000 LBS*bLEAF-LARD> fcr ** b/ A. P. LACOSTE. September 30, J 840. State of South Carolina. DARLINGTON DISTRICT. Iw the Coukt or Common Pleas. of W. Hunter Sur'v. Dec. on sealed H unter & Dufiose Note, in Foreign vs. Attachment. B. E. DuBose. THE Plaintiff in the above stated ease having filed bis Declaration in my office this day and the Defendant having neither wife nor Attorney within the limits of die said State npon who a copy of this attachment could he served. On motion of G; W. & J. A. Dargan Plantifif '$ Attorneys* It is ordered that fi. E. DnBoee do plead or demur to the same, within a year andat day from the date hereof or final and abeoluo j judgment shall be awarded and given him. ' It is also ordered that a copy of rhis order be published in the Farmers' Gazette once every three months for the space of a year and a day. S. WILDS DUBOSE. C.C. P. Clerks Office, Sept 23, 1840. 46 1 ev 13 re UMBRELLA. A Cotton nmbreHa with a hooked handle wae mis aid somewhere in town a week or two since. If the finder would be good enough te leave it at the bookstore, the owner would receir it CHEESE. tior sale by a n T A/lAflW JL A. r. Miwota. October 21,1840. * . * * -4* ' i