VOLUME 38. 4 NEW SERIES. THE BEDFORD GAZETTE ,G PUBLISHED EVBUY FKIDAY MORNING BY I BY B. F. 11l EYE fit 8, At the lollowing terms, to wit i ft.so per annum, CASH, in advance. *2.00 " " if paid within the year. J2.50 " " it' notpaid within the year. rrrtio subscription taken lor less than six months, j paper discontinued until alt arrearages „ „aid , unless at the option of the publisher, it has been decided by the United States Courts that | the stoppage of a newspaper without the payment ( Ol arrearages, is prima facie evidence ot fraud and . is a criminal offence. lETThe courts havedecided that persons are ac- ; countable for the subscription price of newspa- , pers, it the) take them from the post office, whetb- : or 'hey subscribe for them, or not. RATES OF CHARGES FOR ADVER- I TISINQ. Transient advertisements will be inserted tit the i rate of SI.OO per square of ten lines for three inser tions or less, but lor every subsequent insertion, ; 25cents per square Will be charged in addition, l'able and figure work double price. Auditor's notices ten lines and under, SI.OO ; upwards often; lines and under fifteen SI.OO. Liberal reductions; tr'de to persons adveitising by the year. SELECT JJOETRTJ. QLLT ON PICKET Out on picket, Ctouching, hiding 'neath the thicket, Scared at every twig that falls. Oh, confound me! 1 can hear them all around me— Hear those awful Minie balls. ■. j "Ping! ping! ping!" Oh, what a deadly song they sing! Why do they shoot at me, 1 wonder? "Say, old lellow! You whose pants rre striped with yellow, D'you want to kill me dead as thunder? ' "Louisiana,! That's a kind of off-hand manner, Shooting men you never knew. "Now, just stop tnat, Lire, you see, I'll take a pop at All such looking men as you." Past me rushes Another ball into the bushes. "Look out for a leaden pebble!" So exclaiming This to him white 1 was aiming— "Crack!" and dying lay the rebel! ; So on picket, Peeping fiom behind the thicxet, All day long we Kept up shooting, How exciting, After once you'je used to lighting, Taking rebels ofl their footing! 'Tis del.ghtful. Though at first it seems so lrightfol. Killing people in this manner: Just remember, It was only last December THAT THKY SPAT UPON OUU BANNER ! NON SUITING. A CREDITOR- There was a certain l wyer on the Cape a' long time ago, a man well to do in the world and what was something surprising in a limb of the law, averse to encouraging litigation. Oneday a client came to him in a violent rage. "Look a here squire," sai I lie, "that ere Mas ted shoemaker down to Pigeon Cove nas went and sued me lor the money I owed him." "Did the boolssuit vou?" "Oh ! yes. I've got 'em on; Curst rah boots." "Fair price ?" "Oil, yes." "Then you owe him the money honestly." "Course." "Well, why don't vou pav him V' * " Why, cause the blasted snub went and sued i me, and 1 want to keep hint out of the money if 1 ran." "It will cost you something." "I don't keer a kuss for that' How much do you want to begin with?" "Oh, ten dollars will do." "Is that all? Well, here's len, so go ahead!" sain the client, "that's the pay in the begin ning." Our lawyer next called on the shoemaker and asked him what he meant by commencing legal proceedings against M. "Why," said he, "I kept on sending to turn till I got tired. I know'd he Was able- to pay and I was determined to make him. Thut's the long and short of it." "Theie's a trifle to pay on account of your proceedings—but I think you had better take tins five dollar bill and call it square." "Certain, squire, if you say so, and darned glad to get it," was the answer. So the lawyer gave him on? V and kept the other. In a lew days the client came along, I and asked him how he got along with the i case. "Rapidly cried the lawyer: we've nonsuited j him, he'll never trouble you." ( "Jerusalem! that's great !•" cried the client. I d rather give fifty dollars ihan have him gel the money for them boots." iiy-A VENDER of hoop skirts was recently ex tolling his wares in presence of a customer's husband. "No lady should be without one of these skirts,"said the storekeeper. "Well, of course not," dryly responded the husband, who *as something ola wag; "she should be within l£?*Sick men taking drugs to escape death is often like a person under the influence of nightmare; he finds himself ucaring thedread ed objepi by his very struggles to escape from BRIEF OF JRGUMT MADE BY J 011N CESSNA Before the Committee iu the Contested Elec tion Case from the County of Bedford. In this case it has been admitted by the par ties in writing, in the nature of a stated case, (hat the main and only question to be settled in t fie determination of the controversy is the right of the county of Bedford to separate represen tation under the Constitution ol Pennsylvania. It has been conceded by the Contestant that in case no such right existed, aud iu case the votes of Somerset county ought to be counted in the elect ion ol Representative from the county of Bedford, then the sitting member is duly elect ed, and entitled to lus seat, it is also admitted by the silting member that if the county ol Bed lord was entitled to such separate representation, and it the vote of the county of Somerset ought not to be reckoned in the election of such rep resentative, then John Cessna, the Contestant, was duly eltxled, and is entitled fo his seat. 'This state of lacts rendered it incumbent to determine whether the junction of the counties ot Bed lord and Somerset, in the formation of a Representative District under the apportionment billot 1857, was or was not in conlormity with the Constitution of Pennsylvania as it then ex isted. This question can never arise under the third Constitutional amendment ot 1857, but as that amendment does not have effect (except as to Philadelphia) until 1564, the present ques tion stands as it the amendment had never.been adopted. Nor is it affected by the Constitution al amendments of 1838. The second and fourth sections of the first article of the Constitution, which rule this case, were not amended in 1833, and by the third division ot the schedule then adopted, it was expressly declared that "the clauses, sections and articles of the said Consti tution which remain unaltered shall continue to be construed and have effect as it the said Constitution had not been amended." Those second and (ouith sections ol the first article of the Constitution of 1790 read as follows, viz : "Section 11. The Representatives shall be chosen annually bv the citizens ol the cify of Philadelphia, and of each county respectively, on the second Tuesday of October." "Section 11. Within three years alter the first meeting of the General Assembly, and within every subsequent term of seven years, an enumeration of the taxable inhabitants shall be made in such manner as shall be directed by law. The number ol Representatives shall, at the several periods ol making such enumeiation, be fixed by the Legislature, and apportioned a mong (he city of Philadelphia and the several counties according to the number of taxable in habitants in each, and shall never be less than sixty nor greater Ihan one hundred. Each coun ty shall have at least one Representative, but no county hereafter erected shall he entitled to a separate Representative until a sufficient num ber of taxable inhabitants shall be contained within it to entitle them to one Representative, agreeably to the ratio which shall then be es tablished." The general meaning of these sections, when they a-e carefully considered, cannot be doubt ful. Popular representation shall be by com munities, by defined municipal divisions of the Slate—by "the city ol Philadelphia aud each county respectively. Language could not be more express and plain than that here used to establish separate and distinct representation in the House for the city and each county in the State. The fourth section secures in express terms equality ot representation in proportion to taxables, "in each, among the city and the the several counties," by directing the proper enumeration ol taxables, and apportionments for suih purpose "within three years alter the first meeting of the General Assembly, and within every subsequent term ol seven yeais." So far these sections it clare tho same principles of repiesyntatmn (ha! are contained in the Con stitution of 1776. That Constitutior. provided that the 'icity of Philadelphia and each county in this Commonwealth respectively, shall, on Hie first Tuesday of November, in the present year, and on the second Tuesday ol October an nually for the next two succeeding years, to wit: the years 1777 and 1778, choose six per sons to represent them in General Assembly. But as representation in proportion !o the num ber of taxable inhabitants is 'he only principle which can at all times secure libeily and make the .voice of a majority of the people the law ol the land, therefore the General Assembly shall cause complete lists of the taxable inhabitants in the city and each county in the Common wealth respectively to be taken and returned to them on or before the last meeting of the As sembly in the year 1778, who shall appoint a representation to each, in proportion be tecoguized by all (he Constitutions of Pennsylvania, at different period. These are the principles of equality of representation and community of interest.— , They have always been respected by the seve i ral Legislatures of the State in the enactment ot apportionment laws. The annunciation of these i principles of local representation and taxable i proportion in the Constitution of 1790, is fol lowed by a clause of guaranty and a subsequent limitation. These are closely connected—in one continuous sentence—and inns! be consid ered together. The guaranty is that "each coun ty shall have at least one representative." This Freedom of Thought and Opinion. BEDFORD, PA., FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 24, 1862. I manifestly ha 3 relation to the principle of pro portionate taxable equa.lity before mentioned, and is in limitation of it, while it is confirma tory of the other principle ol separate county representation. In other words, separate repre sentation is secured to each county without re gard to the number ot taxables contained with in it. The guaranty, in short, provides for ca ses of conflict between the two principles be fore announced, and preserves county represen tation against the assaults of the doctrine of taxable equality. But because the guaranty ta ken generally and without qualification might go too far; unduly trench upon equality, and render apportionments grossly unequal, a limi tation ot it was subjoined, in these words: — "But no cour.ty hereaftei erected shall be enti tled to a separate representation until a suffi cient number of taxable inhabitants shall be contained within it to entitle them to one'rep resentative, agreeably to the ratio which shall then be established." Tt is important to notice here that this limitation of the guaranty does not impose a restriction upon all future coun ties. Those of them that contain a ratio when established are not affected by it, and its appli cation is only temporary to those that attain to a ratio at any time subsequent to their erection. Those counties only are permanently excluded Irom the guaranty of separate representation that commence their existence and always con tinue in a state of taxable minority. There is, therefore, no foundation for the notion that the guaranty is confined >o counties erected before 17f)0. It obviously includes ail counties erect ed before or since that date, except those that are expressly excluded from it by the limitation just explained. And it is equally clear that a disqualified county Upon attaining a ratio of tax ables i freed forever from the limitation, and cannot again be subjected to it. Its right of "separate representation" is only deferred til " it attains to a ratio, and there is no provi sion to re-impose a restriction upon it iu any alter contingency. Confirmatory ot the foregoing exposition ot the Constitution are the facts, that counties had separate representation before the Revolution as weli as under the Constitution of 1776 ; that such representation existed when the Conven tion of 1790 was in session, and that a motion made in that Convention to confine separate representation to established counties during their continuance was rejected. And that Con vention, in the sixth section of its schedule, provided :—"That until the first enumeration shall be made as directed in the fourth section of the first article of the Constitution establish ed by this Convention, the city of Philadelphia, and the several coun'ies shall be respectively entitled to elect the same number of Represen tatives as is now prescribed by law." The last century was concluded so far as this subject is concerned, by the Apportionment Act of 27ih April, 1794. in which every county of the State had separate representation assigned it. This brings us to a proper point for an intelli gent judgment upon the question with which we began, via : War the union of Bedford with Somerset in 1857, to form a representative dis trict, in conformity with the Constitution ? Bel ford county was erected in 1771, and Somerset in 1795. The former is therefore an old coun ty, and the latter a junior one with reference to the date of the Constitution. No one can doubt the right of Bedford to separate represen tation if any county whatever can claim it, and a similar right in Somerset is rendered equally celtaiu by an examination ot her histo ry. She is a junior county, but as she contain ed when erected, as well as subsequently, a sufficient number of taxables to entitle her to one representative, she always stood and now stands free from the restriction upon new coun ties, contained ir. the Constitution, and entitled equally with old ones to the guaranty of sepa rate representation. As early as 1797 the Leg islature of Pennsylvania enacted a supplement to the Apportionment Law of 1794, by which the county of Somerset, which had been erect ed in 1795, was allowed a separate representa tion. This separate representation was again allowed by the Apportionment Law of 1801. By the Apportionment Laws of 1808, 1815, 1822, 1829, and 1836, the counties of Somer set and Cambria weie allowed two members, the latter county having been erected mostly from the territory of the former. By the laws ol 1843, and 1850, the county ot Somerset was again alfowed a separate representation. The conclusion is inevitable that the union of Bed ford and Somerset, to lorm a Representative District in the Apportionment Act of 1857, was in plain violation of the Constitutional rights of both. In order to have a lull view of the sub ject of representation and apportionment, (tho' not required tor a decision of the case in hand,) this question remains to be considered. What shall be done with new counties never possessing a ratio ? No construction is allowable which would disfranchise them from all repre sentation in the House, and as separate repre sentation is expressly denied them they must be formed into districts or attached to guarantee counties old or new. This seems to be the only alternative and doubtless is often one of difficul ty. On the one hand the guarantee ol separate representation appears to protect the counties covered by it from any connection with the dis qualified one; on the other hand it is often im possible to form the latter into districts with any regard to contiguity or relative taxable population. Whatever may be the just con struction of the Constitution on this subject I •- gislative practice has been guided by a doctrine ot necessity, and has varied accoiding to the cases which arose. Where distriols could be formeit of new counties that respectively x had no ratio it was usually done. And where this was impossible or inconvenient in a high de giee and violative of rqual rights, they were attached to counties not of their own class— most frequently to those from which they had been erected. But this practice is founded up on necessity more or less absolute, is limited by tbat principle, and cannot be extended beyond it. But in the present case no disqualified coun ty is proposed to be dealt with, and no necessi ty is shown for the junction of counties. The community of interest is clearly viola'.ed-r-lhe guarantee of separate representation denied, and the equality ol representation in no way promoted. In 1857 the county of Bedford con tained 5,197 taxable inhabitants, and the coun ty of Somerset contained 5,254 —as separate Representative Districts they would have been more nearly equal in point of numbers than any districts formed by the apportionment act of that year. There is therefoio in this union of these two counties only an open and flagrant denial ol right. These general conclusions have been reached from the plaiu language ol the Constitution it self. They seem to be sustained by its letter and its spirit/ It is manifest that the Constitu tion was so understood by its framers. It is ev ident that any change that might be made in the boundaries ola county, or in the extent of its territory, could iu no way affect its individ uality or indentity. The Legislature might take away a portion of the territory of a county, or a part of its population, but could not destroy its corporate rights aud privileges, nor take a way the constitutional rights of its citizens. In 1790, the whole territory oWennsylvania was embraced in twenty-one counties. The Con vention contemplated the erection of new coun ties. as appears from the latter clause ol the f'ouilh sec:ion of the first article of the Consti tution. Such new counties could only be form ed from the teriitory of the old ones. An ef- I tort was made in the Convention to confine the right of separate representation to each county "during iis continuance," By the rejection of (his proposition, the Convention determined that this right of separate representation should remain with the county, without regard to any change that might be made in the extent ol its i territory, or number of its inhabitants. See Con | ventions ol Pennsylvania, compiled by Francis K Shunk, in 1825, commencing or. page 317. These conclusions are further strengthened by the action of the Convention of 1837 and 1838 on the subject of representation. In this body a protiacted and vigorous effort was made to extend this right of separate representation to all the counties then formed in the Common wealth, without regard to ratio, and being fil ty-lb-ee in number. Alter (he failure of this effort, another, of equal vigor and determina tion, was made to take away from the old counties the right of separate representation, and to make equality of taxables the sole ba sis of representation. This effort was also un- aud the Convention finally, by a majority, adhered to the Constitution ot 1790 upon this subject. During the discussion of these propositions, lasting several weeks, every member participating iu the debates (in cluding such eminent jurists and constitutional lawyers as VVm. M. Meredith, John Sergeant, Thomas S. Bell, Geo. W. Woodward, James Mauison Porter, George Chambers, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles J. Jngersoll, Walter For ward, and many others) distinctly avowed that under the Constitution of 1790 "each county was entitled to not less than one Representa tive, and that the new counties should be rep resented as soon as they had the required ra tio ol taxable inhabitants," and that ttii3 tight could not be interfered with in any other man ner than by constitutional amendment. Indeed, the idea ol depriving one of the original counties of its right to seperate repre sentation does not seem to have occurred to the Legislature until the unscrupulous system known as "gerrymandering" was introduced. With a single exception, (in 1836,) the Leg islature, since 1790, in enacting apportionment laws, has unitormly observed the constitutional guaranty, in strict accordance with the views adopted in this Argument, until 1850 and 1857. In the last two appointment acts, two or three departures were made from these gen- 1 eral principles. The first ol these caused for : a time the withdrawal ol nearly a quorum of members from the House of Representatives, 1 and threatened seriously the utter disruption ol; that body. A lew of the provisions of the sec- j ond were evidently adopted without proper. consideration and reflection. The only other i exception, that of 1836, was the junction ol ■ the counties of Mifflin, Union and Juniata in j one Representative district. This wasdenounc- j ed by Judge Porter in the Reform Convention (see Debates, Vol. XII., p. 181) as a violation ol the Constitution, and the error was corrected at the next apportionment, anJ a separate repre sentation has ever since been given to the county of Mifflin, although greatly below the ratio. In order to verify the statements herem made, the Contestant has prepared a numbed statistical tables,which are submitted, and mark ed Papers "A," "B," and "C," the first being a list ut the several apportionments of this Commonwealth fur members of the House of Repiesenlatives—the second a list of the taxa ble inhabitants upon which said apportionments were based, and the third a list ot the counties of this Commonwealth, with the respective dates of their erection, and the time when they severally attained a Representative ratio. In addition to these evidences we have the opinion and judgement ol the Legislature ol 1856, and also of that of 1857, distinctly ac knowledging the right of separate representa tion as claimed in this argument by the adop tion ol'the third ameadment, which goes into effect A. D. 1864, and by which thereafter these rights are either modified or taken away. Had these rights not been established by the Constitution there would have been no necessi ty lor this amendment. The Legislature of 1857, acknowledged the doctrine ol this argument with regard to old counties, by allowing the counties ot Mifflin and Huntingdon sepai ate representation al though below the ratio. The Legislature of 1843 acknowledged the same piinciple in the case of Mifflin county, and that ot 1850 io ibe cases of Mifflin and Northumberland. The Le gislature of 1857 acknowledged the other doc trine of this argument, viz: flat a county erect ed since 17J10, having once attained a ratio o> representation is ever entitled to immunity from the restrictions imposed by the Constitu tion by allowing to the counties of Adams and Greene a separate representation after they had both fallen below the ratio. This same doctrine was also recognized by the Legislatures of 1836, 1843 and 1850, in the case of Perry county. Any deviation from this doctrine must lead to constant and embar rassing changes to and from separate legisla tive districts, as the several counties might hap pen at the times of enumeration to be above or below the ratio. The second and fourth sec tions of the first article of the Constitution guar antee to each county at least one representa tive, to be chosen by the citizens thereof. To admit the constitutionality ol the district under consideration would be to concede that both members might be residents of the county ol Somerset, and might be elected bv the citizens thereof, contrary to the choice of a majority of the citizens of the county ot Bedford. This would seem to be not only a denial ot the right of representation to the people of Bedford county, but a further imposition upon them of a Representative chosen against their wishes, and by voters residing toyond their boundaries. ! The Contestant in this case has never pub lished, nor authorized the publication of one ; word on the subject of this controversy. He preferred to leave the question with the tribu nal appo'nted by law lor its decision. The re cent circulation in large numbers of a paper entitled "Synopsis of the argument delivered by the Hon. Walter Forward," (who by. the way is long since deceased,) "counsel for the sitting member in the contested election case of Cessna against Householder," has rendered it necessary that the position taken by the citi zens of Bedford county should also go forth to the public. A reply to this printed argument is unnec * essarv, inasmuch as it is based throughout upon a misapprehension ol the posit/on of the Con ; testant. The Contestant does not deny the constitutionality of annexing a county which | has never attained the Constitutional right ot | separate representation to one has, but I merely alleges that after this right has been ac | quired it can never bo lost. The very table i published in the "Synopsis of the argument of Hon. Walter Forward," establishes the correct-1 ness of the position contended for in this argu- I ment. It is contended that in no case prior to' 1850, except the single one before mentioned, (Mifflin in 1836) was there a departure from the interpretation of the Constitution herein maintianed. His own table proves that the counties of Carbon, Clarion, Fulton, Lawrence, Venango, Forrpsf, Wayne and Potter, never bad acquired a representative ratio. An ex amination of the several apportionment bills and lists of taxables, wilt establish tl.e fact that at no time, with the exceptions belore stated, was any county which had ever acquired a ratio, attached to any other such county in the elec tion ot Representatives; but those that have never acquired such ratio have been and are temporarily attached to those that have. The idea that the provision in regard to new counties is merely directory, is based upon the mistaken notion that new counties, having ac quired a ratio, are not embraced within the first clause of the IV section of article 1, Const. When it is remembered that in the Convention of 1790, the motion to confine the right of separate representation to counties then organ ized was rejected, and that all counties with out regard to the date cf their erection; subject only to the restriction "until" they should reach the ratio, were guaranteed the right of separaterepresentation, the interpretation claim ed by the sitting member is clearly inadmissi ble. The act of 1795 erecting the county of Somerset, directed the Commissioners appointed by said act to take an enumeration of the taxa ble inhabitants, and transmit the same to the Legislature forthwith; and in 1797, in pursu ance of their return, by a special act, the Leg islature gave to the county o( Somerset a sep arate representation. Mr. Forward's first legal position, that the action of the Legislature in enacting the appor tionment act of 1857 cannot be inquired into or corrected, is in direct conflict with the legal maxim "that one Legislature cannot bind a subsequent one," and also with the constitution al provision that "each House shall be the judges of the qualification of its own members," as well as that other well established doctrine that "the Constitution it the tundamental and paramount law of the land." The Constitution says that each county shall be entitled to one Representative to be elected by the citizens thereof. Bedford wai at that lime one of the counties ol this Commonwealth, and is therefore entitled to her separate repre sentation. But, says Mr. Forward, the word county means teriitorial extent, and not muni cipal authority. Conceding this to be lrue r it would have been strictly constitutional for the Legislature of 1857 to have allowed but twen ty-one representative districts tor the entire Commonwealth, and to have limited those dis tricts by lines oi the original counties as they existed in 1790. The folly of this position is clearly shown by the action of the convention ot 1790 in refusing to confiine ibis right ot separate representation to the counties as then organized. It anything more were needed byway ot illustration it could be had in the exhibition ola district embracing all the territory included in the county ol North umberland i(> 1790, or in either of the counties of Cumberland, Westmoreland, Luzerne, or Al legheny at the same time. The charge against the Contestant relative to his eminnent lawyers and judges is gratuitous and the insinuation that adverse opinions have been received is a fiction, a dream, or something worse. That the disregard of an unconstitutional act of the Legislature will be met by a greater WHOLE NUMBER, 9989. VOL. 5. NG. 25. "howl of indignation," than a wilful submit sion by a free people to the violation of their Constitution the Contestant is not prepared to believe, because while acts of legislation have always been regarded as temporary and change ' able the safety of the citizens has reposed upon the idea that the fundamental law of bit State was permanent and certain, and could only be altered by the forms therein prescribed. The Contestant comes here backed by mora than one thousand majority of the voters of his county, submits his claim for decision to the tribunal fixed by the Constitution of the State, confident that that tribunal will be guided by the Constitution they have sworn to support, the practice of the Commonwealth in time past, and a proper regard for the great doctrines of a community of interest and equality of repre sentation going hand in band to preserve the rights of the .citizen. A FORTUN ATE~KISS- The following pretty little story is narrated by Frederika Bremer, who vouchei lor its truthfulness: In the University of Upsula, in Sweden, liv ed a young student, a noble youth, with a great love lor studies, but without the means of pursuing them. He was poor, and without, connections. Still he studied, living in great poverty, and keeping a cheerful heart, and try ing to look at the luture, which looked so grimly at him. His good humor and excellent qual ities made him beloved by his young comrades. One day he was standing with some of them in the great squaie of Upsula, prattling away an hour of leisure, when the attention ad the young men became arrested by a young and eleganti lady, who, at the side of an elderly one, was slowly walking over the place. It was the 4jnly daughter ol the Governor ol Upsula, liv ing in the city, and the lady with her was the governess. She was generally known lor her goodness and gentleness of character and look ed upon with admiration by all the students. As the young men stood gazing at her, as she passed on, like a graceful vision, one of ibem suddenly exclaimed. "Well, it would be worth something to have a kiss from such a mouth!" The poor student, the hero of our story, who looked on that pure, angelic face, exclaimed, as if by inspiration "Well,l think I could have it!" "What!" cried his friends in a choius, "are you crazy? Do you know her?" "Not at all!" he answered; but I think she would kiss me now if I asked her." "What! in this place- before all oureyas?* 1 "Yes, io this place, before your eyes," "Freely?" "Freely." "Wei I,if she will give you a kiss in that man lier, I will give you a thousand dollars!" ex claimed one of the party. "And I," —"and I," exclaimed three oc four others; for it so happened that several rich young men were in the group, and the bets ran high on so improbable an event. The chal lenge was made and received in less time than we take to tell it. Our hero (mv author tells not whether ha was handsome or plain; 1 have my peculiar ideas lor believing that he was rather plain, but cingularly good looking at the same time,) immediately walked off to the young lady, and said: "Mine fraulein, ray fortune is now in your hands." She looked at him in astonishment, but arret ted her steps. He pioceeded to state bis natna and condition, his aspirations, and related, sim ply and truly, what had just now passed be tween him and his companions. The young lady listened attentively, and, at his ceasing to speak, she said blushingly, but with great sweetness: "II by so little a thing so much good can be effected, it would be foolish for me to refuse your request;" and, publicly in the open square, she kissed him. Next day the student was sent for by the Governor. He wanted to see the man who had dared to seek a kiss from his daughter in that way, and whom she had consented to kiss so. He received hin. with a scrutinizing bow, but, after an hour's conversation, was so pleated with him that he ordered him to dine at hit ta ble dufing his studies at Upsula. Our young friend pursued his studies in a manner which soon made him regarded as the most promising student in the University. Three years were now past since the day of the first kiss, when the young man was allowed to give a second one to the daughter of the Gov vernor, as bis intended bride. He became later, one of the greatest scholars in Sweden, and as much respected for his ac quirements as lor his character. His works will endure while time lasts, among the works ot science : and from this happy union sprang a family well known in Sweden even at the present time, and whose wealth and high posi tions in soc.ety are regarded as trifles in com parison with its wealth ol goodness and love. > EIGHT CHILDREN AT A BIRTH. —On the 2d of#ugust, Mrs. Timothy Bradlee, o! Trumbull couhty°, Ohio, gave birth to eight children three boys and five girls. They are all living, and are healthy, but quite small. Mr. Brad lee's family is increasing fast. He was married six years ago to Eunice Mowery, who weighed 273 pounds on the day of her marriage. She has given birth to two pairs ol twins; and now eight more, making twelve children in six yean. It seems strange, but nevertheleas is true, Mn. Bradlee was a twin of three, her mother ami father both being twins, and her grandmothsr the mother of five pairs ol twins- Mn. Brad lee has named her boys after noted and distin guished'men; one after the Hon. J. who has given her a splendid gold medaJ; oao after the Rev. Hon. Elijah Champlaio,wnw gave her a deed of fifty acres of land, aadM* otber alter James Johnson, who gava her a tow.