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 <o the num
ber ol taxables in such returns; which repre
sentation shall continue for the next seven years
afterwards, at the end of which a new return
of the taxable inhabitants shall be made, and a
representation agreeably thereto appointed by
Ihe said Assembly, arid so on seplenmally for
ever."
The Constitutions of 1776 and 1790 there
lore agree in declaring the separate representa
tion of the city ot Philadelphia, and of each
county to the number ol taxable in
habitants in each." Two great principles ol
representation appear U> 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.