VOL. 48,
he Huntingdon Journal
.1. A. NASH,
R.DURBORROW,
PUBLISHERS AMII PROPIIIF.TORS.
CNre on the Corn, of Plyth and Woiltingfon atreeto.
The HUNTINGDON JOURNAL is published every
na.luesday, by .f. R. Dunnonnow and J. A. Nian,
tnder the firm name of J. R. Donnonaow.t Co., at
;2.00 per annum. IN ADVANCE. or $2.50 if not paid
or in Sul months from date of subscription, and
43 if not paid within the year.
No paper discontinued, enless at the option of
he publishers, until all arreurages are paid.
No paper. however. will be sent out of the State
nless absolutely paid for in advance.
Transient advertisements will be inserted at
water. AND A-RALI , CENTS per line for the first
asertion, SEVEN AND a-naix CENTS for the 8.011(4
nd rite CENTS per line for all subsequent inser
ions.
Regular quarterly and yearly business advertise
.nts will be inserted at the following rates :
I I I
3 M 1.6 In l?mily! I3m6m9m 17
inch 350 1- 4 501 5 501 - 8 - 001% col 900 18T.10 $ 27 $ 36
.5 00 800 10 00112 00 "24 00 361.01 E 0 65
1
700 10 00114 00114 00 1, "340050 00 $5 80
" 800 14 00'20 00 21 0011 c 01,36 00 1 60 00 89 100
Local notices will be inserted at riFTEEN omit
n line for each and every insertion.
All Resolutions of Associations, Communications
limited or individual interest, all party an
macement s, and notices of Marriages and Deaths.
:reeding five linos, will be charged eva I'EXTS
!r line.
Legal and other notices will he charged to the
illy having theta inserted.
Advertising Agents must find their commission
aside of 'terse figures.
.All adreetining account., are due and enneetable
ice the carerHeement 14 1,114 re ineerted.
.....
JOB PRINTING of every kind, in Plain and
aney Colors. done with neatness and dispatch.—
lan I-bills, Blanks, Cards, Pamphlet, kc..of every
ariety and style, printed at the shortest notice,
ad every thing in the Printing line will be men
d in the most artistic manner and at the lowest
ttes.
Professional Cards.
P. IV. JOHNSTON, Surveyor and
,• Civil Enuineer, Huntingdon, Pa.
i5ug21,1872.
Orricg: No. 113 Third Streci.
F. GEHRETT, M. D., ECLEG
L-P•TIC PH YCICIAN AND SURGEON, her
tz, returned from Clearfield county and perms
mtly located in Shirleysburg. offers his profes
anal services to the people of that place and cur
landing country. ,tpr.3-1572.
IMR. H. W. BUCHA.NAN,
DENTIST
N. 228 Hill Street,
'HUNTINGDON, PA.
July 3, '72.
,It. P. O. ALLEMAN can be con
sulted at his office, ut all hours, Mapleton,
[march6,72.
CALDWELL, Attorney -at -Law,
• No. 111, street. Office formerly occupied
'Messrs. Wood. k Williamson. [ap12,71.
LR. A. B. BRUMBAUGH, offers his
professional services to the eommunity.
Office, No. 523 Washington street, one door east
' the Catholic Parsonage. [janA,Ti.
r J. GREENE, Dentist. Office re
• moved to Leieter's new building, Bill street
-ttingdon. U0m.4,'71.
1 L. ROBB, Dentist, office in S. T.
r• Brt wn's new building, No. 620, Hill Bt.,
intingdon, Pa. [spl2,ll.
3GLAZIER, Notary Public, corner
• of Washington and Smith ntreets, Hun
igdon, Pa. [jan.l2'7l.
C. MADDEN. Attorney-at-Law
.• Opine, No. Hill A meat, Huntingdon,
[ap.19,'71.,
r FRANKLIN SCHOCK, Attorney
,
e st-Law, Huntingdon, Pa. Prompt attention
iven to all legal business. Office 229 Hill street,
inter of Court House Square. [dee.4,72
SYLVANUS. BLAIR, Attorney-at
• Law, Huntingdon, Pa. Office, Hill street,
,e doors moot of Smith. [jan.4ll.
' CHALMERS JACKSON, Attor
• ney at Law. Office with Wm. Dorris, Esq.,
403, Hill street, Huntingdon, Pa.
.11 legal business promptly attended to. [janls
r R. DURBORROW, Attorney-at-
P • Law, Huntingdon, Pa., will practioe in the
verul Courts of Huntingdon enuuty. Particular
tention given t• the settlement of estates of deo,-
mts.
Office in he JOURNAL Bantling. [feb.l,'7l
r W. MATTERN, Attorney-at-Law
• and General Claim Agent, Huntingdon, Pa.,
ddiers' claim, against the Government for back
iy, bounty, widows' and invalid pensions attend
! to with great care and promptness.
Office on Hill street. Dan. 4,11.
- S. GEISSINGER, Attorney -at-
J• Law, Huntingdon, Pa. Office with Brown
Bailey. [Feb.s-ly
J. HALL MrssEß,
ALLEN Loc.,.
OVELL & 'MUSSED,
Attorwer-at-Law,
HUNTINGDON, PA.
ttpecial attention given to COLLECTIONS of all
Ids; to the settlement of ESTATES, Ae. ; and
other legal buaineaa prosecuted with fidelity and
patch. [n0v6,72
P3l. Sr. M. S. LYTLE, Attorneys
• at-Law, Huntingdon, ifs., will attend to
kinds of legal business entrusted to their care.
Wee on the eolith side of Hill street, fourth door
est of Smith. [jan.4,'7l.
A. ORBISON, Attorney-at-Law,
,* Moe, nt Hill street, Huntingdon, Ps.
[maY31,71..
IN &corr. 8. T. BROWN. J. M. BAILEY
,(;OPT; BROWN & BAILEY, At-
torneys-at-law, liuntingdon, Pa. Pensions,
Al all claims of soldiers and soldiers' heirs against
e Government will be promptly prosecuted.
Office on 11111 street.
ILLIAM A. FLEMING, Attorney-
VT at-Law, Huntingdon, Pa. Special attention
von to collections, and all other I,gal business
tended to with care and promptness. Office, No.
:9, Hill etreet. [apl9,'7l.
Hotels.
-:_-
h vORRISON HOUSE,
DsiTV PENNSYLVANIA K. K. DEPOT
UN'TINGDON, PA
J. U. CLOVER, Prop.
Aril 6, 1871-ly •
VASHINGTON HOTEL,
S. S. BOWDON, Prop',
•oor of Pitt k j u li a l t r a Stgrqßedford, Po. amyl.
Miscellaileons ,
YES; 0 YES! 0 YES!
The mnbscriber holds hialSelf in readiness to
Sales and Auctions ut the shortest notice.
bring considerable experience in the business
feels assured that he can Ore satisfaction.
rots reasonable. Address G. J. diENRY,
irchs-6inos. Sexton, Bedford ccSonuty, Pa.
T ROBLEY, Merchant Tailor. near
'Broad Top Corner, (second floor,' limiting
3, Pa., respectfully solicits a nitare of public
tronage from town and country. [0ct16.72.
? A. BECK, Fashionable Barber
4a and Hairdresser, Bill street, opposite the
inklin House. All kinds of Tonics and Pomades
it on bondand for sale. Dtp I 9,'7 —du;
HIRLEYSBIJRG BLECTRO-MED
-.7
ICAL, Hydropathio and Orthopedie Inoti
ite, for the treatment of all Chronic Diseases and
tormities.
!nd for Cireshare. Address
Drs. BAIRD & GEHRETT.
Shirleysburg, Ps.
,n i:'7~'t~
.:,.„.
1
~
N
„..,. . _,
~,
ri ir
u . ri t ing , ,
L .
% .
I.
1
~
. ,
.. .
'riff:. '' !
''''
•,,
, ,
''
at
PROCLAMATlON—Whereas,byapre
e.ept to me directed, dated at Huntingdon, the
214 day of Jan., A. D., 1873, wader the bands and Kai
of the Hon. John Dean. President Judge of the Court of
Common Pleas, Oyer and Terminer, and general jail deliv
ery of the2ith Judicial District of Pennsylvania, compo-
sed of Huntingdon, Blair and Cambria counties; and the
Hons. AnthonyJ. Beaver and David Clarkson, his associ
ates, Judges of the county of Huntingdon, justices assign
ed, appointed to hear, try and determine all and
ern,' indictment made or taken for or concerning
all crimes, which by the laws of the State are made
capital, or felonies of death and other offences,
crimes and misdemeanors, which hare. been or
shall herea ft er be committed or perpetrated, for
crimes aforosiiid—l am commanded to make public precis
nation throughout my whole bailiwick, that a Court of
Oyer and Terminer, of Common Pleas alai Quarter Sessions
will be held :it the Court House, in the borough of Hunt
ingdon, on the second Monday (and 13th clay) of April,
1473, and those who will prosecute the said prisoners, be
then and there to prosecute them as it shall be just, and
that all Justices of the Peace, Coroner and Constables with
in said county, be then and there in their proper persons,
at 10 o'clock, a. m, of said day, with their records, inquisi
tions, examinations and remembrances, to do those things
which to their offices respectively appertain.
Dated at Huntingdon, 'he 19th day of March, in the year
()four Lord one thousand eight hundred end aeventy-two
1 and the 97th year of Amerien! Independence.
AMON 110IICK, Smaurr.
10.10 ROCL A MATlOti—Whereas, by a pre
cept-A- to me directed by the Judges of the Com
mon Plum of the county of Huntingdon, bearing teat the
Old day oflan., A. D.,1873, I am commanded to make
public proclamation throughout my whole bailiwick, that
a Court of Common Peas will be held at the Court Home,
in the borough of Huntingdon, on the 3d Monday, (nod
21st day.) of April, A. D., 1873, for the trial of all intim
in mid Court which remain undetermined before the said
Judges, when and where all jurors, witnesses, and suit s ,
in the trials of all issues are required.
Dated at Huntingdon, the 19th day of March, in the yr r
of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two
and the 97th year of AmericmtlEileyendence.
AMON 110IICK, SHERIFF.
T RIAL LIST pox APRIL TERM 1873
FIRST WEEK.
Fred Klopser, Executor,
he. ' of Win. Enyeart vs. Jackson Enyeart.
Eli Sankey for use vs. Martha Walker.
Lowell Shamway sur
viving partner of W. A.
„
Shumway vs. James Dunn.
J. Crawford Wallace vs. 1.1. &J. H. Shoenberg.
Jacobs t Withington for .
use vs. John G. Stewart.
Jacob Hoffman vs. John Bare.
F. It. Reese k Co., vs. A. B. Frank.
SECOND WEEK.
Rose M. Herron vs. David Blair.
Saml. R. Douglass use vs. 11. S. Wharton.
Edward Williams vs. The Adams Express Co
Margaret A. Crownover vs. Geooge P. Wakefield.
The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania vs. John Minnick, et al..
Same vs. Adam Speck, et al.
J. M. Booker, et al vs. Wm. J. - Booher
Harrison Couch vs. Thomas Knode.
Andrew Decker vs. Rebecca Gorsuch, et al
David Newingham's Ex- .
eoutors
vs. A. P. Wilson's admr's
John G. Ritter rs. John Houck, et al.
Mordecai Henry vs. The township of West.
Joseph Douglass vs. Danl M'Onhan & wile.
H. Mvton & Son vs. William M'Clure.
Dr. Henry Orlady vs. Joseph Johnston.
William tlutchall vs. B. Stevens.
Pnorar'n OFFICE, ) T. W. MYTON.
March 19, 1873. j Prothonotary.
REGISTER'S NOTlCE.—Notiee is
hereby given to all persons interested, that
the following named persons have settled their ac
counts in the Register's Office, at Huntingdon, and
that the said accounts will be presented for con
firmation and allowance, at au Orphan? Court, to
be held at Huntingdon, in and for the county of
Huntingdon, on Wednesday. the 9th day of
April next, (1872.) to wit:
1. Final account of J. E. Harper, administrator
of the estate of Mary Waggoner, late of Dublin
township, deceased.
2. Account of William E. Corbin and Adam
Rupert, administrators of the estate of David
Corbin, late of the borough of Huntingdon, de
ceased.
3. Partial account of George Jackson and M.
B. Massey, Executors of Martha Massey, lade of
Barren township, deceased.
4. Account of George Jackson and M.B. Massey,
Executors of the last will and testament of Robert
Massey, late of Barrett township, deceased.
3. Administration amount of Henry Leister,
administrator of George Noltie, late of Walker
township, deceased.
6. Final account of Henry Graffins, administra
tOr of Dr. Win. Graffius, late of Porter township,
deceased.
7. Account of James D. Seeds, Executor of the
last will of Hugh Seeds, late of Morris township,
deceased.
8. First and partial account of Abram Taylor
and Jesse Curfman, Executors of Conrad Cad
man, late of Cans township, deceased.
9. The second and final account of George
Jackson and James H. Lee, Executors of the last
will and testament of Henry Lee, late of Jack
son township, deceased.
10. Partial account of J. R. Simpson, Executor
of the estate of Maria Steel, late of the borough of
Huntingdon, deceased.
11. Admistration account of Sterrett Cummins,
Executor of the last will of Daniel Barr, late of
Jackson township, deceased.
12. Final account of Mrs. Martha C. Weston,
surviving Executrix of the last will and testament
of John 'lampoon, deceased.
13. Account of David and Joseph Grove, ad
ministrators of the estate of Catharine Grove, late
of Shirley township, dooeaoed.
14. Account of David and Joseph Grove, ad
ministrators of Samuel Grove, late of. Shirley
township, deceased.
15. Guardianship account of John H. Glazier,
guardian of Lizzie Danes, minor child of John C.
Innes, late of Hollidaysburg, deceased, who will
have attained her majority on the sth day of 1 1
April, 1873.
16. Final account of James E. and Robert Har
per, late of Dublin township, deceased. •
17. Account of David Johns, administrator of
Joshua Johns, late of Union townehip, deceased.
18. Administration account of Liviegstoo Robb,
administrator of Joseph K. }tarnish, late of Por
ter township, deceased.
111. Administration account of George Jackson,
adminiotrator of Alexander Thompson, deceased.
20. The first and partial account of Geo. W.
Taylor and Andrsw Crotzley, administrators of
Abram Taylor, late of Cass township, deceased.
:21. Final account of Wm. R. Baker, Executor
of David S. Baker, late of the borough of Orbiso
nia, deceased.
Account of Robert M'Neal, administrator
of Alexander M'Annieh, late of Dublin township,
deceased.
23. Final account of Maria Shaffner and David
Detwiler, Executors of Jacob Shaffner, late of
Brady township, deceased.
24. Account of M. F. Campbell, administrator
of the estate of Hannah Coibin, late of Union
township, deceased.
25. Final account of Samuel B. Grove, guardi
an of Kate Hatopsou, of Brady township, who has
now attained her mnjority.
26. Account of S. Simpsou Africa. Executor of
the last will and testament of Henry Sturtsman,
late of the borough of Huntingdon, Pa.
27. Account of Samuel Bolinger, administrator
of John Bolinger, late of Cromwell township, de
ceased.
28. Final account of Dr. Wm. P. M'Nite, guar
élan of Stanley, Elwood and John Wicks, minor
children of John Wicks, late of Shirlyburg, de
ceased.
29. Guardianship account of William W. Stry
ker, guardian of the minor ehildren of Mahlon Y.
Stryker, late of West township, deceased.
30. Guardianship account of George Garver,
guardian of John E., Mary Ann and George Bow
man. . .
31. Account of Mrs. Lucy W. Brown, adminis
tratrix of Dr. H. L. Brown, of Essay'lle borough,
Accessed. _
32. Second account of Thomas W. Montgomery,
Trustee to sell the real estate of John Armon, late
of Barroe township, deceased.
W. E. LIGHTNER, - 7'.;
Itzaismes °Fries, l Register.
Huntingdon, Mch. 18. J
NOTICE is hereby given to all persons
interested that the following Inventories of
the goods and chattels set apart to widows, under
the provisions of the Act of 14th of April, a. d.,
1831, have been Clod in the office of the Clerk of
the Orphans' Court of Huntingdon county, and
will be presented fot "approval by the Court," on
Wednesday, April 9th, 1873 :
1. Inventory of the personal property of John
Y. Moore, devemed, as taken by his widow, Eliz
abeth Moore.
2. Inventory of the goods and chattels, rights
and credits which were of William S. Leffard,
as taken by his widow, Catharine Leffard.
3. Inventory and aipraisement of the real es
tate of Robert King, deceased, as appraised for
the use of Louisa C. King, widow of said deceased.
4. Inventory of thu personal property of Allen
S. Houck, deceased, no taken by his widow. Alley
E. Houck.
3. Inventory of the property set apart to Ada
line Campbell, widow of Peter H. Campbell, of
Mount Union, deceased.
8. Inventory and appraisement of the personal
property of Dixon Rail, late of Brady township,
deceased, as take. by hie widow, Margaret Hall.
7. Inventory of the goods and chattels, right.
and eredits which were of Jacob Baker, of the
borough of Alexandria, deceased, as taken by his
widow, Margaret Baker.
8. Inventory of the personal property of E. B.
Blackwell, late of the borough of Petersburg, as
taken by his widow, E. C. Blaokwell.
O. Inventory of the personal property of Cyrus
Gearhart, late of Barroe township, deceased, as
taken by hi. widow Mary A. Gearhart.
W. E. LIGHTNER,
Clerk of Orphans' Court•
Orphawe Citurt Ofue, Mare/4,19,17.
SPEECII OF
HON. JOHN SCOTT,
Delivered in the United States Senate,
March 15, on the Caldwell Case.
MR. PRESIDENT: Without indulging in
any preliminary remarks, such as might be
suggested by the gravity and importance
of this occasion. I will at once approach
the question which is presented by the re
port of the Committee on. Privileges and
Elections; and we find that question not
only suggested, but actually presented, by
the report, with its accompanying resolu
tion. Let me call attention to it by quo
ting from the report :
It has been a subjest of discussion in the com
mittee whether the offenses of which they believe
Mr. Caldwell to have been guilty shoald be pun-
ished by expulsion or ge Co' the validity oC his
election, and a majority are of the opinion that
they go to•the validity of his election, and had the
effect to make it void. Wherefore the committee
recommend to the Senate the adoption of the fol
lowing resolution:
. . . .
Resolved, That Alexander Caldwell was not du
ly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the
United States by the legislature of the State of
Kansas.
It will be observed that the finding of
the committee is based, not upon what they
have found the members of the Kansas
legislature to have been guilty of, but upon
what they find Mr. Caldwell to have been
guilty ot'. Lest that point escape atten
tion, let me again call attention to their
own language :
It Las been s subject of discussion in the coin•
mittee whether the offenses of which they believe
Mr. Caldwell to haes been guilty should be punish.
ed by expulsion or go to the validity of his elec.
tion.
In this connection ; and before I proceed
further, let me call attention to the finding
of the committee upon the questions of
fact as to the legislature itself, for it will,
perhaps, be necessary to consider this
question in both its aspects, namely, as to
the effect which the action of the legisla
tors may have upon Mr. Caldwell's elec
tion, and as to the effect which his own
acts may have upon his right to hold his
seat here. There is one specific transac
tion, to which the committee refer, with
Governor Carney, and I quote their lan
guage to giVe the conclusion at which they
arrived as to it :
It was an attempt to buy the votes of members
of the legislature, not by bribing them directly,
but through the manipulations of another. The
purchase-money was act to go to them, but to Mr.
Carney, who was to sell and deliver them without
their knowledge. That Mr. Caldwell did proenre
the votes of members of the legislature, friends of
Mr. Carney, ignorant of the fact that Mr. Carney
was making merchandise of his political character
and influence, and of their friendship for him, for
wbioh he was to receive a large sum of money, the
evidence leaves no reasonable doubt.
The finding of the committee is that, so
far as the friends of Mr. Carney are con
corned, who voted for Mr. Caldwell, they
voted without knowledge of the transac
tion between him and Mr. Carney, and
without being influenced by the money
which Mr. Carney received. Passing from
that transaction to the whole testimony,
they make this summary :
But, taking the testimony altogether, the com
mittee cannot doubt that money was paid to some
members of the legislature for their rotes, and
money promised to others which was not paid, and
offered to others who did not accept it.
It will thus be observed that, so far as
Carney's friends are concerned, the com
mittee find that they were not corrupted.
It will further be observed that they do
net find that Mr. Caldwell was not elected
by an unbribed majority; or, to state it
otherwise, they do not find that the major
ity by whose votes be was elected were all
bribed; and, with these findings, because
of the offense of which they find Mr. Cald
well guilty, of having used money for the
purpose of procuring his election, they de
clare the act of. the legislature of Kansas
void.
Mr. President, this presents the really
important question which we are to con
sider. It is argued that this is the law,
and that we derive it from the source from
which we derive the greater portion of our
law, Great Britain. I cannot bring my
mind to the conclusion that the finding of
the committee is cause for setting aside
this election, and I shall proceed briefly to
give the grounds upon which I dissent
from that conclusion.
It is argued, and I believe correctly,
that if this were the case of an election of
a member of the Rouse of Commons, the
finding that one elector was bribed by the
member claiming his seat would avoid the
election. It would go further; it would
not • only avoid the election as a punish
ment of the electors, according to the the
ory of the English law, but under their
statue it would disqualify the man elected
from being re-elected. •
Now, sir, is that English law applicable
to our American institutions ? la the rea
son which applies to a popular election in
England, and which punishes both the
constituency and the member elected, be
cause one member of that constituency was
bribed, applicable to the case of an election
by a State ? Can you punish a State as
you can in England punish a constituency,
because one member of the whole popula
tion of that State, intrusted for the time
with a public trust, has violated it? It
presents the most important question, I
think, that the Senate has ever been called
upon to decide; and according as we decide
it, one way or the other, we shall preserve
the checks and balances of the Constitu
tion, or may introduce a precedent which
may bring with it strife, anarchy, and
blood.
That I may not misquote or misconstrue
the position this question has assumed, let
me tent to the argument of , the chairman
of the committee, made with all the force
which his character and the strength of
his conviction could give his presentation
of the case. After quoting the resolution
the committee had repfflted, he says :
The ground upon which bribery and ihtimida
tion invalidate an election is that they impair •the
fredom of eleetions." Rogers, in his Treaties on
the Law and Practice of Elections, speaking of the
action of the House of Commons, gays :
"Bribery essentially affecting the freedom of
elections, they took cognisance of and punished
both the electors and the elected offending."
Bribery by a candidate, though in one instance
only, and though a majority of unbribed votes re
main in hie favor, will avoid the particular elec
tion sad disqualify him for being re-elected to till
such vacancy.
Now, Mr. President, the question pre
sents itself. Is that doctrine applicable in a
government made up of independent states ?
To avoid all controversy or criticism, I
drop the word "sovereign" states; but is it
applicable to a government whose legisla
tive assemblies are representatives on the
one site of the people in their respective
districts, and, on the other, of these inde
pendent commonwealths ? Our govern
ment is so dissimilar from that of England,
although England is the source from which
we derive many of our institutions, that
many of the comparisons between them
fail. With a limited monarchy, a House
of Lords hereditary, and a House of Com
mons elected by a small portion of the En
glish people, the analogy fails in many
respects when you come to look at a Pre
sident, who represents the whole people,
HUNTINGDON, PA., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1873.
the nation ; at a Senate, which represents
States; and at a House, which represents
all the people in their respective districts;
and it is because this analogy fails that I
argue this parliamentary law of England
is not applicable to an election, especially
by a State; and, I think, if I have the
strength, or if I recall the thought, I can
show the rule has never been held to be
applicable even to our popular elections;
for it has never yet been held in the other
House that a single case of bribery by a
member took away the right of the whole
constituency to their representative. Let
me refer to one of the most reliable of the
authorities upon parliamentary law to show
that the very question I make here has
been started in his mind, and has been
presented in his treatise. I read from
Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative
Assemblies, page 70
In England, before the enactment of any of the
statutes on the subject, bribery was not only& high
misdemeanor at common law, punishableby indict
ment or information, but, when practiced at elec
tions of members of Parliament. was also a breach
of parliamentary privilege, and punishable accord
ingly;
and it is an offense of so heinous a charac
ter and so utterly subversive of the freedom of
elections, that, when proved to have been practiced,
though in one instance only, and though a majori
ty of unbribed voters remain, the election will he
absolutely void.
That is the doctrine contended for in
this reporirand by the chairman of the
committee. The author proceeds:
This severity is justified on the ground that, in
a country where bribery is so common as to form
the subject of investigation in a large proportion
of election cases, it is absolutely essential to the
preservation of the freedom of election.
Whether the same effect would be hold to follow
in this country may admit of some question, or,
perhaps, depend upon the degree of guilt attached
in the several States to the offense of bribery. This
offense, though much less common here than in
England, is nevertheless considered as so subver
sive of the freedom of election, and so disgraceful
to the parties concerned, that it is made an ex
press ground of disqualificat ion in the constitutions
of several of the States.
It wiil be observed that, after quoting
the parliamentary law of England, the
question is started whether it is applicable
to popular elections in our States. The
author is not considering the question of
an election by a representative body, but
the elections in the States, and he con
cludes thus :
The right of a legislative assembly. in those
States where a conviction is necessary to disqualify,
to set aside an election for bribery, where the ma
jority is not thereby affected, before a conviction
at law has taken place. seems to be clear—
That is, under the constitutional and
statutory provisions of the State—
for, in the first plane, the trial of a controverted
election is a judicial proceeding: second, annulling
an election for briber, in the case supposed, is an
alogous to expulsion, which is the peculiar and
appropriate punishment for bribery by the com
mon law of Parliament.
There is the reason of the whole English
law : "is analogous to expulsion, which is
the peculiar and appropriate punishment
for bribery by the common law of Parlia
ment."
Thus you get at the inteadment, the
purpose of the English law of Parliament.
It is punishment—punishment of the con
stituency, punishment of the member who
has been guilty of bribery. Now, I sub
mit that when you go to the foundation of
that parliamentary law of England, and
seek to apply it to an independent com
monwealth, the reason of your law fails.—
The people of the States are themselves
the guardians of the purity of their own
legislative assemblies ; and if it were ne
cessary to pursue the argument for the
purpose of showing where this doctrine
would lead, I might suppose a case : It is
admitted that the moment you approach
the legislative assemblies of the States you
cannot inquire into the title by which one
of the members bolds his seat; that is a
question committed by the State constitu
tions exclusively to them. You could have
this ease, and it might be made as apparent
as noonday that one member of that legis
lature had been bribed in casting his vote
for a Senator, and that five who sat beside
him held their seats by bribing the electors
who sent them there, and we, sitting as
the high court to purify all the people,
would be eompelled under this English
law to turn out the man because one elect
or had been bribed, but we could not turn
him out, although it were as clear as noon
day that fivo others beside him had cor
rupted the fountain of power and held
their seats by bribery.
Mr. Preident, the people are the foun
tain of power, and the lesson we taunt
teach in this case in this—and it is high
time it was being caught here and else
where—that the people themselves are re
sponsible for bribery and corruption in
legislative assemblies. We are not to sit
here as a high court of appeal, blackening
forever the characters of members of the
State legislatures without a hearing, say
ing that they were bribed. We must say
to the people, "If you will not exercise
that power which is inherent in you, and
exercise it at every stage where it may be
exercised, from the primary meeting up to
the higest election, you are the sufferers,
and you have the remedy for the evil in
your bands." I may speak further of this,
for I find that I am already digressing
somewhat from the line of argument which
I proposed to follow.
Does this rule apply to an election by a
State, by a political entity, upon which
there cannot be inflicted the punishment
that was inflicted upon constituency and
member of the English parliamentary law ?
I consider now the peculiar constitution
of this body—the rules whieh.govern it in
its relations to the States. I need not re
call the history of the constitution of this
body. I need not recall to the minds of
Senators the fact that the rights of the
States as States were sought to be protect
ed in this body against the encroachments
of the Federal Government; but I do call
attention for it few moments, although the
detail may be, perhaps, uninteresting, to
the constitutional provisions, all of which
point to the sanctity of the representation
of States. Article one, section three, of
the Constitution reads as follows.:
The Senate of the United States, shall be com
posed of two Senators from each State, chosen by
the legislathre thereof, for six years; end each
Senator shall have one vote.
I refrain from any comment upon these
separate provisions until I group all which
I think bear upon this subject. In the
same section, after providing for the man
ner in which the seats of Senators were to
be drawn in the first organization of the
Government, this provision occurs :
And if vacanciee happen by resignation, or oth
erwise, during the recess of the legislature of any
State, the executive thereof may make temporary
appointments until the next meeting of the legis
lature, which shall then till such vacancies.
Then follow the qualifications of the
members of the Senate :
No person shall be a Senator who shall not bare
attained to the age of thirty Airs, and been nine
years a citizen of the United States, and who shall
not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State
for which he shall be chosen.
Then follows the provision authorizing
the States to fix "the times, places, and
manner of bolding elections for Senators
and Representatives," but providing that
"Congress may at any time, by law, make
or alter such regulations, except to the
places of choosing Senators." Then comes
the provision—
Each House shall he the judge of the election,
returns and qualifications of its own members, and
a majority of each constitute a quorum to do bu
siness.
Again we have the provision
Each House may determine the rules of its pro
ceedings, punish its members for disorderly be
havior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds,
expel a member.
Thus we have all these provisions with
reference to the choice of Senators; to
their appointment by the governor; to
their qualifications; to the time, places,
and manner of choosing them ; to the pow
et: of the body to judge of their election,
returns, and qualifications; to the power
of expulsion, requiring two-thirds; and,
last of all, comes that provision which
shows how carefully guarded the rights of
the States were in this instrument, because
the only exception made from all the clas
ses of subjects within the jurisdiction of
the General Government as to the power
of amendment is, that no amendment shall
be adopted which shall deprive a State of
its Senators without unanimous consent.
It is the only one subject excepted express
ly from the powers of amendment, show
ing that the right of a State to have its
Seuaters here, elected by its legislature,
cannot be taken from it unless it be by the
consent not only of that State but of all
the States.
Now, sir, with these provisions before
us, let us ask ourselves, can you apply to
the State legislature the rules which the
House of Commons applies to its constitu
ency and its members, and declare that if
one member, representing perhaps twenty
thousand people of the whole four and a
half millions in the State of New York,
shall betray his trust, the act of that un
worthy member shall deprive more than
four millions of their right to representa
tion in this body ? Which is the safer
rule, Mr. President, to hand that unwor
thy manlier over to be dealt with by his
constituency, or to say that we will arro
gate to ourselves a greater degree of puri
ty than the legislative bodies which sent
us here—than the fountains from which
we come—and that we will undertake to
determine the purity of our own source of
political existence ? . .
That this could never have been intend,
ed to apply to elections of members of the
Senate, I think derives some re-enforce
ment from what I consider a significant
fact. There have been contested seats in
the Senate almost from the foundation of
the Government; there have been contest
ed seats in the other House; and the acts
of Congress which yon find upon your stat
ute-books providing how the testimony is
to be gotten in eases of contested elections,
the acts of 1851 and 1869, apply alone to
members of the House of Representatives.
It is true that you may inquire into the
qualifications of the electors; you may in
quire vhether a man has paid his taxes,
whether he has resided the constitutional
period in his district, or any of the other
qualifications that are required by State
law ; but the moment you approach a leg
islative body, as I have already observed,
that analogy fails; and if there be all the
virtue in the world on one side of the leg
islature, and all horse thieves on the other,
if it were possible, you cannot inquire into
the character of a single man among them.
When you reach the legislature, you can
not inquire into the title of one of them to
his teat or his right to vote in that legisla
ture. This is settled by the legislature it
self. So that all analogies fail the moment
you come to apply the rules which are ap
plied in contested elections in the popular
branch, the House, to ass election by a leg
islature.
If this door is to be opened, how far are
we to go? If it be true that we may go
to the legislature of Kansas, and inquire
whether Bayers or any of its members
were corrupted for the purpose of electing
Mr. Caldwell, and, upon our judgment of
whether that is the filet or not, set aside
that election, what more is it than estab
lishing that we may set aside such an elec
tion for any reason that we deem to be
corrupt or improper? Take the English
bribery laws, and they unseat members
there for treating, and I am sure that high
as the Senate of the United States must
be considered to be in point of moral ele
vation, if it is to purify all the legislatures
of the States, there are even men here
who would be willing to be unseated if it
were shown that they had indulged their
constituents in a glass or even a keg of
lager. We may not carry our rule so far
as the English Parliament. We may not
bring here all the rules which they have
considered necessary in a country where,
according to the author from whom I read,
fraud has been so prevalent that every
parliamentary election is contested. We
cannot do that. If we can, I pray you,
where are we to stop ?
If I may do it without offense, suppose
I make use of a case as an illustration
that we have had on this floor within the
last three weeks.
The allegation is that if you find one
man in a legislature who has been influ
enced by mercenary motives—l will put it
even in that form—you must declare that
election void. Well, sir, suppose there.
was an election for Senator to collie off in
the State of Indiana, or in the State of
Illinois, or in the State of Ohio, next Jan
uary. We discussed here for several days
a bill involving a million and a half of dol
lars to these three States. That is all—
simply "the filthy lucre" of a million and
a half of dollars. The representatives of
those States, upon grounds of justice, as
they contended, asked the passage of the
law to give it to them. The majority of
the Senate upon proper motives refused it,
said it was wrong, against public policy; I
am not sure but that some of them went so
far as to say it was dishonest. Questions
lees than that have convulsed States, and
elections have turned upon them; and if
this question were to go down and enter
into the next canvass in the State of Illi
nois, or the State of Indiana. and the
whole people of Illinois or Indiana were
to say, "We will have the money ; it is
due to us, and we will instruct our Sena
tors upon this money question," I submit
if we are to be the judges of the motives
of men, we, a bare majority, as under this
resolution, may say that the legislature of
Indiana was corrupted by its share of the
million and a half, and the Senator shall
never take his seat. How far are you to
go? What is corrupt motive ? How many
men in a legislature are to combine to
gether for the purpose of carrying this,
that, or the other local interest, to elect
their Senator and send him here to represent
it? Why, sir, it opens the widest and
the most dangerous field that has ever yet
been opened in the experiments of Amer
ican politics.
Let rue call attention very briefly to a
case which has been referred to in this
argument—the case of Fleteher vs. Peck.
It is a very familiar case to the profession.
I do not propose to read it at length; but
let me state briefly what it was. Two pri
fate suitors were in court, and their case
drew in question the validity of an act of
the legislature of Georgia. They did not
ask the court to investigate whether it had
been procured by corrupt motives. That
was hardly necessary, for a subsequent
legislature of Georgia itself, looking into
the transaction with reference to the sale
of the Cherokee lands in that State, were
so well satisfied that the whole legislature
was corrupted by the interest the members
held in the subject upon which they leg
islated, that they so declared upon the
records, and expunged the act from the
statute-book. Here was a clear case. The
power which had created the law had de
clared that it was procured by corruption ;
and yet, in that case, involving private
rights, the Supreme Court of the United
States said they must take that act of the
legislature as the law; that it was not
seemly or decent in the judiciary to in
quire whether the legislative department
of any portion of the country was cor
rupted. The court refused to look into
it, and sustained the title based upon that
act, which was almost consigned to be
burned by the common hangman under
the indignation which its. corruption ex
cited in Georgia. The court, in deliver
ing that opinion, do intimate that the
State might, perhaps, where it had been
defrauded, ask that such an act be set
aside. They do not say that they would
entertain the jurisdiction then; but that
dictum is thrown out in the decision of the
case.
Following even that intimation, look at
what the legislature of Kansas have sent
us here. They investigated this subject;
they had the question before them of
whether Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Caldwell
had been elected by bribery. What do
they do ? Do they ask us to unseat them
because they find that they were so elec
ted ? No,
sir; they simply send us the
testimony for our information ; that is all.
So, evap if we were to take hold of the
suggestion in this ease and say that the
legislature of Kansas has invited us to
look- into the subject., we are still left to
tho question, what is the legitimate con
sequence following the facts which are
laid before us ? Do they invalidate this
election, or do they simply make the mem
ber whom they have sent amenable to our
jurisdiction by expulsion? No, sir; they
cannot invalidate this election. If they can
if you can go into the motives of the individ
ual members of a legislative body, let me ask
you, Mr. President, to look at the results
which are to follow. I have already spo
ken in some slight degree of them, but
supposs another case.
Suppose that Mr. Caldwell, while he
holds his seat, were to die; suppose we
were to expel him to-morrow, and the
vacancy occasioned either by his death or
his expulsion were to be filled by the gov
ernor of Kansas, under the Constitution,
all that is necessary if you invoke this
power is to bring some man here to say
that the governor was influenced by cor
rupt motives in making the appointment.
Here you have the power of the State con
centrated in the hands of one man, and
he is the only organ through which the
State can act. Unless the vacancy is filled
by him and through him, the State must
remain unrepresented. If you set up this
as the court of appeal, to pass upon the
motives of the persons by whose acts our
seats are to be filled in this chamber, the
Senate of the United States may effectually
deny any State the right to representa
tion whose Senator presents such appoint
ment. The Constitution never intended
any such thing.
Let me go farther. If you may look
into the motives of the members of
legislative assemblies, we have consti
tutional amendments which are rati
fied by the votes of the legislatures of
three fourths of the States, and their votes
are just as necessary in ud case as the
votes of a legislature are to elect a Sena
tor; and if you may investigate the legis
lature of Georgia or Arkansas, or New
York or Delaware, and say that A, B, and
C were influenced by corrupt or mercen
ary motives, that somebody bribed them
to vote for the constitutional amendments,
what are these amendments worth ?
You may ask me what tribunal is to try
that. I say, Mr. President, that, if the
rule tinder dissuasion is adopted, tribunals
will be found to try all these questions.
It is alleged that the constitutional pro
vision making us the judges of elections
will authorize us to }:O5 into this election.
Well, sir, the constitutional provision
which gives to the judges jurisdiction of
all questions arising under the Constitu
tion and laws of the United States will
soon take there a question involving the
validity of the fourteenth amendment to
the Constitution; and if you declare
that the Senate may inquire into the puri
ty of motive of legislative bodies in the
States, it will not be long until the judi
ciary will say that they, traditionally the
purest department in all governments, will
inquire into the motives of the legisla
ture.
And, yet further : Suppose there be a
failure to elect a President by the people
of the United States, and the election goes
into the House of Representatives, where
the vote is given by States, each State
casting one vote ; ,earry this doctrine, im
ported from British parliamentary law
into American law, and prove that one
member of delegation of the New York was
bribed, and in the absence of a provision
for contesting the election of President of
the United States, you have anarchy be
fore you at once.
We represent the States; our action is
but the aggregate action of all the States;
and if this doctrine be true that the action
of a State may be invalidated by the cor
rupt motive of one representative, why
not set aside a treaty which has vitality
given to it by the action of all the States,
by simply showing that the Senator of one
State was actuated by corrupt or improp
er motives ? I see no answer to this; and
if the one doctrine be true, the other is
true as its logical consequence. But it is
not true; for, once established, it would
disturb the balances and checks provided
by our fathers for the harmonious work
ing of this complex system of government.
It is all resolved by the fundamental
principle that all powor is inherent in the ,
people. To them you must look for the
correction of these evils. And, sir, if the 1
business men of this country, the farming
community, the merchants and manufac
turers. the industrious working classes
of all occupati3os, who make up the ma
jority of honest men in all communities,
cannot have their attention drawn to the
importance of their becoming politicians—
politicians in the proper sense of the terns ;
if, by their inefficiency and neglect, these
things go on, we have no other fkte be
fore us than to realise that republican
government is a failure, and that the fan
cy of the poet wit! find its realization
here:
Fire. freedom, and then glory ; when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption, barbarism at last.
I have argued that we cannot go into
this question; but if we can, then what
must we find ? I say not that one man
was corrupted, not that the member him
self was guilty of bribery, for the purpose
of setting aside his election; but you must
find that the majority by which he was
elected was corrupted; otherwise you open
a hardest for corruption all over this land
at which bad men will rejoice. Why, sir.
if one vote in Kansas proven to be corrupt
can set aside an election. Heaven knows
that hi the state of things which has been
revealed there iu the last year or two,
there will a paean of joy go up through
out the State every time you declare an
election invalid, for it will bring a new
victim for the harpies to prey upon, and
they would come up here by the score af
ter every election, for the purpose of prov
ing one man to have been corrupted, in
order to have another chance for the spoils
of an election.
No, sir ; we must hold them responsi
ble, and teach them that the remedy is in
their hands, and that, if they will not ex
ercise it, they cannot come to us as a court
of appeal for the purpose of purifying
them.
Now, sir, I call attention (and it is all I
propose to do on that subject) to what I
have already read from the report, to show
that, if a majority must he shown to be
corrupt, then the report itself fails to
find that result.. It does find that Car
ney's friends were not corrupted, and it
fails to find that there was a majority in
the legislature corrupted. So that in no
point of view can I see that the resolution
attached to this report can be sustained
upon any solid, well-matured, well-consid
ered judgment of the law and history of
parliamentary proceeding.
If correct is this, -it brings us to the
more painful question in this case. If
English law is not applicable to elections
by a State legislature, or if it be true that
it is to a certain extent, and that if you
find less than a majority to be corrupt,
you may not declare the election to be in
valid, what remedy have we ? Is it so that
we cannot rid ourselves of a man who by
his acts would poison the fountain of polit
ical power? No, Mr. President; the clause
of the Constitution which I have read, re
quiring two-thirds of this body, two-thirds
of the representatives of the States, to
concur before any State shall be deprived
of one of its representatives, is the repos
itory of the power which we can exeereise,
if there is ground to exercise it, and that
brings us, as I have already said, to the
painful question in this case.
I may be permitted to say that I ap
preach this part of the subject with pe
culiarly painful feelings. Mr. Caldwell
is a native of the county in which I live :
he is the sun of an honored father. His
father was honored among business men,
horored among patriots in his life. When
his country called him, he gave up his
business, and, at the head of a company of
my fellow-citizens. went into the Mexican
war. He returned from it shattered and
broken in health, and, he now lies in a
grave honored and respected by his fel
low.citizens, because of the fragrant mew
-1 ories that surround his name. When his
son came here, I greeted him gladly;
learning that he was a business man—one
who by his industry and energy had ex
alted himself in the estimation of his fel
low-citizens of Kansas. And, sir, permit,
me, in passing, to say that I cannot con
sent that the ffict that he had not hitherto
been known in polities is to be urged
against him as a reason why we should eon
elude that he was guilty of bribery.—
Why, Mr. President, the time has been in
some States, and I trust it may not be long
until it shall be so in all, when the people
came to the conclusion that because a man
has been useful, honest, and honored and
successful in hisibnsiness, that is the best
reason why he should go to the Senate.
And, if political status in Kansas is pro
perty represented by such political laz
zaroni as have surrounded and victimized
this man, and as have brought this case
here, it is the best reason in the world
why political status there should exclude
a man from this body.
Take Carney and Clarke as they stand
upon this record. Ido not know them,
but I take them as they have portrayed
themselves. _Read the speeeh of Carney,
the presiding officer at the meeting called
by Caldwell's fellow-citizens after he was
elected, congratulating them, the people,
and the legislature who were there assem
bled, and wishing them great joy upon
the election of his fellow-citizen, Caldwell.
Look at him here trumpeting his own
shame to the world, agreeing that he is a
political trader, seeking a political follow
ing, making himself a candidate for no
other purpose than to make merchandise
of his principles and friends, and grab
gold for getting out of the road of a
rival; and Clarke saying himself that
in his interview with Caldwell he de
clined to make an arrangement for
the purpose of having his expenses paid,
but that he should see Stevens, and any
arrangement made with him would he sat
isfactory; and then look at him dogging
the steps of Caldwell around this Capitol
and never an interview ending without a
reference to the $15,000 for expenses
Heaven save us, Mr. President, if politi
cians of that stamp are to exclude the bu
siness men of Kansas from the Senate of
the United States!
But I have been led off by this. This
is no reasoLwhy Caldwell should be found
guilty of bftery ; and referring again to
his history and to the associations that.
were connected with his name, I must say
that, having found him here gentlemanly,
correct, and honorable in his deportment,
I approached this testimony with every
predisposition in his favor. But, sir, duty
must be done, and with Carney agreeing
that he made the bargain for $15,000, with
Mr. Caldwell himself agreeing that he
paid the money, with the fact that all Car
ney's followers voted for Caldwell, with
the fact that there is a dispute about
$7,000 more, and that dispute is whether
Carney got it for himself or whether it
was left where members of the legislature
carried it off as a bribe, and the fact that
this $7,000 came from Mr. Smith, who
was the recognized agent of Mr. Caldwell
in making the negotiation. with Carney—
with these facts before me, discarding all
the tegtimony that is hearsay and in con
flict, discarding the testimony of all
the doubtful men, discarding the testi
mony of men who had that turn of repu
tation which caused them to be approach
ed for their votes with a bribe—throwing
that all out of the question, while there is
not enough here to invalidate the election,
to set aside the act of the legislature of
Kansas, under the law as I view it, lam
painfully brought to the conclusion that
Mr. Caldwell's business sagacity did not
keep him out of the hands of men whom
he should have avoided as lepers; and
NO. 14.
that, when he agreed to leave his business
and go up to Topeka, he encountered the
fate of the man who went down to Jeri
co ; he fell among thieves. I wish I could
say that he turned his back upon them. But,
sir, my duty here will not permit me
either to yield to that which the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. Logan] referred to—
the clamor which would demand an inno
cent vietim—or to shield the dearest friend
I have, if I think his act has a tendency
to poison the fountain of our political life.
With these feelings, and with this view
of the testimony, not seeking to influence
the action or the opinions of Senators who
are now my fellow•judges and my fellow
jurors. I shall strive to approach the de
cision of the question with that stern
sense of justice which will alike revolt
from the sacrifice of a victim or the
shielding of a friend.
What We Breathe ,
The Scientific .American says :—We
have all heard of the Black Hole at Cal
cutta. It was a room eighteen feetaquare.
In this room one hundred and forty-six per
sons were confined. It had but one win
dow, and that a small one. Dr. Dungli
son, in his "Elements of Hygiene," says :
In less than an hour many of the
prisoners were attacked with extreme dif
ficulty of breathing ; several were deliri
ous, and the place was filled with incohe
rent ravings, in which the cry fbr water
was predominant. This was handed to
them by the sentinels, but without the
effect of allaying their thirst. In less
than four hours many were suffocated or
died in delirium. In five hours the sur
vivors, except those at the gate, were
frantic and outrageous. At length, most
of them became insensible. Eleven hours
after they were imprisoned, twenty-three
only of the one hundred and forty-six came
out alive, and these were in a highly pu
trid fever."
There are many ' , black holes" like this
used for sleeping-rooms, says the London
Co-operator; the difference between them
and the one at Calcutta is that they are
not crammed quite so full of human be
ings. In a word, then, we may say a
sleeping apartment should be large, lofty,
and airy. It is a poor economy for health
to have large and spacious parlcrs, and
small, ill-ventilated bed-rooms. Fashion,
however, is a reigning deity in this re
spect, and will, no doubt, continue to bear
sway, notwithstanding our protest against
her dominion.
You will scarcely drink after another
person from the same glass. yet you will
breathe over and over the same air, charg
ed with the filth and poison of a hundred
human bodies around you. You cannot
bear to touch a dead body because it is so
poisonous and polluting; but you can take
right into your lungs, and consequently
into your body, your system, those poison
ous particles and noxious exhalations
which the bodies around you have refused,
and which have been cast into the atmos
phere by their lungs, because the health
of their bodies required them to he thrown
off.
If the "timorously nice creatures who
can scarcely set a foot on the ground,"
who are so delicate that they run distract
ed at the crawling of a worm, flying of a
bat, or squeaking of a mouse, could see
what they breathe at the midnight ca
rousal, the very polite ball, and bright
theatre, they would never be caught is such
company again. Nay, if they could see
what they breathe in their own dwellings,
after the doors and windows had been
closed a little while, they would soon keep
open houses. More sickness is caused by
vitiated air than can be named. It is one
of the most prominent causes of scrofula
which is but another name for half the
diseases that attack the human body. It
vitiates and destroys the whole fountain of
life—Lthe blood.
In the sick room it often augments the
disease, or renders it incurable. It the
physician comes in and opens a window,
or a door stands ajar for a moment the
good nurse, or the tender mother, or the
kind wife, or the loving sister, will fly up
and close it as though the life of the sick
were at stake. All this is well-meant
kindness, but really cruel.
If you would have health, breathe fresh
air; open your windows every morning,
and often during the day; leave off your
mufflers from the chin. For twenty years
I was accustomed to never going out with
out a handkerchief tied closely around the
mouth, and for nearly that period haveleft
it off. I have had fewer colds and suffer
far less from changes of climate than pre
viously. Jet the air into your bed-rooms;
you cannot have too much of it, provided
it does not blow directly upon you.
DON'T be afraid, boys, of learning a
trade. Dr. Din Lewis says : "Of all the
men with whoni we deal, none are so
strong, self-contained and independent as
the 'skilled laborers.' They have every
thing pretty much their own way. With
a few exceptions,our doctors and lawyers
are comparatively poor and hard pushed.
It isso distress* to be called upon to pay
rent and grocery bills, and then ait down
with your small ledger and try to pick out
the patrons from whom you can urge pay
ment without loss of business. It is so
humilitating to be obliged to maintain a
certain style, on account of your beinL , a
professional man, when you know you
eau% afford it, aad when you are obliged
to turn away the importunate tradesman
or market man with a"Can't payyou now,
you must call again."
WE ONCE saw a young man gazing at
the *ry heavens, with a t in 1 lioL. and a
of pistols in the other. We en
deavored to attract his attention by refer
ring to a q in a paper held in 1 am. re
lating 2 a man in that § of the country,
who had left home in a state of mental de
rangement. He dropped the t and pis
tols from his Dar — Eat with the ! "It is I
of whom 15 read. I left home b 4 my
friends knew of my design. I had 50 the
11,..0f a girl, who refused to lislo 2 me,
but smiled b9ly on another. I—ed
madly from the house, uttering a wild
to the god of love, and without replying
to the ? ? ? of my friends, came here with
'this t of pistols to pat a . to my
existence. My ease Las no in this §.'
THERE is a man in this town so home
ly he can't sleep of night-his face aches
MOST men like to see themselves in
print. Ladies like to see themselves in
silks and velvet.
Wner requires more philosophy than
taking things as they come ? Parting
with things as they go.
WONDERFUL things on the wing—Fly
ing reports.