(Ctnftf gmairat. bellefonte, pa. The Largest, Cheapest and Beat Paper PUBLISHED IN I'KNTKIt COUNTY. A Strong Judicial Protest. NR. JUSTICE rißl.ll CONSTRUCTS A CONSTITU TIONAL UII.EMMA TOR THOSE COI.LEAOUB* WHO UPHELD THE RIGHT or FED ERAI. COURTS TO TRY STATE OFFICERS FOR OFrENSES AGAINST STATE LAWS. In the matter of Augustus F. Clarke, petitioner from Ohio; and in the mat ter of Siebold, Tucker, Burns, Coleman and Bowers, petitioners from Maryland, upon petitions for writ of habeas corpus, a majority opinion having been read, Mr. Justice Field dissented and ob served : I cannot assent to the decision of the majority of the Court in these cAses, and I will state the reasons of my dissent. One of the six petitioners is a citizen of Ohio and the other five are citizens of Maryland. They all seek a discharge from imprisonment imposed bv judgments of Federal courts for al ieged official misconduct as judges of election in their respective .States. At an election held in the First Congress ional District of Ohio in October, 1878, at which a Representative in Congress was voted for, the petioner front that State was appointed under its laws and acted as a Judge of Flection at a pre cinct in one of the wards of the city of Cincinnati. At an election held in tlie Fourth and Filth Congressional districts of Maryland in November, 1878, at which a Representative in Congress was voted for, the petitioners from that State were appointed under its laws and acted as judges of election at different urecincts in the wards of the city of Baltimore. For alleged misconduct as such officers of election the petitioners were indicted in the Circuit courts of tho United States for their respective districts, tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment tor twelve months, and, in some of the cases, also to pay u fine. The act of Congress upon which the indictment of the petitioner from Ohio was founded is contained in section !>,- .',13 of the Revised Statutes, which de clares that "every officer of an election at which any Rep esentative or Dele gate in Congress is voted for, whether sucli officer of election be appointed or created bv or under any law or authori ty of the United States, or by or under any State, Territorial, District or muni cipal law or authority, who neglects or retusea to perform any duty in regard to such election required of him by any law of the United States or of any State or Territory thereof, or who violates any duty so imposed, cr who knowing ly does any acts thereby unauthorized with intent to affect any such election or the result thereof, * * * shall be punished as prescribed" in a previous section, that i*, by a tine not exceeding $ 1.000, or imprisonment not more than one year, or by both. The first count of the indictment charges unlawful neg lcct on the part of the accused to |>er form a duty required of him by the laws of the State, in not carrying to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas one of the poll-books of the election, covered and sealed by the judges of election with which he was intrusted by tbem for that purpose. The second count charges the violation of a duty required of him hy the laws of the State in per mitting one of the poll-hooka, covered and sealed, intrusted to him by the judges of election to carry to the Clerk of the Common Pleas, to be broken open before he conveyed it to that offi cer. The law of Ohio, to which refer ence is had in the indictment, provides that alter the votes at an election are canvassed "the judges, before they disperse, shall put under cover one of the poll-t-ooks, seal the same it to the Clerk of tho Court of Common Pleas of the county wherein the return is to be made ; and the poll-book thus sealed and directed shall be conveyed by one of the judges (to be determined by lot if they cannot agree otherwise) to the Clerk of the Court of Common Please of the county at his office within two days from the day of the election," The provisions of the act of Congress relating to the appointment of super visors of election, the powers with which they are intrusted and the aid to be rendered them by marshals and *;>ecial deputy marshals, for resisting and in terfering with whom the petitioners from Msrylsnd have been condemned and sre imprisoned, authorize the su pervisor* to HUpervise the action of the Slate officers from the registration of voter* down to the close of the polls on the day of election ; require the mar shals to aid and protect them, and pro vide for the Appointment of special deputy marshals in town* and cities of over twenty thousand inhabitants; and they invest those Federal officers with a power to arrest and take into custody persons without proceaa more extended than ha* ever la-fore in our country in time of pesce fa-en intrusted to any one. In what I have tosay I shall endeavor to show : First, that is not competent for Congress to punl*h a .State officer for the manner in which he discharges duties imposed u|>on him by the laws of the State, or to subject him in the performance of such duties to the su pervision and control of others and punish him for resisting their interfer ence; and second, that it is not compe tent for Congress to make the exercise of its punitive power dependent upon the legislation of the States. I here is no doubt that Congress may adopt a law of a State, but in that case the adopted few must be-enforoed as m jaw of tbe United Suites. Here there >* no pretense of such adoption. In the case from Ohio it is for the violation of a State law, not a law of the United Slates, that the indictment was found. 1 he judicial power of the United Suites does not extend to a case of that kind. The Constitution defines and limits that power. The judicial power thus de nned may he applied to new cases as {bey arise under the Constitution and Jaw* of the United Statea, hut it cannot be enlarged by Congress so as to em brace cases not enumerated in the Con stitution. (t hae been so held by this Court from tl\e earliest period. It was *° adjudged in 1803 In Msrhnry rs. Madison, and the adjudication has been affirmed in numerous instances since. The limitation upon Congress would seem to he conclusive of the case from Ohio. To authorize a criminal prosecu tion in the Federal courts for an offense against a law of a State, is to extend the judicial power of the United Statea to a case not arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, But there is another view of this sub ject which is equully conclusive against the jurisdiction ol the Federul Court. The act of Congress asserts a power in consistent witli and destructive of the independence of the States. The right to control their own oilicers, to pre scribe the duties they shall perform, without the supervision or interference of any other authority, und the penal ties to which they shall be subjected for a violation of duty is essential to that independence. If the Federal Government can punish n violation of the laws of the State, it may punish obedience to them, and graduate the punishment according to its own judg ment of their propriety and wisdom. It may thus exercise a control over the legislation of the States subversive ol all their reserved rights. However large the powers conferred upon the Gov ernment formed by the Constitution, und however numerous its restraints, the right to enforce their own laws hy such sanctions as they may deem ap propriate is left, where it was originally with the States. It is a right which has never been surrendered.- Indeed, a State could not be considered us independent in any matter with respect to which its officers in the discharge of their duties could be subjected to pun ishment by an external authority, nor in which its oilicers in the execution of its law* could bo subject to the super vision and interference of others. When ever, therefore, the Federal Government, instead of acting through its own offi cers, seeks to accomplish its purposes through the agency of officers of the Stales it must accept the agency with the condition upon which the oflicers are permitted to act. For example, the Constitution invests Congress with the ''power to establish a uniform rule .of naturalization," and this power, from I its nature is exclusive. A concurrent I power in the States would prevent the uniformity of regulations required on the subject. Yet Congress, in legislat ing under this power, has authorized courts of record of the States to receive declarations under oath by aliens of their intention to become citizens, and to admit them to citizenship after a limited period of residence, upon satis factory proof as to character and at tachment to the Constitution. But when Congress prescribed the condition and proof upon which aliens might, hy the action of the State courts, become citizens, its power ended. It could not coerce the State courts to hold sessions | for such applications, nor fix the time I when they should hear the applicants, : nor the manner in which they should administer the required oaths, nor reg | ulate in any way their procedure. It ) could not compel tbem to act by man damus from its own tribunals, nor sub -1 ject their judges to criminal prosecution ! tor their non action. It could accept the agency of those courts only upon such terms as the States should pre scribe. The same thing is true in all cases where the agency of Slate officers is used ; and this doctrine applies with special force to judges of elections at which numerous State officers Are chos en at the same time with Kepresenla j lives to Congress. So far as the election I of Slate officer* and the registration of voters for their election are concerned, | the Federul Government has confessed |ly no authority to interfere. And yet i the supervision of and interference with | the Slate regulations, sanctioned hy the ' act ot Congress, when Representatives to | Congress are voted for, amount practi cally to s supervision of and an inter i ference with the election of State officers and constitute a plain encroachment upon the rights of the States which fa i well calculated to create irritation to wards the Fedeial Government and ! disturb the harmony that ail good and i patriotic men should desire to exist be - tween it and the State governments. It was the purpoae of the framera of the | Constitution to create a government wiiich could enforce its own laws 1 through its own officers and tribunals i without reliance upon those of the I States, and thus avoid the principal defect of the Government of the Con i federation ; and they fully accomplish ed their purjioae, for, as aaid hy Chief Justice Marshall in the McCullough case, "No trace is to be found in the Constitution of an intention to create a dependence of the Federal Government on the governments of the Statea for the execution ot the great power assign ed to it. Its means are adequate to its enda, and on Umse means alone was it expected to for the accomplish nient of ita ends." When, therefore, the Federal Government deairea to compel by coercive measures and puni tive sanctions the performance of any duties devolved upon it by the Consti tution, it must appoint its own officers and agenta, upon whom its power can be exerted. If it sees fit to intrust the performance of auoh duties to officers of a Stale, it must take their agency, .as alreaty stated, upon the conditions which the Slate may impose. The co-operative scheme to wbioli the ma jority of the Court give* their sanction, by which the General Government may create one condition and the Statea another, and each make up for and supplement the omissions or defects in the legislation of the other, touching the same subject, with ita separate pen alties for the same offense, and thus produce a harmonious mosaic of statut ory regulation, does not appear to have struck the great jurist at a feature in our system of government or one that had been sanctioned by ita founders. It is true thst since tbe recent amend ments of the Constitution there has been legislation by Congress asserting, as in the instance before us, a direct oontrol over Stale Officers which previ ously was never supposed to be com pal able with the independent existence of the States in there reserved powers. Much of that legislation has yet to be brought to tbe teat of judicial examina tion, and until tbe reoent decisions in the Virginia casee I could not have be lieved that the former carefully consid ered and repeated judgments of thia Court upon provisions of the Constitu tion, and upon the general character und purposes of that mstument, would have been disregarded and overruled. These decisions do indeed, in my judg ment, constitute a new departure. I hey give to the Federal Government the power to strip the States of the right to vindicate their authority in their own courts against a violator of their laws, when the transgressor happens to bean officer of the United States or alleges that he is denied or cannot enforce some right under their laws. And they assert for the Federal Government a power to subject a judicial officer of u State to punishment for the manner in which ho discharges his duties under her laws. The power to punish at all existing, the nature and extent of the punishment must depend upon the will of Congress and may be carried to a removal from ofllce. In my judgment and 1 say it without intending any dis respect to my associates, no such ad vance has ever before been made to wards the conversion of our Federal system into a consolidated and central ized government. I cannot think that those who framed and advocated anil the .States which adopted the amend ments contemplated any such funda mental change in our theory ot govern ment as those decisions indicate. The Clauwe of the Constitution upon which reliance was placed by counsel on tbe argument for the legi*lation in question does not, a* it seems to me, give the alightest support to it. That clause declares that "the times, places and manner of holding elections for j Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legisla ture thereof; but tbe Congress rttay at any lime make and alter such regula tion*, except as to the places of choos ing Senators." The power of congress thus conferred is either to alter the regulations prescribed by the Stale or to make new ones; the alteration or new creation embracing every particu lar of time, place and manner, except the place for choosing Senators. But in neither mode nor in any respect has Congress interfered with the regulations prescribed by the Legislature of Ohio, or with those prescribed by the Legisla ture of Maryland. It has not altered | litem nor made new ones. It has sim ply provided for the appointment of of ficers to supervise the execution of ! State laws, and of marshals to aid and protect them in such supervision, and has added n new penalty for disobeying i those laws. This is not enforcing an altered or a new regulation. Whatever ! (Jengress inay properly do touching the regulations, one or two things must fol- I low; either the altered or the new reg ! ulation remains a State law, or it be come* a law of Congress. If it remain a State law, it must like other lnws of the State, be enforced, through its in strumentalities und agencie*. and with the penalties which it may see fit to I presenile, and without the suiiervision and uiterferance of Federal officials. 11, on the other bawd, it becomes a law of Congress, it must be carried into execu tion by such officers and with such sanctions as Congress may designate. But as Congress has not altered the regulations for the election of Repre sentative* prescribed by the Legislature of Gbio or of Mary land, either as to lime place or manner, nor adopted any regu lations of its own, there is nothing tor tbe Federal Government to enforce on ilie subject. In other word*, the im plied power cannot be invoked uniil some exercise of the express jiower i* attempted, and then only to aid ita ex ecution. There is no express power in Congress to enforce Stale law* by im posmg (lenalties for disobedience to tbem; it* punative jxiwer is only implied a* a necessary and- proper mean* of enforcing its own laws; nor is : there any bower deleguted to it to til j pervise the execution by State officers iof .State laws, if this view be correct there is no power in Congress, indepen dently of all other considerations, to authorize the appointment of su|>ervis- 1 ! ort and other oflicers to and interfere with the election of Itep ! resents lives under tbe laws of Ohio and j Maryland, or to annex a penalty to the violation of these laws, and the action of the Circuit courts wa* without juris- ; diction and void. The act of Congress in question was passed, as it soeins to | ine, in disregard ol the object of the con- I stitutional provision. That waadesijgfi ed simply to give to the General Gov . eminent the means of ita own preserva tion against a |>osible dissolution from ' tbe hostility of the States to the election ' of Representative*, or from their neglect to provide suitable means for holding : such elections. This is evident from j the language of its advocates, some of j them members of the convention, when \ the Constitution was presented to the { country for adoption. The views expressed derive further 1 support from the fact that the constitu tional provision applies equally to the election of Senators, except as to the place of choosing them, as it does to the election of Representatives. It will not be pretended that Congress could authorize the appointment of supervisors to examine the roll of mem bers of State legislatures and pass upon the validity of their titles, or to scruti nize the balloting for Senators, or could delegate to special deputy marshals the power to arrest any member resist-' ing and repelling the interference of the supervisors. But If Congress can authorize such officers to interfere with the judges of election appointed under Stele laws in the discharge of their duties when Representative! are voted for, it can authorize such officers to inlVfere with members of the Stato legislatures when Senators are voted for. The language of tbe Constitution conferring power upon Congress to alter tbe regulations ol the States, or to make new regulations on the subject, is as applicable in the one case ae in the other. The objection to such legisla tion in both cases is that State officers are not responsible to the Federal Gov ernment for the manner in which they perform their duties, nor subject to its control. Penal sanctions and coercive measures by Federal lew cannot he en roreed against them. Whenever, as in some u stances is the case, a State offi cer is required by the Constitution to perforin a duty, the manner of which may be preecribed by Cougreee, as in the election of Senators by members of tbe Slate legislatures, those officers are res|ionsibki only to their Statea lor their official conduct. The Federal Govern ment cannot touch them. There are remedies for their disregard of it* regu lation* which can be applied without interfering wiih their official character a* Niate officers, Thu, if it* regula tion* for the election of Senator* should not be followed, the election had in disregard of them might be invalidated ; but no one, however extreme in hi* view*, would contend that in such a ca* the member* of the Legislature could Oe (-objected to criminal prosecu tion for their action. With respect to the election of Representatives, so long a* Congress doe* not adopt regulations of it* own rind enforce them through Federal officers, hut permits the rcgula fions of the State* to reniain.it must dejiend for a compliance with them upon the fidelity of the Slute officer* and their responsibility" to their own government. All the provision* of the law, therefore, authorizing supervisor* and marshal* to interfere witli those in the discharge of their duties, and providing for criminal prosecutions against them in the Federal courts, are, in my judgment, clearly in coi.tlict witli lluoConstitution. j My second proposition is that it is . not competent for Congress to make I the exercise of its punitive power do | pendent upon the legislation of the > Slates. The act, upon wh cL the n • i diet ment of the petitioner from Ohio is j founded, makes the neglect or violation of a duty prescribed by a law of the i State in regard to an election at which ! a Representative jn Congress is voted j for a criminal offense. It docs not say I that the neglect or disregard of a duty ■ prescribed by any existing law shull ; constitute such HII offense. It i* the neglect or disregard of any duty pre j scribed by any law of the State,present (or future. The act of Congress is not ; changed in terms with the changing laws of the State; but its penalty is to be shifted with the shifting humors of the State legislatures. I cannot think that such punitive legislation is valid ; which vatie* not by direction of the | Federal legislators upon new knowledge or larger experience, but by the direc tion of soine external authority which makes the same act lawful in one State and criminal in another, not according to the views of Congreas as to its propri ety, but to those of another body. The Constitution vest* all the legislative power of the Federal Government in ; Congress; nud from its nature this power cannot be delegated to other* except a* its delegation may be involv ed by the creation of an inferior local govermerit or department. Congress can endow Territorial governments snd municipal corporations with legislative j powers, a* the possession of such power* lor certain purpose* of local adnnuistra i lion is indispensible to their existence. i So, also, it can invest the head* of de partment* and of the army and navy with power to prescribe regulations and , euloice discipline, order and efficiency. Its possession is implied in their crea lion ; but legislative power over subject* which come under the immediate con trol ol Congress, such a* defining of fenses against the United States, and prescribing punishment for theui, can not be delegated to any other govern ment or authority. Congress cannot, ■ for example, leave to the States the eti l actnient of laws and restrict the United Stale* to their enforcement. There are many citizen* of the United State* in foreign countries, in Japan, China, In dia and Africa. Could Congress enact that a crime against one of those states be punished a* a crime against the Unit ed States? Can Congre** abdicate it* fuuction* and depute foreign countries to act for it? It Congre** cannot do i this with ie|>ect to offenses against those Slates, tiow can it enforce penal tie* for offense* against any other State*, though they be of our own Union? If Congre** could depute its authority in this way ; if it could say that it wdl punish an an offense what another pow er enacts as such, it might do the saute thing with respect to the commando of any other authority, a*. for example, of the President or the bead of a depart ment. It could enact that what the President proclaim* will be law; that what he declare* to be offense* shall be puisbed a* such. Surely no one will go a* tar as this, and yet I am unable to see the distinction in principle tetween the existing law and the one I *up|iosc, which e*l* of New York and of the Supreme court* of several other State*, where this subject is treated with a fulness and learning which leave* nothing to be improver! and nothing to be added. I am of the opinion' that the act of Congre** wa unauthorized and invalid; that the indictment of the petitioner troth Ohio, and also from Maryland, and their imprisonment, are illegal, and that therefore, they should all be set at lil>erty \ and I *nt authorized to state that Mr. Justice Clifford concurs with tue. Arklen'a Constitutional Amendment. W ASIIINC;TON, March 15.—Mr. Acklrn, of I,ouiiana, in the ilouae to-day pto posed a constitutional amendment. It recite* the fact that the evidently grow ing tendency of the United State* to centralisation of power in the Federal Government haa awakened throughout the country a juat fear that in the near future the perpetuation of this Union may again be imperiled by internal commotion, thereby wrecking the peace aod prosperity of this Republic and breaking down those doctrine* of the periietual union of tbe Slate* finally and fully aettled by the war a* infring ing upon the home rale of the States guaranteed by tbe Constitution, and propose* a constitutional amendment declaring that the union of these Unit ed State* shall be perpetual, and that all acta or attempt* to separate or de stroy this Union shall be treason against the Federal Government and shall be punished as such. Statea, lines and boundaries shall be inviolate; provided, that new State* may be formed with the consent of tbe States from which they are formed, and the right of tbe State to make, execute and enforce its local laws by or through ita chosen rep resentatives or official* shall never be interfered with by Federal Govern ments. MINN BLRDFTT-tOITTN. HOW Hltr, CAMS. INTO i'OMK-SIOK or lIRH rise roar car- Miss Burdett-Coutts, known n* the richest single woman in Lngland, and as a person of such iiberalny in the dis tribution of her vast wealth as to com mend her to the admiration of the civ ilized world, came into the possession of her fortune in a very interesting man ner. She seems to prefer the simple title of Miss ( 'nulls to that of Baroness Coutt*, conferred upon her by (jueeu Victoria in 1871, in consideration of her munificent public charities. MissCnutts lived in rather straightened circumstan ces (luring in-r t-aiiu-r years, inheriting no property from her tirh grandfather. Phnma* ('nulls, the eminent banker, horn in 1741. At the death ' f his broth er Peter, Mr.Cou'ts assumed the entire direction of the firm, which, under his control, rose to its highest prosperity. He was a gentleman in manner-, hospi tality and benevolence, and counted among his friends some of the first liter sry men and Hclors of his d*y. Soon atter his settlement in London he mar lied Llizabelli Starkey, a girl ol humble origin. They lived verv happily tenet h er, and had three daughters Susan, alio mani.-O tun Kiii ol liuinoriJ ; France*, who married the Marquis ol Bute, and Sophia, mother of the subject of this sketch, who married Sir Francis Burdett, the member of Parliament who proposed the celebrated inquiry into the state of Coldbath Fields Prison, which resulted in the dismissal of tin keeper and the complete reformation of the regulation* of that prison. 11 • doubtless transmitted to his celebrated daughter many of hi* benevolent vir lues. Soon after the death of Mr-. Coutt*. in 1811, Mr. Coutts fell in lov< with the beautiful and accomplished Mis* Harriet Mellon, a verv popular actress in comedy in the early part ol the century. This Indy was born in 1775, and was so much younger than her opulent suitor that lie declined the match, representing that the forty four years' difference in their ages made 100 great a harrier to be surmounted. The enamored millionaire, however, -uccessfully persisted in hi- suit, and Miss Mellon became the happy wife ol Mr. Coutt*. In consequence of tin violent opjosition of liis three dsught ers'to his union with Miss Mellon, Mr. Contts disinherited them, and made Lis wife .vii.r. MISTRESS or HIS CQLO.VUI. romi NE* At his decease. A limit five year* sfter ihe death of Mr. Coutt*, hi* widow m he is an un lading friend to the poor, a protector of dumb animal*, and founder ot churches and school*. In 1847, ten years alter obtaining her fortune, she endowed a church, wiih parsonage and school attached, in Rochester liow. one of the most neglected parts of London. She also established the drinking fount ains, which are such n bles-ing to weary pedestrians; also the coffee saloon.-, which are such aid* to the teinperanc< movement. She i* so much revered and beloved by *ll classes that the very populace, wlien exasperated by poverty to extreme measures of violence, protected the home of Mi*s Coutts, and declared thai no hand should be raised against the peace of their benefactor. This beneficent lady, who has spent her wealth so freelv for the improve ment of human welfare, is by no means *ver*e to the pleasure* of lite. She ha* just been seeking a little healthy recre Ution in a yacht up the Mediterranean with a party of distinguished guests, one of whom, Mr. Henry Irving, of the Lvceuin, had an opportunity given him of surveying tbe identical scenes which he so forcibly portrays in enacting the tisrt of Sliylock in the "Merchant of Venice." Atter reluming from tbe sunny South and reentering the Thame*, her ladyship'a commodious steamer lay a week ofT Graveseud, where she and her companions had leisure to study the vast maritime, coasting and river traffic of the port ot London, which had great interest to Mia* Coutts, as tiie condition of those employed in it had long engnged her kindly attention. LOST roii NINETEEN YEAHS. —About nineteen year* ago a young man named Nathan Ilirshler disappeared from Pottsville, Pa., and it was supposed that he was the victim of the Molly Msguires. Recently his brother, Moses ilirshler, learned that a man *up|K>*ed to tie N* titan Ilirshler, bad married in New York aod gone to Chicago shortly after the war. Mose* at once went to China go, and Friday a telegram was received from him in that city, saying: "I have found inv brother and he is alive and well." Nathan Ilirshler la a prosperous man and occupies a prominent andTu cratlve governmental |ioaition. He had served in the Federal army throughout the war. Bt..tixt touched 50 year* on last of January. Grant was 57 last' April. Sherman was 56 last May. Washburn was 63 in September. Conk ling <*a* 60 in October. Garfield ia in his ftkh year. Bayard waa 51 in October. Tliur man reaolied his 66th birthday in No vember. Ifendrick* waa 50 in Septem bet. Tilden waa 66 this February, and in tbe same month General Hancock waa 55. B#ytno" r will be 70 in May. Tin crop prrwptcu in California are almost without exception excellent. h I UK LAND'S COLTUUE. A TOCCIIINO IKeibEST OP BATTLE—WATER I'OK TIIK WOt'NPEH AT PRKt'KRK KKBI'RO HOW TIIK SKROEA NT IiKAVEIi Tilfc JH I.LKTA HKTW'KEN THE I.IBE* poll 111' MAS ITT PAKE. Gcnerul .). it. Kershaw, of South Carolina, who wan a commander in the ( 'on federate army, sent mtne 'lays ago, the following letter to the pros, , fjuch a story of the war ia in stairs of Mr#. Neven*' hotte in front of the road surveying the field, when Kirkland catue tip. With an expression of in dignant remonstrance pervading his person, hi* manner, and the tones of hi* voice, lie said, "General! I can't -land this." "What is the matter, sergeant?" asked the General. He replied: "All night and all day I have heard these poor people crying l->r water, and I can stand it no longer. I come to ask |er mission to go ami give them water." The General regarded him for a moment with feelings of profound ad miration, and said: "Kirkland, don't you know that you would get a bul let through your head the moment you stopped over ihe wall?" "Yes, *ir," he replied. "I know that; hut if you w ill let me, I am willing to try it." After a pause, the General said : "Kirkland, I ought not to allow you to run such a ri-k, but the sentiment which actuates you is so noble that I will not refuse your request, trusting that Go