(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 <eeru* NO extravagant and absurd.
I will not pursue the subject further,
but those who deem this question at all
doubtful or difficult may find something
worthy of thought in the opinions of
the Court of Ap|>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 <r
nod the Duke of St. Albans, (irand
Falconer of Kngland, who was much
younger than Mrs. Coutt*. At her
death she left the Duke an income ot
£50,1100 a year and a life interest in
some landed estate*. With thiexcep
lion, she, from n delicate sense of jus
lice, bequeathed the entire fortune
which be derived from M*. Cent la, t
his granddaughter, Angela Burdett, the
youngest daughter of Sir Francis Bur
dctt.
The Duchess of St. Albans in be
quenthing her fortune to Mis* Avgel*
Burdett, desired her to take the name of
Coull*. This lady was-born in 1814 and
received the vast legacy of #20.00(1,<)00
in 1837, since which time she has been
coxsrict'OT* rot nra RU IVITACI.E DIRKS
And humanitarian schemes. Her liber
ality in establishing the corps ot nurse*
under Florence Nightingale, in the
Crimean war, i* familiar to every one.
She i* said to spend her entire income.
#1.000,000 or $1,200,000 a year, in her
philanthropic project*. >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<Jee<l
worthy of preservation, for the honor
of humanity:
C'amdk.n, H, C., Jan. 2tlh, 1880. '
'/' //■' E'hUtr uf fhr Ch'/rlrtlon Xcvc* :
Vur Columbia ••iirc-ix n i-lit referred to
the incidnut narrated here, telling th
-lory u- it was told to him, and inviting
j I'orfi tioii*. A uch u dew! should be re
forded in tin- rigid simplicity of actual
truth, I take the liberty of sending you for
publication an accurate account of a trarin-
Mciion, every feature of which i indelibly
! impressed upon tny memory.
Very truly yours,
J. B. KERSHAW.
Richard Kirklaml was the son of
John Kirkland, an estimable citizen
of Kershaw county, a plain, substan
tial farmer of the omen time. In
f I*ol, he entered a- private Captain
iJ. J). Kennedy's company K, of the
Second Houth Carolina volunteers, in
which company he was a sergeant in
December, 18(12. The day after the
-anguinary battle of Fredericksburg,
. Kershaw's hi igade occupied the road
at the foot of Ma rye's Hill, and the
grounds about Ma rye's house, the
•cone of their desperate defense of the
day before. One hundred and li r ty
yards in front of the road, the stone
facing of which constituted the famous
••tone wall, lav Svke's division of reg
ular-, Cnitcd States army, between
whom and our troops a murderous
•kirmi-h occupied the whole day, fatal
to many who heedlessly exposed them
selves, even for a moment. The ground
(letween the lines was bridged with
the wounded, dead and dying Fede
ral", victims of the many desperately
gallant assaults of that column of 30,-
1)00 brave men hurled vainly against
i the impregnable position.
All that day those wounded men
rrnt the air with their groan# ami
their agonizing cries of "Water! wa
ter!" In the afternoon the General
-at in the north room u|> 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<l rnav protect you. You may
The sergeant's eyes lighted up with
pleasure. He said : "Thank vou, sir,"
and ran rapidly down stairs. The
General heard him pause for a mo
ment, and then return, hounding two
steps at a time. He was mistaken.
The sergeant stopped at the door and
said : "General, can 1 show a white
handkerchief?" The General shook
his head, sayiug emphatically : "No,
Kirkland, you ean't do that." "All
right, sir," he said, "I'll take the
ehrncee," and ran down with a bright
smile on his handsome countenance.
With profound anxiety he was
watched as he stepped over the wall
!on his errand of mercy—Cbrist-like
mercy. m I'nharmed he reached the
nearer sufferer. Ho knelt beside him,
tenderly raised the drooping head,
rested it gently upon his own noble
breast, and poured the precious, life
giving tluid down the fever-scorched
throat. This done he laid him tender
ly down, and placed his knapsack
under his head, straightened out his
broken limb, spread his overcoat over
him, replaced his empty canteen with
a full one, and turned to another suf
ferer. By this time his purpose was
well understood on both sides, and all
danger was over. From all part® of
the field arose fresh cries of "Water,
water ; for God's sake, water!" More
piteous still, the mute appeal of some
who could only fieebly lift a hand to
say, here too, is life and suffering.
Koran lpm r nud a half did this min
istering % angel pursue his labor of
mercy, nor ceased to go and return
until he relieved nil the wounded on
that part of the field. He returned to
his jmst wholly uuhurt. Who shall
say how sweet his rest that winter's
night beneath the cold stars!
Little remains to be told. Sergeant
Kirkland distinguished himself in bat
tle at Gettysburg, and was promoted
Lieutenant At Ghickaniauga he fell
on the battle field, in the hour of vic
tory. He was but a youth when called
away, and had never formed thoso
ties from which might have resulted a
posterity to enjoy his fame and blem
his country; hut he has bequeathed
to the American youth—v* to the
world—an example which dignifies
onr common humanity.