, .
. . . . ,
; .
t - .„ • .
. , -...
. ,
-'. ,_-; i 1 '' -.- , • ... . ,
.. . .
. .. st.e *
.e.• . ...-
, , .... . • %
,
T i
I ' .
; .
... 4 :7;. •—• '' -:
I M
sN-2.; •:. ti...,
..:.,
. r
• . •
- •.
It ..... __
.....,....„0C .....
.„.?.........,:;,
r
~ •
.;••••• ,
, -...i
N; .; ..;
A. J. GERRITSON, Proprietor.i
POll ERE MONTMOSE DEMOCRAT
. .IEX lIS'VCO Xi "lir
Of the Great Struggle between Liberty
and Despotism for the last "
Hundred Years.
BY ?ass. L. C. SEARLE
Ninety years ago there waved'on the
soil of Virginia a dark and bloody banner
of war, with an inscription written in
large characters upon its folds, "Liberty
to Slaves." " Freedom to all the black
race who will join in reducing - the white
people of this Colony to suubmission to
the king."
Submission to Great Britain, said the
white race, is submission to slavery.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as
to be purchased at the price of chains and
slavery ? Are fleets and armies necessa
ry to a work of love and reconciliation ?
These are implements of subjugation sent
over to rivet upon us the chains of slave
ry, which the British ministry have been
so long forging."
The patriots of Massachusetts_declared
unanimously that
" A free-bora people are not required
by the religion of Christ to submit to tyr
anny, but may make use of such power as
God has given them to recover and sup
port their liberties."
The lawyers in Massachnsetts said ; o
" It is the first principle in civil society,
founded in nature and reason, that no law
of society can be binding on any individu
al without his consent, given by himsef in
person, or by his representative of his
own free election."
In speaking of the calse of the Ameri
ca❑ revolution, an Abolition paper of ten
years ago says:
" The British government claimed the
right to legislate for the Colonies in their
internal affairs. The Colonies resisted on
;he ground that it is the' essence of tyranny
.uhjeet men to laws in the enactment of
which they had no voice. This principle lies
at the root of all our free institutions."
- The Colonies resisted;" the people of
the thirteen American Colonies were- vic
torious ; the " chains of slavery which the
British government had been so long
forging" were reserved for a more favora
ble period for riveting them on the free
born people of America. Their fleets and
armies disappeared from all its shores,
driven back by heroic bands of soldiers
under their immortal leader, and that
b:oody banner, with its motto of evil
omen, "Liberty to Blacks," "Slavery to
Whites," disappeared also from public
view. But the King's flag, raised by
Lord Dunmore, was never removed from
American soil. It was retained in the
hands of British tones, whose hearts
were set on kingly government, to which
the Southern people would not submit
when the Union was formed—preferring
free government, called a Democracy.
That flag, with its motto, "Liberty to
Negro Slaves," was the enchanted wand
which they believed would sooner or la
ter call back the armies of the King, with
:heir implements of subjugation, ready to
place the shackles upon the same proud
race whose boast bad ever been that they
were 4 ' born to the bright inheritance of
freedom."
That dark flag waver over the whole
South to-day, and an army is dispersed
through all those once free dominions to
!oh the white race of their bright inheri
tance of freedom; to rob them of the
7igt to frame their own forms of govern
ment ; of making their own liws by 'Which
they are to be governed; rights' secured
to them by the most sacred charters for
ilmost three hundred years; and bestow+
log these same rights upon a race which
fur more than a thousand years were born
10 an inheritance of slavery. " Freedom
to.blacks," "bondage to whites," is the
kr, that has conquered at last, if this
peat army returns victorious.
What did the ring's flag,raised by the
royal governor of Virginia mean by " lib-
Tty to slaves" in 1775 ? It meant the
Lime as when raised again in 1868. It
tomtit a war of races ; a servile war ; a
tar of the black - al:Ton the }whites ; an in
larrectiott of , the slaves; a 'war upon wo
men and children; an indiscriminate mas
!acre and slaughter of the whole white
race, such as occurred inSt. Domingo
A .
nt eiateen years thereafter.' And 'was
great Britain so cruefand:'bttrbarous in'
that enlightened age, trained to say, as
1 9 sanction such a war as thatl:But why
"t? "Is it not lawful'," they said, " to
a vail ourselves of all the means which GA
a nd nature has put into our hands to crael,
1111 causeless rebellion? " The same
"letion was repeated in 1863, and an
swore by arm'tng 200,000 negro slaves
against their masters.
What did'the rebels of 1775 think
about the arming of slaves against them ?
Bancroft says :
- "The first menace of Lord Dunmore to
raise the standard of servile insurrection,
and set the slaves against their masters
with , British arms in their hands, filled
the whole South with borron. and alarm.
But the spirit of the people rose with the
danger. Pinckney and Drayton of South
Carolina, in their Assembly, condemned
the . British Parliament . and their cruel
statutes and sanguina ry measures. Their
endeavors to engage barbarous nations to
imbrue their hands .in the innocent blood
of women and children, and the attempts
.to make ignorant domestic slaves subser
vient to the most wicked purposes, are
acts at. which, humanity must revolt. But
although a superior force 'bay lay waste
our towns, and ravage our country, it can
never eradicate from the breasts of free
men those principles of liberty. which are
engrafted in their very nature."
"The men," says Bancroft, "to whose
passior.s Lord' -Dunmore appealed, were
either criminals, bound to labor in expia
tion, of their misdeeds, or barbarians, some
of them freshly imported from Africa,
,with tropical passions
.seething in their
veins, and frames rendered strong by
abundant food and out of door toil ; they
formed the majority of the population on
tide-water, and were distributed on the
/timely plantations so that danger lurked
in every home;"
Danger of what ? Danger that father,
mother, parent and child, brother, sister
and ffiend inightte slaughtered by these
African barbarians, and with their &see
and homes be buried in one common ru
in. The patriots of Virginia were victo
rious over the royal governor and his ne
gro brigades, and the danger passed
away. But England's hatred of America
and her free institutions didpass
away. In loss than twenty-6v earsaf
ter the Constitution of the United States
was formed, her fleets and armies again
appeared 4 upon our shores. And who were
ready then to 'welcome them back instead
of driving them away. The Federalists
of New England—John Ilolmes, a
Member of the Legislature of Massa
chusetts, denounced that party in 1814
in the following
„I.tognage:
" Here is amongst up a daring and am
bitious faction, who, I do not hesitate to
proclaim prefer the British government„,
monarchy and all."
The British army appeared at New Or
leans, and Gen. Jackson saved the people
of the South from another invasion and
another invitation to slaves to rise against
the white race. He conquered the flower
of the British army, and the Federalists
ahirays hated him therefor. The victory
of New Orleans compelled Great Britain
to sign articles of peace with America,
and she promised to let her remain in her
quietude and rest.
In less than three.years from signing a
treaty of peace, the hero of New Orleans,
while engaged in a war with the Semin
oles, detected British agents or spies in
citing large bands of runaway negroes
and Indians to murder whole families of
white people. he hung two of these
British agents—Arbuthnot and Ambris
ter—and the rage of the New England
Federalists knew no bounds. When the
Democratic party nominated the old hero
,for President, the Federalists printed
handbills with the • pictures of the coffins
of these two British spies, and held up
Gen. Jackson :as the greatest military
despot that ever lived. This party that
has placed ten millions of people under
the rule of military officers, were ready to
faint away at the mention of martial law,
and the suspension of the sacred writ of
habeas corpus. They were frightened al
most
out of their senses for fear our gov- '
ernmetit - might be overthrown and a mili
tary despotisni established on its ruins,.
because Gen. Jackson hung two incendia
ries without a trial; before a civil court.—
Their own arguments against the acts of
the hero. of New Orleans convicts them
not only of gross hypocrisy, but of being
themselves the greatest despots that have
arisen.on the earth for hundreds of years.
The difference in the two cases is this:
These British agents who were inciting
Indians and negroes to murder the people
of tbe SoUtb were their friends; and were
engaged in a work that was pleasing to
them, for these people were . their politi
cal enemies, and theitianted them exter
minated. The Southern people were Gen.
"Tackson's filen& ;they were 'of his own
race, and be loved tyem better than ho
did the liiidiantrind 'Negroes who wire
killing thekt. He says, ‘i my God would
MONTROSE, PA., TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1567.
not have Smiled on me had I punished on
ly the poor ignorant savages, and spared
the white men who set them on."
Many years after this event, a states
man in Congress made the following dec
laration :
" If I were to declare an opinion as to
the horrors and cruelty of all our Indian
wars, I would unhesitatingly say that to
British agents all is attributable. Child
ren at school, in the hours of play, were
butchered at the instigation of these
agents; murder on every road; death in
every path. Even at this day the name
of British agent or trader will create a
sudden start of horror f in the widowed
mother of a family, mitt tears open all
the sluices of her griec. which time had
soothed but could not destroy. The child
ren were hushed to silence by the terri
ble names of Simon Girty and McKee,
and could those incendiaries have been
taken in those days, every voice would
have pronounced their doom. Not only
individuals, but whole families were
swept away; many who rendered bril
liant services to their country, are now
only known to those who feel a kindred
sorrow."
And yet the Federalists of New Eng
land took the side of Arbuthnot and Am
brister, and were as much enrageeivhen
they- were hung for murdering Southern
people as they were when John Brown
was hung for attempting the same crime.
Two years later Thos. Jefferson, alarmed
at the conduct of the Federalists in Con
gress, exclaims, " Are our slaves to be
presented with their freedom and a dag
ger?" In 1829 the same Puritan party
•
tried to incite the Indians of Georgia to
massacre the white 'people them. The In
dians being removed, in 1831 the flag of
Lord Dunmore was sent from Massachu
setts to the South through the mails.—
This dark flag bore the inscription of
"The Liberator," and it produced the
same " thrill ofhorror all over the South"
that it did when it was raised by Lord
Dunmore in,1775. The. people there ap
plied to the old hero of New Orleans for
protection from massacre by their slaves.
The hero, being then in the Presidential
chair, could not gird on his sword and
Fight in their defence, but he called the
attention of Congress to the painful ex
citement produced in the South by in
flammatory appeals addressed to the pas
sions of the slaves, calculated toistimulate
them to insurrection and produce all the
horrors of a servile war." At this time
the British agent, Geo. Thompson, who
had come over with the editor of the Lib
erator, was in Massachusetts for the pur
pose of sending the flags of Lord Dun
more all over the South. Gen. Jackson
denounced him for "daring to inter
fere with the slaves of the South."—
Gee. Thompson was as much a British
Agent as Arbuthnot and Ambrister, who
were hung for doing in the South what
he was doing among his friends in Massa
setts, where the South could not reach
him. The abolitionists declared that Gen.
Jackson accused them of murder, and
this history will prove that the party now
in power are not only linked directly with
Dunmore's invitation to slaves to rise and
murder the white race, but with the mas
sacre of St. Domingo ;land that, they have
conspired against the whole white race in
America who refuse to aid in establishing
Negro government, in order to perpetu
ate their own despotic power, and en
throne a Cromwell, a George 111., or a
Robespierre,qn the place first, occupied by
Washington.
—Of course our late Minister to Hayti
was a graduate of Oberlin College, in
.Ohio, where according to the late Arte
rims Ward, the negroes' are fed first, and
what they leave suffers a boarding-house
change into some hash for the whites.
—Mistakes are said to be fregnent in
the catalogne,of painting in the Paris
Es
position. A correspondent says the por
trait of Lincoln, according to the number,
is called in the -catalogue, "The Rainy
Sewn in the Tropics."
- - - , tie Mexican folly has cost France an
enormous sum. The losses in material
alone, for 1864, are estimated at 22,500,
000 francs, including the expense of
'bringing home the troops.
—Prentice says it is a pity the elections
at the South cannot take place at this
time, for although the negroes there are
strong now, they will be stronger in the
dog days.
—Judge. Sbarswood is very popular
among all parties and classes of people in
Philadelphia. It is firmly believed that he
will receive at least five thousand majori
ty, in that city.
negrO party chartered a
boat at St. Lonis,.ort the 4th, and in cele
brating the day a. serious riot oceiirred
among themeelyes, in which -one nigger
was killed, and several wounded.fLet 'cm
vote.
Veto of the Reconstruction Bill.
WASHINGTON, July 18.
To the Houle of Representatives of the Unit
ed States:
I return herewith the bill entitled " An
act supplementary to an act: entitled an
act to provide for the more efficient gov
ernment of the rebel States,". passed on
the 2d day of March, 1867, and the act
supplementary thereto, passed on the 23d
day of March, 1867, and will state, as
briefly as possible, some of the reasons
Which prevent me from giiieig it my ap
proval.
This is one of a Series of measures pass
ed by Congress during the last, four months
on the subject. of reconstruction. The
message returning the act of the 2d of
March last states at length my objections
to the passage of that, measure; they ap-
ply equally well to the bill now before me,
and I am content merely to refer to them
and to reiterate my convictions that they
are sound and unanswerable. There are
some points peculiar to' this bill which
I will proceed at once to consider.
The first section purports to declare the
true intent and meaning, in some particn
lars,of the prior acts upon this subject. It
is declared that the intent of those acts
was, first, "That the existing gorern
rnents in the ten rebel States" were not
legal State governments ; and seccnd,
"That hereafter said governments, if con
tinued, were to be continued subject in all
respects
_to the military commanders of
the respective districts and to the para
mount authority of Congress." Congress
may, by a declaratory act, fix upon an act
a construction 'altoe . ether at variance with
its appearent meaning, and from the time
at least when such construction lis fixed
the original act will be construed to mean
exactly what it is stated to mean by the
declaratory etata te. There will be, then
from the time this bill may become a law,
no doubt ,no question as to the relation in
which the existing governments in those
States, called in the original act "provis
ional governments," stand toward the
military authority. As their relation
stood, hefore the declaratory net, these
" governments," if it is true, were made
subject, to absolute military authority in
many important respects, but not in all,
the language of the act being "subject to
the atittionty of the United States as here
inafter presented."
By the sixth section of the original act
these governments were made "in all re
spects subject to the paramount authority
of the United States." Now, by this de
claratory act it , appears that Congress did
not, by the original act, intend to limit,
the military authority to any particulars
or subjects therein " prescribed," but
went to make it universal. Thus, over all
these ten States, this military government
is declared to have unlimited authority.—
It is no longer confined to the preserva
tion of the public peace, the administra
tion of criminal . law, the registration of
voters, and the superintendence of elec
tions, but in all respects is aserted to be
paramount to the existing civil govern
ments. It is impossible to conceive any
state of society more intolerable than this,
and yet it. is to this that twelve millions
of American citizen are reduced by the
Congress of the United States. Over ev
ery foot of the immense territory occupi
ed by these American citizens, the Con
stitution of the United States thoretically
is in full operation. it binds all the people
there,and should prprotect them; yet they
are denied every one of its sacred guaran
tees. Of what avail will it be to any one
of these Southrern people, when seized by
a file of soldiers, to ask for the cause of
the arrest or for the production of the war
rant ? Of what avail to ask for the priv
ilege of bail when in military custody,
which knows no such thing as bail ? Of
what avail to demand a trial by jury, pro
cess fur witnesses, a copy of the instru
ment, the privilege of counsel, or that
greater privilege,the writ of habeas corpus?
The veto of the original bill of the 2nd
of March was based on two distinct
grounds, "the interference of congress in
matters strictly appertaining to the reserv
ed powers of the State, and the establish
ment of military tribunals for the trial of
citizens ih time of,peace.",. The impartial
reader of that message will understand
that all it contains with respect to milita
ry despotism and martial law has refer
ence especially to the fearful power con
ferred on the district commanders to dis
place the criminal courts and assume
jurisdiction to try and to punish by mil-,
itary boards; that potentially the suspen
sion of the habeas corpus was martial law
and military despotism. The act now be
fore me . not only declares that the intent
was to confer 'such military authority,
but altio to confer unlimited military au
thority over all the other courts of the
State, nd over all the officers of the State,
legislative, executive, and judicial. Not
Content, with the general grant of power,
Congres/in the second section of this bill
apeciffiW-gives to each military com
manders•the right to "suspend or remove,,
from office, or -from the performance - of
official duties and the exercise of official
.power,.any officer or person . holding or
exercising, or professing to hold or exer
cise any civil or military office or duty in
such diatriet.under any power; eleetiony •
appointment, .erc.uuthority -derived from
or granted. by or claimed under any so- ,
called State, or the government thereof, I
or any muncipal or other division therof,"
a power that hitherto all the departments
of the, Federal government, acting in con
cert or seperately, have not dared to ex
ercise, is here •attempted to conferred on
a subordinate military officer. To him,as
a military officer of the Federal govvn
meat, is given the power, supported by
"a sufficient military force," to remove
every civil officer of the State. What
next? • The direct commander, who has
thus displaced the civil officer, is author
ized to fill the vacancy by the detail of an
officer or soldier of the army, or by the ap
pointment of some other person. This
military appointee, whether an officer or
a solder, or some other person, is to per
form the duties of such officer or person
so suspended or removed. In other words,
an officer or soldier of the army is thus
transformed into a civil officer.
lie may be made a governor, a legisla
ture, a Judge. ' , However unfit he may
deem himself' for such civil duties he must
obey the order. The officer must, if detail.
ed, go upon the supreme bench of the
State with the same prompt obedience as
if he were detailed to go upon a court
martial. The soldier, if detailed to act as
a justice of the peace, most obey as quick
ly as if he were detailed for picket duty.
What is the character of such a military
civil officer? This bill declares that ho
shall perform the duties of the civil office
to which he is detailed. It is clear, how
ever, that he does not lose his position in
the military service. He is stilt an officer
or soldier of the army. He is still subject
to the rules and regulations which govern,
it., and must yield due deferenCe, respect,
and obedience towards his superiors. The
clear intent of this section is that the of
ficer or soldier detailed to fill a civil office
must execute its laws according to the
laws of the State. If he is appointed a
Governor of a State he is to execute the
duties as provided by the laws of thit
State, .and for the time being his military
character is to be suspended in his new
civil capacity. If he is appointed a State
Treasurer he must at once assume the
custody and disbursment of the funds of
the State, and must perform these duties
precisely according to the laws yof the
State,for he is entrusted with no other of
ficial duty or oflioial power. Holding the
office of treasurer, and intrusted with
funds, it happens that he is required by
the State laws to enter into bonds with se
curity, and to take an oath of office; yet
from the besining of the bill to the end
there is no provision for any bond or oath
of office, or for any single qualificatien re
quired under the State law, such as resi
dence, citizenship, or anything else. The
only oath is that provided for in the ninth
section, by the terms of which every one
detailed or appointed to any civil office in
the State is required "to take and to sub
scribe the oath of office prescribed by law
for the officers of the United States."
Thus an officer of the United States, de
tailed to fill a civil office in one of these
States, gives no official bond and takes no
official oath for the performance of his
new duties, but as a civil officer of the
State, only takes the same oath which ho
had already taken as a military officer of
the United States. He is at last a milita
ry officer performing civil duties, and the
authority under which he acts is Federal
authority only, and the inevitable result is
that the Federal government by the agen
cy of its owiksworn officers, in effect, as
sumes the civil government of the State.
A singular contradiction is apparent
hero. Congress declares these local State
governments to be illegal governments,
and then provides that the illegal govern
ments are to be carried on by Federal of
ficers, who are to perform the very duties
imposed on its own officers by this illegal
State authority. It would be a novel
spectacle if Congress should attempt to
carry on a legal State government by the
agency of its officers. It is yet more
strange that Congress attempts to sustain
and carry on an illegal State government
by the same Fed al agency.
In this connection 1 must call attention
to the tenth and eleventh sections of the
bill which provides that none of the offi
cers or appointees of military command
ers " shall be bound in their action by any
opinion of any civil officer of the United
States, and that all the provissons of the
act shall be Construed liberally, to the cud
thas all the idtents thereof may be fully
and perfectly carried out." It seems Con
gress supposed that this bill might require
construction, and they fix, therefore, the
rule to be applied. But where is the con
struction to come from ? Certainly no
one can be more in want of instruction
than a soldier or officer of the army detail
ed for a civil service perhaps the most im
portant in a State, with the duties of
which, he is altogether unfamiliar. This
bill says he shall not bubound in his action
by the opinion of any civil officer of the ,
United States.
The duties of the office aro altogether
civil, but when he iskslor an opinion he
can only ask the opluiott of another tuili
tory officer, who perhaps understands as
little of his duties as ho does himself; and
asto his "action" he is unanswerable to the
military authority, , anal to the militnry
authority alone. Strictly, no:opinion of
"any eiVil officer, other.than a juage,.l44 'a
binding force ; but these. inillitary ap=
pointees would not be bound, even by a
{VOLUME xxly, NIIMB . En 31.
judicial opinion. They might very well
say, even when their action is in conflict
with the Supreme - Court of the United
States, " that Court is composted-of civil
officers of the United States, and wearil
not bound to conform our actioh to any
opinion of any such authority." This bill,
and the acts to which it is supplementaq,
are all founded upon the assumption that
these ten communities are not States, and
that their existing governments are not
Thtoughout the legislation upon
this subject, they are called rebel States.
And in this particular bill they aredenom
inated " so called States," and the vice of
illegality is declared to pervade all of
them. The obligations of consistency
bind a legimate body as well as the
individuals who compose it. It is now
too late to say that these ten political corn
munities are not States of the Union. Dec
larations to the contrary of these acts are
contradicted again and again by reputed
acts of legislation enacted by Congress
from the year 1861 to the year 1867. Dar
ing that period, whilst theie'States were
in actual rebellion, and after that rebellion
was brought to a close, they have again
and again been recognized as States of
the Union. Representation has been ap
pointed to them as Sates. They have
been divided into judicial districts for the
holding of district and circuit courts of
the United States, and States can only be
districted. The last act on this subject
was passed July 23, 1866, by which eve
ry one of these ten States was arrfaged
into districts and circuits; they havti o been
called upon by Congres to act through
their Legi-latnres upon at least two amend
ments to the Constitution of the 'United
States; as States they have 'ratified one
amendment, which= required the vote of
twenty-seven States of the thirty-six then
composing the Union. When the requi
site twenty-seven votes were giVen in fa
vour of that amendment, seven of which
votes were given by seven of these ten
States, it was proclaimed to be a part of
the Constitution of the United States,and
slavery was declared no longer to exsist
within the United States, or any pbtao
subject to their jurisdiction. If these
seven States were not legal States of the,
Union, it follows, as an inevitable cense
queues, that slavery yet exists. It does
not, exist in these seven States, for they
' have abolished it also in their own State
Constitutions, but Kentucky not having
clone so, it would still remain in that
State. But, in truth, if this assumption
that these States have no legal State gov
ernments be true, then the abolition of
slavery by these illegal governments binds
no one, for Congress now denies to these
States the power to abolish slavery by de
nying to them the power to elect a legal
Legislature, or to - frame a constitution for
any purpose, even such a purpose as the
abolition of slavery.
As to the other constitutional amend
ments, having reference to suffrage, it
happens that these States have not accept
ed itssThe consequence is that it has nev
er been proclaimed or understood
even by Congress to be a part of the Con
stitnton of the United States. The Sen
ate of the United States has repeatedly
given its sanction to the appointment of
judges, district attorneys, and marshalls,
for every one of these States, and yet if
they are not legal States not one of these
judges is authorized to hold a court. So
too both houses of Congress have passed
appropriation bills to pay all these judges, — '
attorneys, and officers of .:the United'
Sthtes for exercising their functions in
these States. Again, in the machinery of
the internal revenue laws, all these States
are districted not as territories, brit as
States. So much for continuous legisla
tive recognition. The instances city,how
ever, fall far short of all that might be
enumerated. Executiue reeognition,as is
well known, has been , frequent and un
waveing.
The same .may be said as to judicial re-'
cognition through the Supreme Cerut of
the United States. That august tribunal,
from first to last, in7the administration of
its duties, in bane and upon the circuit,
has never failed to recognize these ten
communities as legal States of the
Union. The cases depending in that court.
appeal upon and writ of eror from these
States when the rebellion began,have not
been dismissed upon an idea of the cessa
tion of Jurisdiction.
They were carefully continued• from
term to term until the rebellion was en
tirely subdued and peace re-established,
and then they were called fur argument
•and consideration as if no insurrection
had intervened. New cases occurring
since the rebellion have come frod these
States before that court by writ of error
and appeal, and even by - original suit
where only a State can bring such a snit.
These cases are entertained by that tribu
nal in the exercise of its acknowleddedja
risdiction, which could not attach to them .
if they had cotue from any political body
other than a State of the Union.
Finally, in the allotment of their.cir.
emits made. by the judges at the Deoem..
ber term, 1865, every one of these States
is pnt on the same footing oflegality with
all the other States of the ..Union. Vir
ginia and North Carolina being a part of,
the fourth
,circuit, are allottU_ to the ;
Chief Justice. South Carolina ? Georgia;
Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. consti
tute the fifth circuit, are allotted to the