ilk
V.
iv
; if
1
CLEARFIELD, PA., WEDNESDAY- FEBRUARY 27, 1861.
VOL. 7. NO. 26.
BY S. B. ROW.
1
i
rl
;i
BE EARNEST.
l!c earnest in thy calling,
Whatever it may bo ;
Time's sands are ever falling
And will not wait for thee !
With zeal and vigor labor,
And thou wilt surely ri?e;
Oh. suffer not thy neighbor
- To bear away the priie !
But form thy purpose gravely.-
Then quickly push along
And prosecute it bravely, .
With resolution strong.
Thou will not bo defeated ; -
But pressing firmly on, . ,
Find all at length completed
Thine object fully won !
Be earnest in devotion.
Old age is drawing near ;
A bubble on Time's ocean,
Thou soon will disappear!
In practice, and in spirit,
Here worship thou the Lord ;
And thou shalt then inherit
A rich and sure reward.
JOHJT CATHCART VS. COMMONWEALTH.
In this case we have already given what
purported to c me opinion oi mo aupreme
Court, as copied from a Philadelphia paper.-
But what we published turns out to be only a
bout the half of it. We therelore publish be
low the full opinion of the Supreme Court a3
it was delivered. It will be satisfactory to the
Court and Jurybefore whom the case was
tried, to know that their verdict and judgment
are lully snstained, and we believe that many
of our readers will wish to read the entire o
tiinion of bur highest judicial tribunal in a
case that has attracted so much attention.
OPINIO 9F THE COCHT BT STRONG, I.
The consequences of onr decision in this
casfj are so momentous to the plaintiff in er
ror, that we have felt constrained to examine
the record with minute caution. Our review
has forced upon us the conviction that there
is nothing w hich would justify us in sending
the case back to another jury.- It appears to
hnvo been most carefully tried. Nothing was
withheld from the accused to which he was
legally entitled, and ho received every advan
tage iu the admission of evidence and in the
instruction given to the jury which he had a
right to claim.
Before proceeding to a consideration of the
errors assigned in detail, it may not bo out of
place to repeat the remark often made, that our
duty in such cases as this is confined to adju
dication upon the errors of law which appear
on the record. Outside of that we cannot
look. We are not authorized to grant new
trials, unless the record exhibits that mistakes
of the law have been committed. In no other
caSehave we power to Interfere with the ver
dict of a jury . We could not even if we were
satisfied they had fonnd erroneously.. .These
observations are not new. They have fre
quently been made heretofore. Thus, in Jew
oil vs. Commonwealth, 10 Ilarris, 9'J, it was
s.-i id that "an error not apparent on tho face
of the recorded proceedings, however gross
and improper it may have been, is not a 'sub
ject of review here, and the prisoner has no
more right to expect relief, on account of such,
Irregularities, from us, than from any other
five citizens of thg State, who are invested
with no judicial authority at all.", Similar
remarks were made in Fife, Jones, and Stew
art vs. the Commonwealth. 5 Casey, 429. It
is a mistaken opinion, sometimes entertained,
that in criminal cases our powers are greater
than they are in civil. It is not so. When
the life of a human being may be dependent
on our decision, there is always enough to in
duce ns very carefully to scan the record and
inquire whether he has been deprived of any
thing secured to him by the law, by which he
might havs been benefitted. But in criminal,
us well as in civil caxes, oi r inquiries must be
confined to the record, and in both classes of
cases there is but one rule of construction.
In both there is a presumption that the pro
ceedings were regular, and it is incumbent
upon the plaintiff in error to show by the re
cord that errors were committed before we
can interfere. If this were not so, the admin
istration of criminal justice would be impos
sible. We are not so to administer the crim
inal law as to make it an impenetrable shield
for the guilty.
Turning now to the specific averments of
error, the first which wo notice is the allega
tion, that tho jurors were not properly sworn.
The record, however, recites that they were
"all sworn or affirmed respectively to try,"
&c. This, of course, raises the presumption
that they were properly sworn or affirmed.
No exception was taken to the mode of quali
fication, and there is nothing before us indica
ting any irregularity. Our paper book, in
deed, contains part of the opinion of the
Court below upon the motion for a new trial,
in which it is stated that the jury were sworn
jointly and severally, instead of severally, but
xuch an opinion is no part of the record, and
it has often been held that the record cannot
bo corrected by it. Even if it could, the
same opinion shows that no objection was made
to the manner in which tho oath or affirmation
was administered. This assignment, there
fore, points to no error of which wo can take
notice.
Another specification of error is, that the
record does not show that the prisoner had
counsel at the trial. It is based upon an al
leged presumption against the regularity of
tho proceedings a presumption directiyp
l'osite to that which we have shown to exist.
It assumes that those rights of the prisoner
were denied him which the record does not
show allirrnatively were granted. As well
wight it be assumed that the Court charged
the jury erroneously, and the Commonwealth
fcc required to prove that the charge was in
ail points correct ever before it was attacked.
The right to be heard by himself and coun
sel is doubtless a Constitutional right, and if
t had been denied, there would have been
error; but we are not to presume that it was
denied because the reaord does not exhibit
the fact that it was recorded. There are
Many rights of an accused person, some Con
stitutional and others not, of which the record
takes no notice : such as the right to compul
sory process for witnesses,' the right to call a
witness or to cross examine those of the pros
ecution, and the right to be heard by himself
and counsel is one of thera. The safety of
the accused is not imperrilled by the ailence
the record, for ?f any of these rights be de
nied, there is an easy method of bringing up
on the record the fact of the denial.
Another assignment of error is to the refus
al of the Court to grant a new trial. It has so
often been said that such a refusal is not as
signable for error, that we dismiss it " without
further notice.
An exception was also taken from the
Court below to the rejection of an offer by the
defendant to prove that he always had been
known and reputed among his neighbors as a
kind-hearted man. This offer the Court over
ruled in the terms in which it was made, but
accompanied its rejection by permission to
show the character of defendant for peacea
bleness and regularity of conduct and of good
feelings towards the deceased in any other as
pect w hich had a proper relation to the sub
ject matter of the prosecution. We cannot
say that here was error. We do not discover
that any, right of the defendant was denied.
The door was opened for him to show his rep
utation for peaceableness and for regularity
of conduct, and for anything that tended to
show the improbability of his having perpe
trated the crime of which he was accused. It
was his peaceableness, his regularity of con
duct, his quiet habits, his freedom from law
lessness, that was assailed. AH these he had
full permission to defend by adducing the o
pinion of his neighbors and his general repu
tation. ' '
We pass now to the errrors assigned to the
charge. They cannot well be understood, un
less we bear in mind what the case was, and
what application the charge had to it. That
the deceased was killed by a gun-shot wound
inflicted upon her by the defendant, was not
in controversy. It was fullj' proved, and, in
deed, conceded by the defendant. There was
no evidence that the deed was done in sudden
heat, or In an affray; or in consequence of pro
vocation. The defendant made no such alle
gation, but he insisted that the case was one
of excusable homicide ; that the gun was ac
cidentally discharged, and that death was the
consequence of the accident. Hero was the
turning point of the case. The first and main
point of contest between the Commonwealth
and prisoner was the question, whether the fi
ring of the gun and the death of the deceased
were accidental or intentional ? If the form
er, an acquittal was inevitable ; if the latter,
the homicide was murder. If the killing was
not accidental, then malice and design to kill
were to be presumed from the use of a deadly
weapon, for the law adopts tho common and
rational belief that a man intends the usual
and immediate, and natural consequences of
his voluntary act. Human reason will not
tolerato the denial that a man who intentional
ly, not accidentally, fires a musket ball thro'
the body of his wife, and thus inflicts a mor
tal wound, has a heart fatally bent on mischief,
and intends to kill. Whatever therefore, in
this case, tended to prove that the killing was
not accidental, contributed also to establish
that it was wilful, malicious, and with a de
sign to kill. ' 1
Keeping in mind, then, the case as it was
presented, it is apparent that tho first and sec
ond assignments of error in the charge, are
entirely unsustainable. In noticing the argu
ment used by the counsel for the Common
wealth against the prisoner's allegation that
the shooting was accidental, and by conse
quence, in support of tho averment that it was
malicious and with a design to kill, the learn
ed Judge remarked as follows, "again it is
urged, by the Commonwealth as a reason for
inferring malice and a design to kill, that the
prisoner's account of the affair to Mr. Ray
and others; his manner of accounting for the
breaking of the gun , his relation of the posi
tion and employment of himself and wife
when the gun went off, are inconsistent with
tho' other proof in the case, and improbable in
themselves. You have heard the testimony,
and can judge of the force of such an infer
ence. . The testimony of Samuel Ray as to
what was said about the breaking of the gun,
and of Thomas Cathcart as to how the gun was
broken, and of other witnesses as to the condi
tion of th? gun before it was broken, is refer
red to yon as bearing upon this part of the
case." It is not said, nor indeed could it be,
that the Court expressed any opinion either
that this argument was, or was not well found
ed ; but the error is said to consist in this,
that even if the prisoner's account of these
things was believed to be false, yet that falsi
ty of itself would not sustain an inference of
malice and a design to kill, and therefore that
it was wrong to refer this evidence to the jury
as tending to prove a design to kill. But did
it not tend to prove that tho killing was not
innocent was not the result of an accident ?
The fabrication of false and contradictory ac
counts, for the sake of diverting inquiry or
casting off suspicions, by an accused criminal,
is a circumstance always indicatory of guilt.
If the jury believed that the stateuieuls made
by the prisoner of the occurrence were false,
his falsehood was therefore at least a circum
stance affording some presumption against his
innocence; and if he was not innocent, the
legitimate inference was that the shooting was
intentional in other words, that it was mali
cious and with a design to kill. In this as
pect of tho case, the Court was perfectly right
in referring, as they did, this evidence to
the jury.
Similar remarks are applicable to the sec
ond assignment of error, and they thow the
direct bearing of the evidence referred to the
jury upon the question of intent and malice.
The third assignment is that the court erred
in saying to the jury that "when once a bomU
cide is proven, and thw prisoner proved to
have committed the act, the offence will a
mount to voluntary manslaughter; for every
killing of a human being is presumed to be
unlawful. The burden of proving the act ex
cusable or justifiable lies on the prisoner." It
is insisted that the qualification should have
been added, "unless the circumstances excus
ing the act arise out of the evidence produced
against him." In regard to this it is enough
to remark, that the rule was laid down as
found in the books. The qualification conten
ded for is practically of no irsportar.ee. In
this case the alleged circumstances excusing
the killing did not arise out of the evidence
produced against the prisoner. Besides, the
observations of the learned Judge were whol
ly outside of this case, and could have done
the prisoner no possible barm. It was not a
case of manslaughter, and neither party con
tended that it was. The instructions given in
regard to murder were xorrect, and the re
marks of the Court complaiued of, were only
introductory to the charge, that the burden of
the proof lay on the Commonwealth to estab
lish that the offence was any higher grade than
manslaughter.
The fourth and sixth assignments allege er
ror in that the Court did not state to the jurv
the rules ot law in relation to the contradic
tion and impeachment of witnesses, and did
not instruct them upon the legal effect of a
quarrel and affray. We need only say that no
such instruction was asked, and that no evi
dence of a quarrel or affray was given.
The fifth assignment is, "that the Court er
red in not distinctly instructing the jury that
the case made out by the Commonwealth was
insufficient in law to warrant a conviction of
murder in the first degree." Had such in
struction been given, it would have been griev
ous error. There was evidence that the pris
oner had, before the fatal occurrence, treated
his wife harshly and brutally ; that he had of
ten threatened to inflict serious injury upon
her ; that only three or four days before the
homicide, on his way from home, he had with
"heavy oaths" renewed his threats to abuse
her, because she had remonstrated with him
on account of his absence from home on the
Sabbath ; -that at his very next interview with
her, he shot her through the body, causing
her death in four hours j and that the next
day ho spoke of his having been instigated to
the deed by the devil. In face of this evi
dence it would have been quite too much lor
the Court to have charged the jury that the
case was insufficient in law to warraut a con
viction of murder in the first degree.
The next assignment of error is, "that the
indictment is insufficient in law to sustain a
conviction of murder in the first degree, in
that it fails to meet the Constitutional require
ment," the nature and cause of the accusation
not being fully set forth. The iudictment is
in strict conformity with the requirements of
the 20th section of the Act of March 31, 186 ,
(Fenal Code) the Criminal Procedure Act.
We do not think that act in conflict with tho
constitutional provision that in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall have the right
to be informed of the "nature and cause of the
accusation against him." An indictment must
exhibit tho "nature and cause of the accusa
tion," that is, must set out tho crime laid to
the charge of the accused, but the mode in
which tho crime is committed, the instrument
with which the murder was effected, whether
it was held4n the right hand or left, whether
the wound was inflicted upon the head on the
body, are entirely apart from tho nature and
cause of the accusation. There Is no merit in
this assignment.
Another averment of the plaintiff in error is
that the sentence was improperly pronounced,
because the charge of tho Court was excepted
to, but was not filed until after the judgment
was given. If there were anything in the ex
ception, it could avail him but little, for then
it would be our duty to pass sentence. But
there is nothing in it. Everything that was
necessary to giving judgment was upon the
record when sentence was pronounced. True,
the charge was not there, but that was needed
for review, not for sentence. It is due to the
learned Judge of the Court below to say that
there were no written points presented to hira
at the trial, and ho was not therefore under ob
ligation to file bis charge immediately on de
livery, especially as the exceptions were in the
usual form, and there was no request that he
should reduce his whole opinion aud charge as
delivered to the jnry to writing at the time of
the delivery of the same, and forthwith file it
of record.
The only remaining assignment of error is
the eleventh. It is that the sentence is indefi
nite, no time being fixed for its being carried
into effect and no other person having legal
authority to fix the time. This is certainly a
novel exception to be taken at this late period
in the history of the Commonwealth. It would
be out of place here to spend timo in showing
how the power to designate the time of execu
tion is vested in the Governor. That it always
has been exercised by him is not denied, and
it would not be difficult to show that it has
been rightfully exercised. But that question
is not on this record. The matter for our
consideration is whether a sentence of death
which does not appoint a day for execution is
a proper sentence.
Our act of Assembly of the 31st of May,
1718, entitled "an act for the advancement of
justice and more certain administration there
of" enacted that whenever convictions should
happen it should be lawful to give judgment
"according to the manner, form and direction
of the laws of that part of Great Britain,called
England, in the like cases." This provision
was indeed hardly, necessary, for without it
our Courts, being Common I .aw Courts,would
have had that power unless restiained by stat
ute. The manner and form of giving judg
ment in England in 1718, in cases of convic
tion for murder was precisely that which the
Court of Oyer and Terminer adopted in this
case. The convict was sentenced to death by
hanging, but the sentence did'not fix the time
and place of execution. That such was the
mode and form of pronouncing judgment in
capital felonies appears from all the books.
Ilastall's Entries, 2 Hales, Pleas of the Crown,
399; Coke's Entries 352, and 3 Burr, 1812.
Nor was it changed by the statute of 24 Geo.
2, c 37, which enacted that all persons found
guilty of a murder should be executed on the
next day, but one after sentence passed.
See 3 Burrows, 1812, Rex vs. King, et
al.; decided in 1765. In that case it was said
not to be usual at the Assizes to fix the day and
place'of execution. The judgment in this case
was then strictly in accordance with the forms
and requisites of the law. We have thus re
viewed this entire record, and the conclusion
to which we have come is, that it exhibits no
reason for reversing the judgment of the Court
below. The judgment is affirmed. ;
' Justice Woodward read his opinion disenf
ingfroni the views of the majority of the Court.
A Torcmsa Incident. A Southern gentle
man, an ardent Union man, wrote to his friend
in .New York that ho had lost. a child. He
could not bear that it should die under the Pal
metto flag. It had been born under the stars
and stripes, and the patriot father wished it to
breathe its last under the same national em
blem. He procured a little flag, one of those
so often in the hands ot our children and in
use on festive occasions, and as his dying child
was sinking into the arms of death waved
above its head the mimic standard of a yet
loved and powerful though assaulted Union.
Rest assured that man can be safely trusted
with his country's honor.
The Pensacola Navy-Yard. The court
martial on Com. Armstrong, who surrender
ed the Pensacola Navy-Yard, is now sitting.
The proof against him is very conclusive. It
was with great difficulty that Lieu. Slemmer
conld get the Wyandotte retained to cooperate
for the defense of Fort Pickens. The Fort
would have been taken without that aid.
ESTHER M'DOWELL A SINGULAR STORY.
J. F. Meginnis, in his history of the West
Branch Valley, relates the following history
of a successful imposition practiced upon the
people of Jersey Shore, in 1803 :
"About the year 1803, a remarkable circum
stance transpired at the upper end of the bor
ough of Jersey Shore, well remembered by all
the old people living at that time. Pine trees,
in considerable numbers, were then standing
on the spot I now speak of. An old Dutch
man, named Martin Reese, bad built a cabin
near where the public road crosses the canal,
on the farm now owned by Mark Slonaker,
Esq., and made some improvements. Rising
very early one frosty morning in October, he
was surprised to find a beautiful female in a
state of nudity, with her hands tied behind her
back, and a gag over her mouth, standing in
front of the cabin, against a tree. He reliev
ed her from her uncomfortable position as
soon as possible, and tendered her the hospi
talities ot his humble cabin. She appeared
to be completely chilled through with cold,
and could scarcely spoak for sometime. On
recovering strength, she related that she had
been travelling on horseback from her father's
house in Montreal, to visit an uncle that resi
ded in Kentucky, in charge of ajojung man
named Benjamin Connett, who was sent ex
pressly to attend her. But having a large a
mount of gold in her possession, an evil spirit
prompted him to rob her ; and in a lonely spot
near Pine Creek,' he presented a pistol to
her breast, compelling her to dismount and
deliver up what money she possessed ; when
he immediately stripped her, tied her in this
shameful condition, to starve with hunger or
be devoured bv wild beasts. She had remain
ed in that condition nearly all night, when af
ter the most desperate struggles, she had re
leased herself and made her way. to the cabin.
After being refreshed, she willingly went with
the family to the spot,and pointed out the place
where she had been tied, and the path she had
beaten round the tree trying to free herself.
There was something artless in her appear
ance ; and her modest demeanor and delicate
frame, left no doubt in the minds of those who
saw her, that her statements were true, and
that she had been foully dealt with. She ap
peared to be overwhelmed with distress at the
thougbtof her situation among strangers. She
gave her name as Esther M'Dowell-
Rev. Mr. Grier, father of Judge Grier of the
Supreme Court, resided close by, and took her
into his family, and kindly provided for her
wants. A great deal of sympathy was exci
ted in her behalf, and the neighbors vied with
each other in making her presents of cloth
ing. Several gentlemen, now living, presen
ted her with valuable silk dresses, and oth
er articles, which she accepted, and kindly
thanked them for their liberality.
Meanwhile the news spread throughout the
country, and the public indignation was high
ly excited against the villain Connett. j Hand
bills, offering a reward for his apprehension,
were put in circulation, and the chivalry of the
West Branch started in all directions to look
for the scoundrel. He had 24 hours' start,
however, and being well mounted, eluded all
observations and effected his escape.
The artless girl remained in the neighbor
hood, caressed and entertained by the sym
pathizing people, who could not do enough
to alleviate her wants. Her manners were
so simple, her actions eo lady-liko and refin
ed, and her description of the thief so min
ute, that no doubt was felt of her being bad
ly treated. Letters in the meantime were
dispatched to her father at Montreal, but weeks
elapsed and no answer came. Still the pub
lic confidence in her was unshaken.
The intelligence having spread far and near,
etrangers flocked in great numbers to see her,
and loaded her with presents. Being at the
hotel kept by Duffies, at Larry's Creek, a gen
tleman named Hutchinson, from Milton, cal
led to see her. She eyed him closely, and
seemed to keep shy of him, which attracted
his attention, and ho tho't he detected some
thing familiar in her countenance. He re
quested to have some private conversation
with her, which she positively refused, when
he exclaimed, calling her by name I believe
you are the identical young man that once
worked for me in Milton as a journeyman tai
lor !' This was a poser, and she became great
ly excited, which aroused a suspicion among
the' people that she might be an imposter.
And such she ultimately proved to be. The
pretty Esther M'Dowell had deceived and hum
bugged them in a shameful manner, and never
was robbed as she had represented.
A bundle of men's clothing had also been
found near the spot where she was found, se
creted in a hollow log. which went to confirm
the suspicion. At length she confessed that
such was the fact that she had been playing
the imposter ; being of a romantic turn of mind,
sho had actually passed herself off as a young
man, and worked as a journeyman tailor.
It was now remembered that ayoungtnan,
answering her description, had crossed the
White Deer Mountains into Nippenose Val
ley, and staid over night with the family of
a farmer. The evening of that day she (he)
came to the house of Joseph Antes, Esq.,
where Major McMicken now resides, and he
ferried her over the river, when she doffed
her male attire and placed herself in the po
sition iu which she was found.
. What ever became of her is not distinctly
known, though it is asserted that she left
the country soon afterwards, and went to the
West under another name, where she shortly
afterwards married, and became a highly res
pectable woman.
The case of Esther M'Dowell afforded much
amusement for many years among the peo
ple, and when the subject is broached to the
old people at the present day, their mirth
fulness is at once excited, and they recount
the' circumstance of being so nicely humbug
ged with considerable gusto.
Tho opinion prevails at Washington that if
the Border States secede they will form a sepa
rate Confederacy, and hot unite with the cotton
States. The inevitable working of tho princi
ple ot Secession will sooner or later disinteg
rate even the Cotton States. There are symp
toms already in South Carolina of another cen
trifugal movement on ber part.
A National Convention. The Republi
cans in both branches of Congress are prepared
to vote unanimously for the Convention of all
the States to consider the present differences,
according to the recommendation of the Leg
islature of Kentucky. The Border States
ought to be able to stand on a proposition of
one of their own number.
FIFTY DAYS
From the N. Y. World, of February 15th.
Great events crowd the times. But the ac
tion is too scenic, too dramatic for permanence.
Nations may be born in a day, but they do not
spring, all panoplied, from the front of every
passing hour. Let ns review the events of
fifty days.
On the 6th of November the people of the
United States elected their fourteenth Presi
dent Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois. He was
chosen regularly and constitutionally, but with
scarcely the honor of a vot9 In a Southern
State, except Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
Kentucky, and Missouri. In these a ticket
was run, and though overwhelmed, was enough
to show that a difference of opinion, at least,
existed there. The States further south fell
hereupon into an extraordinary exciteraont,
and on the 20th of December South Caroli
na with her white population of 308,106,
there being only five of the thirty-three less
than she passed an ordinance of secession.
This was followed by the seizure of the reve
nue cutter Aiken, and of the United States ar
senal, and was the first scene of the, most la
mentable tragi-comedy whose scenes have flit
ted beforo our eyes. On the 26th of Decem
ber Major Anderson moved from Fort Moultrie
to Fort Sumter, and so took the command of
Charleston harbor by the same act threw a
bomb Into the nest of traitors at Washington,
blew up tho Cabinet, awakened the doting
President, and made himself the most popular
man in America. On the 2d of January, Forts
Pulaski and Jackson, and the United States
arsenal at Savannah, with Fort Macon and the
arsenal at Fayetteville, N. C, were seized.
On the 3d, Foit Morgan, near Mobile, and tho
Mt. Vernon arsenal were taken. On the 6th,
the arsenal at Apalachicola, and on the 8th,
Forts Johnson aud Caswell, in North Caroling,
were also seized. The same day the Florida
Convention adopted secession resolutions. On
the 9th Mississippi followed suit, while at
Charleston the New York steamer Marion was
seized and the Star of tho West fired into.
On the 10th Fort McRae, at Pensacola, and on
the 11th Forts Pike, St. Philip, and Jackson,
with the arsenal at Baton Rouge, were seized.
The same day, Alabama seceded. On the 12th
Fort Barrancas and the Pensacola navy-yard
were taken. On the 19th, Georgia seceded.
On Sunday, Jan. 20, Ship Island Fort was ta
ken by Captain Howard. On the 24th, Gov.
Brown of Georgia seized the arsenal at Augus
ta. Louisiana seceded on the 26th, and Texas
on the 1st of February, about which time the
revenue cutter M'Clelland fell into the hands
of the Secessionists. Feb. 2d, the cutter Lew
is Cass was surrendered by its traitorous com
mander. Feb. 8th, the arsenal at Little Rock,
Arkansas, was taken. Feb. 9th, the Montgom
ery Convention proclaimed the "Confederated
States of America," and elected Jeff. Davis
President of its Provisional Government. The
same day five New York vessels were seized in
the port of Savannah, by order of Gov Brown.
Here we stand. The United States flag
floats yet at Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens.'Fort
Jefferson and Fort Taylor, supported by a
handful of men in each. Menaces meanwhile
fill the. air. Insane jubilation resounds thro'
the South. New Orleans n-joices as she never
has since the heroic Jackson delivered her
from Packenham's hosts. The seven seceding
States have a white population of 2,733,146,
with 2,350,603 slaves on their hands. Mean
while, the eighteen Northern and Western
States, with 20,000,000 inhabitants, not one of
whom has not a personal interest in his State,
are firm as a rock, and are more and more uni
ted in support of the Federal Government.
The powerful and patriotic Border States hes
itate, as well they may. The voice of treason
would sound strangely enough from Mt. Ver
non, Ashland, and the Hermitage. It is the
fifteenth of February; seventeen days more
will bring the inauguration of the new Presi
dent. Ho has already started for the seat of
Government. On the spot where Jefferson and
Jackson stood, Lincoln will take the oath they
took, for the millions of the North stand behind
him. Europe, aud especially England, trem
bles with interest. It is truly a vast pageaut
"Nations for actors, kingdoms for a stage,
And monarchs to behold the swelling scene."
Canadian Fugitive-SlavbCase. This case
has been terminated, at Toronto, without the
negro Anderson being taken over to England
on a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of
Queen's Bench ofUppr Canada, sitting at
Toronto, decided, some weeks ago, that An
derson should be delivered up to the United
States, under the extradition treaty, having
been claimed as a murderer. On that occasion
Chief Justice J. B. Robinson and Judge R. E.
Burns gave their decision in favor of the claim
by the United States, and Judge A. McLean
against it. Now, the prisoner Anderson has
been discharged, the telegram tells us "on a
technicality." This is a summary way of set
tling the matter, which still leaves a question
between the United States and England on the
treaty, and between England and Canada on
the jurisdiction of the British Judges sitting at
Westminister over the colonics.
At Westfield, N. Y., in acknowledging a call
from those who bad assembled to greet him,
Mr. Lincoln remarked that he had received a
letter from a little girl in that place, begging
him to let his whiskers grow, as she thought
it would improve his appearance. She prom
ised him if he would do so she would try and
persuade her big brothers, who were Demo
crats, to vote for him. He had adopted her
suggestion, and he would like to know if she
was present to witness with her own eyes the
improvement in his looks. Some one answer
ed "Yes," and a pretty Miss of about twelve
summers was blush ingly led forward and pre
sented to him, when Mr. Lincoln descended
from the platform of the car, and kissed her.
Tho incident created quite a sensation, par
ticularly among the laeies.
Hotbeds. Now is the time to make hot
beds. Make a pile of horse mauure a few feet
square and two or thre,e feet thick. Nail
four rough boards together in the form of a
box "without top or bottom, set it upon the
pile of manure and fill it with good soil to
the depth of four or five inches. Cover the
bed with glass.(old window sash .will do), and
in two days it will be warm enough to receive
the seed. Tomatoes, cabbages and lettuce
are the most suitable plants to force.
A teacher ol vocal music asked an old lady
if her grandson had anyear -for .vocal music.
"Wa'all," said the old woman, l really don't
know. Woo '.i you Uke tbi candle and see V
A LITTLE TOO ROMAKTIC.
The New York Posf, ot the 9th February,
relates the following : "Some five years ago
the people of a thrifty village in Southern O
hio were very much scandalized by the con
duct of the wife of their Mayor, (Western vil
lages always have Mayors,) who eloped with
an actor attached to an itinerant theatrical
troupo that visited the place. The Mayor pur
sued and overtook his wife, promising to par
don and take her back to his hearth and heart
if she would discard the actor. She was quits
deaf to his entreaties, utterly refusing to have
anything more to do with him. She had im
bibed an uncontrollable passion for spangles,
blue fire and reckless adventures from the
bloodthirsty two-shilling literature of the day,
and fancied that she would be very happy
with the facinating impersonator of brigands,
corsairs, and cheerful people of that sort, tip
on the mimic stage. The unhappy Mayor re
turned to his home and people, and, in order
to drown his domestic sorrow dashed into the
political sea with headlong impetuosity. He
served several successive terms in tho State
Legislature, and even ran for Congress, but
from the unexpected circumstances of his op
ponent receiving a larger number of votes
than himself, he lost the opportunity of dis
tinguishing himself in Washington. A few e
venings since, being in tho city, the gentlo
man wandered into a Bowery concert saloon,
where comic songs of a singularly dreary
character are sung ; where women, who might
be better than they are, but who certainly
could not bo much worse, dance with a serene
indifference to propriety, and where men and
boys congregate to drink and smoke, and (as
they with ghastly sarcasm term it) "enjoy
themselves." The principal danstuse of the
establishment was the gentleman's long lost
wife. They recognized each other; a com
promise was effected ; his regard for her was
as strong as ever, and he again received her."
The London Times, of the 29th of January,
says : "If, instead of flattering aud encour
aging rebellion, Mr. Buchanan had acted up
to his recent declaration that it is his duty to
execute the laws, it is very possible that the
fire might have been trampled out before it
had time to sprerd. A small naval force in
Charleston harbor and in the Mississippi,
coupled with a resolute declaration of the
only line of policy which is open to a Presi
dent of the United States worthy of his posi
tion a declaration of his unflinching resolu
tion to employ the whole power of the govern
ment of which he is the head for the piirpose
of preservation would probably have render
ed any further appeal to force unnecessary.
But the precious, the irretrievable momenta
have been allowed to escape, and America
must weep in tears of blood the misfortune
which has given to faction ita strongest en
couragement in the weakness of her constitu
tion and the vacillation of her Chief Magis
trate." .
. It appears from the investigation of the
House Military Committee that ex-Secretary
Floyd accepted A. R. Belknap's bid for a
hundred thousand muskets, but that Secreta
ry Holt refuses to recognize the contract.
Mr. Belknap says they were intended for the
Sardinian Government. It is further shown
that Floyd distributed, without any order,
through tho Engineer Department, sixty-five
thousand percussion muskets, forty thousand
altered muskets, and ten thousand rifles, a
mong the arsenals at Charleston, Augusta,
Mount Vernon, Baton Rouge, arid .fa North
Carolina. With the exception of those for tho
last-named place, the arms fell into the-possession
of South, Alabama-, Louisiana, and
Georgia, by their secession movement.
The Bonaparte Divorce Case. Much at
tention is now being attracted in France, and
throughout nearly the whole civilized world,
to the proceedings of the famous suit pending
in the French courts in regard to the inheri
tance of tho late Jerome lionaparte. brother of
the great Emperor, which will virtually decide
w hich of his two marriages is valid, and wheth
er his American descendants, or the Prince
Napoleon and his sister Mathilde, are to bo
considered illegitimate. Tho Case is full of
romantic interest, not only on account of the
peculiar circumstances connected with it, but
on account of the varied fortunes of the par
ties involved, and the magnitude of the issue
in dispute.
The Fowler Case. In the suit against the
bail of Isaac V. Fowler, late postmaster of New
York, the juiy found by their verdict that at
the time of Fowler's appointment by Mr. Bu
chanan, he was a defaulter, and that fact being
known to the Government relieved those who
then bfcame his snretien. Here is another
comment upon Mr. Buchanan's frequent and
ostentatious declaration that after his inaugu
ration he intended to set an examplo to all Ad
ministiations, past ard to come, by making
his Presidency the most upright, economical,
and correct in our history .-
Maiitlaxd. This State presents a very in
teresting picture at the present time. Al
though a vast majority of her people are un
doubtedly in favor of the Union, and ber Gov
ernor has taken a noble stand, yet the "Rattle
snake Clubs" (the rattlesnake is the favorite
reptile with the secessionists) are doing all
they cftrt to get up a Convention independent
of anything the-Governor may say or do. The
National Capital being so close to the borders
of this State, it is of the utmost importance
that Maryland should stand firm in her devo
tion to the Union.
Mrs. 31'otf, a worthy widow, had1 occasion to
go from home in Perry crusty, Mississippi,
recently, leaving her three girls the oldest
about seven years, the second' ffve, and the
youngest about two years of age. While ahe
was absent tbey found" tf Settle with some
strychnine in it and without knowing what it
was, the little ones poured" water in the bottle
and drank it. When the mother returned she
found one of them already dead, and the
others speechless. They all died, within a
few minutes of each other, and were buried in
the same coffin.
The Fall River JVttr says the eight cotton
mills in that city .which have been running for
the past few weeks on three-fourths time, are
now running full time.
Parkersburg, Va., is something of an oil re
gion, as well as Oil Creek. Pa. Three-wells
at Parkersburg yield from 45 to 200 barrels of
oil per day. ' " .
5 f-
3 .
m
i i .
1 . : ".
j '
5 -
1
v i
i
lit-