. m
I WOULD RATHER BE RIGHT THAN PRESIDENT. Hxhby Cut.
11 n , liuTC ill I S ON, Fu ims ne r.
"K1IS1$2.flO IX ADVANCE.
EBENSBURG, PA., THURSDAY, APRIL 12, .1866.
NUMBER 26.
Mi
ci
tl
s i
:i
30!
alii
OV
i
M
. i
III
l.'sber.
j Mills.
J.
.:ca
:er.
UTille,
in,
erbill,
it,
Oallitzin.
Washt'n.
Johnst'wn.
Loretto.
Munster.
1 IST or rST orncEs.
Hf.i.T Districts.
Qfo"- Ctcrrt T. VvAns. Carroll.
- fcVVIVM - I
A. G. Crooki, Taylor.
J. Houston, Washint'n.
John Thompson, Ebensburg
C. Jeffries, White.
Peter Garman, feusq nan
J. M. Christy,
Wm Tiley, Jr.,
I.E. Chandler,
M. Adlesberger,
Andrew J errai, ouH
Stan. Wharton, Clearfield.
George Berkey, $',Tsht'n.
B. M'Colikef Croyie.
m".VConnell, Washt'n.
J. K. Shryock, S'merhUl.
.rnCIIES.MWISTERS, &c.
f . rv T M. Wiisos, Pastor.
ty"rw".-:.KlcT:i t mornine at 101
z 'ex ":::r;; ? o'clock, sab-
Vlat 9 o'clock, A. M. "yereet;
T Thursday evening i V
fF.W-'a"" B,r A. Bakek,
.r in ciiarire. ; . . .1.
.S!rKw"'8.u.vi,f.i...
! A II. Prayer meeting every Wednes-
at 7 o'clock.
t$epfndet-'Rr Ll. U. Powill,
...-Preaching every Sabbath morning at
.v -n.i in the evening at C o clock.
i nVlock. P.M. Prayer
-,oq the first Monday evening of each
mid on every i uesaay, xuui
.evening, excepting tlie nrst wee in
rn.- ir .i.J-. Tier-. MoRiiA? ElIIS.
immune wi' " .
Ir.rreachicg every Sabbath evening at
6 o'clock. SubUta ocnooi ai, i- u
n... n.finir pverv Fridav evening,
Vloclc. Society every Tuesday evening
clock.
f!ef Rkv. W. Llotd, Pastor. Preacb
:v tibbHtIi morning at 10 o'clock.
kar JJapUsUR&n. David Evass,
-l'reaching every caDDain eemi's
i. Sabbath School at at I o'clock, P. M.
n .
;r KEV. U. V. UHBISTT, lllbiui.
Sabbat h inornin cr at 1 0 1 o'clock
Mi at 4 o'clock in the evening.
MAILS ARRIVE.
daily, it o'clock, A. M.
at 6.25 o clocK i: m.
MAILS CLOSE.
.daily, at 8 o'clock, P. M.
at o o ciock, r. n.
mniU frnm Grant. Currolltovrn.
.-ve on Uondav. Wednesday and
ek. at 3 o'clock. P. M.
e El)en6iuT'' oa Tuesdays. Thurddavs
r
turday6, at V o'clock, A. M.
AILROAD SCIIKStJS,E.
CRESSON STATION.
-Halt. Exrress leavef at fi.55 A. M.
Pbila. Express
Fast Line
JLil Train
itoona Accom.
.tiln. Express
iw Line
Dij Lsjiress
Cinciunati Ex.
AUuona Accom.
9.55 A. M.
10.33 P. M.
9.02 P. M.
4.32 P. M.
P. 40 P. M.
2.20 A. .V.
C.41 A
1.55 P.
1.21 P.
. M.
M
M.
4
COLXTY OFFICERS.
ei of the Courtt President Hon. Geo.
. Iium'.ngilcm; Associates, George W.
Henry L. Devine.
onotary Geo. C. K. Zahm.
vr 7rf Rteordtr James GriCQn.
5 J dates Hjere.
l Attorney. John F. Barnes.
j Commiitionert John Campbell, Ed-
S" Tf T-k..
i Commisiiunert William H. Sech-
''"r Barnabas M'Dermit.
7 insurer John Lloyd.
"&we Directort George M'Cu Hough,
?'-is, Joseph Dailey.
Treasurer George C. K. Zahm.
5r' Fran. P; Tierney, Jno. A. Ken
anuil Brallier.
J Surveyor. Henry Scnnlan.
. -William Flattery.
Appraiter John Cox.'
o Common Schoclt J. F. Condon.
sBvno iior. officers.
tw James A. Moore.
7jaC Kinkead,
j n'T'0r,r7D:,W-Erflni- J- A- Moore,
a,u j. jones, "Villi
ft- J An as '
It-
p Cor-Saml. Singleton.
w"w uvia uavis.
r 1 or
:in.??trA- Y- Jones. John O. Evana.
'.tlU tC C3 wwens. K. Jones, jf.
Thomas Todd.
Pavid E. Evans. Danl .T T)v1.
tvr tj . -
"umnq i it.
am M.
ian.
'BK'rTZ"7,0!?n LIo-vd Samuel Stiles,
'Etead, John E. Scanlan, George
.Bftrnab"8 M'Dermit.
'"tori xr wuun kj . luumna,
. William H. Sechler, George W.
x nrriea.
. SOCIETIES, &c.
!Unlmi.t LodPe No- 312 A. Y. M.
Ji l,C lIaI1 Ebensburg, on the
7 of each month, at 7 J o'clock,
0. f n.
rrTemperance Hall, Eb-
j-iu,u" evening.
ns.
WEST WARD.
So'bscr1ptTon"
'TnE ALLEQnANIAN
$2.00 IN ADVANCE,
f0l PAID IN ADVAKCK.
THE FAUL-mUNDAY MURDER.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OT
PENNSYLVANIA.
John D. Ilouser and Daniel Du
ser vs. The Coramonwpaltli
Error to Oyer and Terminer
of Cambria Countr.
y of the Court Woodward C J.
Polly Taul, an elderly maideu lady,
who was reputed to possess money, and
Caesip Munday, a young girl who lived
ith her, were both cruelly murdered on
the evening of the 7th June, 1865, in
Sumrnerhill township, Cambria county.
The plaintiffs in error were defendants
below in an indictment which charged
only the murder of Miss Paul, and after a
full and careful trial were both convicted
of murder in the first degree. The evi
dence was circumstantial. A great num
ber of independent and Connected facts
were proved, and were so placed before
the jury by the learned Judge who presi
ded at the trial, that do exception was
taken to his charge, and consequently no
question arises out of his instructions to
the jury for our consideration upon this
wiit of error. But several bills of excep
tion to evidence were sealed, and the.se are
assigned for error. Although the evi
dence as a whole chain led irresistibly to
the conviction of guilt, yet if any material
link of it was detective, and such as ought
to have been rejected, the prisoners have
good right to complain iu this Court. Let
us therefore carefully examine the errors
assigned, to see if any of them are well
founded.
The 1ft and 9th errors complaiu of the
admission of John Buck and George W.
Kcrbey, two of the jurors in the box, as
witnesses on the part of the Common
wealth. In respect to the first of these
witnesses, it miuht be. eufficient to say
that the objection was not made until alter
he was sworn as a witness, when it was too
lato to object to his competency j and in
respect to both, it might be said that they
were called to incidental and comparative
ly immaterial points that did not touch
the corpus delicti ; but waiviDg these an
swers, Jet it be distinctly said that jurors
are not incompetent witnesses in either
criminal or civil issues. They have no
interest that disqualifies, and there is do
rule oT public policy that excludes them.
On the contrary, it has been our imme
morial practice to examino jurors as wit
nesses when called by either party; it is
sanctioned by Archbold, see 1 vol. of
Evidence, p. 151 ; was recognized in
principle by us in Plank Road vs. Thomas,
8 II. 'J2, where a viewer wan held to be
competent, and s regulated by the loSih
sec. of the Act of Assembly of 14th April,
18o4, relating to juries, Purdon 5Sl3,
Mrhich requires every juror, impanneled
in any cause to discJose his knowledge of
anything relative to the matter in contro
versy in open Court, before the jury re
tires to make a verdict.
The learned counsel argue that the
practice violates the constitutional rights
of the accused, who are entitled to a
speedy aod public trial by an imp trtial
jury and to be confronted with the wit
nesses. Our law takes the utmost care to
secure to the accused in capital cases ao
impartial jury ; it almost albws prisoners
to select their own triers, lhey may ex
amine jurors as to their knowledge of
circumstances, their expressions, opinions
or prejudices, and challenge as many as
they can show cause for, and may chal
lenge twenty without showing cause, and
then if any juror happens to have knowl
edge of any pertinent fact, he is bound to
dbclose it in time for the accused to cross
examine him and to explain or contradict
his testimony. If this be not a fulfilling
of the constitutional injunction in behalf
of impartial jurors, it would be difficult to
invent a plao that would fulfill it, and at
the same time DO consistent wun me ue
mands of public justice.
But counsel imagine that the constitu
tional right to confront witnesses would be
abridged in the instances of witnesses ta
ken from the jury-box, because theif truth
and veracity could not be attacked withoftt
damage to the attacking party. As tor
material witnesses, those, we mean, upon
whose testimony the event is essentially
dependent, we think they ought not to be
admitted into the jury-box, and we believe
the general practice is to exclude them
where the fact is discovered iu time, but
we do not think the constitutional provis
ion alluded to nor any rule of law is vio
lated by the examination of a juror as a
wituess. The a priori presumption is
that he is a man of truth and veracity, or
he would not have been summoned a a
juror; and confronting witnesses does
not mean impeaching their character, but
means cross-examination in the presence
of the accused.
When the Common Law of England
was transported to these Colonies, it gave
a person charged with a capital crime no
compulsory process to obtain witnesses,
and entitled him to no examination by
himself or his" counsel of witnepses brought
against hhn. As Queen Mary said to her
Chief Justice, Sir llichard Morgan, "it
did not admit any witness to speak on any
other matter to be heard in favor of the
adversary, her majestybeing party." To
remedy this state) of the law, our consti
tutions all declared what statutes had
Jheu provided in England that the ac
cused should have an impartial trial by
jury, should have process for witnesses,
and be entitled to counsel to examine them,
and to cross examine those for th prose
cution, in the presence of- confronting
the accui . . a ... . T
.nd this is now our inflexible rule, i
have known one case in which a great
question was made whether a magistrate's
written examination of a prisoner who
afterward broke jail and escaped, was
evidence against a confederate under the
provisions of the statute of 2d & 3d Phil
ip Mary, ch 10. The case did not reach
this Court, though the opinion of some
of the then Judges were taken, and it was
finally decided that notwithstanding the
above named statute had been extended
to Pennsylvania, it was displaced by our
Constitution, and that no ex parte testimo
ny could be given against a prisoner in a
capital case. Such, then, is the meaning
of the Constitutional provision which
counsel invoke, and it is impossible to
apply it to exclude a juror witness. lie,
like all other witnesses, must confront the
accused, that is, be examined in the pres
ence of the accused, and be subjected to
cross-examination, but he is not disquali
fied to be a witnes?.
It became necessary for the Common
wealth to show in the course of the trial
that thd prisoners had been in the West
ern Penitentiary, and in intercourse with
other prisoners there, and particularly
one Philip Fulgert, a convict sent from
Cambria county, and from whom the
prisoners heard of Mi:S Paul the theory
of the prosecution being that the prison
ers had plotted the robbery and murder
of Miss Paul whilst iu prison, and that
they proceeded to execute the plot as soon
after, their enlargement as circumstances
permitted. Sheriff Buck, who took Ful
gert to the Penittntiary, was called to
prove that fact, and David i M'Kelvy
proved that the defendants had been in
the Penitentiary, and fixed the time of
their discharge. This testimony was ob
jected to, and forms the basis of the 2d
and 4th assignments, because the Warden
of the Penitentiary is required, bv the
Act of Asenibly of April 23d, 1829,
Purdon 051, 10 keep a journal in which
the reception and discbarge of prisoners
is regularly entered, and that record, it is
argued, was the besi evidence of the facts
to which these witnesses swore.
The Act of Assembly does not make
the Warden's journal a record, nor declare
that it shall be evidence of the facts
therein entered.. The main purpose of
keeping it is to inform the Inspectors of
the prison of the name, age, condition and
circumsrances of each prisoner, that their
duties. may be intelligently performed. If
the question had been whether Fulgert
and these defendants had been legally
incarcerated, it might have been necessary
to show every formality prescribed by law,
but the main point was the conspiracy to
rob and murder, and the fact of their
being together in the penitentiary was
only incidental or introductory to that
point. Says Mr. Greenlief, 1 vol. pi. 08,
where the record or document appointed
by law is not a part of the fact to be
proved, but is merely a collateral or sub
sequent memorial of the fact, such as the
registry of marriages, births and the like,
it has not an exclusive character, but any
otner legal proof is admitted. If the
marriage or birth of the prisoners had
been wanted as introductory to evidence
of the crime charged, it would scarcely be
argue'd that a witness who was present at
the birth or, marriage was incompetent to
prove it because a registry existed. In
questions of identity, records aad registries
are not the best evidence, for after the
entries are received, it is necessary to
individuate the person? mentioned, and
this must be done by evidence de Ivors the
documeut. We have an illustration in
the third error assigned, which complains
of the admission of the record 'of Fulgert's
conviction and sentence without identifi
cation of his person. We do not mean to
say that we Consider the 3d assignment
any better than the 2d and 4th, but sim
ply that it illustrates the necessity to add
even to a judicial record oral evidence of
identification. The record proved Ful
gert's Conviction and pentence, and Sheriff
Buck identified him as the individual hei
took to the penitentiary, whilst M'Kelvy
identified defendants Mi trial as inmates
of the prison. We cannot be persuaded
that there was any error in submitting
such evidence to the jury.
The 5th .assignment relates to thd wit
ness William M'Creery ; when this indi
vidual was called by the Commonwealth,
he stated in answer to questions by the
prisoners' counsel, chat he had recently
got out of the penitentiary, where he had
been confined on' conviction for burglary,
that be had been in before on ct similar
charge, and had been pardoned, and that
the pardon was iu Washington county.
The counsel for the Commonwealth then
exhibited an Executive pardon for the
last offence, and the Court admitted the
witness. This is assigned for , the 5th
error. ;
If the pardon exhibited did not cover
the first as well as the last conviction, (of
which we cannot judge, for the pardon is
not shown to us) the fact that he had
been pardoned for the first offence was
elicited by the examination. 01 toe ueien-
dant's counsel, and it is not for the de
fen'tt to ; object that the fact was
Improperly proved. Both pardons were
sufficiently proved to justify the Court's
admission of the. witness. And we think
there' was nothing in the testimony of this
witness on which to ground the 7th and
8th assignments of error. He was per
mitted to explain the 'situation and rela
tion of the cells, and the arrangement
made of prisoners, to show what opportu
nities he possessed of acquiring knowledge
of the facts he detailed. And when he
was recalled, he was permitted to detail
what occurred when .Messrs. Noon and
Johnston' visited him in his cell, that he
showed tbem how communications between
adjoining cells could be made, and he was
permitted also to testify that no promise
of a pardon or ether inducement had been
held out to him to testify in this case.
All this was objected to, because it tended
to corroborate the .witness when no at
tempt had been made to impeach him, and
the question about a pardon compelled
the witness to discredit himself or commit
perjury if such promise had been held out.
Though -not formally impeached, this
witness, as a pardoned criminal, testified
necessarily . tinder circumstances that tend
ed strongly to discredit him; The jury
would inevitably regard his testimony
with suspicion. It was very proper, there
fore, to corroborate him, aind surely if he
could demonstrate to hi visitors that
communication between cells was possible,
he had a right to prove the fact in cor
roboration of his statement that such com
munication had actually taken place. And
he was entitled al,o to the fact that no
inducement had been held out to him tj
testity against the defendants. Those
were rights of the witness, and he was in
circumstances to justify his claim of them,
and the Court's concession of them.
The Conversations of prisoners among
.themselves about "points" to be made
when thej got out, is not tne most satis
factory kind of evidence, especially when
proved by only one of their number, par
doned for the purpose of being made a
witness; but the credibility of this witness
was fairly submitted to thd jury, and
there were many circumstances in proof
by other witnesses that tended strongly
to corroborate him. True, his testimony
was most damaging to the defendants, if
believed, but the Commonwealth was en
titled 4o lay it before the jury, and it is
not for us to doubt that the jury scanned
it closely, and gave it no more weight than
was due to it.
The 6'h error is founded on the decla
ration of Mary Stipoliski, made to her
parents the evening of the murder. This
little girl had been sent out at nightfall to
fetch home the cews, and when ehe came
home, she told her father what she saw and
heard, and that she thought the men she
saw at Polly Paul's were not the right
kind of persons
In itself considered, this evidence ws
of little importance, for it did not lead
even to an early discovery ot the murder.
Nobody seems to have attended to the
girl's story, and it might be considered
irrelevant and harmless evidence if sub
sequent discoveries had not shown that
these defendants were prowling about the
neighborhood, and were the very two men
the witness saw at Miss Paul's. The fact
that she saw men there, and heard sounds
of distress, was competent and relevant,
and it was rendered no less so by the ad
ditional fact that she, told it to her parents
directly after she returned home. This
circumstance she had a right td refer to,'
wi refreshing her memory. And what
her parents said in reply, was also a cir
cumstance to refresh her memory. The
damaging part of this evidence does not
consist iu the narrative that burst from
the Hps of this little girl on her return
home, much less in the responses of the
parents, but it consists in the facts them
selves, srd to which she swore on the
trial, and which interwove themselves with
facts furniohed by other witnesses, in such
a manner as to form what the jury consid
ered a web of guilt. The facts, that is,
what she saw and hoard, are not objected
to as improper evidence, but only her re
lation ot the facts to her parents, and their
replies Ordinarily, declaration's of third
parties in the absence of the accused are
uot evidence, but these declarations were
so connected with trie circumstances as to
become a part of them or if they cannot
bo so considered, they were immaterial
and harmless, and therefore afford no
ground for reversing.
The 10th assignment relates to the ad
ministration account of the estate of the
deceased; It was a public record, and, we
think; propsrly admitted. It is usual to
profc the circumstances of the decedent's
estate, where the murder was committed
lucri causa, and the administration account
is tho best possible evidence of what per
sonal estate was possessed. If it failed to
show a personal estate which other evi
dence proved to have belonged to the de
ceased, and the Commonwealth was thai
enabled to furnish tbe jury with an infer
ence of robbery, it was an inference to
which the Commonwealth was entitled.
A lone woman, shown to Lave had money,
is foully murdered, and her administrator
finds no money to administer. When men
are on trial for her murder, who spoke of
making "point" to rob her, and, if nec
essary, to murder her, and who spoke also
of tbe "pile" they expected to obtain, we
think it was competent to shew by the
public records that her personal represen
tatives found no money.
As to the overruling the motion for a
new trial, it is not a proper subjict for an
assignment of. error. The discretion of
the Court is not reviewable here. Nor U
the complaint that the Court misapplied
its own rules of practice a matter of which
we can take notice. The rule is prescri
bed by the Court itself to regulate its own
discretion, and the refusal to grant a new
trial is an exercise of discretion with
which we cannot interfere, whether it
conformed to the rule of Court, or disre
garded it.
We hav.e thus gone carefully through
the several errors assigned upon this
record, and finding no one that would
justify us in reversing the judgment, it
must stand affirmed.
THE ASSIGNMENT OF E&ROB9.
Following is the. assignment ot errors
submitted by tho counsel for plaintiffs in
error :
1st. "The Court erred m overruling the
prisoners' objection to the competency of
jonn iuck, wno naa Been sworn as a juror
in thi3 cause, and in allowing hira' to be
sworn as a witness for the Cotmtronweilth.
2d. The court efred in overruling the pris
oners' objections, and allowing John Buck, a
witness tor the Commonwealth, to testify to
the delivery of a prisoner to the warden of
the V esteru Penitentiary, it being objected
that the fact of said prisoner's reception at
the Penitentiary was matter of record and
should be proven by record evidence, and
also that it is not competent to prove the fact
without hrst proving his conviction and sen
tence by record evidence.
3d. The court erred in overruling the
prisoners' objections and admitting iri evi
dence the record of the case of the Common
wealth vs. Philip Fclgert, No. 6, December
Term, 1861, Cambria County, it being objec
ted that it did not appear that this was the
samb man testified to by Sheriff Buck, nor
did it appear that sard Folgert was ever taken
to the Penitentiary:
4th. The court erred in overruling the
prisoners' objection, and allowing David JI'
Kelvy, a witness for the Commonwealth, to
testify to the fact that the prisoners were in
the Penitentiary, and when they were dis
charged, it being objected that ttre facts of
fered to be pfo'ven can only be proven by the
records ot tne institution referred to.
5th. The court erred in overruling the
prisoners' objections to the competency of
Wilham 31 Creery, and allowing h'ni to be
sworn as a witness for the Commonwealth,
it appearing from his own statement that he
had been twice tried convicted, sentenced,
and incarcerated iri the Penitentiary for bur
glary, a pardon for the last Conviction on'.y
being produced, and no pardon beiDg pro
duced for the first conviction, though th.e
witness stated that he had been" pardoned.
6th. The court erred in overruling the
prisoners' objections, and allowing - M.r
Stipoliski; a witness for the Conlmonwealth,
to testify in chief to the conversations be
tween herself, her father and family, said
conversations not being in the presence of
the prisoners and occurring before the dis
covery of the murder, it being objected that
she could not legallj' state what she said when
she came home, and what her family or any
of them said or did.
7th. The court erred in overruling the
prisoners' objection, and allowing William
M'Creary, a witness for the Commonwealth,
to testify in chief that he showed Mr. John
ston and Mr. Noon how cummunications be
tween adjoining cells in the Penitentiary
could be made, it being objected tht the
witness could not thus corroborate himself.
8th. The court erred in overiuling the
prisoners' objection, and allowing Win. M'
Creery, a Witness for the Commonwealth, on
his direct examination, to answer the ques
tion, "Whether there wa3 auy promise of a
pardon or any other inducement held out to
L'lm to testify in this case?' It being objec
ted that uch evidence could not be giTen in
chief that it tends to corroborate the wit
ness when no attempt is maie to impeach
him, and that it compels the Witness either
to discredit himself or commit perjury if such
promise was" held out or such implied under
standing existed at the time.
9th. The court erred in overruling the
prisoners' objection to the competency of
George W. Kerby as a witness, he having
been sworn as a juror in this cause, and al
lowing him to be sworn as a wituess for the
Comnlonwetlth.
10th. Tho coart erred iri overruling the
prisoners' objection, and allowing the letters
of administration on the estate 7f Polly Paul,
dee'd., and the inventory filed by the admin
istrator in the? office of the register, to be read
irt evidence to show what personal estate was
left by the said Polly Paul, it being objected
that tbe record cannot be evidence, agaiust
these prisoners for that purpose, because they
could have had no chance to cross-examine
the witnesses who made the inveritory.'
Tlth. The court erred in overruling the
prisoners' motion for a new trial on the gfound
of after-discovered evidence, verified by affi
davit, (see reasons for a new trial,) on tb e
same day when made, and immediately af.
reasons were filed, without allowinc
substantiate the facts alleged b-j pruof or f
preparations, contrary to vQ ' or
is as follows :
"Iieasonsfor a new trial which allege after
discovered evi-Ienc-, or misconduct of a Par-
tyv5 ':ry' or any otuer matter tff fact
Waich wa3 not brought to view, on" lilt! trial,
must be verified by affidavit; and irt eiich case
the motion shall be placed at the head of the
argument liit for the ntrt term ,l but when the
reasons specified are not alleged or not veri
fied as ai'oresAid, the motion shall be put upon
the list fir the term at which it is made and
then disposed of."
Equalization of Ilounlley.
Jcst Think of It! A new invention
for the manufacture of paper socks Ts an
nounced. The socks are read of pa-,er
and muslin combined. The inventors say
that they will last as long as an ordinary
pair would keep clean, and that they can
be made so cheaply that their cost will
not equal the price of a washing. These
socks are intended to bear the same rela
tion to knitted or woven socks that paper
collars do to linen or xnulin collar
Hon. Ilafrv While has introduced fli
following joint resolutions in the Senate,
asking Congressional ffcticu with regard
to tne equalization ot bounties:
lVhereax, There is eminent justics in
the petitions and desires of a large major
ity of tbe late soldiers and sailors in the
war to suppress rebellion, that the Gener
al Government shalf equalize, by appro
priate legislation, as ;ar as possible, tho
bounties paid at different times during tho
war to secure enlistments;
Whsreas It is believed this equalization
can be done with'otrt too largely increasing
the public burdens, and it is proper that
Pennsylvania, always contributing as
promptly and liberally of her citizens and
resources fo save the Nation's life, snotM
formally expross her wishes and desire
on to just a measure; therefore, be it
Resolved, &c, That our Senators anct
Representatives in Congress be instructed
and they are hereby requested to advocate
and vote for a measure that will equalize
the bounties paid by the General Gov
ernment at different times, among the late
soldiers and sailors in the war against tho
rebellion, adopting in such equalization
the principle of paying those enlisted meri
who have been honorably discharged tho
service, S8.33 per month,- for the time
actually served, deducting therefrom the
amount of bouutj they have already
received from the General Government,
so that the amount to bo paid with that
already received, shall iu no case exceed
the rate of eight and one-fhird dollars per
month for the time actually served. That
no bounty whatever irt this" measure' for
equalization should be paid to those sol
diers and sailors whose term of enlistment
was for a less period than one year, nor to
those who have deserted the service, nor
to those who have been discharged before
the expiration of their term or enlistment
at their own request,- except for the pur
pose of re-enlistment or accepting promo
tion, where stich promotion has been sub
sequently received. Nor to those who
were prisoners of war from the rebel
armies at the date of their enlistment, nor
to those who have sold and disposed )f in
any way for .gain thSir final discharge
papers or an interest in any bounty pro
vided for by any act ot Congress. That
where a tsoldier or 6ailor, who would be
entitled to the bounty above proposed, is
dead, the same should be paid to that
class of his personal representatives who
are entitled to receive pensions under the
present laws. t
Resolved, That Congress should provide
for the payment of the bounties above
proposed by authorizing the issuing of
United States five per ceut. bond, payable
within a reasonable period, but of a fund
to be raised by a tax on the cotton grow
ing interest of the country,- and out of the
proceeds of the public lands, giving how
ever to the person entitled to the bounty
the privilege to receive the whole or a
part of the same in land warrants, at a
specified price not exceeding seventy-five
cents per acre
Resolved, That in the measure hereby
recommended for the equalization of
bounties, the persons entitled to the same)
and thS Government should be fully pro
tected against the fraud, imposition and
euactions ct unscrupulous speculators and
claim agents.
Resolved, That His Excellency, tho
Governor, be requested to forward a copy
of these resolutions to our Senators and
Representatives in Congress.
m m m
ViNmp Outdone. An Iowa paper
gives an account of a powerful man living;
in Hardin county, Iowa, who, though un
known to fame, possesjes far greater
strength than the celebrated Dr. Win
ship. His name is Walter Hadlock, and
he resides at Hardin city. He was a
member of company O of the Sixth Iowa
infantry. In the march of Sherman's
army to the sea, he lost his right arm.
from a wound received in a skirmish ca
Macon, Ga. He seems to suf'
r . , er little
inconvenience from the los
chop wood with his renJ1Qia caa
as most men can 0 arm as well
no unusual eff'- rt t " II cost nra
a half c-'i ' cut corcl tw0 aQ;i
fiftv li da" and lie wager
. UOI,lr3 that ho ean. with hla rom.;n.
! 'lsZ left arm, split one hundied and fifty
raiis pp.r day.
The EianT Hour Law. The follow
ing is the bill, known as the "Eight Hour
Law," which ha.i passed the House of
Representatives :
"fie it enacted, drcj That hereafter labor
performed during a period of eight hours
on any secular day, in all cotton, woolen,
silk, paper, bagging, flax, and other facto
ries or workshops, in the Commonwealth
shall be considered a legal day's labor,
and hereafter contracts made for the em
ployment of mechanics and laborers, in all
the various branches of trade for daily
laborers, shall be construed to be for eight
working hours to the day, iu any employ
ment; provided, that this act phall taka
effect from and after the first day of July
next; and provided further, that this does
not apply to farmers or teamsters."
Reed Bisrler. eldest son of Er .
Gov. Bigler, of Clearfield, committed aui-
cide on the 2d inst., while laboring under
temporary mental aberration.