Newspaper Page Text
DEBATES OF TEE' STATE o0w %r'1!N
OP LOUIa0 AJA. JUOIS0DICTIOi OP JU TIOJ5. .. . MR. IsAAcIs offered the followlngArtiole : "The Legislature shall haeee anthprity to extend juriadiotion to Justices f,.the,>pade.of all minor crimes and offences." Mo. fsAAcgs-I submit that it will be pro per act of this Convention to relitve -t. pa. rishes in this State of the immense tdato which they are subjected in the necessity to summon juriep for the trial of petty crimes and offences. The present mode of procedure imposes not only a heavy tax, but also a large amount of trouble which is wholly unnecessary. Any one familiar with the present mode of trial of these minor cases, knows that the expense is great and op pressive, and that it is also unnecessary. It may be said that the Article which I now offer will deprive citizens of their rights. But I an swer that objection by saying that, instead of depriving them of their rights, it gives them their rights at once. The report of the Judi ciary Committee seas forth that Justices of the Peace " shall be elected by the qualified voters of each parish, for the term of two years, and shall have such criminal jurisdiction as shall be provided by law." Now, it was only the other day that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee told us that he was opposed to a similar Article in relation to the city of New Orleans, because it affected the right of trial by Jury. This carries the very strong inference that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee does not think that the Legislature should give to Magistrates the right of trial in any cases without the intervention of a jury. While on this subject, I may notice another objection which I have to the report of the Judiciary Committee. It is not stifficiently distinct in re lation to the nature of crimes to be tried before Justidese of the Peace. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has explained to us, at length, his views as to what constitute misdeo moanors, and it is evident that he does not in tend that the Legislature shall make a special provision for the trial of the largo number of cases which he classed under that name, although, at the same time, he argued that there was a good deal of difficulty in defining the nature of the jurisdiction that a Magistrate might safely have. I apprehend that the Arti cle which I have just offered is not so compre hensive as to give to Magistrates improper jurisdiction, while it is sufficiently restrictive to limit them to safe jurisdiction in all minor crimes and offences. Ma. PanseLx moved that the farther conside ration of the Article offered by Mr. Isaacks should he postponed until Tuesday, the 20th inst., to be then taken up with the report of the Committee on the Judiciary. The motion prevailed. BAIL. Mn. Oxevrsn, of St. Mary, having voted in the majority, yesterday, on the substitute for Arti cle 108, offered by Mr. Eustis, and adopted, moved a reconsideration of the vote, which wasr granted Ma. ..,. tsrte esire to offer an amendment to the substitute offered yesterday by the dele gate from Orleans,---hL ve the same object in view as that delegate; but his substitute does not cover the whole ground. 1 wish that sub stitute to be now read, that there may be no mistake as to the nature of my amendment: " All persons shall be bailable, by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, where the proof is evident or presumption great, or unless after conviction by a petty jury for any offence or crime punishable with death or imprisonment at hard labor The privilege of the writ of htabeas orpous shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." A oman may be convicted of a crime punisha ble with implrisonment in the penitentiary, and yet may not be convicted "by a petty jury." I do nut think that when a man is arraigned, the law makes it obligatory on him to be tried by a jury of his peers. lie might, then, if he waived ithe trial by jury, be pardonedl.under this substitute article, after conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment anl hard labor. It is not my purpose to restrict the priv ileges guaranteed to the Governor, by Article 47 of the Coustetution, nor to affect his rights under that article. But I wish the law of the land to hbe so plain, that the decisions of our Courts may not, under any circumstances, he set at naught. Under the operation of this sub, stitute, the true Intention of the law may be violated. The Governor may do this. The pre sent Governor has slhwn that he would be in clined to act against the spirit of this substi tute Article, if it shall not be so carefully guarded as to restrain the Executive preroga tive. It was only the other day, in iny own district, that a man was convicted of man slaughter, in the District Court eto appealed to the Supreme Court, andi although his case was advocated by some of the most able law yers in the State, the Supreme Court allirmied the decision of the District Court. Yet, hle was reprieved by the Covernor, with this provision, that he should enter into bond for $10,000, lest hlis reprieve by the Governor should not be con firmed by the Senate. Tile Senate refused to confirm, and tle criminal is now a fugitive from justice. Here is a solemn decision of our Su preme Court, confirming a decision of conviction by the District Court, set at naught. This is a disgrace to the State of Louisiana. It would be a reproach upon this Convention, were we to be so lax in our provisions for the punishment of crime, as to leave in this important Article rogmo for a possibility, that solemn decisions of our Supreme Court might be evaded under it. If a man can be convicted otherwise than "by a petty jury," it is clear that thle insertion of these words in the Article is unnecessarily nar rowing tile scope of our own views, and restrict ing the operation of a constitutional provision, on which so much depends, for tile safety and well being of our people, anl the honor of our State. I shall, therefore, move to strike out tihe words "by a petty jury " Had I been here on Monday, when Article 47 was under consid eratiou, I should have moved, that in all cases where an appeal may be taken, tile criminal shall remain in the hands of tie Sheriff. from the time of conviction, until the appeal shall be disposed of. I am satisfied that that is tile true kind of bail which will effectually prevent the evasion of punishment. MR. DliuorC.-The gentleman's object would be accomplished, by striking out the words "by a petty jury." Conviction for all offences such as are excepted by Article 108, as adopted yesterday, would thus preclude bail. It mat ters not whether the prisoner may waive a trial by jury, or not. He may stand convicted, either by his own confession or by the decision of a petty jury. If a prisoner pleads guilty, he is convicted to all intents and purposes. On a prisoner being arraigned, and confessing, he stands convicted without any decision, so that by leaving out the word "'by a potty jury," the operation of the Article will be free from exception or evasion. Mit. O.ivl:e.--Before the vote shall be ta ken on my amendment, I will remark, that al though it is periectly clear that the Governor has no right to order a party to give bonds, lest the Senate may not confirm his act of re prieve, yet, this has been dlone, and may be done again; and although the Sheriff has no right to take such bonds, yet Sheriffs have ta ken them; and we know that when commandedt by the Chief Executive of the State, they may do the same thing again. I wish to see the State and justice protected against such bonds and their consequences. Moe OLIVIER'S motion to strike out the words " by a petty jury," was carried. The substitute for Article 108, thus amended, was re-adopted. The Convention resumed consideration of Ar ticle 130, which had been read on the previous day, but on which no debate had ensued. The Article is as follows: ,, Article 130. Any citizen of this State who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, fight a duel with deadly weapons with a citizen of this State, or send or accept a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, either within the State or out of it, with a citizen of this State, or who shall act as second, or knowingly aid and assist in any manner those taus offend ing, shall be deprived of holding any office of trust or profit, and of enjoying the right of suf frage under the Copstitution." When this Article had been read, Ma. LEBLANC moved to reject the same. ML. CONNELY moved to lay Mr. LeBlano's motion qn the table. The question came up, this day, on Mr. Con selfs motion to lay on the table; and Mr. Lealano's motion to reject the Article was lost 1.t vote of 73 yeas, to lay it on the table, •t'.6inst 33 nays. MtA . Casarxmeaos offered the following sub stitute for the above Article: Article 180. The Legislature shall, from time to time, make such Legislative enactments as NEW OLEANS TAILY CRESCEN'T . . PUBLIB!ED EVERY DAY, SUNDAY EXCEPTED, AT LN. 98 ST. CHARLES STREE, BY J. H. MADDOX. VOLUMJE V. WEDNESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 6, 152. sEBuBS 18s6 they may deem best calculated to suppress the practice of duelling in this State. Ma. C.sTELr.L..,Aos-T wish to set myself right before the Convention in relation to my vote on Article 130 of the Constitution. I think that the course of gentlemen in this Convention ought to be consistent with the duties actually imposed upon them as members of this Convention. I take tile ground that we must not assume duties which we are not authorized to poriform in the work of framing a Constitution. I take the ground that the Legislature has the right to in flict.punishment for offences, and I ask if the provision in Article 130 is not a punishment for the offence of duelling ? I think that gentlemen will admit that what properly belongs to the Legislature ought to be left to the Legislature. But I take the further ground, that this law does not operate equally on all our citizens. It enforces its penalties upon some citizens who may be placed in positions to incur them, while it exempts other citizens who may be guilty of the very same act or offence. It is unjust, be cause it disfranchises and deprives of certain rights the citizen who shall fight a duel, or aid, in any manner, in a duel with a citizen of this State, while the citizen who fights a duel, or as sists in one, with a person who is not a citizen of this State, although hecommits the very same offence, does not come within the scope of this Article, and is not liable to punishment. Why this distinction ? Is not tihe offence the same in tihe one case as in the other ? If fight ing a duel makes a man an offender, it surely ought to make offenders of all men who partici pate in tihe practice. But I consider that this is a subject which it is the duty of the Legislature to discuss. The Legislature can properly shape the punishment for this offence, so that equal justice shall be done to every citizen. I hold that the Article 130 of the Constitution is an injustice to the citizen. It conflicts with the spirit of our Gov ernment, and with the Constitution of the United States, which clearly guards and defines the right and position of the citizen at'the polls. I ask every gentleman in this house, if it is not degrading that a citizen, when he goes to vote, should he obliged to incriminate himself, or, if hie refuees to take the oath, that he should sub ject himself td doubt of having comm.tted an olfence punishable by the laws of the State. I will take the case of a man who has fought a duel. lie is asked at the polls if he has over fought a duel, or assisted in a duel, with a citi zen of this State. I submit whether this is not in opposition to Article 10 of our Constitution, which says that every free white male who has attained a certain age, isa citizen of the United States, and shall have resided a given length of time within this State, shall be entitled to vote. Article 10 contains all the qualifications to en title a man to vote. There are no restrictions in that Article, when the questions of citizen ship and residence are satisfied. I contend that a man has a right to present himself at the polls, and assert his privilege as a voter, without being subjected to the inquiry if he has committed an offence of this nature. That is a right inchoate with our Government itself, and grave indeed must be the crime for which the citizen is deprived of it. I am not here advocating the practice of dueling. 1 am opposed to thdt practice. But I ask why the penalties of this Constitution are not applied to those offences which are daily committed on our streets ? Why are its most marked and severe penalties ereervet for a se condary offence? Our Constitution ought to be comprehensive and stringent in its provisions to prevcnt murders, punilh street fights, suppress ilonies anti the like; but, by this Article 1381, you deprive the man who has fbught a duel of the privilege which you give to the felon The ltlon is not disfranchiscd-he may hold office he is not placed under the ban of the Constitu tion. I wish to fasten attention to this odious distinction, which places the felon above the duelist. I refrain here from entering into any argu ment on the subject of duelling. But 1 believe that, so long as nman is man, dueling shall be practiced, whatever may be the penalties im posed. It is ncedless ftr me to illustrate by ex ample, that men will light duels without looking to the sacrifice. Such examnples have conie un dler the observation of all of us. But if duelling is to, be punished a an offence, why should we take hrom the Legislature that which properly belongs to the Legislature, the right to pre Feribe the punishment ? We have, in this Convention, resolved to take frot our Constitution all of its restrictive fea tures. 1 have listened to the beautiful language of gentlemen while they were maintaining that no restrictions should be placed upon the qual ifications of voters. Do they now intend to re cede fromn that noble ground ? Do they intend to recede so far as to favor a restriction so pal pally unjust and offensive to the rights of the citizen " Another principle has been asserted and nc quiesced in by this Convention. It is to take front the Constitution every thing Legislative in its character, keeping in view that we came here for the sole purpose of framing the organic law. I now call upon gentlemen to adhere to that principle. I agree with all those gdntlemen in thishouse who think that dueling ought to be suppressed, as fiar as it is possible to suppress the practice. The only difference of opinion in this Convention is as to the mode. Let us then leave to the Legislature to consider what that mode shall he. But do not let us, while we are boasting of stripping our Constitution of all restrictions, al low this Article 130 to remain in the Constitu tion. If consistency has any place in this Con vention, I call upon gentlemen to take from our Constitution that odious-that barbarous re striction. I am opposed to Article 5u0 lst. Because it is odious in its intention, scope and influence. '21. Because it makes unjust distinctions be tween citizens of this State and citizens of other States, in punishment for the same offence. I mnight fight a duel with a citizen of Mississippi, or with a European, and incur no penalty, whereas my offence would be identically tiue samne as that which might subject me to the de. privations prescribed in Article 130. 3d. Because this Constitutional provision has failed to suppress the practice of dueling. 4th. Because it is an unjust restriction. 5th. Because it is Legislative. One remark more. Why has it been found that the Constitutional Article 130 has done nothing to put down the practice of dueling ? I attribute it. to this--that the Constitution of the State has put the duelist and the murderer oil the same footing. The Constitutionatl provi sions against dueling are repugnant to reason and common sense, and openly at war with the well matured opinions of society. Therefore, no punishment for the offence of dueling can ever be awarded. Can gentlemen cite one instance of a man having been found guilty of murder where his.antagonist had fallen in a duel ? No. All the eloquence of the best Attorney General that this State ever had, could not bring such a verdict. It will be well, therefore, for this Convention to leave the subject of this Article to the Legislature, which body will, no doubt, adopt the most salutary operative law to put down the practice. Ml. J.E.satrs-I am opposed to the gentle man's substitute in every aspect in which it may be presented. 1 did not think that it would be proposed in this Convention, to pluck from the Constitution its brightest gem. I am well aware of the objections to this constitutional article against dueling. They have beenloudly and industriously uttered, but have failed to affect the integrity of that noble provision in our Constitution which the great mass of the citizens of Louisiana coutemplateo with the proudest satisfaction. I was struck for a mo ment, with one very specious objection urged by my colleague from NewOrleans (Mr. Preaux) the other day, wherein he represented the in justice of Article 180, by shllowing that the in dividual who sent the challenge was punished under the provisions of that Article, while he who provoked the challenge was allowed to go unpunished. It is a sufficient answer to this objection, that if we look at the law of the land and see that it is successful in its general ope ration, it behooves us not to throw it aside be cause it does not meet every case. I think that this law has operated well. There can be no doubt that it has prevented many challenges being sent. Farther, it is now well understood that no challenge is sent until it is knowli that it will be accepted. I say that this is the case in the majority of instances. This understanding is usually obtained before the challenge passes. Before the Constitution put its mark on the practice of dueling, citi zens were constantly liable to annoyance by the disposition of many persons to send a chal lenge on every trifling occasion of offence, whe "hIri imiaginary ;r real. This annoyance has hiiio ,P.,lTished by the operation of this Consti it:r,. tI law. Some worthless individuals may :::n the practice, but gentlemen are ab -.. I i'from the necessity ofrecognizingthem by the It,, !e itself No man of worth and charac ter w.11 jive up the privilege of being an Amer io.n citizen, that he may engage in a duel, un les tiih offence is great, and so peculiar in its chalnracter that all other means are unavailing to wipe it out. This very article in the Constitution of Louis ian:a has been the themeof more praise through out our whole country and abroad, in the lead ing periodicals, while discussing the beauties and defects of Constitutions, as well as in the halls of legislation and other public assemblies, than any other feature of our Government or social organization. In Texas, the State Con vention to remodel the Constitution met at nearly the same time as ours, and incorporated in the organic law of Texas nearly the precise words of Article 1'0 of our Constitution. Several States, since that time, have adopted the same provision in the organic law. In the State of Missouri they have shown how extremely anx ious they have been to destroy the practice -of dueling, on the ground that its worst effects usually fathll on the innocent wife and children. The law of Missouri makes the survivor provide for the wile and children of the deceased. Here is the law of Missouri : " It shall be the duty of the General Assem bly to provide by law for the mode and manner in which the survivor of a duel and his estate shall be rendered responsible to and be charged with a compensation for the wife and children of the deceased." But, sir, although we have not gone so far as this in our own State, we have gone far enough to do us honor. We are entitled to respect, with pride, a noble provision in our own Constitution which has elicted much approval in other States and been adopted in the re-structure of other Stiate Constitution. One of tile most plausable objections to this law is this: that a citizen of this State, under the operation of the dueling law, may hbe insulted at any time with impunity, whereas recourse is open for satisfaction of insult to any one who is not a citizen of this State. Although I do not attach much importance to the objection inas much as it is quite partial, betokens a spirit of dissatisfaction, and is not such a view of the law as a good citizen ought to take, I had thought that the objection might be removed and with that view prepared the following substitute which I shall now simply read to the Conven tion : " Any citizen of this State or any person re siding or sojourning therein who shall after the adoption of this Constitution fight a duel with deadly weapons, either within this State or out of it, or who shall act as second, or knowingly aid and assist in any manner, those thus offend ing, shall be deprived of holding any office of trust or profit and of enjoying the right of suf fliag under this Constitution acquired and to be acquired. Another objection urged with some force against this law is that it opens the door to as sassinations and kindlrcd crimes. All I can say in answer to that objection is that when such offences are committed, they will be properly visited by the law of the land, and as to those ciases of an aggravated nature whiol have often been referred to as demanading a retort to hostile wcapions, I believe that no jury will ever find a mian guilty when lie can prove that the offence for which he sought violent redress was such as coull not have been wiped out by any other means. Bet how far are we called upon to acknowl edge the innocence of dueling? I take the case of a man well skilled in the use of duelling weapons who gives mortal offence to another man, in the full knowledge that he to whom Ihe is of feriug this outrage is all unskilled in the prac tices of dueling, as well as in the use of those weapons with which it is carried on. The of fendet1 party is compelled to send a challenge to do, so or to ear the brand of "corlatrd ' are the alternatives presented-lie has no Con stitutional law to shield him from reproachl-he challenges and the offender exultingly accepts, tihe atr of course nming his choice of coarse nuoeing his choice of weap ons. The parties go on the field. True to all expectation, lie who received the insult is the victim. I ask if this is not as deliberate mur der as can be committed ? I rue, te man may avoid being murdered he may reject the unequal terms of combat or he may decline to challenge; but, without this constitutional law, he would be stigluatized as a coward: and we know that a man, whether he is a coward at heart or not, will offer any sacrifice before he will consent to bear that stig ma. Mr. President, I mean it not irreverantly by introducing the sacred volume into this dis cussiou; but it seems to me that when Cain having shed his "brother's blood, was branded with the mark of divine indignation. and made a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, he was in a condition in some respects assimilated to the individual in our community who, before the adoption of this Article in our Constitution. chose not, for whatever reasons, to send or accept a challenge. Sir, he was pointed at owith the finuigr of scorn, shunned and despised by his fi/llo-moute, with the stigma of society stamped upon him, until he mnight well exclaim in the pathetic language of the holy book, that for re fusing to risk his own or another's life "his punishment was greater than he could bear." I trust, sir, that the substitute may not pre vail, and now move to lay it on the table. 1 can never by my vote consent to expunge from our Constitution one of its brightest gems. MDr Brot.L.xt)o suggested that if Article 130 were adopted by this Convention, there should be an amnesty for all past offences. MIti. IIr--I am in favor of the adoption of this clause as it now stands, and I hope it will be engrafted in the Constitution witllout any change whatever. All of us agree that the practice of dueling is degrading and demoral izing. There is not a gentleman upon thisfloor, I presume, who does not feel upon this subject as 1 feel, and who, could he see any effectual means of suppressing the practice, would not give the measure his hearty andl cordial support. Nothing, sir, can be more desirable than legis lation capable of effecting such a purpose; but we have seen how utterly futile has been all legislation to provide for its punishment. There is not a single instance on record in the whole country of a man having suffered the penalty of the law for the olfncce of dueling. This has been because the sound judgment of a jury invariably acknowledges that the punishment for dueling is too great, besides being, in an important view, odious in this, that it places the man who fights a duel on the same footing with the felon and the murderer. Public opinion re coils from such a classification of men. The better elements of the lunman character conspire and combine to reject it. Thus the law is a nullity, and it is the part of wisdom to seek a remedy in a law which may be rconciled with common sense and social prosperity by the meoasure of its soundness, its justice and its moderation. To make laws elfectual the penalty for their infringement must be certain. When the punishment is certain, when it attaches by the more operation of the law itself, without the intervention and uncertainty of judge or jury, the law will be respected. Ilere, sir, is the benefit of this clause of the Constitution. The penalty attaches at once upotn the infringe mtent of the law-a penally, too, which a correct public sentiment can justify, and yet at the sante time sufficiently severe to enforce obedi Senre.. In a country like ours; where tile avenues to the highest honors and positions are open to all-where the privileges of citizenship are so numerous and so gratifying to human pride, there can be no greater punishment than to say to a man, " Sir, you have been engaged in a duel; you have violated the Constitution of your State; you have thub forfeited the most sacred right of an American citizen; you can not vote." To a high-minded citizen-to any good citizen-this penalty must indeed be a severe one; to the man of keen sense and correctpride of character, it must be oppressive to the ex treme point of endurance. ,Puch a man looks to the past. His sound reflection forces him to the acknowledgement that he has committed an error, the serious consequences of which he now, for the first time, contemplates. He looks to the futurei the prospect is a blank, Honor, station, and all that can stimulate honorable energy, are effaced from his future. There is nothing on which the objects of his ambition may he impressed. " The punishment is indeed terrible. Punishment such as this is guaran tied by article 130 of the Constitution. Those who think that it does not go far enough. may search the records, anl they will find only how ineffectual has been all legislation to go farther. The duelist errs, but no debasing sentiment prompts his course; notwithstanding his error, the most noble, the most sacred affections of fomily and friends will still cling to him. ItI man reason and a healthy civilization alike resist the monstrous idea of classing him with the felon and the murderer. But some gentlemen tell us that this article of the Constitution is the prerogative of the Legislature, and should have no place in the organic law. The best answer to thee gentle men is to point them to their own arguments, where, in the same breath, they entertain us by broadly denouncing all restrictions of the right of a citizen to vote, as guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States. They contend that this law ought not to find a place in the Constitution of Louisiana, because it is a restriction of the right to vote. Those gentle men do not keep in view that our Constitution contains other restrictions of voters. It re quires the voter to be twenty-one years of age; that is a restriction; it requires that he shall have resided a certain length of time within the State; that is another restriction. Argument has been exhausted to show that these restric tions can ever be properly regulated by legisla tion. Equally unsatisfactory and unavailing would it be to trust to varying legislation to provide penalties for dueling. It has been objected to this law that it has not accomplished its object. The objectioh is not a good one. We know that when thedueling sections, introduced by Judge Chinn, were dis cussed ilt the Convention of 1845, the most fear ful and bloody consequences to flow from the law were predicted and portrayed. Objections of every hue were presented against the new feature of the Constitution. One gentleman contended that it gave every advantage to the skulking assassin over the open antagonist, while in the operation of the law, another gentle man saw the pathway open to assassinations in broad daylight. The state of things to be brought about by this dueling law was earnestly represented by many of the most sagacious aid distinguished members of that talented Conven tion, as too dreadful for a civilized community to armed men were to fall by the assassin's knife,and contemplate-murders were to multiply-an street fights were to become the order of the day. But, sir, it is our proud province now to show that not only have none of these inauspicious predictions been realized, but, on the contrary, the law has really accomplished its purpose be yond the anticipations of its most sanguine ad vocates. The sanred right of suffrage-theopen path to honor and emolument-had never been sufficiently appreciated before this rod of terror was held over our citizens. Since that law came ilto operation, there has not been one duel in ou .:.o where there had been ten before. And ib .. i yet to learn that street fights, or assas sinations, or um'rders of any kind have occurred since that time, beyond the ratio of the increase of population. Sir, if any member of this Con veltion can satisfy me tlitt murders and street tights have increased with the operation of this law, I shall vote to expunge it. My colleague, who offers the substitute now before the Convention, complains that this law is unequal, unjust and oppressive in its operS tion, lecause it disfranchises a citizen of the State if Ihe detnonds of one of our own citizens satisfaction for an insult, whereas he may obtain redress front a citizen of anotlher Sctrte without incurring this penalty. Sir, I look upon that as the brightest feature in the law, and in its ab sence would never consent to give this clause of the Constitution the sanction of my vote. Towards our own citizens we are wisely re strained from the further practice of what, in the State of Louisiana, may be styled semi legalized violence; but our Constitution does not tie us down in our intercourse with strangers. It has not the power to lisfranchise the citizens of another State, and has thtereorbe most wisely decreed that, in our social relations with them, we shall be placed upon a fair anil equ nl footing. O)ne lending necessity for retaining this clause in the Constitution is to be found in our regard fr a sound public opinion, which, after ill, I believe to be the only, or at lelst the most. effectual means of suppressing the practice of ldueling. The clause iut the Cosititution of '45 has already done muoel towards forming a cor rect pnhlic opinion on this point, and if it be re et:inel in the Constitution which we are now ttaking. it will prove entirely effectual. But if you strike it from the Constitution, tihe effect will be most injurious. It will be said, and ex ulted over, that an attempt was made to abolish the practice of dueling in Louisiana by a con stitutional law, but that the law was found to be inoperative. and in six short years it was re pealed. It would be saying, in effect, that the people of Louisiana are opposed to any restric tions upon dueling. This would be taking a long and dangerous step backwards in civiliza tion. On the other hand, if this Constitution ahall preserve Article 181), public opinion will be strengthened and justified, the wisdom and virtue of the law will e vindlicated, a more general respect for it inculcated, and increased Ilticiency given to its operation. iBut weo are told that by this law we are striking a blow at the chivalry of the State of Louisianua-that its citizens are always able to defend themselves, and want no Constitutional protection, or Constitutional provisions, to settle their difficulties for them. All that I have to say in answer is, that if the chivalry of our State is shown in the practice of dueling, it is the lowest of all chivalry to shed the blood of our own citizens, and the sooner we tear that olat frotm the records of our clivalry the better. it ore are never wanting higher occasions in the history of nations for exhibitions of their chiv alry. There are, indeed, times when thile most pru dent of men feel a necessity to resort to arms. lut on these occasions the wound has reached I the heart of hearts, and reason fails to dictate its remedies. On such occasions all prohibitions, whether Constitutional, Legislative, or of any other character, are disregarded, awl that law which then becomes the highest law, and as sumes sole control of the humnan breast-the law of honor reigns unrestrained. But these cases, thank God, are rare-so rare, that they do not etfcet the great question now bctobre the Cnven tion, for laws in their operations must be gen eral, and cases of individual hardship must yield to the general good. The dueling clause in our State Constitution has become a leading princi ple of our social policy. I trust that this Con vcntion will so recognize it. hla. REsevEc-I rise to oppose the substitute offered by the gentleman from NewOrleans, Mr. Castellanos. The object of the gentleman in offering this substitute is to strike out and totally annihilate Article 180 of the Constitu tion. That article is the brightest feature in the whole Constitution. It casts its radiating .. mn" over every provision in that instru tme , 'points, with unerring certainty, back to ..o superior intelligence and exalted moral worth of the framers of the Constitution of 1$-l5. Mr. President, it was a noble, humane. and in every sense praiseworthy motive that prompted the framers of that Constitution to embody in it this most salutary article. It was not lone until after that venerable and intelli gent body had given it the most mature delib eration. And it was done to suppress the odious custom of dueling-that ancient cus tom, which is the legitimate olfspriag of bar barism and the pride of all uncivilized nations that custom which, for centuries past, has swept with tornado power over the nations of the earth, leaving desolation and ruin in its train-that custom, which has shaken to the centre the moral fabric of every nation of the globe. And, sir, it is a lamentable fact that the same harbarous custom has triumphantly winged its flight across the Atlantic, and has found a cordial reception in our own highly favored land-this land, which boasts of being the cradle of liberty, and the social as well as moral paragon among nations-this land, which is illuminated from East to West, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by the lights of science, morality and literature! Sir, this odious cus tomn has pervaded nearly evey State in our glo rious Union, and society has felt its withering influence from the lowest to the highest circles. But, sir, there is a glorious consolation in the anticipation and conviction that Louiisana has arisen in her strength to crush and for ever put on end to this obnoxious practice of duelling. She has emblazoned her veto power against it in the I30:th Article of her Constitution. There it stn.o!s in the face of the world as a living mon.~,.. fI her bold declarations. Sir, I trot. i " :, that it may stand there until t'::c" ,;: ii no more. There it stands, as a l.b::. n- i" .: t. her sons, to warn themtto spurn thut , i.;: e a :lom of dueling, at the peril of thl;ti coelt cred rights. L ,i iiann, by embodying this Article in her Constitution, has excited the admiration of the world, and the States of this glorious Union point to hers as to an example worthy of imi tation by them all. This Article has been pro ductive of great good, exercising at all times a most salutary influence, and I trust that it may bepermitted to stand in the Constitution, to shed its light and influence upon those who are to come after us-on our sons and sons of sons, as they rise up and lean to respect it. We live in an age of unparaleled progress and improve ment, and it is an object near my heart to see our moral standard rise to the highest degree of excellence. Sir, the gentleman has said that we were inconsistentin our course in this Con vention. I presume that we all have acted as faithful public servants in the discharge of our duties, being prompted by none other than hon est and correct motives; and I trust that all of us will be able to give a faithful account of our stewardship But I think that gentlemen in this Convention mistake qualification for re striction, and thus confound the true argument, which, I have no doubt, it is their desire to elu cidate. And now, Mr President, I have done; but I cannottake my seat without reiterating the sentiment, that my voice shall ever be lifted in opposition to the barbarous custom of duel ing. I therefore trust, and confidently hope, that the gentleman's resolution may not pre vail. The substitute of Mr. Castellanos was laid upon the table. The Dueling Article was then adopted, with out amendment, and so nearly unanimous was the vote, that a motion to call the yeas and nays was unsuccessful. Messrs. Prcaux. IIernandez and Staes asked leave to have their votes recorded, against the adoption of the article, which was ordered. Msl. PRc:Ax gave in the following explana tion of his views and vote: I vote "no," be cause I consider Article 130 of the Constitu tion of 1845, as a penal statute, and that the guilty party is placed in the situation of being compelled to give evidence against himself, and to support the chances of the sentence of dis franchisement, without a fair hearing of his case, which effects are, in my opinion, contrary to the true principles of a Republican Govern ment. Article 130 having been adopted, Article 80, which had been postponed with IMr. Preaux's substitute, was next taken up. Msl. COTTON moved to lay the substitute on the table. The motion prevailed. MAl. JOsxc proposed to amend Article 8, as follows: 1 farther do solemnly swear that I have not procured any appointment or election by bribery or the purchase of votes, neither di rcctly nor indirectly. The amendment was rejected. AlR. Grelo moved to amend tile oath by add ing, "I will support the Constitution of the United States, and this State." Mrs. DCeous thought the amendment super fluous, because the party already swears to do his duty agreeahly to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of this State. The whole object was already embraced. SSIM. GGrox-The objection of the gentleman is not tenable. I want all officers, both federal and State, to take an oath to support the Con stitutious, not only in the line of their official duty, but in all their actions in life li.t. I0Ex.ta.tsN-When the first Governor was sworn in under the Constitution of this State, Judge Martin, theno Supreme Judge, took the Act or Congress and the Constitution of this State, and made him take the oath of fidelity tc both, giving it as his opinion that the oath tc observe both was necessary. I think that thL amendment of the gentleman from Lafourche is clearly proper. 3Sl. Iuxr--The Constitution of the United States requires that all officers shall take the oath. Sly colleague is right. The act was passed by the first Congress, and the oath re ferred to has been required ever since. Sitc. Gritox' s a men.lment was adopted. M1t. DEr.ox. offered the following additional article, which roeads thus: Article -. Tir people of this State have the sole andt exclusive right of governing themselves as a tree, sovereign and independent State, and of exercising each and every power, jurisdictiosn indl right pertaining thereto, whichr is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly dele gated to the Government of the United States. M31. DELOx-5I desire to advance only a few words in support of this resolution. T'Iere are a variety of powers claimed by a large portion of the people ff the United States as belonging to Congress. We find ourselves continually disputing as to the rights of Congress. Tihere are implied powers and there are necessary powers, and there are powers in Congresi to carry out specific purposes. Now, nm desire is that the Constitution which we are now framning fbr the State of Louisiana will express itself most clearly that the State of Louisiana claims for itself, and reserves to itself, the right to exercise all powers which it has not expressly delegated to the General Gov ernment. These are my reasons for placing thia resolution before the Convention. The article was rejected. SWtAtI" LA.N) ttONATION. Mo. BENJa.sUN offered the folloswing additional article, under the title of General Provisions: Article -. None of the lands granted by Congress to the State of Louisiana for aiding it in constructing the necessary levees and drains, to reclaim the swamp and overflowed lands in this State, shall be diverted from the purposes for which they were granted. Mi. BEIcxt.txl-Mr. President, my reason for offering this article is to prevent any casual Le gislative authority from diverting the purposes of this grant. I hold in my hand the act of Congress which makes the grart. It is ex pressly designed to aid the State of Louisiana in constructing the necessary levees and drains to reclaim the overflowed lands therein. The grant was a just one, and all of us know the reason. The citizens of the low lands had, at their own expense, through a series of years, reclaimed a vaet portion ot the overflowed lands of this State, and the greatest part of the benefit resulting from their act went to the General Government, the improvement bringing a large additional quantity of lands into successful cultivation. There was yet an immense quantity of land to reclaim, and as Congress could not reclaim it in the condition of things, it made a grant of nine millions of acres to this State, that the people of the State might do the beneficial work. Now, sir, 1 believe that none of us desire to see that grant diverted to other purposes, but the time may come when a Legislature may feel disposed to divert a portion of that magnificent grant to the purposes of improvement in other portions of the State. I therefore hope that the plain design of the grant by Congress may be incor porated in the organic law, so that the Legis lature may be restrained from applying any portion of the grant to other purposes than those for which they were intended. Mo. lhUTr--I will vote for the article intro duced by my colleague, although its incorpora tion in the Constitution would seem to imply a suspicion that the Legislature woutld do some thing, which it is plain that it never could, le gally or in justice. But I am induced to vote for the article by my recollection that the lands granted to this State for school purposes, were soll and the funds misapplied. The article was adopted. ENGIt.lS AND FIRENCH LANGUAGES. Article 182 of the Constitution being then ta ken up and read as follows, to-wit: Article 132. The Constitution awl laws of this State shall be promulgated in the Englislh and French languages, Mi. TunoIteoN moved to insert at the end thereof, the following words: "'unless other wise provided by law." $ Mn. 'TuoxrsoeN-It may be remembered that in former years, when the laws and proceedings of the Legislature were read, it was necessary regularly to elect an interpreter. Now, we have no such election. Our Legislative pro ceedings are duly read in the language of our country. The cause does not now exist. This shows that the mass of our follow-citizens are rapidly acquiring a proper acquaintance with o.r language. As we are now m.aing a Con stitution which we hopewill last for a.lesat one hundred years, I am anxious that the Constitu tion may show that we have now made such progress in the American language that it is not deemed necessary to pull: ih anything in the French language, that ii may be under stood in any part of this Statc. MR. CO,.lESN--The gentl.,: .,i':s amendment is against reason and again facts. It has nothing to support it. I tl.-rce.o.e move that it he laid on the table. AMr. Thompson's amendment wra laid on the table. The article was adopted. EXE5Ut TI V OFFICe: S. MR. DUPOrn morel to add to the title " Ex ecutive Department," the following articles: Article -. There shall be a Treasurer of the State, who shall hold his office during the term of two years. Article -. The Secretary of State and Treas urer of State shall be elected by the qualified electors of the State. And in case of any vacancies caused by the death, resignatiosr or absence of the Treasurer or Secretary of State, the Governor shall order an election to fill said vacancy. MR. Dr-FOc said that the Convention had passed over the consideration of the official po sition of Treasurer, and also of Secretary of State. The object was that they might be placed by theConvention into strictly the Ex ecutive Department. He, therefore, offered the above resolutions. MR. BENJAMIS asked to know if his colleague had any objections to another resolution, making the Auditor of Public Accounts also an Executive officer. MR. HERROa offered the following additional article to the above articles: Article -. There shall be an Auditor of Pub lic Accounts, elected by the qualified voters of the State, who shall hold his office during the term of two years. MI. WAnDILL. objected to making the Auditor a Constitutional officer. It was not improbable that at the very first meeting of the Legislature it would be found that the office was unnecessary and would be abolished. MR. RiCHAetaso , of Ouachita, hoped that the motion of tli delegate from NewOrleans would not prevail. It was only since the year 1847 that the office of Auditor of Public Accounts was known in Louisiana. Previously to that time, the duties now performed by the Auditor were discharged by the Treasurer. Whether that officer may remain by the voice of the peo pie and the vote of the Legislature, it is not necessary to inquire. Sufficient is it to know that a large portion of the people always have thought, atnd still think, the office an unneces sary one, and it may be made so. The greatest evil which has afflicted the State of Louisiana is, that we have had too many oftces-that the officers have been too well paid; and that is one great cause why many of the people of this State desired to call this Convention. They de sired reform-reform in the construction of the offices that drained so much money from the State. The office of Auditor of Public Accounts can be carried on without the office being made a Constitutional one. iHe thought that under the circumstances, the Constitution ought not to be saddled with that office. Certainly such a movement would be against the popular wish. He hoped that the motion would not prevail Mil. Ii RRnON's additional article was rejected. The resolutions by Mr. Dufour were adopted. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. Mu. I'PAau offered the following article, to come under the head of "Generel Provisions," to-wit: The Legislature shall have power to confer jurisdiction on Justices of the Peace, for the trial without a jury of all petty offences; pro vided that the accused shall not be imprisoned for more than ten days, nor fined more than fifty dollers, at the discretion of the Justice of the Peace. MnR. PAnnas would ground the justice of this resolution on Articles 80 and 107 of the Consti tution. Taking these two Articles together, the last Legislature thought that Justices had not the power to act without summoning a jury. During the Legislature a number of petitions came in to that effect front Police Juries in the State. These Police Jurors thought that a law in conformity with the above resolution ought to be passed. The sources of remonstrance were certainly entitled to respect. It was not the proper time to inquire and ascertain how far the provision would operate justly. Hte be lieved that it would. Iis object in offering the resolution to have a Constitutional provision on the subject was that there might be no differ ence or conflict of opinion as to the powers of the Legislature over the subject in the future. Mu. ISAACKss-I call the attention of the dele gate from Madison to the fact that this morning, I offered a resolution giving authority to the Legislature to extend the jurisdiction of Jus tices of the Peace in the trial of all minor crimes and offences. The resolution of the delegate from Madison must be produced as either an amendment or substitute to his own; and he de sired to know which he proposed it to be. The resolution presented by himself (Mr. Isaacks) had, on motion of Mr. Preaux, been postponed till the Convention should take up the report of the Judiciary Committee, which, by resolution of the Convention, would be taken up on Tuesday next. So he preferred that if his resolution did not cover the whole ground, that now offered by the delegate from Madison must be considered and received as a substitute resolution: but, if his resolution of the morning was deemed suffi cient, it would be well to defer the consideration of the gentleman's resolution also, until the Ju diciary report came up. It was the opinion of some that, in the event of the change being made, it would be the Magistrate's prerogative to sunmmon juries, but much as he disliked the present system, he preferred it to that sugges tion, for the reason that it would augment the expenses.of each parish in the State, if the Magis trate were clothed with such authority, because Magistrates would summon juries to try all causes where an affidavit had been made, they not having the means to ascertain whether there was probable ground of guilt or innocence before the case was put to the jury. On the other hand, the Grand Jury, under the present system, intervened, as it were, between the Court and the accused, and established a probable ground of guilt before the party wasurraigned for trial, and frivolous and malicious cases were thus far checked and prevented from becoming a tax and an annoyance to the District Courts. For these reasons, I prefer the present District Court sys teom to that of a Magistrate with power to sum ntn juries. But the power of Magistratesjis an imaportant subject for the consideration of this Convention, and at the proper time I hope it will receive the attention that it merits. iOn motion of Mr. Benjamin, the subject was postponed until Tuesday, the 20th, to be taken up with the report of the Judiciary Committee. THE EL.CtORAL oFRoAN.t'ISE. The Convention then took up for consideration the majority and minority reports of the Com mittee on the Electoral Franchise. Ma. WAnnOsi. m1ove0' to post peo the considera tion of the reports, and smoved to have the same printed for the use of this Convention, which mo tion was lost. Mit. BvRsE mloved to take up as a substitute to the first Article, reported by the majority, the Article reported by the minority of said committeo, which reads as follows, to-wit: Article 10. Every free white male, who has attained the age of twenty-one years, and who has been a resident of the State twelve months next preceding the election, and the last six months thoreot in the parish in whh,-t hle offers to voto, and who slhall be a citizen oi the United, States, shall have the right of voting. Electors shall, in all cases except treason, f:lony, breach or surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at, going to, or return ing from eleotions. MRs. AituAsT msoved to lay the above Article on the table. On said motion, Mr. Moss called for the yeas and nays, which resulted as follows: Messrs. Anderson of St. Landry, Akenhead, Anderson of Carroll, Armant, Bradford, Ben jamin, Bernard. Brother, Boudousquie, Camp bell, Collens, Conrad, Deolouet, Dorsey, Doug lass, Dufour, Duffel, Edwards of 0., Edwards of Wash., Eggleston, Guion, Hays, Hodges, Jones, Key, King of St. Landey, Leeds, Lobdell, Lyle, McMillen, Mathtews of Orleans, Martin, Mather, Olivier of St. Martin, Palfrey, Preaux, Pujo, Richardson of St. Mary, Roselius, Roman, Roys dtn, St. Paul, Swazey, Smithof West Peliians,a teflon, Pris, Piere, errxoodd, Villm W s Onachita, Boaiaqnll. ,0 nays. Consequently the said oli ra ~ the Conventioareaee~ to lSy table. sIB. Ean. t mve4o stajs; articlethe th llooti words : *r and - .. mobel," sag to em. t. the weds '"-eg th0s,' Sa Ma. Ton,!st w )p emigratesmi to th. s.l. e, flowing i February. now, It term of twelve meo requisite for voting, to settle as citizens, ]i two years before they I cannot see what gi poliy which wii hek State,,for.heck it anch ae1w It is the Lg pmls eof our citi~ene duly ate frsge. Sir, t ....e. i tens comienng fwa h ote a i institutionesas ,bees policy to srhow,* tshnees, evqsifas the general interet if and their own Stat. .: asunred that ifior. emigrant, we shall make le_ body of lands to settle. settle on and ctprlive t$esi, come amongous, theye of citizens. Theqyharevts and military duty, sad to 'bk not see the neoessity of main two year in he8tate entitled to vote. . ý. Mn. SMART"-- wodM enot on this question, at this time, friend has overlooked this State are bd. oce t sequently a large i'n of State would have t.witai under the Artiwl befbr' selvesof a vote. .ahha.u.4. to do thednetiaep. a should they not 1qe that everyman wase gration to thisSte--t in astate olftrnle~.' who is e. firt of t eLate-.. - for its proo. '.w t a. ...et"ij but I give g.snt .rn call for the yeas aidnasrUia am determined .ait thei e pr are in favor of giving to ou a reasonable time, se right aL ' who are not. SMR. DOo mov 4 to lay the ,the table, w mehio m in The followiag amed Shave their v.tes reoodud cDufour tolay onthe tal ac, ` fered by Mt. 'asibt,wl they voted'in the i Messrs. Richnrdsosot?4T.,' SHerron, Harris, King of J., Addison, Isaicks, Waddiljl, Boyr, ven, Eustis, Ste ndrt,.S ge, Y Mathews of Poit Co irc Villere, Whittingtonota a dan a Mo. MARTNm moved to months" and" sixmoatha?' and to insert in lieu thereqf then years," and "one year,"whiohau Mn ToDD moved to strike out "t and to inser " nine months," an t " six months" Rnd to insert " three' On motion to lay the same on the .~tlphiQ ' yeas and nays were called, and resalte. i ; lows . Miessr. Anderson of St. L Andrews, Anderseon of Waiidt-l ford, enjamsia, Be~art quie, Byne, OiCstelli o. Dectouet, Dory, Duffel, Edwarda of Onion, Hateh, Hays H Hunt, Jennings, Jones, Seys l dry, Leefe, Leeds, LeBlan, Ilhenny, Mathews of Orleans, Mactin Monge, Nicholls, Olivier of St. tar; Poston, Patterson, Preaux, Pnfee, T'ajo, Reeves, Richardson of St. Mlary, lao ' liuhas, Roman, Roysden, St. Paul, Swasey, Sitith of West Feliciana, Sibley, Tatman, Thibods. and Thompson-70 yeas. And Messrs. Addison, Beard, 1 Boyer, Cotton, Doeson, Edwards of Eustis, Harris, Herron, Isaaacks,.iJadajj - of Jackson, Mathews, MeMil.l.o 0to , Moss, Olivier of St. Martizi, P Ricihardson of Ouachita, Smart, Scarborough, Shelton Smith Stewart, Taliaferro, Todd, VanWiekle or s' WRaddill and Whittington-33 nays. Consequently the motion prevailed, sad amendment was laid on the table. Mr. CARTER then offered the followin aprovso : Provided, That no voter shall lose hiiljp of voting in any parish until the sameshailW-bj acquired in another. On motion the proviso was adopted. MR. COLLsNS moved to strike out the- E' " and who shall be a citizen of theiss States," and to insert the iO. : 511 . " who shall have been one year a coitten oafh United States." l - ' . MR. SMART moved to lay thoe' mo s ,. table. Pending the consideration of the saae-.'. On motion, the Convention adjett.nsedi Monday morning at nine o'closk. t Boee DIte Ie Loa hea Ee-It willlie remee Mr. Millefort, so dietlnguished in uie. l hae undertaken to raise the Exp.e Comnn e " the steomer eAtlht uo, mut upward s q of i GIA .ot ifty feet telow the surface at the bottee ef e, The lee.t attempt wan emoeeeefe. from .. the diving appOaratus. The enOOee attLmpt .. the vesel was reaeohed, but ftom eto a' nothing was accomplished toeard eom *Oph · onthe w.ek. The Bufflo Coemmret bua ba It ' nithed with the foliowing aeoouet of thist .e. T iI.. the deepest dive on record, and willbe read ~eithfie} Noltwtthetadilng the momewhat nuavoeahljsmeb Ip~~ of the weather and the reughness of the~ t .Cgttq lermiued to make an attempt Co reaoh itle te6e AR . odady merning. ltth September, in orerje to Sot of b cily oI the new hoes. Mr. Grmee, therefore, r.eayed bhem ef in i°"a , armor, and started on a semond trip to theoettme Eriet. He d'ended without cay d yit d',r directly in the interior of the ntte i tlp and ides of which he .flt withllhise *at tus theo elevrtd again some little disetaeee. the eecoud time on the branees. flbwln dwoini..o C otonto the ero brean. He did neot, ehouwawm,.f nl to making a firm footing Ou deck. owing to thl-pB LyrM.: n.sof the small seteamer used ou the o. dZu"t ommunieateo d too much motgt ta ithe. itpe There w mouch rhisk of tbhe ittre.lod j6e tangled in the ropes aad weodti . .Ie.e eid net-o ' extricate himself, or to tear thedee, en elnvated he denceoded a third tinme the wreck. e nw elen a ec fepr e upper deck and even with tbegaaee blh heondrd and thirtyainloafet, and hi tont tae sad foety-toen feet hetow the.enface f NLeeke Ue. te the deepest dive eve made, one h.endoed aed six feet'betlng the greatee depth ever hefore ith new hose ws found to he peehetyl..aeo7 V diver felt quite at ease, and went down and Up th, 'Uightest injury to dAeen, pipes, or man. The marine armor consists of a perfetly rubber dress. topped by copper hlmet.nitha plate of giast I front. The pipen erhinl haust the air, lead from the top of tole pumoping requnres moth oaboe ;ete nmdretwi men being employed epe it at tbe ,e ploed to work hard at that. Agreat experienced by the diver upoh , the inch, d da very few ioud;vhlolaete ee booth of ttelr. a daetenaa VWh.. fei gt ig into the diessthe i . ,iou o very overooming, hbut jeewain lfter entering the water. Woe a.d.tl.,of reached int thedcet, te deebboomA tM ,f air end c aeed to tbehon.q.=t "t ! over the diver equal to the Afte f t Len o eaxepting as t thoe head, whiet is'peoteetib ,perp helmet. Thadleultylin pataful eeassaon a is aperteEeeh, come distended, end1e heedn e th"i continune until aftoe deeondenditg foeet, then teepln is Uleved, theet nlO einon e oodeopeerbeeeenofnriecrengao When etbou sextty feet the.e e Sthe legitinatae inbaitbe of the water ns diveo, aiblhizatether seMtrmage ae ho Sfood for the di.hes, After reaching n alt is perfectly dark--a lekt, i.p.peteibe ant en eletlrie deme plays aronad theeinahh Of met. oaused by the oieio0 of the p 4 hundreo end sixetyifee the water nel 'IF' the present asenen witlita feoto 37 Mr. Mailefort bee rentmorto_ steamer, e snteto welt fo ettled d f m Za~0to; lr Attempt Oe that t i.ort wdll r e n G ea thsedtrtkt peroed btoneK work effeOtnaLy, and must rMnkL most ,eful "under-watr"mn itie eat moot excellent divern bhidonir. .o.eaati.gl with Mr. Melefort. WYe shellelek With for the rult o the nest t eL bet thta' eul w' b .'ee m dsotbk '