Newspaper Page Text
VOL. XI.—NO. 39.
UNDER THE SNOW. From the Home Journal. ! The sky looks pale through a misty veil; The winter wind wails loud; And cloud-shapes grieve, as they rapidly weave The cold still earth a shroud. Now, spirits in white, with footsteps light. Come trooping down the sky— Like shapes of a dream, or like angels they seem. As they float so airily by. Oh. the winter snow ! the winter snow— We loved it once full well! And with childish shout, ringing merily out, Hailed the fleecy shower as it fell. But now since we know, that under the snow, Hid from the light of day, There are treasures fair—treasures most rare, In darkness hidden away. Our gladness is o’er, and we love no more To see the snow fall come ; For a heavy chill, and a sense of ill, It brings to our heart and home. Oh. the treasures fair! the treasures so rare Hidden under the snow, Are not the sweet flowers that in summer hours Set mount and meadow a glow. Something more bright to our yearning sight, Something far dearer than they Is lying low. under the snow, On this bleak, sad winter day. If we think with dread of the blossoms dead, Under this covering chill, What a deeper woe must our sad hearts know For that something dearer still! Oh. snow-flakes fair! fall light as air— Fall light and soft, I pray, On the treasures we yet so wildly regret, Buried, and hidden away! A Hardshell Baptist Member of Con* gress.--Graphic Picture. The New York Times has a correspond ent at Washington who gives running sketches of the members who rise daily to speak. The following is a highly embel lished picture of Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, who has been seven consecutive terms in the House: On Mr. Davidson’s resuming his seat, William R. W. Cobb; ot Alabama, seized the floor, and delivered an extraordinary hardshell Baptist sermon, of that original and amusing kind for which he long ago ob tained a patent. The Rev. Mr. Cobb has been for thirteen years a member of the House, and a pillar of the crustacious Bap tist faith. He is a model man of the type half-hurse half-alligator, standing six feet four inches in his broad-toed boots, and so thin as to call to mind the story of that Western debtor who, when pursued by the sheriff, crept into his rifle and looked out at his pursuers through the touchhole. In dress he is all over the Baptist parson— black dress coat, black satin waistcoat, and heavy gold seal; a yard and a halt of thin black trousers, aud stiff black satin cravat, surmounted by sharp pointed white shirt collars. His face resembles that of a death’s head moth—the forehead narrow and prom inent, the dark eyes sunk away out of sight, the cheekbones hardly covered by the tight drawn and sallow skin, the cheeks hollow, the nose short, and the head thickly thatched with a shortish but strong growth of iron grey hair, divided in the middle of the fore h* ad. Swaying backward and forward on his legs, like the long pendulum in the tower of Notre Dame, suspended there to prove the rotatum of the earth, —this gaunt and grisly orator swings his arms through the air with a sweep as wide and desolating in gesture as wielding the scyihe of Time. 11 is voice has the wild sinking and falling, shouting aud whispering, shrieking and muttering of the western Baptist pulpit. His grammar is a little more uncouth than his appearance, and his pronunciation keeps unison with all the fantastic surroundings of his nature. Now and then he darts forward, thrusting out a long, skinny arm and ex tended foreinger at the Republicans, while he asks a question ; then crouching back on his haunches, while he feigns to be shocked with the answer which he has put into their mouths :—“ Have you no other man,” he screams to the Republicans—“ Have you no other man but Sherman to fix in that cheer ? If you hev, and doan’t go to do it, then you’re the meanest kind of white men that crawls this airth; for if you do put him thahr, in that cheer, our people ’ll lick us out of our boots when they get us hoam !” As another reason for organizing, he very frankly confessed that he “wanted a little money himself, and thahr was no sight for a getiin’ it until the cheer was filled.” Never did a provincial tragedian, obtaining his first chance for fame in a Metropolitan theater, so tear a passion to rags and out-Herod Herod in the way of stormy gesticulation and wild attitudes as did this orator of the day. His legs were bendable as a length of hose pipehis arms extensive and prehensile as if a couple of rattlesnakes bad been jointed on at his shoulders; and the hard bones of his fingers rattled together as he snapped them in the faces of the Republi cans—carrying out the idea which the curving and writhing of his talon-ended arms suggested. A Mr. Archer has been sent to the Ohio peni»• -n for marrying two wive s “ Tn '** iii*- •ehcr ! could not one su.ii • Fillmore County Senators. We presume the Senate will take action upon the right of Messrs. O’Farrbll and Bryant to their seats, in a few days. Before doing so, we trust every Senator who pro fesses to be governed by a sense of justice in his legislative action, will peruse the decision of Judge Wilson, one of the most orthodox Republicans in the State, in the case of Picket vs. Whreler, which pre sents an identical state of facts with those involved in the contest between the Repub lican claimants and Messrs. O’Farrell and Bryant. Of Judge Wilson’s decision, we give as much below as we have room for: District Court, Fillmore County : William C. Picket vs. Henry C. Wheeler. At the general election held in Fillmore county, October, 1858, the above named parties, plaintiff and defendant, were the op posing candidates for Sheriff of said county. The Board of County Canvassers alleging that it appeared from certain evidence offered to them that a fraud had been perpetrated on the ballot box in the Chatfield precinct, in said county, rejected the returns from that precinct; exclusive of this precinct defendant had one hundred majority of the vote of the county, had the votes of that precinct (ChatfieJd) been canvassed, plaintiff would have had a majority of fourteen. A certificate of election was issued to defendant, and thereupon plaintiff notified defendant that he (plaintiff) would contest his (defendant’s) election to said office, at the general term of the District Court to be held in said county in November, 1858. The parties appeared at said term of court, and by their counsel stipulated that the trial should be had at Chatfield, December 13th, 1858. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he and defendant were the candidates for Sheriff of said county at the October elec tion, 1858, that at said election be (plaintiff) received a majority of all the votes cast for the candidates for that office, and that the board of county canvassers had wrongfully rejected the vote of the Chatfield precinct, and issued a certificate of election to defend ant. The answer of defendant denied that plaintiff had received a majority of the votes or that the vote of the Chatfield precinct had been wrongfully rejected and alleged that during the recess for dinner on election day in said Chatfield precinct, some person unknown had abstracted from the ballot box a large number of genuine Republican bal lots and inserted an equal number of spuri ous Democratic ballots, which plaintiff de nied. Plaintiff then offered in evidence the abstract made by the Board of County Canvassers, which abstract showed that defendant had in the county one hundred majority of the votes for said-office of Sheriff. Plaintiff proved by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (one of the county canvass ers) that in the abstract made by the board and which had been offered in evidence, the vote of the Chatfield precinct had not been included, and plaintiff then offered in evi dence the original poll book of the Chatfield precinct, which showed that 194 votes bad been cast in that precinct for plaintiff, and 84 for defendant, making, when added to the vote of the balance of the county, 14 majority for plaintiff. Defendant then called ninety-two witnesses who testified that at the general election in October, 1858, they voted for defendant for Sheriff in the Chatfield precinct, and four others testified that they believed they so voted and that they received their ballots from parties by them named, which parties having been called testified that the ballots g iven to those witnesses were Republican, and had thereon the name of defendant for Sheriff. Defendant further called a witness, who testified that the ballot box used in that precinct was a common garden-seed box, with the cover fastened with shingle nails only; that the cover was readily removed with a jackknife ; that there was but one clerk of election; that, during the recess for dinner, the ballot box was put into the safe of one Geo. L. Nicholls, which safe was in the office of Mr. Dexter, one of the Judges of Election. Plaintiff then called the Judges of Elec* tion, who testified that there were no ballots abstracted from the box during the day of election, unless it was during the recess for dinner; and two of the Judges (the third had no charge of the box during that time), Mr. Dexter and Mr. Fitch, testified that they did not believe any ballots had been ab stracted during the said recess; that they, when the Board adjourned for dinner, took the ballot box to the office ot Mr. Dexter, and undertook to place it in his sate, but could not do so on account of the size of the box, and that they then put’ it into the safe of one Geo. L. Nicholls, which was in Mr. Dexter’s office ; that Mr. Dexter, after hav ing placed the ballot box in the safe, locked it, and took the key, and kept it during the recess and until they afterwards took out the ballot box; that they (Dexter and Fitch) were together during the whole time of the adjournment for dinner, and not near the office in which the safe was save at the time they placed the ballot box in the safe and at the time they removed it; that, when returned for the box, they found it in SAINT PAUL, FRIDAY JANUARY, 6, 1860. the same position in the safe in which they left it; that they did not think, from the appearance, it had been opened in the mean time; that the ballot box used was the same that had been used for several elections previous. They further testified as to the manner of canvassing the vote, &c.; and, though it appeared from their testimony that there was a degree of carelessness by no means commendable, yet undoubtedly the canvass was fair, honest, and without any mistake. The evidence proves beyond a shadow of doubt, that either the poll book of the Chatfied precinct shows the true vote as cast in that precinct, or else, during the adjourn ment for dinner, the fraud on the ballot box as charged was committed ; therefore, I will not take time to refer to the evidence on any other points. But, before taking up that point, it is proper to refer to and decide ODe or two other points raised and incident ally connected with the real issue in the case. As to the course pursued by the County Canvassers, in rejecting the returns for the Chatfield precinct because they believed a fraud had been there perpetrated, however correct may have been the motives of the Board, and however honest their intentions— and I do not doubt but that they acted hon estly—they evidently misapprehended their duties and the extent of their powers. When returns fair on their face come from the proper officers of a duly established precinct the County Canvassers have no right to re ject them. Whether there has been fraud practiced at or during the election, is a question for another tribunal to try —not for them. The fraud here charged, and which we must find to have been committed, if we find for defendant, is one that strikes at the very root of public security, and which, when proved, should not only be the most severely punished, but must draw down on the head of its perpetrators the contempt and scorn of all honest men, and the maledictions of every lover of a free government, and the more black and heinous the offence, the more strict should be the scrutiny of the proof offered to establish it; and in such cases as this, every witness well knows that he is testifying to a fact known only to himself, and therefore, whether his testimony be true or false, he can neither be subject to the punishm nt or disgrace of perjury, and thus is removed the restraint which the fear of punishment or disgrace undoubt edly often has on witnesses; and if a witness should be honestly mistaken, aS all witnesses are liable to be, there is no means of discovering the mistake or contradicting the statement. Ti e public interest, too, requires the greatest caution in such cases—to say that the return of Judges of Election shall be set aside on any other evidence of fraud than that which is the most indubitable and conclusive, is to open a door for frauds un heard of, and to offer a bounty for perjury, with the certainty that it can neither be discovered nor punished. Bearing in mind then the fact that the presumption of law is against the supposition of fraud, and in favor of the correctness of the returns of the officers of election, and that reason and public policy demand that this doctrine should be stricily held in such cases as this, I will proceed to examine the testimony of some of the witnesses. [We have omitted the Judge’s analysis of the testimony, owing to its length, but it indicates the utter unreliability of the evi dence relied upon to oust Messrs. Bryan and O’Farrell from their seats, in the Senate.] * * As to some of the witnesses who pro cured, or were furnished with tickets during the trial, for the purpose of preparing for their examination—and I think this witness one of that class—l deem their testimony of very little weight. It is true some of them might have been able to testify without such preparation; but they have put it out ot our power to say whether such is the fact or not, or whether they testified from their recollection of the names of the parties for whom they voted, or from the recollection of the ticket they perused during the trial. And when I remember that on the first day of the trial, it was held that a witness una ble to testify from his own recollection, could not testify from the examination of a ticket furnished him while on the witness’ stand, I can hardly doubt but that the ob ject was to prepare some of these witnesses against such a necessity. And on the last day of the trial, it became very apparent that many of the witnesses had, during the trial, been furnished with Republican tickets for the sole purpose of preparing them for their examination. * * * For reasons above given, I do not deem the testimony of this witness of much weight. Thus I have briefly examined the testi mony of twelve witnesses, the exact number of which the testimony makes more than the Poll Book shows. I would say further, that in cases like the present, when the testimony of one witness does not corroborate or confirm that of another, there is undoubt edly a chance for mistake on the part of some of those who swear most positively and ' conscientiously. As to the testimony of the twelve wit- Desses which I have above referred to, it is quite possible—aye, quite probable—that some,and perhaps most voted the Republican ticket. Indeed, it is by no means clear, or without doubt, that the fraud charged was not perpetrated on the ballot box in Chat field. No person can have attentively lis tened to the trial without feeling that the matter is enveloped in dark suspicion, which is is painful and humiliating for any good citizen to be compelled to entertain; at the same time I have no hesitancy whatever in saying, that the evidence offered is not so clear, indubitable, or convincing, as to prove the fraud charged; therefore, judgment must be for plaintiff. It will be observed that I have not, in deciding the case, re ferred at all to the rebutting testimony of plaintiff, for I did not deem that it in any manner, strenghtens his case. I would say that there appeared nothing during the trial, to implicate or cast the least suspicion up on the Judges of Election, or any of them. The cases of Bristol vs. Murrell, and Hawkins vs. Colby, are similar to this in every particular. THOMAS WILSON, District Judge. Winona, January sth, 1859. Appeal* to the President from Decisions of the Departments. As applications are frequently made to the President of the United States by cLim ants who consider themselves aggrieved by the decisions of the heads of departments, and who, therefore, appeal to him for a re versal of those decisions, it is deemed proper to publish the following letter addressed by the President to a highly respectable bank ing firm, which sets forth his reasons for declining to entertain such appeals : Washington, Dec. 12, 1859. Gentlemen —l have received your letter of the 9th inst., containing a formal appeal to me from a decision of the Secretary of the Treasury against you on two points : Ist, his refusal to permit you to depost at San Francisco any portion of the government loan taken by you under the proposals of the Secretary of the 17th of December, 1858; and 3d, his refusal to refer the ques tion to the Attorney General. In answer, I have to inform you that an appeal does not lie to the President from the decisions of the heads of the different Executive departments. This has been set tled both by judicial decisions and by the practice of the government, including that of the present administration. Their acts and decisions are the acts and decisions of the President, for which he is held responsi ble ; and they are his in fact in all cases of difficulty and importance. It is for this, besides other reasons, that cabinet consulta tions are held twice in each week, where questions of public interest, as they arise, are canvassed and decided. If the President were oound to hear appeals from the heads of the different departments in all cases where claimants consider themselves ag grieved, it would be impossible for him to undergo the labor. In that case, every claiment dissatisfied with the decision of any department might appeal to him for redress; and he would be obliged to re-examine the documents aud re-hear the arguments which had been submitted to such department, and either affirm, reverse or modify its decision. This would entirely change his intimate re lations with his confidential advisers, con verting them into inferior courts and himself into a superior court of errors and appeals. Besides, there.would be no equality between private parties and the government. When the decision of the head of a department was in favor of the claimant, it would be final; but, if it were against the elaimant, he would be entitled to an appeal to the Pres ident. The truth is, such an appellate juris diction would render it impossible for the President to discharge his high duties to the country, and would resolve his office into a tribunal to hear and determine private claims in the last resort. Nor is there the least necessity for any such jurisdiction. Congress, by the act of February 24,1855, established a Court of Claims for precisely such cases as you have presented. To that Court, or to Congress, beg leave respectfully to refer you. JAMES BHCHASAN. The leviathan steamship “ Great East ern ” is certainly in a bad way. Her history from the outset has been only a series of misfortunes, financial and mechani cal, till now several of those who originally embarked in the enterprise have been reduced to bankruptcy, and Brunel and Stevenson, her chief designers, passed have away. The ship herself appears to have demonstrated nothing, or in any degree served to promote nautical science. “Vault ing ambition has o’erleaped itself,” but the result is an occasion only for regret. A Liverpool cotemporary suggests that Amer ican capitalists should finish the job—a proposition which is not likely to meet with prompt acceptance. The Great Eastern and Atlantic cable are the two huge failures of the century. The New York Evening Pest says, a man “ cannot be active and quiescent at the same time.” There may be some doubt about that. Some fellows bustle about terribly and yet lie still. The Land System—lndians. The Secretary of the Interior, in his report, gives some interesting statistics as to the land service of the country. His general statistics are as follows : Acres. Sold for cash during five quarters ending the 30. h September last... 4.979.500 Located with warrants 3,617,440 Approved to States under the swamp grants.. 1,712,040 Certified under the grants to States for railroads 6,318,203 . Total 16,618,183 Surveyed during the same period. ...13,817,221 Brought into market during the same time 16,783,553 Acres surveyed heretofore but not yet offered 56,971,000 Number of acres now subject to pri vate entry at all land offices—esti • mated aggregate 80,000,00 The policy of a radical change in the land laws, as proposed in a general home stead bill, is ably discussed and condemned with brevity. As near as we can classify his statements, the Secretary condemns the new policy by four classes of considera tions : First —lts ruinous effects upon the results that have been attained by the discrimina ting liberality of Congress, through a series of years, in its grants of land to States for public objects and ends. Second —The failure of all the partial donation laws heretofore enacted for partic ular localities or portions of the country. Third —lts want of adaptation to pro mote the prosperity of those States and Territories in which the public lands are situated. Fourth —lts general injustice. The Secretary recommends “ that a law be passed in a spirit of liberality, to settlers on unoffered lands, allowing to each two years from the date of his filing his declato ry statement, within which to make his proof and pay for his land ; and, at the same time making it incumbent upon the President to offer at public sale, by proclamation, all lands that may have been surveyed by au thority of Congsess, at any time within two years after the plats of survey have been approved. As protection against fraudu lent pre-emptions, no one should be permit ted to effect an entry until after the expira tion of three months from the date of filing his declaratory statement, and until he has produced satisfactory proof of three months’ continued residence upon the land claimed. By the adoption ot such amendments the President would have before him a plain path of duty in bringing lands into market. N o one could be taken by surprise; no expectations could be entertained, or calcu lations made, which would depend for solution on the Executive discretion. Bona fide pre-emptors would be protected in the possession of the tracts upon which they had settled, and indulged with ample time within which to pay for them; and our entire land system would work with such simplicity, justice, and general benefit to the government and the citizen, as has never been attained in any other country possessed of large bodies ot unoccupied lands. The advantages and profits arising from •the first settlement cf a new country ought to be enjoyed by the early settlers. They have peculiar hardships and privations to undergo, especial dangers and labors to en counter. The law does not contemplate that they shall have any competition, except from other actual settlers, in selecting the most fertile lands and the choicest locations. But as all other citizens are debarred the privelege of purchasing a single tract until the lands are regularly in market, there is reason to believe that the withholding of lands from a public offering, and conse quently from private entry, has often proved a temptation to fraud, and an inducement to perjury ; and unscrupulous speculators profit by it more than any other class. Begging off, and Backing Out. The apprehension of the Black Repub licans, under the exposure of their colleagues in Congress, and under the pressure of pub lic sentiment, outside, may be guessed from the following letter in defence of Sherman which Mr. Morgan, late M. C. from New York volunteers : EXTRACT FROM A LETTER OF HON. E. B. MORGAN. Aurora, December 8, 1859. My Dear Sir— l have, within the last few moments, observed in the New York papers your remarks in the House to this effect:— that you had no recollection of ever having signed the recommendation of Helper’s book.” The facts are these, and you may recollect them. I called at your seat daring the session, while you was much engaged, and requested your signature. Your reply was, “ That you had never seen the work—knew nothing of it. If you gave your name it would be to oblige me, and entirely upon the confidence you it posed in me that it was all right. * * * Very truly yours^ EDWIN B. MORGAN. Hon. John Sherman. Mr. Morgan is brother-in-law, we believe, of Seward, and was the representative of Cayuga in the late Congress. His “ alibi ” may help Shersun, but at the expcr*"* of Seward. NEW SERIES-NO. 212. In the Senate the Republicans are “ craw fishing ” in the same disreputable way. Trumbull, of Illinois, a great free soil chief when pushed to the wall by Johnson, of Arkansas, backed out and professed himself not an abolitionist of the Slaver} , but an abolisher and extirpater of negroes. We quote: Mr. Trumbull explained that it was an ab stract truth that all men were created equal; but when we come to form governments and organize society all persons don’t have equal rights. Mr. Johnson asked him if Arizona were col onized and pulled up altogether with free col ered people, would he be willing to admit it as a State upon an equal footing with the other States of the Confederacy ? Mr. Trumbull answered that he would not admit any community applying to become members of this Confederacy by the admission of which he supposed he was endangering the peace of the Union itself. In his judgment there was a destinction between the white and black races made by Omnipotence. He did not believe these two races could live happily and pleasantly together, enjoying equal rights, without one domineering over the other. There fore he advocated the'policy of seperating these races by adopting a system to rid the country of the black race as it becomes free. He would say he should not be prepared, under the exist ing state of things, to admit as a sovereign State into this Union a community of negroes, nor Indians either. Black Republican Programme. The Washington correspondent of the New York Herald says, under date of Dec. 25th: Some disclosures have just been com municated to leading Republicans in this city, which occurred in the secret caucus of the leading Black Republicans convened last week at the Astor House, in advance of the meeting ol the Republican Commit tee. Some forty or fifty leading chiefs were summoned privately, including Governor Banks, Gov. Morgan, Messrs. Fessenden, Lincoln, Cameron, Dayton, and Gov. Chase, to deliberate on the programme of 1860. There was much discussion on the present aspect of affairs, and great harmony of opinion that the times called for more liberality and couservatism ; that the “ irre pressible conflict ” must be ignored for the present, and all the elements of opposition gathered on some such names as Bates, of Missouri, for President, and Morgan, or Banks, for Yice President. It was pledged that Pennsylvania and New Jersey could both be relied on for Bates, his views on the tariff being acceptable to these States. It was pledged that thousands of Old Whigs now voting for Democrats in Illinois, Indi ana, and Ohio, could be relied on for Bates; that electoral tickets could be run in all the border slave States, with a fair prospect of succss. Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri were set down as certain. It was urged that Bates had never been mixed up with the Know Nothings; that he was opposed to the extension of slavery, but national in his views, and to whose inauguration the South could offer no resistance. The prospect of Southern submission to Seward’s election was thoroughly canvassed. Some took the ground that the South would resist; but all agreed better not risk it in the pre sent inflamed state of Southern feeling. Weed and Morgan were unwilling that Seward should thus be cast aside, and utter ed their solemn protest against it. It was at this secret meeting that the call adopted by the Republican Committee was arranged so as to unite the opposition. They even went so far as to discuss the question of a Cabinet programme, being as follows : Banks, Secretary of State. Cameron, Secretary of the Treasury. Lincoln, Secretary of the Interior. Pettigrew, of South Carolina, Attorney General. Botts, Secretary of War. Bell, Secretary of the Navy. Baker, of California, Postmaster General. It was agreed that Seward should go as Minister to England, and take his chance for 1864. Speaking of the failure of Cook & Sar gent, bankers at Davenport, the Rock Isl and Argus says : “So great was the public confidence in this firm that widows, orphans, laborers and business men made their de posits there. It is reported that they had on deposit from one hundred thousand to one hundred and seventy-five thousand dol lars, and that no arrangement has been made to save the depositors from loss, It is also said that they have, by a trust deed, placed their property in the hands of An toine Le Claire, Geo. L. Davenport and Hiram Price, to secure these gentlemen for endorsing their paper, and that these per sons are the only ones provided for in any manner. Mr. Ebenezer Cook is reported very Beriously ill. and fears are expressed that his reason will give way.” Tub portraits of John Brown represent him sitting in a red velvet cushioned chair, holding a copy of the New York Tribune in his hand. There is an appro priateness about the latter feature of the picture that none can dispute. The teach ings of the New York Tribune probably did much towards pushing him on from anaticism to crinio; and it is pro Der that ho tool and th fi ■ shou Id be held in a * , nme..