The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume], January 06, 1860, Image 1

About The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865

Image provided by: Minnesota Historical Society; Saint Paul, MN

                
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..