Decatur Eagle, Volume 2, Number 30, Decatur, Adams County, 3 September 1858 — Page 2

TH E EAGLE. H. L. PHILLIPS,) !• Editors 4 Prohiiktobs. W. G. SPENCER,) DECATUR, INDIANA. . -« . FRIDAY MORNING, SEPT. 3, 1858. HEMOCiiATIC STATE TICKET. SECRETARY OF STATE. DANIEL McCLURE, of Morgan. AUDITOR OK STATE, JOHN W. DODD, of Grant. TREASURER OK STATE, I NATHANIEL F. CUNNINGHAM, of Vigo. SLTERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, SAMUEL L. RUGG, of Allen. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Joseph e. McDonald, of Montgomery, FI.R SI I-RFME JUDGES, SAMUEL E. PERKINS, of Marion. ANDREW DAVISON, of Decatur. JAMES M. DANNA, of Vigo. JAMES L. WORDEN, Os Whitley. DISTRICT TICKET. FOR CONGRESS. JOHN R. COFFROTH. FOR STATE SENATOR. DAVID STUD AB AKER. JUDGE 10th judicial circuit. Wm. W. CARSON. ■ I PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. J. 11. SCHELL. COMMON PLEAS JUDGE, | JOSEPH BRACKENRIDGE. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, JOHN COLERICK, COUNTY TICKET. representative, JONATHAN KELLEY, Sen. treasurer. DAVID SHOWERS. RECORDER, W. J. ADELSPERGER, Sheriff. GEORGE FRANK. COMMISSIONER. J. R. MILLER. SURVEYOR, I E. W. REED. CORONER, LEVI EWING. i JOHN V- PETTIT. This gentleman visited our place on Monday the 23d ult., in accordance with I arrangements previously made by his Republican friends, who were much elated at the idea of hearing, as they said, one of John’s best efforts. It being the,' first day of the Ci: uit Court, quite a number of persons were present; we with ' others, expected to hear why this gentle- I man should be elected the third time : 1 to Congress from this district and to learn 1 from the fountain head what Republican- , ism was. He labored for three and one half hours, not in showing what he had , ' done as the Representative of this district j tor the interest of those who hail clothed | him with authority, or the principles‘en- I, teitained by the party he is now acting with, in rendering an account of his stewardship—he pointed them *o his “silent record'’ and said “my votes speak for me.” But his effort was confined prin-' cipally in misrepresenting bis opponent ( Mr. Coffroth who was absent) which was wilfully and corruptly done, in endeavor-: tng to place Mr. Coffroth in a false posi-l iron before the people of this County, his course was almost unanimously admitted to be ungentlemanly and unmanly and showed signs of weakness in the position he assumed as the leader of the Republican party, silence reigned throughout the ' assembly, and the anticipated defeat of their chiefiian could be seen andjead upon every Republican countenance. V\ e intend for the present to show a few of the many misrepresentations made by Mr. Pettit during his speech. He said “that one week after the Hon J. D. Brio-ht o made his speech upon the admission of Kansas, in which he avowed the sentiment that it was a ‘vicious principle to submit constitutions to a vote of the peopie,’ that the Democratic Convention of the Bth of January, assembled at Indianapolis and by resolution approved of the course pursued by Senator Bright, and that Mr. Coffroth, as a delegate, voted for I that resolution, therfore, Mr. Coffroth approved and endorsed the sentiments contained in Bright’s speech uttered one week before, as Democratic doctrine.” Now this is untrue, and without the least foundation. Mr. Pettit either imagined that he was addressing an ignorant assembly and could willfully falsify the re- < ord, and thereby place his competitor in an unenviable position, or, that he was totally ignorant of that of which he was -peaking; either of which positions would render hint incapable and unqualified to represent an honest and intelligent people.

It will only be necessary to refer to one fact, which is incontrovertible, in order to refute this willful charge manufactured for the occasion. That the speech of the Hon. J. D. Bright referred to, was delivered on the 20th day of March 1858, nearly three months after the Convention of January Bth assembled, we know that Mr. Coffroth does not approve the sentiments contained in Bright’s speech.— Then we ask, in view of this falsehood, ' uttered by a Republican leader seeking the suffrage of the people, what confidence ■ can the honest portion of them have in him as their representative in Congress. j)gainhesaid “That the Convention which nominated Mr. Coffroth, did by resolution endorse the Democratic plat- ! form of 1856, and that platform endorsed President Peirce and his slavery policy in regard to Kansas,” Now this is untrue, in this, that there is no resolution to be I found in the Democratic Platform of 1856 endorsing Peirce’s or any other man’s : policy, with regard to Kansas or any oth-| j er Territory, nor can it be found as a part of the Platform, then why did he make I such charges? Was it not for the love of misrepresentation and to deceive the un-, I suspecting? Again he said “the Huntington Conveu- j , tion also endorsed the State platform of January Bth 1858, where they endorsed ; Buchanan in full, in forcing a slave Con- ’ stitulion on the people of Kansas, against I their will.” In order, to show this Re--1 publican leader up in his true light, we will publish the resolutions passed at Hunt- | ington that the public may learn what reI Hance there is to be placed in the man 1 who has twice had their suffrage. There was but two resolutions passed, they are ; as follows: Resolved, That we hereby re affirm and eni dorse the Platform adopted by the National I Convention of the Democratic party at Cincin nati in 1856 as embodying the true and time | honored principles of our party. Resolved, That we hereby declare our faith | in the right o the people of territories to ratify I 1 and confirm their Constitutions in their own ; ' way, and we believe the ballot-box affords the j best evidence of such confirmation: This is the platform upon which Mr. Coffroth was placed, upon receiving the '• nomination, and in his acceptance, said ' jhe cordially approved and endorced the i same. Where are those tesolutions, of which Mr. Pettit spoke? Where is the endorsment of Mr. Bright’s speech. It must be admitted by every candid man. that the charges made by Mr. Pettit against his competitor, was without the least foundation of truth, and was uttered by a demagogue, who would, “if it were possible deceive the very elect,” tn order I to obtain the three thousand dollars sal- ' ary and mileage for going after it: But if I wc- mistake not the signs of the times, he j will be permitted for the present, to stay | at home. A LEY ROSS. This gentleman's motto at the Republican Convention which gave him the nomination for Representative, was, “Down with slavery everywhere.” What this Republican meant by the expression maybe difficult to divine; but the language ’ justifies the conclusion that he was inten- : ding to inform his Republican friends, that I he was a downright Abolitionist, and was in favor of interfering with, and abolish- , ing slavery in the States where it legally j exists. If this gentleman is “down on slavery everywhere,” and intends to carry his i principles into execution, the irresistible conclusion is, that he, as a citizen of Indiana, intends to claim the right to say what the domestic institutions of Kentucky and other slave holding States should be.— , The Democratic doctrine upon this point is, that Mr. Ross, a constituent member I of the Republic of Indiana, shall have his voice in saying what her domestic institutions shall be; but it was for the citizen of Kentucky, exclusively, to say what institutions tb.ey desire to live under; and Mr. Ross, as a citizen of Indiana, has no I right; either morally or politically, to interfere with their decision in the matter, nor has he the right to be down on her citizens fortheir dicision. With this doctrine many that have been acting with the Republican party concur, and entirely repudiate Mr. Ross’ motto, and if we mistake, not, will have nothing to do with the motto, or the man who promulgated it. But we imagine some ardent Black Republican will say we pervert Mr. Ross’ meaning; to all such we would ask in candor, what did he mean by the expression? If he is down on slavery, it is reasonable to suppose he meant something by the motto; can it be that as a member of the legislature that he is going to be down on it in the State of Indiana? Cer- , taii.ly not, for none exists, he cannot be 1 down un a thing that has no existence,

0 then in order to carry into practical opr peration his motto, he must necessarily go 1 where the institution of slavery exists, to e Kentucky or some other Slave State. ’ | We feel satisfied that Mr. Ross, as a ’ 1 Republican, entertains just the sentiment 1 that the language of his motto attributes 1 to him that it is part of the Republican creed as expressed by Judge Dickerson in his speech at the Court House last ' week. He avowed the sentiment “that ’ the Republican party desired to smother lout the cursed institution of Slavery 1 where ever it legally existed, then Mr. Ross’ motto has no bounds, and we think it will have few advocates, at the polls in October next, Perry Crabs, the Prescriptionist. I In the last number of the Adams County Democrat— which, by the way, has be1 come the regular organ and mouth piece | lof this Republican leader—we notice a low scurrilous article from the pen of that . blackest of all black hearted falsifiers,, Perry Crabs. He is decidedly the most contemptible, mean and treacherous thing that was ever formed after human, and l permitted to associate with men. He is void of every principle of honor, both in j 1 I a political and social relation. In his bu- ' siness life we believe him to be as dishon-! 1 est as his heart is black in politics; as deceitful as he is mean looking. His con-I science is so seared by being kept in con-| tinual contact with mean, low, con.emp-' tible and dishonest acts that he feels, not j even one blush of shame, for the perpetration of the vilest of all viie deeds: the crime of fobbing his fellowman, who happens to be ignorant, of bis good name, his honor and his reputation. All this he has * done and we shall prove the same against him. Now for the proof: In the first place, he says he dared us ito prove an assertion made in a former number of our paper. We did prove it and i ! published the proof in the form of a cir- , tificate from Mr. Meibers and Mr. Barn’ ’ hart—given by themselves, with their own free will and without any persuasion on our part whatever; and Mr. Meibers l * will refute the charge at any lime that he 1 i ' signed it not knowing what it contained; I ! and that he did not authorize its publica- \ < tion; they both signed it for the pupose of I having it published. As soon as Mr. Crabs found that we had the evidence of, ‘ his guilt and was using it; he goes to 1 Messrs. Meibers and Barnhart and repre- 1 • sents to them that we had inserted lan- ; guage in their cirtificate which they were not aware of; among other words which ' 1 he said we had inserted, was the word |' I “coerce.” They not suspecting anything ■' |of his vile treachery, gave him a cirtifi-: ! cate stating that they had not heard Mr. Johnson make use of that word. Now Mr. Crabs well knew that there was no such language in the cirtificate we published; and just as soon as Messrs. Meibers and Barnhart learned that such ; was the case, thay immediately procured j the cirtificate they had given Mr. Crabs and tore their names from it. Mr. Crabs I noways abashed by being caught in the ' act of perpetrating a foul and malicious slander upon the veracity of Messrs. Mei- i bers and Barnhart, went to work and ! drew up two more cirtificates and endea-: vored to get Messrs. Meibers and Barnhart to sign '.hem. Mr. Barnhart signed one before he knew what it really contained; but afterwards went and endeavored to get it back; Mr. Crabs, knowing the fate of bis other ill-gotten cirtificate and I fearing the same for the one he then had, ■ mean-like he refused to give it up. Mr. Meibers after being deceived once by him i would have nothing more to do with him, although he hung round him nearly one, whole week, using every means his imbe- •' cile brain could invent to gain his object; but he failed, and the bystander might' have seen him sneaking away, crestfallen, j h ailing there in his vile object, he next ■ I goes to Mr. Job«son and obtained a cir,l tificate of him, denying all he had said - ! and admitting himself to be a liar. How . i he obtained this cirtificate we know not, > but the circumstances lead us to believe - that it was either through a bribe or a - threat; for surely Mr. Johnson never done • that act voluntarily which would ruin his reputation for truth in the community in c which he lives, and sink him in the esti- ’ mation of his friends, bv what means he 1 obtained it we cannot tell; but it will . avail him nothing; we have proved all we . asserted, and could prove by others that r he made those declarations in the squire’s r , office at. the time he was sued; and that he e > has since declared he would be qualified - to it before any court. But we have proe ved enough already to show this stink of , iniquity that he hat failed in bis object,

. which object was to deceive the public , and cover up his own black deeds.-- , He not only carries his proscriptive feelings into his social walk, but be makes a political rat trap of his place of business 1 and baits it with his every day dealings; and wo! to the unfortunate voter who places himself within his power; if he be a Democrat, he must either forfeit bis right of franchise and let him cast the vote to suit himself or perish at the stake a martyr to his principles. What shall we think of such a man? A man who does not hesitate to assert a willful and malicious falsehood! A man who has no regard for his own honor, or I that of his fellow man! A man that would ! basely betray bis bosom friend that he might obtain the object for which he sought! A man who would sue a Demcrat because he would not vote for him! ‘ A man who would publish his customers’ accounts to the world merely because those customers were Democrats and danjsl.sneak out in an open and manly manncr against his acts of tyrany and proscription! Yes, you might well exclaim i in holv horror! what think we of such a man? Verily, do we believe, that even the verv Secretary o.f the infernal regions, himself, would blush to record his name . on the black books of damnation. We have a few more cases for Mr. Crabs to digest and he can have them \ whenever he aks for them, and perhaps before. Studabaker has commenced ' the canvass in Jay County, he speaks at sixteen different points in that County, he will next canvass Wells County, Mr. G. A. Dent his Competitor although requested refused to meet Mr. Studabaker upon the stump to discuss the questions, which will agitate the next legislature. JtgyDr. William Freeman, who was charged with the murder of Mr. Murphy | was tried and acquited last week in the j Wells Circuit Court. £®"Martin Witz a Butcher of Allen : County was tried and sentenced last week in the Circuit Court of this County for Grand Larceny, and is now in the Penitentiary. n —— Ova Prospect.—The State Journal, opposition, publishes a table showing the 1 vote in each Legislative district at the last gubernatorial election. If the same vote should be given to the members of the Legislature at the ensuing election, the O O’ new Legislature will stand—Senate, Democrats 27, Republicans 23, House, Democrats 59, Republicans 41. Dem. majority on joint ballot 22. Lecompton Defeated by the People. —The Board of Commissioners Constitu- j ted by the English Compromise Lave is- ■ sued a proclamation declaring the official vote for and against the Constitution on I the first Monday of August last, to be as I follows: The whole vote given was 13,088 i the vote for the acceptance of the proposition was 1,788 the vote against the proposition accepted was 1 1,300. Proposition rejected by a marjority of 9,512 being more than 6 to 1. What has the Opposition ever Accomplished. What has the opposition to the Democratic party ever accomplished in a nai tional way? They enacted the Alien and Sedition Laws, but the Democratic party repealed them, and since then they have not been heard of. At the instance of Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic party enacted the present naturalization laws; the Democratic party divorced the Federal Government from gigantic monev corporation, and established the Independent Treasury system, a measure the 1 opposition reviled, but whose excellence ,is universally acknowledged, and no one now has the temerity to advocate its repeal. It enacted the tariff, under which the country has prospered. In 1812, it humbled British insolence. It acquired i Louisiana, Florida, Texas and Mexico. ; and thus has laid the foundation for one of the mightiest and freest of governments ’ that has ever existed on the face of the earth. A Democratic State was the first to abolish slavery, and every State ex- ! cept one, that has been admitted into the 1 Union, has been admitted under a Dem- ; I ocratic President. In every State where i 1 the rights of the people have been en- ( larged and made more secure through r their constitutions, it has been done by ’ I the Democratic party. The Fuo-itiye ' Slave Law may be said to belong to the ] i opposition, as it bears the approving sig- ;' nature of Millard Fillmore. What other t great measures can the opposition lay claim to? They had the honor, it is true 5 of expelling some of their own members ; from the floor of Congress two years a^ o 1 when they were in the majority there, for . shameless corruption, a thing the De’mof cratic party was never constrained to do. Has the opposition done anything else? > —Franklin Democrat.

- Douglas and Democracy The emphasis and enthusiasm of Sena tor Douglas’ public reception at Chicago bear grateful testimony to the existence 1 of a deep and indestructible popular syms patby with manly dealing, even in politics. ; W e hail the incident with unaffected pleasure. In these days of hollow words and counterfeit emotions, it is a double satis- ? faction to be reminded by the dash of a 5 genuine moral outburst upon one’s parch- ! ed spirit, that there is still such a thing . j as a love of heroic political daring in the ' I the public heart. It revives the flagging , enetgies of the man, while it reassures the not less flagging convictions of the ■ patriot. We congratulate Senator Dougi |las on the benignant fortune which has made him the subject of so glorious a tribute His reception at Chicago, if we may credit universal report, was one j which might justly kindle the pride of the proudest amonsgt us. Like the welcome ' given to our own Crittenden, on the threshold of bis native Kentucky, it was heart-1 felt soul-stirring. It was clearly a spon- . | taneous, irrepressible, thrilling expression of popular feeling. Unlike too many of the exhibitions of applause that heretofore have marked the career of Senator Douglas, it was a true electric burst of public admiration. It was a live demon- ; i stration. There was so far at least as | we, at this distance, can judge, no gal- ' ' vanism in its thrill, no tinsel in its glow. It was a greeting from the heart to the . heart—such a greeting as only high du- ' ties nobly discharged could awaken tn the i I bosoms of a generous and intelligent constituency. Senator Douglas may well cherish it among the most precious rec- ’ olleetions of his life. We venture to say that it constitutes the sweetest reward that ever solaced the spirit of that gallant tribune of Democracy. The breath of ! applause so richly merited is such stuff as fame is made of. It is a breath, we may be pardoned for saying, that has never before in such volume fanned the I nostrils, of Senator Douglas. Let the: herd of cowardly lime-sevets in the ranks < of our public men take careful note of the lesson. Let Senator Douglas himself see ' to it that he cherishes an abiding sense of its significance. The Senator’s speech on the occasion | wi’d attract the public eye. It is chiefly I ! interesting as a proclamation of the issues ! upon which he intends to wage the canI vass as a candidate for re-election to the I Senate against the opposing if not com-; | bined forces of the Republicans and Le- ; I compton Democracy of Illinois. The effort exhibits the characteristic merits of Mr. Douglas’ oratory in every great per- ' section, with nearly all its characteristic i defects. It is uncommonly bold, vigorous, sinewy, and racy, with rathar less I than the usual proportion of bad grammer, I I loose logic, and bastard rhetorc. It is, in fact, one of Senator Douglas’ most admirable of bis efforts, however, scarcely invite criticism as mere exhibitions of in- : tellect. The plan of his canvass as | sketched in the Chicago speech is exceedingly simple. He takes up the gage, or I what he considers the gage, of his Republican opponent, Mr. Lincoln, and announces his determination to maintain the rights | of the States and the authority of the Supreme Court of the Union. In other j words, he asserts, in opposition to Mr. j j Lincoln, that ‘it is neither desirable nor possible that there should be uniformity tin the local institutions and domestic reg- 1 ulations of the different States of the j Union;’ and that ‘the right and province of expounding the Constitution and consteueittg the law is vested in the judiciary established by the Constitution.’ to ‘the majesty’ opinions ‘must yield.’ He denies that a sectional war of extermination as respects slavery is either inevitable or beneficent, and affirms the constitutional i supremacy of the Supreme Court. This, lif a little general, is at all events suffiI ciently plain and easy. The position is ; impregnable. If Mr. Lincoln goes into | the conflict as thus defined, his overthrow must be signal, and all good citizens will . heartily rejoice in it. In such a struggle the Republican candidate will stand on quick sand. And if, as seems certain, 1 the slavery question is to be the absorbs ing feature of the canvass, we do not see how he can get any solider ground.— i Senator Douglas’ well known position in relation to popular sovereignty stretches as far north as it is posible to get, with- • out sinking into the quagmires of aboli- !: tion. If, accordingly, there is to be any 1 j issue, save a personal one, between him , ‘ and his compettor, the latter must of ne- ■ cessiiy fight neck-decp in that quagmire. ' 1 With so decided a vantage ground, Senator Douglas’ triumph, we think, is as- ’ sured. The strong probability of this result - ’ opens up a fresh view to ambition of the s Illinois Senator—or, rather, it lifts the I 3 clouds from the old one. It puts, as we t conceive, an altogether new face on his future political prospects. Reseated in 8 the Senate, clowned with the laurals won in a life-aud-death struggle with the Re-, 8 publicans in his State on the extreme Re-' publican platform, there is no telling in 1 how plausible a character he may present himself to the Charleston Convention in 3 1860. And there is no knowing how civily 3 the Charleston Convention may entertain his pretentions. Necessity is a match- i r less conciliator. And, then, undoubted- ? I ly, there is a great deal of the oil, of po- ■ 3 1 litical kindness even in the Disunionists. s Be this as it may, it is elear that there is . a world of Democratic fight in Senator r Douglas Louisville Journal. '■ The Queen’s Bench, in England, have . decided that ill-haalth is sufficient excuse 1 for breach of promise of marriage.

THE CITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The Democratic party of the present day has a great duty to perform—one that must tell upon the future peace and prosperity of our great country. It j s a high and imperative duty of the Democratic party to secure and perpetuate its own union and harmony—because it is alone through this means that the Union and the Constitution of our common coun- ■ i try can be preserved, and all their inesti. mable advantages and blessings transmitted to those who are to come after us We do not believe our Union, which is the wonder and admiration of the world could survive a single year, were it not for the influences, the guidance and the principles of the National Democracy Take these away—remove entirely their conciliatory and harmonizing influences and give loose reign to the mad spirit of sectional fanatcism for a single year, and our proud confederacy would be at an end forever. Is this true? Is there a ' single intelligent Democrat in the country that does not believe it? Or, at least is there one who would not greatly fear to risk the experiment? What, then, under such circumstances—under such a fearful weight of responsiblity—is the duty of the Democratic party? We answer—lt is to unite! It is to harmoniie! • It is to forget and forgive all past differlences upon mere questions of judgment jor expediency, and to rally to the main- ' tainaace of those great fundamental principles —those ancient landmarks, of the party, which have been so long and so successfully mantained,. and carried into practical operation by the National Democracy. For the future let Lecompton ! and anti-Lccompton be cast to tbo moles and the bats, or bequeathed to our political opponents, as the next winding sheet of their defunct and disipated hopes. Let not Lecompton or anti-Lecompton any ' longer be a test oj Democracy. It is a j question upon which the ablest and best minds of the Democratic party of the nai tion have differed, and we have no doubt honestly differed too. It has also become ' a dead issue—has no longer any life or I vitality in it—and' the putrid remains should now be buried from the sight and I the memory of those who have heretofore : bestowed but too much time and atteni tion to it. Again, we say, let the Nation- ' al Democracy—both candidates and vo- : tors—mount their glorious old platform, which is wide enough, and long enough, I and strong enough, to bear them on to rejnewed victories, and their countrv to inj creasing greatness and glory. Let them stand by their old Revenue Tariff policv. and oppose all unequal and unjust, i schemes for the favoritism and protection jof a few iron masters or cotton lords, at I the expense of the great agricultural and I mechanical interests of the country. — : Let them maintain t heir opposition to a National Bank, the distribution of the ; proceeds of the public lands among the States, and other kindred gigantic | schemes for corrupting the government, and defrauding the people. Let them strictly adhere to the impregnable doc- : trine that to the peopled of each Slate I and Territory belongs the riirht—the ex- ! elusive right—to model and reglate its domestic affairs in its own way, without i interference or dictation front those not immediately interested in such institutions. Let them stand by, and reiterate ' their confidence in the wisdom and purity of the 11. S Supreme Court, in its deI cision in the Di ed Scott case. Let these ' distinctive principles of the Democratic party, with a conformity to its usages, be made the only tests of membership, and we may again and speedily expect to see her united and harmonious—renewing her strength, and tnarchintj forward to j great and certain victories. We commend the following resolution, passed by the late Democratic State Convention of Ohio, to the consideration and imitation of our Democratic brotherhood I throughout the Union: Itesolved, That we regard the Lecomp- : ton controversy, so called, as at an end, and as being a settled issue; therefore, we refuse to recognize it as a test, to be prescribed by either side of those who ■differed in position upon it, Lelieveing that ■ all those who uphold the cardinal principles of the party, and sustain its organisation by voting the democratic ticket, as good enough democrats for all purposes. Let the spirit of this resolution be carried out generally by the Democratic j party of the country, and all will be well again. Our party will be united and victorious and the integrity ot the Union and Constitution thus secured.— JPaynejiw# , Messenger. Lincoln anb the Germans. —Abe Lincoln, the Black-Republican candidate ■ for Senator, seems to ha v e as poor an opinion of the Germans now as he had four years ago, when he came to this city and organized a Know-Nothing lodge, and administered Know Nothing , oathsto twohundred of his politic! friends. Judge Douglas in his Chicago speech, said that when the Declaration of IndeI pendence says, ‘all men are created equal,’ it means all men of the white race. Lincoln, when he came to reply, said that if this was true.it would exclude the i Germans! So, it seems that Licoln doesen’t admit that the Germans are a por- | tion of the white race! Judge Douglas, however, thinks that the Germans are of the white race, and they are consequent:ly embraced by the Declaration of IndeI pendence. The Germans will make a note of this.— Quincy Herald. Time, which is most valuable, is ! most trifled with.