Ligonier Banner., Volume 14, Number 9, Ligonier, Noble County, 19 June 1879 — Page 6

. THE GENUINE '. ~ DRO C' MOLANE’S . Celebrated Americ‘:a'p | : | WORM SPECIFIC VERMIFUGE.

. SYMPTOMS -OF WORMS. ) THE countenance is pale and leaden colored, with occasional flushes, or a circumscribed spot on one or both i cheeks; the eyes become dull; the pu pils dilate; an azure semicircle runs ‘along the lower eye-lid ; the nose is ir ritated, swells, and sometimes bleeds ; ' a swelling of the upper lip; occasional headache, with humming or throbbing of the ears; an unusual secretion of saliva; slimy or furked tongue; breath very foul, particularly in the morning; appetite variable, sometimes voracious, - with a gnawing sensation of the stom. ach, at others, entirely gone; fleeting " pains in the stomach; occasional . nausea and vomiting; violent pains throughout the abdomen; bowels ir- ~ regular, at times costive ; stools slimy; ~,not ‘unfrequently tinged with blood; +belly swollen and hard; urine turbid; respiration occasionally difficult, and accompanied by hiccough; cough. - somedmes dry and convulsive ; uneasy - and disturbed sleep, with grinding of ~ tae teeth ; temper variable, but generally irritable, &c. ' - Whenever the above symptoms | - are found to exist, : DR. C. McCLANE’S VERMIFUGE ; will certainly effect a cure. . IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ‘MERCURY ~ “in any form ; it is an innocent preparation, not capable of doing the slightest | angury to the most tender infant. .~ The genuine DR. McLANE’S VER- ' MIFUGE bears the signatures of C. McLANE and, FLEMING BRros. on ' the wrapper. —_—o— G

- DR. C. McLANE’S are not recommended as a femedy st for all tke ills that flesh is heir to,” but in affections of th:}fiiver, and in all Bilious Complaints, Dyspepsia.and Sick Headache, or diseases of ithat character, they stand without a rival. +AGUE AND FEVER. Nobetter cathartic can be used i)re‘paratory to, or after taking Quinine,. - *, As a simple purgative they are unequaled. ' BEWARE OF IMITATIQNS. The genuine are never sugar coated. ' Each box has a red wax seal on the lid with the impression DR. MCLANE’S LIvER PILLs, ' Each wrapper bears the signatures of C, MCLANE and FLEMING BRros. . Insist upon having the genuine Dr. C. McLANE’s LIVER PILLS, prepared. by Fleming. Bros., of Pittsburgh, Pa., the market being full of imitations of the name McLane, spelled differently but same pronunciation.

- Dr. Hill’s English Extract of ! R ons o, : ) @EWLN . - : D) SRS Ts' Y ; 5 ONE " { "y"é}*"{\a%‘ OF THE - eGP, s F "]li”_fi.m'm(mll €% ¥ ' Noge . & ‘ Best Kidney Investigators in Use. _ltis a specific in the cure of all diseases of the Kidneys, Bladder, Prostatic portion of the Urin“ary Organs, Irritation of the Neck of the Bladder, Burning Urine, Gleet, Gonorrhea in all itsstages,* Mucous Discharges, Con%estion of tgg Kidneys, #Brick Dust Deposit, Diabetes, Inflamimation of <he Kidneys anc{) Blaéder, Drlopsy of the Kidneys, Acid Urine, B]om%? Urine, Painin the Region of +a« Bladder, PAIN IN THE BACK, Urinary Calcsuius, Renal Calculus, Renal Colic, Retention of lirine, Frequent Urination, Gravel in all its “orms, Inability to retain the Water, particularly in !‘i‘ersons advanced in life. : xT' IS A KIDNEY INVESTIGATOR that Reatores the Urine to its natural color, removes the acid and burning, and the effect of the excessive aise of intoxicating drink. ) 5 ,-= PricE—s§l; or, Six Bottles for $5. Dur oldest, bestand most respectable citizens are d'?\f'm}d recommending the Extract every da, .’ Wemight, if we chose, give the names of many who have expressed the belief that it is ar inveidable medicine, and worth many times its <OB, i §&377 fend for Circular. Sold by all druggists, W.JOHNSTON & C 9,, 161 JEFFERSON AVENUE, . &~ Agents » ¢he Tip “ed States and Manada i £ For Sale by C. ELDRED & SON;, Ligonier, Ind. '

1 » ._.) o ~ THEY ARE WORTH THEIR . s i . - 4 o) ‘WEICHT in COLD - READ WHAT HE SAYS: Dr. TuTT:—<Dear Sir: For ten years I have “been a martyr to Dyspel})sia, Constipation and - Piles. Last prélng your Pills wererecommended ‘o me; lused them (but'with little faith). I am vow a well man, have good appetite, digesticr perfect, regular stools, l})lles figone aud I have gained forty pounds solid flesh. Tiley are vwworth their weiiht in gold. S REV. R. SIM§SON. Louisville, Ky, A TORPID LIVER “i 8 the friitful source of maxg‘diseases, Busn 28 Dyspepsia, Sick Headache, Costiveness, Dye.:. tery, Bilious Fever, Ague and Fever, Jazadics, Files Rudumatism,Ki neyComplaint, )i, etc, Tutt's Hills exe’s{a powertul influencs ontha Laverandwillwit certaintyrelievethatimp. - #ant organ from disease, and restore its norv.d fusotions, 4 ‘ The rapidity with which persons take on floan - while under theinfluence of these Pms‘ ofjtni-i indicates their adaptability to ourish tixe booy, Jhence their efficacy in curing nervous debility, -dyspepsia, wasting of the muscles, s uggishness ‘o{m v iiver,chronic constipation, and iwparting Aeaiiu gngf strength to the system. . . CONSTIPATION. : Only with regularity of the bowels ean perfect "health be enjoyed. Jheq the c%’i‘l'fi?tigg is of rycont date, s single dose of '8 }P,Lg *will fudlice, but if it has become habitual, one il should.be taken every night, gmd;mll{ lesseni‘ug the frequency of the dose until a regnlar duily maovement is oblained, which will sobn follow, ' . Sold Everywhere, 25 Cents. OFFICE, 36 MURRAY ST., NEW YORR

A PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED. The Judiciary Commitiee of the Na~ tional House of Representatives Establish a Precedeunt by Replying to ~ a Presidential Veto—Tue Dangers of Military Interference at Elections Appropriately and Forecibly Portrayed. ' | L The following is a synopsis of the Judiciary Committee’s report on ‘the President’s Veto of the Army Appropriation bill presented to the National House ot Representatives on the 11th: The report begins with an allusion to the danger to ve apé)rehended from the presence of armed troops !at the- ballot-box, and says: ** Even the author of the message under consideration himself admi:s that any military interference whatever a[t; the polls is contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and would tend to destroy the freedom ‘ot elections. The present Congress, in the exercise of its undouvted right to prescribe the purpose for which tbe land and naval forces of the Gov‘ernment, shall be used, saw proper in making appropriations for the support of the army to enact that it should not only be a clearly unlawtul but prnal offense tor any Federal official to employ troops or armed men at State elections tor any purpose whatever, except to repel armed enemies of the United States. That bill the President returned to the House of Representatives without his signature. His reasons for objecting to the bill seem to have been these: .

First, that, in his-judgment, the repeal of the clause in question was unnecessary; second, because it would **prohibit ail civil ofticers of the (United States from employing the only adequate civil force to enable them to preserve tne peace and execute .certain laws at Congressional elections;” and, third, because the manner in which the repeal was propused did not happen in that particular mstance to be in harmony with Executive taste; and was therefore considered by the author of the message as furnishing a suitable oceasion to deliver to the House of Representatives a gratuitous lecture upon the methods in which it should discharge Its Constitutional functions. As the President has twice called the attention of the House to these objections, the first two may be referred to herearter, but with regard to the third, it is perhaps suflicient to say that the mauner in which Congress chose to repeal the clause in question was not:only in strict conformity to the Constitution and rules of . the two Houses, respectively, but justitied by numerous precedents in the annals of Federal legislation. Impressed with the import.anjc »of removing the last shadow of a pretext fgr any interference with State elections by armed forces of the United States, and desiring to obviate, if possible,” the President’s objections to'the measure .already proposed for that purpose, the House of Representatives prompt!y pa-sed a separate bill, which was as promptly concurred in by the Senate, simply proviging that it should not be lawful to bring to or employ at any place where a gen.éral or special election is being held in any State auy part of the army or navy, unless such forces should be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, or to enforce Section: 4, Article 4, of the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, and repealing all provisions inconsistent with the purposes of the bill. This bill was speedfly returned with a message from the President, assigning his objections to its approval, which are now to be considered.

The first of these objections is a simple repetition of the one assigned in the message vetoing the Army Appropriation bill. No one van read the two messages together without being struck by the marked difference in the tone of the two documents in-respect to this objection.”’ N Mr. Knott points out -the difference between the two Imessaves, and continues: **The entire argument against the necessity of the bill is leit to rest upon the President’s reiterated assertion that troops have not been and will not be used to inter.ere with any State election during his administration; that the assertion was no douot, sincere, but, unfortunately for its valid.ty as a reason for refusing to approve a bill designed for the protection of future generations as well as this, the official term of the present Executive is limited, and he may be succeeded by one who will feel a less scrupulous regard for the freedom and purity of the ballot than he professes himselt to entertain. : .

The next objection to the approval ot the bill, as alleged 1n the message, is that it would abrogate on certain days and at certain places - a number of laws, b&lt especially Section 5298 ‘of the Revised Statutes, which is reverently referred to as *an ancient and fundamental law which has been in forze from the foundation of the Government,’ and seems to be.re‘garded by the~ President as invested witlt some peculiar sdnctity not per--taining to any other provision in the entire system of American jurisprudence. He ‘enlarges upon the statement that this section . was sanctioned by Washington, Jefferson‘and Lincom, and contains the principle which was acted upon by the four Presidents inore endeared to the Amwmerican people than all others at the most crit.cal x%eriods in their respective adminigtrations. II he had examined the facts connected with the téansactions to which he alludes, he would hdve found that neither of the four illustrious patriots and statesmen to whom he refers either did or proposed to do/anything which would not have been perfectly lawful under the strictest letter of the bill he returned to the House, had it becn in force at that' time. He would have discovered, moreover, that neither of them ever construed either of the acts cin!ed by him as couferring upon the President or any of his subordinates any arbitrary or extra legal power, but merely as authorizing the use of the necessary means for securing the execu‘tion of the law in' the regular methods, and through the agencies prescribed by law.” In support: of his assertion Mr. Knott refers to the action of Washington in the Whisky Insurrection, of Jefferson jin the Aaron Burr case, of Jackson in 1832, and Lincoin in the outbreak of the Civil War, and adds: ‘¢ Owing, perhaps, to the limited time he allowed himself én which to prepare his'message, the President failed to observe the fact that the variousstatutes to which he refers, including Séction 5,298, are completely abrogated or suspended by.the act approved by President Lincoln on 'the 27th of February, 13¢5, 85 they possibly could be b% the bill to prevent military interference with elections, had be returned it to the House with his approval.. He seems to have totally forgotten that, the law approved by Lincoln on the 27th ‘of February, 1865, making it a high misdemeznor in him or other officers of the UnifedBtates to employ armeé men at aState election ex_ept for two specific purposes, was still in force, and Q;iat it was as much his duty under his official oath to see that it.should be faithfinlly executed as any other provision in the statutes.” = . < !

The leport affirms that the-power to establish police regulations which nay be necessary for the "preservation of domestic order and the prevention of violence and crime affecting the life or property within their respective limits, belongs exclusively to the States, and the Fegeral Government can only Intervene to protect the State'in theexecution of its own laws for that purpose upon application of the Legislature, or Governor where the Lecislature cannot be,.qggvened. ' - Supreme Court decistons are quoted in support of this position, and the following extract from aJetter of the present Secretary of Btate while Attorney-General under a former Administration, sent by him 'to the Marshal of Florida on the 20th of August, 1858 *The special duty and authority in the execution of a_process issued to you must not.be cqnfounded with the duty and awthority of s&)pressmg disorder and‘ preserving “the eace, which, under our Government, beK)mzs to the civil-authorities of the gtate's, and not to the civil authorities of the United States.” : I

The weport continues: *To prevent the substitution of the petty diseretion of supergerviceable Federal officials for the law, the soldier with his bayonet for the civil officer with his warrant, and other danegérous abuses to which the recent, experience of our country has -shown it to be lable, was the sole object and would bave been the only eftéet of the bill to prevent military interference at the polls, whidh the President found it impossible to approve. . Ak g The third and final objection offered by the President to the bill is, 10 use his ownl anguage, “ its diserimination in favor of the State and against the Nat'onal authority.”’ Under.the Constitution: the Federal Govern-

ment has not, and nolaw of Congress can glve it, authority to preserve the peace ina tate either at the poils or clsewhere, unless ‘ca’l,ied upon by proper State authorities for that purpose under the ecircumstances for which the Couvstitution was provided. How, therefore, there could possibly be a discrimination against an authority that does not and cannot exist, it is difficult to see. 1t is equally impossible to discover how a distinct reservation of the power of the President to suppress an insurrection against the Government of a State at any time or place when tproperly called upon can be said to derogate from the authority of the United States. Thereisa single consideration sufficient in itselftoshow that the fears exgressed by the President that the bill would subordinate National to Btate.authority were totally unfounded, but which seems singularl?' enouigh to have escaped his observation. Under the law as it now stands, and has stood since 1795, the President is not bound to call for the militia, or to employ the land or naval forces of the United States to suppress every riot or popular tumult in a State, aithough ealled upon by the Legislature or Executive for that purpose. If the President should have reason to believe that force was not called for in good faith to suppress an insurrection against the Government of the State, but to be used for anv purpose in any manner inimical to the United States, it would not only be his right, but his duty, to withhold it.”)?

‘Senator Hampton Speaks. In the Senate the other day, the bill to repeal the Jurors’ Test-oath being under discussion, Senator Hampton made his maiden speech, of which a synopsis is here given: -Mr. Hampton (Dem., 8. C.) addressed the Senate. He declared his belief that the bill | ought to ipass, though he did not propose to confine his remarks to this measure alone, but to speak of the general questions that had been debated at this session. It was trife that the Southern ‘members formed the greater part of the majority in Congress, and were responsible for whatiit approved and slfl)ported as well as for what they suggested. He could not claim to speax as a leader of his party, but speaking for himself he would never try to shield himself from the consequences of his action behind any man or party. If the policy supported by him was revolutionary and treasonable he was a-revolutionist and a/ traitor. But what policy was- before Congress worthy of such a charge? Coéntinuing, Mr. Hampton said:« *‘By no.vote of mine will the appropriations necessary for the eflicient inaintenance of the army be refused. It is competent for Congress to declare under what limitation and upon what conditions those appropriations suall be made. The formin which this is done Iregard as immaterial. In my judgment, it would have been best to adhere tq the general form, but as it has been deemed advisable to make the necessary appropriations in another manner I shall, in order to secure unanimity, acquiesce in the decision of the majority. But in no event can I consent to aid in dishanding the army or impairing its efficiency. It is the army of the South as well as of the North—it is the army of the whole country. Of its history from the days of the Revolution, through its achievements of 1812 and the glories of the Mexican war, I have some -reason, by right of my birth and blood, to be proud. In the late civil contest on many a bloody field I tested its valor, and no word or act of mine shall depreciate its value or lessen its usefulness. But because I so rezard. it no act of mine shall tend to degrade it from its high rank. ‘I will not so legislate that against its own honorable instinets and traditions it shall be an instrument of tyranny in the hands of any factious party or any Executive who may be 80 unscrupulous as to desire to use it. Nor shall 1 assent, because of any, ditferences of opinion between the minority and the majority, to close the Courts of Justice or embarrass the necessary and orderly life of the Government. The <€Constitution has provided a means by which an appeal to the countty can be determined, and it is for the people‘to decide whether the President’s veto has been wisely used to defeat the will of Congress, ’which represents the majority of the people.” Mr. Hampton proceeded to say that he had no intention to embarrass the Administration. While he himself considered the provisions of the bill as just, he recognized the difficult gosition' +in which the Executive -found imself. Mr. Hampton’s people remembered that in a critical period -of their history, when any injudicious action would have been fatal, the President, by a conscientious con- | struction of his duty, removed the United States troops from Louisiana and South Carolina, thus enabling the people to restore | their local Governments to those who represented the popular will as well as the character, intelligence and property of the two States. For this wise and patriotic action he ‘was grateful, and'whilein the necessary party differences which must arise in a free country it would be his duty to oppose the policy of which the President was the representative, that Opposition would not be captious nor such as to drive the President into a coalition with those who would madly trample on the rights of the people in their struggle to retain power. Mr. kfampr,on said his party was now denounced for wishing to restrict the Federal use of troops, though men high in the Republican party, whose words

he quoted, had also pointed out and denounced abuses and danger in their use. Continuing, he said there was a widespread doctrine that the result of the war had been to increase the. strength and functions of the General ' Government, and that as @& natural consequence it could rightly use the machinery of the Government, including the army, to confirm such added power. He thought the war had not changed in any way the relative. powers of the States and the Union. One of the principal factors of our success and growth had been the play of local governmental influences. It was not the immediate action of the' army that he feared, but that the ultimate effect of its misuse would be centralization and despotism, and he would oppose any legislation to give the General Government power to interfere in any way with elections. It was better to lss;ve turbulence in one or two great cities than to have military despotism in the whole country. It had been complained that Confederate officers:were sent here ‘as legislators. Nearly every man in the South bore arms, and she could hardly be blamed for trusting her interests in.peace to those who risked their lives and fortunes'for her in war. He thought if the North had honored in a like manner those who fought her battles, the legislation of the country would not be embittered bv revivals of sectional strife. When the North invited the Southern States to return to the Union, was she sincere, or did she only wish them back to govern them as rotten boroughs?. If sincere, she should be glad that they sent their best and most honored men to represent them. The South could not, in the nature of things, be long subordinated to the mass of ignorance and inexperience forced on them by the hasty action of the Republican party. The South had no apology to make for the past. In the heat of conflict hard blows were struck and hard words were spoken, but to recall those v orgs now was not in the interestof that harmo v for which the whole country longed. The ‘SBouthj asked to have stricken. from the statute books laws which were the product of d'strust as much as were arlfiies and navies. If the North asked the South to come back as States, let it treat her as States and join hands with her to establish National liberty as understood by our fathers. Mr. Hampton’s address aroused frequent applause in the galleries. . ; :

- . Yeto Number Three. . The President sent his veto-of the ‘Legisiative, Executive and Judicial Appropriation bill to the House last week. It hardly calls for notice. It is one of the weakest “;mpers that ever emanated from the White House, and the Republicans in the House could hardly sit through the reading of it in respectful patience, while -t%air . applause at the end was almost as feeble a 8 the document it was intended to compliment., Indeed, they seem to have applauded because the reading stopped, rather than because of anything the message contained. | : e * The reasons assigned by the President

for vetoing this bill are old, and have been repeatedly and completely answered, until both the reasons and the answers have become stale. He obje¢ts to the insertion of any legislation whatever in an appropriation bill, and he rebukes Congress for incorporating the additional legislation notwithstandi’% his known objection. His reflection Congress for repealiig acts which have become obnoxious in a bill which provides the means for putting: them into effect is simply impudent. Under our system of government the President is not the supreme ruler, but merely the chief Executive Officer in the Government. For him to talk of his will and his *‘known objectiOns” is impertinence. Congress, which - votes . the. supplies, has the right to determine how the money shall be spent., This right has been claimed and exercise for centuries by the British Parliament: It was stated in the stronfe‘st terms by Republicans while Andrew Johnson was President. Senator - Fessenden, afterward Secretary of the Treasury, mnade a memorable declaration on the subject in one of the best speeches of his life. Congress has now done in this bill precisely what has been done over and over again in this country, and in 'every country where the parliamentary principle is in force. Time and again have the Republicans added riders to approypriation bills, and Hayes has voted for:such I(g;islation. To object to the repeal of odious acts because the legislation providing for their repeal is inserted in an appropriation bill is a piece of lamentable puerility.

The other excuses for vetoing the bill are of the same flimsy texture. The bill repeals the acts which provide for such arbitrary and high-handed interferences with the elections as Davenport and his minions were guilty of in this city last year. It provides for the appointment 0f two Supervisors of Elections in each election district, at any Congressional election, on the application of citizens who desire to have a perfectly fair election. Itgivesthese Supervisors no authority to arrest citizens in the act of voting and hustle them off into cells until the polls close. It does not empower them to call out a posse of Marshals to override State law and dragoon private citizens into voting the Republican ticket under the penalty of arrest. It places. them at the. polls to watch and see that everything is done fairly and legally. It must be remembered that each house of Congress decides whether- its members are fairly elected and entitled to seats. At every session claimants for seats are heard, and members who have been admitted are unseated because of fraud or irregularity in their election. This is the regular, the historic way, and it worked admirably till the Republicans began to fear that the power they had kept too long would slip out of their hands. Mr. Hayes objects to the repeal of these pernicious laws because their repeal would leave the Supervisors without force to make arbitrary arrests, and override the lawsand the authority of the State in which the election is held. Such an objection is paltry, ic the first place because no extra force is needed to protect the Supervisors in the ‘proper discharge of their duties in any State of the Union; and in the second -place it betrays a}langerous determination to retain all’ the machinery for controlling elections and arresting citizens in the act of voting, in defiance of law and of right. Davenpert admits having issued 5,000 warrants of arrest at the last election in this city, and-hundreds of men were arrested and locked up, none of whom were ever brought to trial. The charges against them were baseless. The whole thing was a sham. And the President ‘and his Republican advisers find this -audacious and high-handed scheme too convenient and available for partisan ends to give up. The President says these odious Electjon laws grew out of ‘the frauds perpetrated in this city in 1868. But everybody knows that the condition of things in this city then was abnormal; that the city was throttled by a corrupt and audacious ring, and ‘that Tweed and Co. managed things in an unscrupulous way. By no possible concurrence of events can the conditions of that election be reproduced. But admitting, for the sake of the argument, that frauds were committed in this city, in 1868, in defiance of law, does the fact justify the Governtnent in providing that frauds shall be committed by law at every Congressional election to the end of time? The logic of Hayes is that uunder the most® extraordinary circumstances frauds were committed in defiance of State laws in 1868; therefore frauds and violence may be committed under Federal laws forever. This is a kind of reasoning which will hardly meet with the approval of intelligent and fair-minded citizens of any party.—N. Y. Express.

' Too Much Grammar., The peril of employing highly educated young men as clerks was again illustrated yesterday. A woman stopped at a green grocer’s on Woodward avenue and asked: i e ¢« Is them lettuce fzgsh g : ' ‘“ You mean that lettuce,’’ suggested the clerk, ‘¢ and it is fresh.” : ““Then you'd better eat it?’’ she snapped as she walked on.. : The grocer rushed out and asked the clerk what on earth had happened to anger her, and the young man replied: v - ““ Why, nothing, only I corrected her grammar.”’ : i ‘ You have turned gway one of my best customers! Only yesterday shs2 came in and asked me how I sold those white sugar, and I got an order. for a whole barrel. Hang you, sir! but if them customers want grammar they don’t expect to find her in a grocery! No, sir, and if youllsee she again you want to apologize in the most humblerest. manner!"”’— Detroit Free Press.

—A young man, who had had some verses anent spring rejected b{ the editor of the Stockton Bugle, called at the office of that paper on Thursday last, and Kkilled the editor. This is not absolutely true, but it is a little variation upon the orthodox lie, which would end the other way.—San Francisco Wasp. ‘ a e

‘THE LOUISIANA SENATORIAL INYESTIGATION. : SR ’ On the 9th, Thomas Murray (colored) was recalled, and testified that, when he told De Lacy that he could make $2:500, he meant thutif he came to Washington and told the truth. he would make a reputation with his’ people which would be worth $2,500 to him, Jules Seveignes testified-that he was a member of the Packard Legislature_ in 1877, and was present in the Joint Convention that elected Mr. Kellogg to the Senate. Mr. Merrick showed witness an affidavit. which he acknowledged he had signed. This affidavit stated that he Svntness) was not present in the Legislature in January, 1877, when Mr. Kellogg ,was elected for the long term, but voted for him the next day. In reply to questions by contestant’s counsel, witness said . the statements in the affidavit were lies, and that he had’ been indnced tosign it by Drouett, Cavanac,’ .Thomas Murray, J. W. Elder, and others; Cavanac was present when he sigoed it, and said witness should have everything he wanted, as Kelgg was to be put out of the Senate anyhow; Mr. Mpmg did not advise him to swear falsely; but raid there was ‘'sugarin it;”’ Drouett advised him to stand by hie affidavit; did not make the affidavit to get *‘sugar,”’ but to ascertain how all the affidavits were manufactured; made three affidavits voluntarily; did not think it im‘moral to swear to a lie * when inen want to bring about how affidavits are obtained;”’ had held a position in the New Og:ans Custom-House. but resigned as soon as he became witness. On crossexamination, witness said he had made a second affidavit for Elder, but got no pay for it: told Cavanac he was not present at the e'ection of Kellogg, but was locked up ina room; thatstatement was a lie; never was bribed, and had "always refused bribes when they were offered; had seen Elder for the first time in New Orleans; Elder said he was from Washington getting up testimony for Spofford, and said Cavanac was getting up affidavits to show that there was no quorum in the Packard Legislature that elected Kellogg; Elder said he only wanted five to break the quorum, and if they conld secure athdavits from these five they could unseat Kellogg before the =session was over: MurmX ‘said that, by‘testifying for Spofford, they coul getiallithey wanted, and Cavavac said S?offord, when seated, would divide his salary amon%t‘hose who stuck to him. The witness gave the names of the five relied on to break the . quorum, two of whom were Murray and himself and Watson was to swear that he personated Thomas, whe Watson was to testify was not present; believed Thomas was present at the joint session; signed the 'affidavit as-prepared for him to show how easy it was to get up affidavits knowing them to be untrue: had been a consistent Republican, and_ when he found a point against a Repuil)iilcan. acted as a detective and worked it out; made the affidavit to obtain Elder's confidence, and went to Cavanac's office to get facts: was aporoached on the cars while coming to Washington, and was told that bfv supporting Spofford he would be taken care of; had heard that $1,500 would be fle.n legislators for going over to the Nicholls Legislature, but had never received the money; was so informed by Drouett, a Democrat. il

No witnesses were examined on the 10th, but each side announced that some were expected. The affidavits previously 'offered in evidence were admitted to the records. 5 On the'llth, William L. Randall testified that in 1877 he was Clerk in the Packard Legislature; was present when Kellogg was voted for in Joint Convention; seventeen Senators and sixty-five Representatives were piesent; amon%thoge voting were Samuel Thomas and Jules Seveignes: recorded the votes, and, on re-examination, disclosed no errors; after voting for the Senator for the long term the Joint Convention adjourned for one hour, when James Lewis was elected for the short term; the latter is now Naval Officer of Néw Orleans, but was not then; made minutes at the time of all members who voted for Kellogg; had visited witnesses in this case since their arrival, and talked with personsl friends; had shown notes to Shellabarger, Sypher and John Molaire, but nobody else. ' | P On the 12th, Mr. Merrick announced that he had no further use for De Lacy as a witness, but would claim the privilege of assisting the public prosecutor when heshould be indicted for his perjury. ; ; : Richard J. Brooks (colored) testified that he was a member of the Packard Legislature; was present when the Joint Convention was heid which elected Kellogg; knew Samuel Thomas and heard him answer when hisname was called; Murray had vainly tried to induce him to see Cavanac and make an affidavit that he had been bribed by Kellogg. On cross-examination, witness said that ne subsequently told Cavanac that Kellogg had rot offered him money; Cavanac said he knew all about it, and Kellogg would undoubtedly be removed; Cavanac said he could get white men to make affidavits, but preferred colored men; believed the rumors that Kellogg had used money to sccure his election came from disappointed politicians; there were also rumors that the Nicholls Government had spent mobey to drive out the Packard Legislature; Ross Steward asked him (witness) to go from the Packard to the Nicholls Legislature, and said he had made arrangements for that purpose before the Commission came from Washington, and if he could get a crowd of eight or ten men to go over to the Nicholls Legislature they could have $2.000 apicce for the service; it was rumored that Spofford had spent money to secure his election by the Nicholls Legislature. :

Charles Brown (colored) testified that he was a member of the Packard Legislature, and voted in Joint Convention tor Kellogz: Samuel Thomas and Jules Sevexégne_s were also present and voted Murray had told him (witness) that if he would make aa affidavit on the Spofford side he should receive $2,000 and would realize' about $1,000; Mufi?fiv said Judge Sfpofiord was rich, and the 810 would come from the division of Spoftord’'s back pay: was never offered anything to vote for Kellogg; was offered a bribe to goto the Nicholis Legislature and vote for Spofford; while the Benatorial election was pending, P. J. Kennedy proposed to the witness ana his colleague that it they would go over to the Nicholls l.egislature he would guarantee them $lOO a day for ten days. or until a United States Senator was elected; Kennedy said he reprcsented the Nicholls Government, and pulled outa large roll of bank bills, saying: " Ihisis the hash for you, boys, if you -want to go;”’ after some one hundred days witness weut to the Nicholls Legislature, having been bartered awage by the MacVeagh Commission and the President. On cross-examination, witness said Cavanac had told him he only wanted..the truth, but that was what all politicians say; éid not vell Murray that he received money for voting for Kellpgy; did not know of any bids being made to support Kellogg's’side. e : " Richard Sims (colored) testified that he was a. . member of the Packard Legislatufe in Januuary, 1877; knew that Thomas and Seveignes both'voted for Kellogz; never told Murray that /he obtained money tor voting for Kellogg; did not know of any money being paid by anybody to_vote for Kellogg. . J. R. Watson (colored) testified that he had : been a letter-carrier in New Orleans; knew Tom Murray, bus never told him that he occu- - pied Thomas' seat in the Legislature on election ' day and voted for Kellogg; did not occupy the seat of 'lhomas or of any other. } member on election day. Witners gave | an - account of his arrangement with Murray and Cavanac to swear to an | atlidavit that he had represented Thomasin the Legislature and voted for Kellogg., After makIng out the statement Murray saiu to the witness: ** Btrike Flood for two hundred dollaxs’; ¥lood was one of the negotiating parties; was told to ‘‘strike while the iron was hot’; obtained five dollars from ¥lood om ac: count until the matter could be fixed %;out of the five dollars paid for cutting rray’s hair, for his ahavmgva.nda.%l.asa ot beer “tor him; Murray said the witness did not act- *‘ on the square,” althongh he had not promised Murray to divide small sums with him; if he had. received ' a large sum_ he would have divided; Murray obtained one dollur from Flood; he and Murray went into a coffee-house; witnesssaid: ‘' This place is only for white peofie 1” when Murray replijd: **Weare b:g.ni?gers”; - » urmgv said to bhim that friends of Nicholls wanted to proye bribery; dead men could tell no -tales, and if he (the witness) would personate Thomas and vote for Kellogg. the profit would figure up ¥1,600. The witness said he signed one or two stitements ‘and took a quasi oath. Mr. Merrick showed him the affidavit wherein he had sworn that he had personated Thomas. Witness said there was some truth in the aflidavit, *'judiciously expressed.” and he did not think the act involved legal responsibility ; was a minister and believed to a certain extent in hell; the moral® atmosphere of Washington | had gurified his ideas, and he thought he should go back to New / Orleans a reformed man; when the affidavit was prepared the initial ** 8"’ of his Christian name was omitted; it was a lie so far as the statement that he gersonated ‘'homas was concerned; could show y the laws of Louisiana thut it was not a penal otfense to swear to a lie, and had as %noh right to swear to a lie for nonew the Democrats had to burn his house; bad been studying Democratic jurisprudence; the stings of conscience had induced him tgr swear the other way; had only, in the matter of the affidavit, exercised t.l;o; naht of an American citizen to lie as he pleased. § ey ' Robert B. Johnson (colored) said he was a member of the Packard Legislature; nevex got amoney fo_rvomfigor Keno‘x and if Murray said he did, he hed; was enly slightly nfimint—» | ed with Murrav, but was a better man and lived ‘more respectably; Mnna{ was a lyxniioafer; bad had a conversation with him since he came to Washington: Murray said if Kellogg didn't give witness rioney, he would fe_h E&m all the money he wr nted; witness disclaim any intenti on to ball-doze the Commi-tee, but would: like to try couwclusions with Murray on the

green. With much earnestness witness said he bhad never showed Murray any, money, and would have nothing more to do' with pelitics, asit was a dog’s life. i 3 : 5 Robert F. Deshard testified that he was Chief Clerk of the Packard Legislature; Thomas and Beveignes were present at the Joint Convention . and voted for Kelloggé'produoed his minutes to show that seventeen Senators and sixty-six Representatives answered to their names; knew all of them were present, as when he called their names he checked the responses and saw them - when they voted. On the 13th, the record of the Louisiaua Hounse of Representatives of Janury, 1877, showing the appointment of a committee to in-. vestigate the charge of bribery in procuring the . election of Senator Kellogg, and to report on the subject, that according to the testimony taken there was no proof to! sustain the charges, was admitted as evidence, together with the vecord of the Senate on the (ia.y of his election, o A, W. Cornog (called by Mr. Merrick) testified that, during the session of the Packard Lesislature, he and Perry Baker, a member, roomed together; Baker owed him money, and said he would %ayhaftgé the eklect.mnf of Kellosgzi Z:h dfid pay, and showed a eof morey w e sa)',{i he made oat ome :‘l!ectlon?’& E e Francis A. Clover testified that he was minute clerk of the Joint Convention that elected Kellogg; Thomas and Seveignes voted. = - 5. J.Johnsen testified that he had conversed with Cornog before he came to - Washington: Cornog wanted witness to make an affidavit - against Kellogg; said he could make from %200 to $£5600 for doing so; witness said he. must have g 3.000 in hand before he would talk; wanted to nd out what kind of a Republican qun(‘)lg was. A. J. Dumont, State: Senator, testified that seventeen Senators a.ng sixty-six hepteaentahves were present at the Joint -Assembly and voted for Kelloém; Thomas and Seveignes were present and voted. In reply_ to Mr. Merrick, the witness said he came-here in b=half .of Kellogg, and was Dffimty Collector of New Orleans, . o other evidence was offered, and all the witnesses, with the exception of Richaed J. Brooks, were discharged. ;

; Grinning in Pain., - ~lf the Democratic "Congress were hurting itself and helping the Repuolicans 8o much by the extra session, there never would be heard such an outcry fromall the Republican journals for an immediate adjournment. The trouble is, the Republicans -have no -stomach to ¢ discuss the subject.”” Their press in one and the same breath - calls for adjournment, and congratulates the party'on the benefit to that' side from the present session. The Independent press, which is usually more radical than the regular {Jarty press, very much outdoes the latter in this business of ridiculous inconsistency. Nothing would be ‘more according to the rea%d‘esir,e of the Republican leaders, if the Democrats in Congress are doing them such a power of good, than that the session should be prolonged. indefinitely. If the present forced grin were to be wiped off the Republican countenance a fearfully wry expression would appear -beneath. . The Democratic conference has resulted®in the adoption of & resolution to take only such measures as shall distinctly disclose the true issue to the people, while declining to ‘mix up the Appropriation bills with any issuewhatever. .That course will prove to be the one' which hits the common sense of the country. Thatitis the right one of all otkers may be known from the sneers that are flung at the Democrats by their opponents for their alleged weakness and cowardice. : We shall take the liberty to continue to believe that it is a good enough manifestation of courage to be completely indifferent to the.taunts and jeers of a party that has long since lost its reason.” At all events, the sights of the 'Republican exhibitions of chagrin at the refusal of the Democratic majority to pay any.attention to them is as satisfactory at this time as any other ean be. The trouble about.the Demoerats is that they will not do what their political opponents in Congress waat them to. It is for.that reason, and no other, that they are persistently accused of blundering and going generally wrong. But if they really were, asthey certainly now are not, would their opponents be likely to make such a noise over it? ' Would they not chuckle in theirsleeves instead, and go about shaking handsin token of silent congratulation? Womld they spend se much breath over a Democratic back-down, as they call it, if anything of the sort was going on? No; the Democratsare on just the right . track. They are forcing the President by every veto he writes' to define .and . describe more and more ‘sharply the real issue which chiefly divides parties at the present juncture. The people can now see what they could not -see ° so clearly before, that the Republican' party 1s determined to control popular elections with bayonets, to . corrupt them with Supérvisors aud Depnuty | Marshals, and to sap the yirtue of juries by undermining ‘them with oaths and tests by which juries ought never to be bound.— Boston Post. M —The Bankof France has in its office an invisible camera, which 'is used to take the portraits of suspicious persons while they are engaged in conwersation with the cashier. et SRR R e

Sick Headache 9 Positively Cured by " these Little Pills, : They also melieve : 5 Distress from:Dyspepy I gia, Indigestion and b k'l LE Too. Hearty Eating. h< el A perfect remedy for M IVER |sk Nausen, =5 - ; rowsiness, I 'aste = : in the Moutk, Coated ] P 'LLs- Tongue, Pain in the ?_ A i -4 Side, &c. They reguOz late the Bowvels and R : preyent Constipation - I and Piles. The smallest and easiest to take. Only one pill a dose. 40 in a vial. Purely Vegetable. Price2s cents. Sold by all Druggists. - i CARTER MEDICINE CO,, Prop'rs, Erie, Pa, Five Vials mail for one dollar, -

5 Privats * I-‘mg“ 8 ’ 187 East Washing- ¢ ~Qton St.. Ch 1598 WBG9 - RPNy, lot 4w care e e Tt Weheeiarrai vr Dex, n v fiulxlulon:n of Memory, Imputred m't. Loat sxhood or impotency rvous, Del . permas pently cured ; dileases of the B! ory 8 Livi TPR T o (et TS a 8 had -‘lll{long m&m and cures where others fail. He fsa graduate of the School, uses me mercury, bas the est practico i the U. S, LADnl‘s-anc treasment with vate home and board; eall or wite, Every convenlents for - ents. Send fifty cents for sample of Rubber Goods ana cle~ eular of Imporun" information by expeess, - DR OLIN'S Wemale Pi per Box. - Consultation free, - ¢ i MARRIAGE GUIDE mes.tet a 5 mlddie aged of bot L e ie R e s p iu....."‘ Valuable | mtothcm-fld_ and those contess : mlmr.}!ov»bn thymdtmiymyhth ried rela~ tion. wmpm bosk, 50 conts, toany ad-

A PHYSIOLOGICAL : o ; 5 <@ 3 View of Marriage 1 ONe A Guide to Wedlock and W GM A N confidential Treatise on the AR S x:i:-t’?nf-twunfiuorit.;l:gemu: NN DI ot o e oo sad . . * A book for private, consid< Y ATN B Merntc rending"2o g prioe On.néa..fiér‘.’&. by .%%%ufilmlfi':fi%m'sm Abuse, Excesses, orSeoret Diseases, wi%h the' best means of cure 3’%; es, priced®ets. ; A CLINICAL U&Eouthe above disenses and those of the Throatand Lunfn. Catarrh,Rupture, the Opium Habit,&c., price 10cte, & A Lol o pri e e “Rdd-ees DR, BUTTS, No. 12 . &b &t. 8% Lowia, Ma