Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-12-24

DlOuSnN tD nlc one or tile ClfC0hTS. ana | was re- quested by some ofthe voters to read for the mor nation Of the persons present; and did accordingly read it without an intention to add single word nor was the repeal of that section mentioned in the after discussion between Mir Owenand myself.
 Tlen fo read the answer of Mir Lewis to a ques- ton addressed to him through the pubic papers, in which the voters were interested to those who de. sired to heal t, according to the inference of MT Owen, and in the language of his friend, Mir Ci. tzen. To maintain the correctness of it's doctrines, and to take quite legal argument By this new rule of evidence every man who read the answer oI MT Lewis maintained the correctness of its doc trineS, and also made quite legal argument, part cuiay It any persons wished 10 hear and did hear it. will not say what opinion the public ought to enteltain of such testimony adduced in support oi such lan issue. But this will say, that have the positive testimony of one of the most intelligent and mos irreproachable men in this community, that slalfd 10 him before the election, that was opposed to te repeal of the 25th section of the judiciary act thatth Supreme Courts of some of the States had deciled against its constitutionaty but that s,cll wasnotmy opinion. It is sufficient for me to men tion lhahame ofWilliam Bowling, Esq The names of ohsr Gentlemen in other parts of the State might sobG1ientioned, who could verify the fact of my oppftion to the repeal.
 Aiew days after the election, John E. Hazard Esq said to me. that if he instead of Mir Owen had
 
 ion regard to the repeal ofthe 2oh section of the judiciary act. answered that should have stated thit was opposed 10 its repeal, and he said tiat he lnew 1t; he m fact did know il because had con lversed with him on the subject. This conversation with Mir Hazard shews also, that tho question of Mir Owen was pubticiy put, and that the object of il was to injure the election of Mir Lewis
 The next charge is that advocated the election of Mir Davis for Governor, in opposition 10 two other candidates and that most ofthe tickets for him were in ny hand writing.
 Here the witness relies entirely on argument. and q curious argument il is. IL Is in substance thls that, because gave inc reasons of Mir Lewis for his op- position 10 the Coosa Canal upon his own call for information, and Mir Gayle had. perhaps, on some occasion, expressed himselfi in favor of the Canal, upon the making of which he could not in any event have voice, ! therefore advocated the election of Mir Davis. and suppose according to the supple mental charge of CtIzen, wrote most of ,he tickets which were given for him. Lest it should be sup posed tint the argument of Mir Owen upon ths point has not been correctly represented, will give hls own woIds. which are as follows Judge Crawford in his speeches this occasion, ardenty maintained the doclne othe constitutional inc0mpetency ot the General Government to make internal improve ments, abd reiterated his arguments against the ut ty and eipedlency of the projected Coosa Canal IS treH hoicn that one, not two, of the three cand dates lorhe office of Governor, maintained the con verse Of llese doctrines; and one of them warmly advocated in his speeches (which were publlshed) the power in the government as constitutional, and | the preerineni importance of the work alluded to- May il nt then, be asserted with proprety, that his speeches had allusiun to- and bearing on, the de cislons o electors in their choice of Governor. | This ! specimen of reasoning by gentleman who hasstuded mathematics and logic. l can only say that those sciences withheld from him their aid in makiig his deductions This is the "hole evi dence in support of his charge now under considera tiOn, being the third in nuinber consisting wholly o an argument by the gentleman whe was introduced as wit,ess; the fa-ility of which cannot be made more apparent by argument. The opinions Of NJ Gayle respecting the Coosa Canal were not spoker of, I presunc were mol known by dozen indiyi duals present, and were not thought ofby me
 'Citizn' has brought the cause of Mir JOHN BAKET before tie public, and Mir OWEN has gven his testl nony ard hiS law respecting it. About February last Mir }AKER contracted with Doctor ALsToE io the pac, of an Overseer, and some time afterwards certainly before the election, rCm01ed DtM hS tdmt Q to the county of Clarke, and another family occn pied his louse in Washington county; and he now resides with hls family upon the plantation ofthe att J. M. AlsToY in Clarke county. By his renoya
 from Washington, to Clarke he lost his right to vote 1 in Washington and it was totally immaterial un der theconsiitution, whether he had or had not re sided fo three months in the county of Clarke. St that MrOwEN's supposition that he had a right tt vote in Washington JecauSe he had no right to vot' in Care, is like most of his legal opinions, founded l in error The constitution requires residence at tht time ofhe election.
 Does this gentleman see any analogy between tho case pit, by him, of merchant who goes from Mo pile to New-York to lay in his goods and returns tt his hone in Mobile and exercises the right of sui rage and that of Mir BAKER who had not only aban doned ais residence in Washington. but had acqnr ed onein Clarkel lfhe does, am constrained tt be of opinion that he is again in error.
 | Mir OWEN says that 1t was said in affirmation o I his MT BAKER's) right to vote, that Washington county was and at all times had been his pernanen residence, and if at any time absent, it was alway with the intention of returning This ofcourse wa said by him. Let it be recollected that Mir BAKEr lnh given up his house in Washington cnunty t0 ano 1 ther family and had removed with his family to ths county of Clarke. If this he the law applicable it tases similar to that ofMr BAKER, it would suit mos admirably not Mir BAKER nor Mir OWEN, but some of the 'Citizens' They could have, as Mir BAKEt had d residence dc taetO in one county, and ega residence in another. By the law ofthe land free holder cannot be sued out of the county of his free hold and legal residence. It will be readily seer that by judiciOus application of this interpolation into the law, some of our cunning Citizens coult obtain all the benefits of stop law without an enact ment by the Legislature. A removal from one coun ty with a constant intention to return, no matter al what time would of course fix the legal residence ,f an individual in the county from which he remov | ,d. He would not be found in the county of his egal residence, and could not according to this new notion be sued in the county of his residence de tdcto However much therefore, Mir Owen may have felt "as for another se" in consequence of the rid culous attitude in which he was placed, submit il to the decision of candid community whether he is placed by his position in
 The gentleman has thought proper to oppose his hearsay to my declaration that l read from one ol the circulars of Mir Lewis. This is point no fur ther material than the attempt to impugn my state. ment has made it so Irepeat the declaration; and cannot orbear 10 note the anxious desire of the gen. tleman to attach censure to me in the most minute