Delaware State journal and statesman., 1863-02-17
Couldn't Subscribe.

A pair of those interesting young ladies
who of late seem to carry on so successful
a business in Offices and stores in the way
of procuring subscriptions for new works
selling engravings of the Father Of his
Country, and other nobilities, and who,
(the ladies) are so fascinating in their
manner, so delightfully."- importunate, so
sweetly un-get-rid-of-able, called "a NOR
ming or two since, at the Office of a young
lawyer, to induce him-as the younger OF
the two expressed it, with charming
smile-''to subscribe to a most elegant
work, just published, to be got up in style,
with illustrations, &C."
"lndeed, ladies'" said our friend, 81
cannot; | have no doubt of the excellence
of your work, but / am not in want OF
anything of that kind In fact, do not
feel able at present to subscribe for any
new works Of any description. The part
nership of which l am member has
lately been so imprudent as to issue new
work of their own and the enormous ex-
pense attending its issue-not to speak Of
the illustrations, embellishments and orna-
mental adornings with which they have
seen fit to clothe the production-such
unwonted outlay has really for the pre-
sent, in fact crippled me. Sorry, but
fact every word of it,"
But ah," interrupted our enterprising
agentess, perhaps we could procure sub
scribers to your work our terms are
quite reasonable, What do you call your
work, sir 2"
"Well, we have not fully determined as
yet, but | guess shall let Mrs.--haye
her own way and call it after myself:
Charles Henry"
The ladies concluded they had an en-
gagement in the next block.
The REQUIREMENT OF STAMPS ON
ORIGINAL PROCESS DECLARED UNcoNsTI-
TUTIoNAL.-Judge Barnard, in case in
the New York Supreme Court, has de-
clared the Stamp Act passed by Congress
July l, 1862, unconstitutional, so far as
it relates to requiring stamps upon origi-
nal proceedings in the State courts. In
the case Of Walton against Bryenth an
order had been obtained to vaeate the
proceedings, on the ground that the sum-
mons had been filed without an adhesive
stamp, the defendants counsel contending
that the provisions of the statute rendered
all original proceedings invalid and of no
effect unless stamped.
Plaintiffs counsel argued that Congress
had no power to interfere with the pro-
ceedings of the State courts. 1t was
doubtful whether they had the power to
impose the penalty of $50; but if they
could render the proceedings in State
courts invalid, they unsurped a power
that was illegal and unconstitutional If
they could impose a duty of six cents up
on a summons they could, upon the same
principle, lay duty which would amount
to prohibition, and thus paralyze the
whole system of administering justice in
the State tribunals The Court decided
to dismiss the order Congress had no
right to interfere with the proceedings of
the State courts. In his Judgment the
provision was illegal and unconstitutional.
Congress might impose a penalty, but
could not invalidate the proceedings Of
the State courts. This case will soon go
to the Court of Appeals, and probably to
the Supreme Court of the United States,
where the important question will be
finally decided.