The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1882-09-12
The Personal PrOnOun.

Inc fefSOhdl IFOuOuus
From the Philadelphia Times.
When General Alexandria Ogle served
Somerset's "(rosty sons of thunder" in the
Pennsylvania Legislature, it fell to him to
write, in behalf of the Democratic members,
letter to Gen. Jackson, then stepping across
the Presidential theshold. Such work of the
scribe was labor Of love, and in submitting
to the caucus what he had written Gen. Ogle
said: Gentlemen and members of the
Democratic party, hold in my hand letter
addressed by Gen. Alexander Ogle to Gen.
Andrew Jackson, and have no hesitation in
saying that it's a id able paper" The
member ,.:gathering around, agreed that the
letter was just the thing to make Old Hick-
ory's heart thump with satisfaction, and all
except one-a dapper little Philadelphia
spoke words Of praise. This dandy of the
House, fixing his glasses and scanning the
page with the critics smirk, ventured to re-
mark: "Pardon me, General, / do not wish
to assume to make suggestion to SO dis
tinguished gentleman as yourself, but can
not refrain from saying that it is customary
in the East, and may say in almost all the
civilized countries of Europe, to write with
the capital II instead of the little Il in using
the personal pronoun in epistolary cores
pondence." Gen Ogle drew down his heavy
brows, piercing the dandys marrow with the
fierce shaft of scorn that shot firm his eye.
"Sir," he said, beginning with hiss and
ending with roar, ''when write to such
great, such towerin' man as Gen. Andrew
Jackson, Democratic President of the United
States, abase myself, abase myself, sir.
use as small an i as can put on paper but,
sir. if should ever get to such low-down
pitch as to have to write to ID little snipe
as you, I'd use an H. sir, that would fill two
sheets of foolscap, SO help me God!'
Liability of Banks AS Collectors.
The supreme court of the United States
lately rendered an important opinion on a
question OF wide interest touching the inability
of banks on the matter of notes left with them
for collection. Two notes had been sent to a
banking firm in Natchez Miss. The bank
was ignorant of the residence or place of bust
ness of the maker, and simply turned over the
notes when they became due to notary, who
was instructed to demand payment and in case
of non-payment to protest them and notify the
indorsers. The notary did not exercise due
diligence in order to find the maker, and the
notes were protested. One of the indorsers
was sued for We amount, but escaped liability
on the ground of the notary's negligence. The
holder thereupon brought an action against
the bank. The supreme court hold .>hat the
bank was not liable for the nota.A SkAlect,
although it had made no efor, ~ ertain
the place of business or residence of the max
er Of the notes IF the employment of no.
tary public for that object" says the court,
referring to finding the maker and demanding
payment, ''was sanctioned by the usage Of
bankers or by the law, as declared by the
courts of the state, instead of making the pre-
sentiment and demand personally, they could
have placed the notes in his hands for the
performance of that duty"