USA > Georgia > The bench and bar of Georgia: memoirs and sketches. With an appendix, containing a court roll from 1790-1857, etc., volume I > Part 31
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57
Then, as to the law, it was the great machine that wove happi- ness for mankind, adjusting their rights and securing equality and repose to all classes. It was reason personified,-a system of great and just principles, abstruse enough to tax the loftiest minds and yet so simple that all might see and admire its rules. At the next interview, the whole civil administration ought to be cast into the sea. It was a miserable cheat : there was no uniformity, no truth, in it. The crude ideas of judges who had neither sense nor con- sistency formed the substratum of the common law; and the statutes were known to be the work of the most consummately stupid portion of mankind. Look at A, B, and C, in your Legislature, who cannot tell whether Julius Caesar lived before or after the Flood, or whether Sir Isaac Newton did not discover the planets from Noah's ark, or whether Columbus was not killed in a duel by Aaron Burr. Blackstone laughs at this idea of men passing new laws who do not understand the provisions of the old. A few self- conceited demagogues and upstarts in the legal profession prepare bills, and then, by the aid of these legislators, who do not know the difference between civil and criminal process, vote them into statutes binding on the people at large ! Such nonsense is insufferable !
As the mood would strike him, the Legislature and the courts of Georgia were the most enlightened in the Union. Look at our judiciary system : it was a master-piece of wisdom and justice. Every thing started right, and there has been regular improvement since. Thus would he discourse, extolling a measure or an indi- vidual one day, and the next day he would demolish both by the caustic inflictions of his tongue. No one understood his mind, his heart, or his affairs. He was a strange compound, and died, as he lived, in perfect mystery.
259
WILLIAM CROCKER.
Nor should a third gentleman be forgotten, who died much earlier. Soon after the battle of New Orleans, such was his admiration of the hero, that Robert L. Perryman wrote and published, in pam- phlet form, " The Life and Public Services of Major-General Andrew Jackson." The whole was summed up by a declaration of the fact, which other historians have omitted to notice, that at the battle of the 8th of January, 1815, "the British took to their heels and sneaked off like egg-sucking curs !"
These were competitors of Major Crocker at the bar of Marion. A few besides might be mentioned, some now dead, and others living, were it necessary for any special reason. One* of them has a place in this work who always held Major Crocker in the highest esteem.
The property of Major Crocker had increased to a large estate, which enabled him to give liberally to his children as they settled in life. He was a prudent manager, even to the most rigid economy, yet provided a good education for his sons and daughters, and whatever was necessary to support their position in society. All of them formed advantageous matrimonial connections. One of his daughters, Lucy, married Samuel Williams, late of Stewart county ; another, Mary, married Allen Belsher, after whose death she intermarried with Tomlinson Fort, late of Stewart; and the youngest, Frances, married James Solomon, and several years after his death she became the wife of Hugh L. Dennard, of Houston county. The daughters are still living, all of whom have grandchildren. The sons of Major Crocker are Elijah Evans Crocker, who resides near the old homestead, Dr. William N. L. Crocker, of Macon county, formerly a Senator in the Legislature, and Peter Early Crocker, yet of Twiggs county.
In person, Major Crocker was of the ordinary size, well formed, had blue eyes, fresh complexion, and a round, well-developed fore- head. He was very plain in his manners, which resembled those of a farmer, and was quite a favorite among the people, who honored him the more for his quiet, social deportment. He died at his residence near Marion, Twiggs county, June 22, 1835, at the age of fifty-eight years.
* R. A. Beall.
XI. WILLIAM C. DAWSON.
IT is often the case that a man possesses a high character and great influence in his own State without being known elsewhere,- without any reputation which might be called national. Many such men are to be found, equal in merit to the more fortunate,-if to be known in a wider sphere in the annals of the Government be indeed superior fortune. The subject of this memoir filled a large space in the public eye at home and abroad; and it is the design of the author to produce testimony of the fact, as well as to exhibit the individual qualities of WILLIAM C. DAWSON, whose memory is dear to the people of Georgia.
An extract of a letter received from a gentleman* well known and appreciated for his public services and private worth will be first introduced :-
You ask me for some of the leading incidents in the life and character of the lamented Judge Dawson; and you are right in supposing that I was intimately acquainted with him and could impart the desired in- formation. I knew him well: we were born in the same county, and in the same neighborhood. We received the first rudiments of our educa- tion at the same school. He was my playmate in boyhood, my companion in manhood, and my co-partner in the practice of the law for many years. Judge Dawson was born January 4, 1798, in Greene county, and died May 5, 1856, in the fifty-ninth year of his age.
-
He was graduated at Franklin College about the year 1816. Soon after leaving college, he entered the law-office of Judge Thomas W. Cobb, with whom he commenced the study of the law. He afterward attended the Law-School at Litchfield, Connecticut, and there completed his law studies,-was admitted to the bar and settled in Greensboro' about the year 1818. Very soon he won for himself a high reputation as an advo- cate. In fact, he was considered one of the best jury-lawyers at the Ocmulgee bar. IIe possessed the rare faculty of bringing his auditors into the ideal presence of every scene.
He was Clerk of the House of Representatives of Georgia for about twelve years, and this post he held during a time of great party excite- ment. Often during that period there was a majority against him : yet he was elected, such was his personal popularity. He was several times elected a Senator and Representative from Greene county in the State
Col. Yelverton P. King, long a member of the Legislature of Georgia, and late Charge d'Affaires to Central America.
260
109
261
WILLIAM C. DAWSON.
Legislature, and subsequently a Representative and Senator in Congress. At the time of his death he was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Georgia.
Thus, you perceive, he was often honored; and, I will add, he was always faithful. As a friend, they to whom he was attached will bear testimony that no human being ever more faithfully cherished and per- formed the duties of that relation; and those who had a right to regard him as such knew, absent or present, that he never was found wanting in readiness, fidelity, and zeal. The eloquent tribute inscribed by the poet on the monument of his friend can most truly be applied to Judge Dawson :-
"Ennobled by himself, by all approved, Praised, wept, and honor'd by the friends he loved."
His manners were easy and prepossessing, his conversation various and gay. He was the life and soul of every company; and you truly said that he "never permitted any one to be dejected in his presence." To sum up all, Judge Dawson possessed all those attributes which constitute a generous, magnanimous, and high-minded gentleman.
An event in the life of Mr. Dawson which greatly contributed to his success and felicity was his intermarriage with Miss Hen- rietta M. Wingfield, daughter of Dr. Thomas Wingfield. This lady possessed qualities of mind and heart, united with rare cultivation and refinement, which made her society a constant charm and gave home its sweetest attractions.
To those old enough to remember the contest between Col. George M. Troup and Gen. John Clark, sustained by personal competition for the State Executive,-first by the defeat of Col. Troup in 1821, then his election by the Legislature in 1823, and finally the seal of favor he received at the ballot-box in 1825, when the people of Georgia for the first time were authorized to vote for Governor,-it is unnecessary to state that Mr. Dawson was an active supporter of Col. Troup and his measures. The Indian treaty of 1825, which arrayed Gov. Troup and President Adams on opposite sides, was triumphantly maintained by the wisdom and firmness of Gov. Troup, in the face of a high military commission of which Major-General Edmund Pendleton Gaines was the head. A few passages from the correspondence on that occasion appear else- where in this work .* This controversy gave rise to the State- Rights party of Georgia, which received more or less organization in 1833, as may be seen in another memoir .; On several issues the party lines were established. Although there was some diver- sity of action relative to the writs of error granted by the Supreme
* Memoir of William II. Torrance.
t Memoir of Robert Augustus Beall.
262
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
Court of the United States to control the criminal jurisdiction of Georgia within the territory occupied by the Cherokees, both par- ties agreed in the most essential thing,-to resist by force, if neces- sary ; and the only dispute was, or appeared to be, as to the phrase- ology which should be employed.
The facts were briefly these. James Graves, a Cherokee Indian, had been convicted of murder and sentence of death passed on him in Murray Superior Court, in 1834. The offence was com- mitted in the Creek nation, which claimed to be an independent power. Counsel applied to the Supreme Court of the United States, and obtained a mandate from one of the judges to carry up the record and to stay execution of the sentence,-serving the Governor and Attorney-General of the State with notice of such proceedings. The Executive laid the whole subject before the Legislature, which was referred to the Committee on the State of the Republic, of which Mr. Dawson was a member. As a substi- tute to the report of a majority of the committee, Mr. Dawson offered the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 in his minority report,-which was rejected by a vote of 26 to 51. His speech on the occasion was reported in the Times and State-Rights Advocate, a paper then published at Milledgeville, and edited by a gentleman* who has since acquired considerable reputation as a jurist as well as for profound research in almost every branch of human knowledge. From the Times of November 18, 1834, the following is extracted :-
The report and resolutions of the majority of the committee on the state of the Republic, and the counter-report of the minority, being the special order of the day, and both having been read,-
Mr. Dawson moved that the Senate adopt the report of the minority in substitution of that presented by the majority.
Mr. Wofford expressed a wish that before a vote was taken the gentle- man would favor the Senate with his reasons in favor of the substitute.
Mr. Dawson then rose and addressed the Senate as follows :-
Mr. PRESIDENT :- In compliance with the appeal made to me by the honorable Senator from Habersham, I will attempt, as briefly as the sub- ject will admit, to state the reasons why I prefer the substitute to the original report and resolutions. It is, sir, undeniable that the substitute offered by myself in behalf of, and under the direction of, the minority of the committee, contains principles of more importance to this country, and involving more the welfare and happiness of its people, than any other subject which could arise. They are the principles which distinguish the two great parties now prevailing in the State of Georgia, as well as throughout the whole of this great Confederacy. Since I arrived at years of discretion, and became acquainted with political characters and princi-
* William S. Rockwell, Esq.
263
WILLIAM C. DAWSON.
ples, it is known to all my personal and political friends that I have been an humble but undeviating advocate of the Jeffersonian doctrine of State Rights and State Remedies, and I can conscientiously aver that no one act of my life has been in violation of them. I have said that the ques- tion is one of the most deep and vital importance. It is one involving the nature and character of our Government and our Constitution, and which becomes us all, however widely we may differ, to treat with candor and solemnity.
To come at once, Mr. President, to the reasons why I prefer the report submitted by the minority to that of the majority of the committee. In the first place, I would observe that the principles laid down in the former are those that were adopted by the Republican party at the forma- tion of the Constitution, and, as I hope I shall be able to prove, the prin- ciples advocated by those distinguished and patriotic statesmen and phi- losophers, Jefferson and Madison. They are to be found in the celebrated Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, and they were the same that elevated Mr. Jefferson to the Presidential chair in 1801. From the foundation of this Government, down to the present day, two great parties have agitated the country. I shall not now stop to inquire if there be any points of similarity or shades of difference between the parties now in conflict and those of 1798; but a brief review of the questions then at issue will the better enable us to form a correct conclusion. No sooner was the Government of the United States constituted, than two great par- ties immediately sprung up,-one in favor of a strong National or General Government, whose efforts, aided by inference and construction of the Constitution, tended to consolidation and monarchy. These were denomi- nated the Federal party. Those who went for the maintenance of the Government by a strict construction of that document were said to belong to the Republican, or people's party. The history of our Government sufficiently proves this. Until the year 1798, the former party had the ascendency,-when those apostles of liberty, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madi- son, stood forth as the friends of strict construction, resolved to secure the limitations of the Constitution and preserve the rights of the States. When those efforts were made, what was the condition of the country ? I see before me men of venerable age, who well recollect our condition at that time, and who can testify to the truth of the picture. We had just gained our independence, after a struggle of severe hardship and long duration : we were then in a state of peace and tranquillity ; and the people, requiring ease and repose, as an inevitable consequence sunk, for a time, into supineness and negligence. Soon, however, oppression was seen to march with rapid strides. The Federal party began to usurp powers unheard of before, and the liberties of the people were again at stake. The people then rallied, and against whom? Why, sir, against the Fede- ral party. And for what purpose, Mr. President? To restore the coun- try to its republican simplicity, and to secure on a more solid basis those sovereign rights of the States which had been threatened with ruin. In order to restore the Goverment to its former simplicity, and give to the Republican party that ascendency which was necessary, Mr. Jefferson I came the leader of the Democratic party. Then it was that the con- troversy assumed a tangible shape; for, though its advances had previously Even rapid and powerful, they had been cautious and almost silent. This was in the year 1798. Is not this the plain historical truth ? I fear- Cely call upon those who advocate a different doctrine to say if I have
264
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
herein erred. Well, sir, the principles then contended for by those two great men have been recognised as the principles of the Republican party of these United States, and it will be seen that the substitute is not only in strict accordance with the spirit of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolu- tions, but the first five of them are almost exact transcripts. Is there an honorable Senator of this House who will attempt to controvert these celebrated resolutions ? None would be so hardy. Well, then, whence can arise the opposition to the substitute offered by the minority of the committee, agreeing as it does, both in spirit and in language, with these resolutions ? If those who have avowed themselves advocates of the Jeffersonian doctrines are consistent, then do I look for their support of the resolutions proposed by myself.
Then, sir, what is the sum and substance of these resolutions? It is that this General Government is a government of delegated powers, and entitled to no other powers than those delegated to it, and that the States have certain rights. Here arises the grand question at issue :- What are those rights, and how are they to be exercised? These resolutions declare their right to interpose and protect the people from the encroach- ment of any undelegated power and to pronounce any such attempts unconstitutional, null, and void; that the people of a State, or, in other words, the State herself, shall be the judge of the constitutionality of a law and whether it be usurpation or not; and that the States have the right to judge of the mode and the measure of redress. I call upon gen- tlemen who differ from me-and dare them to the investigation of the resolutions of 1798 and 1799-to say whether these sentiments are not in strict accordance with those of Jefferson and Madison, and whether they do not embody the Republican doctrines of 1801. Are they not those upon which the two great parties of Federal and State-Rights con- tend that they are still divided? If I am incorrect in what I have stated, there is ample testimony at hand to detect my errors; but, sir, however feeble I may be as an advocate, I claim the merit at least of keeping within the bounds of historical truth. The issue is now as it was then; and, though shades of verbal difference may seem to exist, it is a war between the same contending principles.
When the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were sent to the various State Legislatures, all those north of a certain line declared them to be dangerous to the Government of the United States, subversive of the prin- ciples on which it was based, and that the Federal Constitution admitted of no such construction. Then the issue between the Federalists, or friends of an inferential construction of the compact, and the Repub- licans, or friends of a strict construction, was fairly brought before the American people. The people, sir, when not led away by interested demagogues, but suffered to reflect, will always be right. They were so then, and the result was the election of Mr. Jefferson to the Presidency. Then was the triumph of the Republican doctrines accomplished; and from that day to the present the same parties have continued in conflict under some form or other, the chief variations being only in names, with very few material shades of difference. Am I incorrect, sir?
I hold in my hand the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 from which the first four in the substitute of the minority of the com- mittee are taken, and I call upon those gentlemen who profess themselves to belong to the Republican party to say whether they will now abandon the principles contained in them, -- the principles of those great champions
د
265
WILLIAM C. DAWSON.
of liberty, Madison and Jefferson, and the principles which, we have been taught, were those alone which could secure the stability of our Union and the perpetuity of our great Confederacy.
[Here Mr. Dawson read the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which appeared in the report of his speech.]
Well, then, sir, we have seen that Virginia advocated those doctrines ; and we shall see that the State of Georgia, with some few alterations, fol- lowed in the wake. In 1802 occurred the well-known case of Chisholm, when the State of Georgia was cited before the Supreme Court, and all the judges, with the exception of Judge Iredell, declared the Supreme Court had jurisdiction. A brief history of that case is this :-
In the year 1792 the United States Marshal served copies of a process from the Supreme Court on the then Governor of the State of Georgia and the Attorney-General of the State, at the instance of one Chisholm. After the meeting of the Supreme Court, the then Attorney- General of the United States moved, "That, unless the State of Georgia shall, after reasonable notice of this motion, cause an appearance to be entered in behalf of said State on the fourth day of the next term, or shall then show cause to the contrary, judgment shall be entered against the said State, and a writ of inquiry of damages awarded." At the February term, 1793, the case was called up, and a protest of the State of Georgia (sent by the authorities of the State) was presented, denying all jurisdiction by the United States courts, and absolutely refusing to enter into any argument or to answer in any other way.
The case was then argued ex parte, and the court did decide against the State of Georgia in favor of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. On the question of jurisdiction all the judges agreed except one, (Judge Iredell,) who maintained-and independently-the States to be creators and superiors of the General Government, and happily elucidated the distinction between a sovereign State and a mere corporation. Judgment was then taken by default against Georgia, and additional notices of the proceedings of the court served. To none of these proceedings did the sovereign State of Georgia yield. She disobeyed and disregarded; she interposed her sovereignty; or, if gentlemen prefer or will not be frightened, I will say Georgia nullified. At February Term, 1794, of the Supreme Court, judgment was rendered against her by default, and a writ of inquiry ordered. Was this writ ever executed ? No, sir. See 2 Dallas's Re- ports, 419, where this case is reported. Thus Georgia set this decision at naught; she defeated it; and therein, by an act of nullification, avow- ing her determination to resist the mandate, she did not appear. What, sir, was the consequence ? Was there any disturbance? Was there any convulsion ? Was there any bloodshed, any war, any pestilence ? No, sir. In spite of the position assumed by the Supreme Court,-which took an ex parte proceeding, and had judgment entered against the State, -what did Georgia do? She declared the jurisdiction null and void and refused obedience. What, then, sir, was the consequence of all this ? No war, sir, no bloodshed, no convulsion. No, sir. The people of the United States met and amended the Constitution, limited the powers of the Supreme Court, and declared that the Constitution could not be so construed as to give to that court the power claimed.
The foregoing is not the whole of the speech delivered by Mr.
266
BENCH AND BAR OF GEORGIA.
Dawson, a portion of it being reserved for another paper. The following editorial paragraph appeared in connection with the speech, and is here inserted to throw light on the issues of that day :--
In the recent debate in the Senate, we were much struck with the vast apparent difference between the orators on both sides. The gentlemen of the State-Rights party who spoke in favor of the substitute offered by the minority presented the doctrines of the party with so much eloquence, that we were not surprised at the apparent reluctance with which our opponents came forward to vindicate themselves from the inconsistencies charged upon them and proved so conclusively. The President of the Senate vacated his chair to reply to Mr. Dawson. Standing so high in the confidence of our adversaries, and holding his office by their suffrages, we must believe the positions he advanced to be the tenets of the party to which he belongs. We listened with much attention to his speceh, and for the life of us we could not distinctly perceive the honorable Senator's meaning,-doubtless owing rather to our limited capacity than the orator's perspicuity. We understood him to say "that the people were the source of power," and from this axion he deduced the conclusion that, as the agents of the people exercised the attributes of sovereignty, the sovereignty resided with them ; or, in his own words, "the Govern- ments created by them were sovereign." He afterward asserted that "the people could create any amount of sovereignty they pleased !"-a task that, with all their admitted omnipotence, they would find it rather difficult to accomplish. The occurrences of the last few days have now clearly developed the creed which our adversaries profess. The positions maintained by their orators in the Senate are perfectly in accordance with the Federal doctrines so signally defeated in 1801. We feel ourselves forced to the conclusion that they are Federalists in theory and practice when the people can be deluded, but, when cases occur where the deceptive system cannot be further practised upon, they abandon all they labor so hard to prove, and furtively attempt to appropriate to themselves the practice of the State-Rights party, at the same time loudly condemning
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.