USA > Georgia > The history of the State of Georgia from 1850 to 1881, embracing the three important epochs: the decade before the war of 1861-5; the war; the period of Reconstruction, v. 2 > Part 13
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
1
1
4×6
THE STATE ROAD LEASE.
denounced the villainy, and declared that the wisest thing Congress could do was to sweep from the statutes the last vestige of political disability.
The battle over the State road was hard fought, and a striking triumph for Gov. Brown. A rival company, composed mainly of At- lanta citizens, had sought to lease the road, but had been defeated by Gov. Brown's company. The most determined effort was made to break up the lease. The papers were filled with the subject. It was brought before the legislature. A joint committee was appointed to investi- gate and report upon the fairness or unfairness of the lease, composed of Senators Wm. M. Reese and A. D. Nunnally, and Representatives G. F. Pierce, Geo. M. Netherland and C. B. Hudson. The inquiry was exhaustive. Every possible witness was examined under oath. Ma- jority and minority reports were made. There were extensive, discus- sions. The fight was full of very hot blood and a deep conflict of moneyed interest. The purpose to break the lease was resolute and acri- monious. There was no tendency to compromise, but the fullest deter- mination to fight it out on both sides to the bitter end.
The legislature finally sustained the lease by an overwhelming ma- jority, and Gov. Brown had reason to be proud of his victory. He had the best metal of the State pitted against him. His management of the long conflict was a model of cool temper, sleepless vigilance and masterly force. It was curiously illustrative of the disrepute into which the expelled Bullock regime had fallen, that the heaviest burden the Seago Company, as it was called, had to carry, was the connection with it of Foster Blodgett's name. There is an interesting feature of this memorable lease that deserves mention. Nearly all of the original lessees have sold out their shares, and yet the practical anomaly is seen of the new owners, being unable under the lease law to control their property, which remains under the management of the first lessees, who alone are liable to the State, and with whom alone the lease contract was made, and who by the statute are made the directors of the company for the whole period of the lease.
We now come to a strange episode in Gov. Brown's life. He seemed destined to have every possible experience that falls to man. The drama of his career was a complete catalogue of surprises and alterna- tions. He had been from boyhood a member of the church, a devout, pious Baptist, a man of prayer, a pillar of his denomination. His life was practically Christian. It was a powerful set of circumstances that led him deliberately to prepare to enter into a duel under the Code. Yet this he did, and Gen. Robert Toombs was his antagonist. No one contem-
-
-----
477
THE DUEL BETWEEN BROWN AND TOOMBS.
plated the idea for a moment, that Gov. Brown would determine upon such an act, so foreign to his life and character. But in the long years of political proscription and personal abuse, a nature constitutionally combative, had become fired by a keen sense of injustice at the savage invective, that while much abated, still fusilladed him with considerable vigor from several quarters. Gen. Toombs, with a capacity for scath- ing characterization, had made Gov. Brown a special object of attack.
That Gov. Brown should resolve to check the current of vituperation was not an unnatural conclusion for a man of his inherited belligerence and stern temper. He made up his mind in his quiet way, to go to the field and fight. He secured Col. James Gardner as his second, and had every arrangement made to push this issue to extremes. The corres- pondence tells the whole story, which is permitted to speak for itself. The duel did not come to a meeting, owing to a hitch that will be seen in the correspondence, but it is none the less true that Gov. Brown had made up his mind to fight the duel. And it was a strange result, testi- fying loudly to the inconsistency of the best human nature that Gov. Brown's resolution to fight not only did him a wonderful amount of good with the ungodly, but as they felt he had long suffered great in- justice and wrong it pleased his Christian friends, whose moral and religious ordinances he proposed to violate. The meekest people like pluck and spirited resistance to wrong. Gov. Brown remained in his church relations, not only not injured by his war-like episode, but with an increased respect and an enlarged church influence.
The cause of the difficulty was the following private letter, published by the Griffin News, on the 24th of June, 1872, to a gentleman of that city:
" WASHINGTON, June 19th, 1872.
" Dear Sir : I do not know the heirs of Mitchell, and do not know whether they are men, women or children, and certainly made no allusion whatever to them in the speech referred to, and I will add that I have no doubt that if they had any rights to the prop- erty referred to, they were stripped of the largest portion of their rights, as well as the State.
" The journals of the Legislature show, that in the face of a direct offer of one hundred thousand dollars for a quit-claim deed to the property in dispute made by Gen- eral Austell and others, and of the unanimous opinion of all the lawyers employed in the case by Bullock, except one, that the title of the State was clear, the Legislature accepted the offer of thirty-five thousand dollars from Lochrane, Kimball and Brown, who engineered the bill through the Legislature in the name of the Mitchell heirs.
" The term ' orphans of Mitchell' was applied to them in derision of the pretenses, under which the people were stripped of their property for the use of these 'orphans.'
" This action of the Legislature was the result of bribery, pure and simple. The
4:8
GOVERNOR BROWN'S DENUNCIATION OF TOOMBS.
acceptance of the thirty thousand dollars in lieu of the hundred thousand offered under the circumstances contained in the journals is conclusive proof of that fact.
" I did state further, that as far as my knowledge extended, all of the public plunderers who pretended to be Democrats, from Tammany Hall down to the smallest petty lar- ceny thief on the State Road, were Greeley men, and so is the fact.
" The spoliators of every party in this country dread nothing so much as the return to power of the State Rights Democratic party of the United States. That party is the terror of all the enemies of the public by whatever name they may be called.
" I am very respectfully, your ob't serv't.,
"R. TOOMBS." Gov. Brown made this reply in the Constitution of July 3, 1872: " ATLANTA, GA., July 2, 1872.
" Editors Constitution : My attention has been called to a letter published in the Griffin Daily News, signed R. Toombs, in reference to the passage of the resolution of the Legislature of 1870, compromising the litigation between the heirs of Samuel Mitchell and the State of Georgia, in which Gen. Toombs uses the following language :
. " ' The Legislature accepted the offer of $35,000 from Lochrane, Kimball and Brown, who engineered the bill through the Legislature in the name of the Mitchell heirs. The term ' orphans' of Mitchell was applied to them in derision of the pretenses under which the people were stripped of this property, for the use of these 'orphans.' This action was the result of bribery pure and simple. . . . I did state further that as far as my knowledge extended, all the public plunderers who pretended to be Democrats, from Tammany Hall down to the smallest petty larceny thief on the State Road, were Greeley men, and so is the fact.'
" Now if Gen. Toombs intends by his language to say that I have been guilty of bribery in 'engineering ' this bill through the Legislature, I pronounce his statement an infamous falsehood and its author an unscrupulous liar.
" Very respectfully, "JOSEPH E. BROWN."
Judge Lochrane published an aggressive and denunciatory reply to Gen. Toombs, in which he argued the facts, and thus concluded :
" Too long have the interests of Georgia been cursed by the bewildering folly of Toombs. May the God of justice interpose to save the State from the further infliction of his pestilential influence, and as the State has heretofore been spared his precedent, may Providence, in the future, spare her the curse of his parallel."
This very neat piece of abuse is given, as in Gen. Toombs' reply there is some clever counter-crimination. The contest between these two was merely wordy. The difficulty with Gov. Brown was a serious affair, and he meant fight, and conducted the correspondence to that end. Gen. Toombs sent Col. John C. Nicholls on the 9th of July, 1822, to Gov. Brown, to informally inquire if he would give Gen. Toombs satisfaction under the Code. Gov. Brown, in a very polite, but as he considered it a very positive conversation, gave the assurance plainly, as he thought, that he would give satisfaction when called on by Gen. Toombs. After
479
GENERAL TOOMBS' REPLY.
Col. Nicholls retired Gov. Brown at once telegraphed his friend, Col. Gardner, at Augusta, requesting him to come to Atlanta by the first train. Col. Gardner arrived on the early morning train of the 10th. Gov. Brown called on him immediately, and gave him a full statement of the interview between him and Col. Nicholls. Col. Gardner told him his only mistake was, that he did not have all communication on the subject conducted in writing-that if Col. Nicholls should have misun- derstood him, or should give a different version of the conversation, it might be unfortunate. Col. Gardner then advised Gov. Brown to see Col. Nicholls without delay, and agree in writing, what was said in the interview. It was early in the morning, and Gov. Brown at once in- quired of the hotel-keeper for Col. Nicholls' room. But he was informed that Col. Nicholls had left the previous evening for his home in Southern Georgia. He was also informed that Gen. Toombs had left very early that morning for his residence in Washington, Ga., and curiously enough Col. Gardner was assigned to Gen. Toombs' vacated room. As neither Gen. Toombs nor Col. Nicholls were in Atlanta, it was not then in his power to see Col. Nicholls to reduce the conversation to writing, nor to communicate it immediately in writing to Gen. Toombs. Col. Gardner then advised him to reduce the conversation just as it occurred to writ- ing, and forward it by express immediately to Gen. Toombs, at his home, so that there could be no dispute about its receipt by him. This Gov. Brown did, and sent the written statement to Gen. Toombs by the express of that day, and took the receipt of the express company for the communication, which he was informed by the expressmen was promptly delivered.
This communication, so far as it relates to the interview between Col. Nicholls and Gov. Brown, is copied into Gov. Brown's card to the public, dated July 17, 1872, and need not be inserted here. The address and the memorandum referring to Col. Gardner's advice to see Col. Nicholls, and have the conversation reduced to writing immediately, are omitted.
On the 16th of July, Gen. Toombs published the following article in the Atlanta Sun, dated the 11th.
[From the Sun.] " WASHINGTON, GA., July 11, 1872.
" To the Editors of the Sun: A brace of ex-Chief Justices, of this State, honored me with their notice and vituperation in The Constitution of the 3d instant. There were a trio of these chevaliers d'industrie engaged in the transactions referred to. The third member of the firm ( Mr. H. I. Kimball) is absent from the State, I suppose, 'from cir- cumstances beyond his control.' These assaults excite no surprise.
" Since the adjourument of that band of public plunderers whom General Terry and
480
GENERAL TOOMBS' REPLY.
Bullock installed as the Legislature of Georgia in October, 1870, I have devoted much of my time and strength in endeavoring to secure the persons of these accomplices in guilt, and to preserve the evidence of their crimes from destruction, until the criminal laws could be enforced against them, and a ' free parliament of the people' could as- semble to aid the administration of justice, and wrest from the grasp of the spoilers so much of their ill-gotten gains as might be within the reach of law or legislation.
" These efforts have not been wholly unavailing, and I trust I have been able to render some small service to some of the very able and efficient committees whom the Legisla- ture have charged with the consummation of this great work. My small portion of the work has excited the deepest enmity of the whole gang of spoliators against me. I accept it as some evidence that I have not labored wholly in vain.
" It is worthy of notice in the beginning, that not a single statement made by me in the publication to which they refer, is denied by either Lochrane or Brown. They do not deny that they, in connection with Kimball, engineered through the Legislature the resolution ceding the Railroad Park property in Atlanta, in the name of the heirs of Mitchell; nor that the Legislature accepted thirty-five thousand dollars from their clients in the face of a responsible offer of one hundred thousand dollars for a quit-claim deed to the same property ; nor that this action of the Legislature was the result of bribery, pure and simple ; nor that the acceptance of the thirty-five thousand dollars in lieu of the one hundred thousand dollars offered under the circumstances contained in the journals, is conclusive of that fact. Here are the specific charges contained in my letter, and the proof referred to, to sustain them.
" I shall dismiss the reply of Lochrane very summarily. Treachery, mendacity, venality, servility to Bullock and the Radical gang, rottenness in and out of office since the surrender, has so strongly stamped his character, that nothing he could now say -- no new falsehood he might utter, and no new crime he might now commit would, in the least degree, affect his public reputation or his private character where he is known.
" He boasts of buying a large portion of the Park property, and of large amounts expended in its improvement, when I know that since that purchase, if purchase it be, he has been compromising his honest debts for about thirty cents on the dollar ; and if the money for the improvements came out of his purse, it must have been acquired by his practices under color of his profession, or his malpractices on the Bench.
" Ex-Chief Justice Brown denies neither of the statements which I affirmed. Ile con- tents himself with quoting from my letter, and then adding : 'Now if General Toombs, by this language, intends to say that I have been guilty of bribery in engineering this bill through the Legislature, I pronounce his statement an infamous falsehood, and its author an unscrupulous liar.'
" He quoted the language, and therefore knew I did not ' say' so. If he felt in doubt about the intention-the construction of the language -- he might have asked for an explanation. The propriety of this course is so obvious that no gentleman could fail to perceive it. Brown preferred hypothetical denunciation, the usual dodge of a vulgar poltroon, and played his characteristic rule. He is extremely technical : 'If General Toombs intends by this language that I have been guilty of bribery in engineering this bill through the Legislature,' ete. I think the probabilities are very much against Brown's being personally engaged in the bribery. I think he is too cunning and skill- ful a lobbyist to run any such unnecessary risks, especially with such experts as Kimball and Lochrane, aided by Blodgett, assisting him in the work of engineering the bill through the Legislature.
- - -
481
GENERAL TOOMBS' REPLY.
" The plain history of the case, and the examination of the journals of the Legislature (the evidence to which I referred) will fully vindicate the correctness of my opinion of the transaction.
" In 1842, Charles Mitchell, with the view to secure the location of the depot of the road on his land, donated, in fee simple, by deed of warranty, five acres of land to the State for ' placing thereon the necessary buildings which may hereafter be required for public purposes at the terminus of said road.' The State entered, occupied and held undisturbed possession of this property for nearly a quarter of a century.
" In 1867, Brown and Pope brought suit for the heirs of Mitchell for the park portion of the property. No action was ever had on this suit; but in 1868, the case was carried before the Legislature, and the claim rejected. It there slept until Bullock got another · reconstruction act through Congress, and he and General Terry had, by fraud and force, ejected a large number of the true representatives of the people, and replaced them with a sufficient number of his own pliant and corrupt tools to render powerless the honest men whom he could get no pretext for ejecting.
" The State being thus prostrate at the feet of the usurpers and plunderers, Bullock, their chief, with a corrupt Judiciary of his own appointment, with a venal Legislature, sounded his bugle and called his clans to the sacking of the Commonwealth.
"Lochrane was among the very first to obey the call. In July, 1870, he put in the rejected claim of the heirs of Mitchell, in a proposition to Bullock, to give him the whole of the property in dispute in the suits, except a strip of land two hundred and forty feet wide, between Lloyd and Pryor streets, where the depot then and now stands, for thirty-five thousand dollars. This property was estimated then to be worth between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand dollars, by some of the best citizens of Atlanta. The proposition was referred by Bullock to the counsel he had employed to defend the State's interests. Mr. William Dougherty, Judge Collier, Mr. Hoyt, Judge Hopkins and Mr. Nunnally, of the counsel, met, consulted, and except Nunnally, unanimously decided that the title of the State was clear and unquestionable, and directed one of their number so to report to the Governor.
"Judge Hopkins differs with Messrs. Dougherty, Collier and Hoyt as to the other facts, but agrees that the title of the State was clear.
" Bullock sent in Lochrane's proposition, with a false statement, as was his habit, of a material fact in the case. This message was received on the 13th of October, 1870, referred to a select committee of both houses the same day, and on the next day was re- ported back with a recommendation that Lochrane's proposition be accepted. The counsel for the State had no notice of the meeting of the committee, and were not pres- ent, except Nunnally, who favored Lochrane's proposition, and Judge Hopkins, who sug- gested to Bullock a compromise, ' on such terms as the relative vantage ground of the two parties will justify.' Lochrane represented the Mitchell heirs.
" This report was made the special order of the day for the 17th of October. It was taken up on that day. Mr. Candler, on the 14th, having moved to request the Governor to send in the opinions of the counsel for the State, his resolution, on motion of Mr. Speer, was laid on the table.
"On the 17th Mr. Candler moved a substitute reciting the offer of General Austell and others, to bid one hundred thousand dollars for a quit-claim to the Park, and pro- viding for its acceptance and putting the property up at auction with that upset bid.
" Mr. Bradley offered as a substitute to the whole a resolution to give the heirs of Mitchell the right to sue in the courts of the State for the property, which substitute
31
1
-
482
GENERAL TOOMBS' REPLY.
was rejected, and the substitute of Mr. Candler was also rejected by one vote ; and the report was then adopted by 22 to 11 votes.
" The Chairman of the House Committee, on the 4th of October, made the same joint report to the House. It was taken up on the 20th, and Mr. Hall moved the adoption of the Senate's report as a substitute for his own.
" Mr. Scott then submitted the offer of General Austell and twelve other citizens of Atlanta, to pay one hundred thousand dollars for the State's quit-claim deed to the prop- erty within ninety days after date ; and offered a resolution providing for commissioners to put up the property at public auction ; and providing further, that if the commis- sioners failed to get a bid of one hundred thousand dollars for a quit-claim title to the property, the Governor should be authorized to accept the proposition of the Mitchell heirs for thirty-five thousand dollars. This proposition was rejected by a vote of 49 to 73, and the Senate's substitute was adopted.
"Such is the record upon which I formed the opinion that the action was the result of bribery, pure and simple. I did not suppose that all who voted for the bill were cor- rupted. Some men were doubtless misled. Others, influenced by other than corrupt motives, but it is clear that the managers of the scheme of plunder profited by their betrayal of the public trust.
"The record is complete. The state's title was settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court ; was clear and indisputable, in the opinion of four of the leading counsel of the State.
"Their opinions were suppressed by a direct vote of the Senate. The friends of the bill refused to permit the claims to go before the courts for trial, though counsel fees to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars were paid to defend the titles. Thirty-five thousand dollars was accepted from the Mitchell heirs for a property in lieu of one hundred thousand dollars offered by others, without the pretense of a reason therefor being found on the record-except Jackson's letter to Bullock-which property, within a few days after the consummation of this wickedness, with all the cloud of this corruption hanging over it, brought at public outery over two hundred thousand dollars.
" Gov. Brown does not deny that he aided in lobbying this measure through the Legis- lature. He was present in the Senate when the bill was before it, as was also Lochrane, Kimball and Blodgett; and he was justly rebuked on the floor of the Senate by Mr. Candler for his conduct in this matter.
" Lobbying is a crime-a misdemeanor at common law ; a crime intensified by his high judicial position.
" But there is yet a still graver charge than lobbying against the ex-Chief Justice. Before these occurred, the case of Thornton and others vs. Trammell and others, came before the Supreme Court. It was a case really against the Western and Atlantic Rail- road, for the Dalton depot, and involving the same principles. The counsel for the Road objected to Brown's sitting in that case, on the ground that he was employed in the Mitchell heirs' case, which was undecided See 39th Georgia, 208. Brown stated 'that in that case, the language of the deed is different, and I have turned over the case with the obligation of the fee to the other counsel. Under these circumstances,' he was adjudged by the other Judges competent to sit on the case.
" He did sit, dissented from the court, but gave no opinion. He weakened the opinion all he could by his dissent, but gave no opinion himself.
" Was that statement of Brown true ? If so, he either had no claims on the Mitchell heirs for fees, or he afterwards contracted for and accepted fees while on the Bench. If
--
183
GOVERNOR BROWN'S REPLY.
not true, he sat in a case in the decision of which he was interested, and decided in his own favor.
" It is a high crime in the highest judicial officer of the State to bring his influence to bear in any way to control the actionrof the Legislature. Ilis very position may control those who have suits before him. The ordinary criminal may be in his hands. Ile may have power to save from just punishment for his crimes even the victim of his own per- fidious debauchery.
"R. TOOMBS." .
To this article of Gen. Toombs Gov. Brown made reply on the 11th of July, 1822, the day after its publication:
"TO THE PUBLIC.
" ATLANTA, GA., July 17, 1872.
" Editors Constitution :- As Gen. Toombs has thought proper to appear again in print before the public, while a personal issue was pending between him and me, I have a very simple reply for him. In his card, dated the 11th instant, and published on the 16th, he refers to me as resorting to the usual dodge of a vulgar poltroon.
" This man, having been branded by me as an unscrupulous liar, fancied, perhaps, that he had sufficient courage to defend his personal honor, or perhaps he thought he could safely play the role of a bully. Accepting, therefore, the position of the injured party, and feeling no little concern about my church relations, he sent a friend to me to inquire if I held myself amenable to the code of honor. I replied as follows :
"Col. J. C. Nicholls entered my office, on the morning of the 9th instant, and said, 'I desire to see you a moment privately,' when the following conversation occurred :
"NICHOLLS-' I have come in behalf of Gen. Toombs to make an inquiry of you.'
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.