Page images
PDF
EPUB

gained is to be employed-whether for the promotion of "the cause of civil and religious freedom, or for its overthrow."

The first authority which I will cite is the "Freeman's Journal," the mouthpiece of Archbishop Hughes. That journal, in speaking of the labors of Mr. Hastings, the Protestant chaplain of the American consulate at Rome, amiably remarked, that if he made a single convert "he would be kicked out of Rome, though Mr. Cass (our minister) should bundle up his traps and follow him!"

The Pittsburgh Catholic Visiter, referring to the same subject, said, "For our own part, we take this opportunity of explaining our hearty delight, at the suppression of the Protestant Chapel in Rome. This may be thought intolerant-but when, we would ask, did we ever profess to be tolerant to Protestantism, or to favor the doctrine that Protestantism ought to be tolerated? On the contrary we hate Protestantism-we detest it with our whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City, no worship repugnant to God should be tolerated, and we are sincerely glad the enemies of truth are no longer permitted to meet together in the capital of the Christian world."

There certainly is a strong odor of religious freedom about these most Christian

sentiments!

"The Rambler," another Catholic journal, thus expresses itself:

"You ask if he, the Pope, were lord in the land and you were in a minority, if not in number, yet in power, what would he do to you? That we say would depend entirely on circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism he would tolerate you-if expedient, he would imprison you-banish youfine you-possibly yo hang you-but be assured of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the 'glorious principles' of civil and religious liberty."

This is undoubtedly marked by a most conmendable degree of candor! The Boston Pilot very ingenuously observes :

"No good government can exist without religion; and there can be no religion without an Inquisition, which is wisely designed for the promotion and protection of the true faith."

Brownson says:-" Protestantism of every form has not, and never can have, any rights where Catholicity is triumphant" and again"Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the world, and instead of pleading for our church at the bar of the state, summon the state itself to plead at the bar of the churchits divinely constituted judge."

On the 15th of August, 1852, the Pope addressed to his followers an Encyclical letter, of which the following is an extract:

"The absurd and erroneous doctrine or ravings, in defence of liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error-a pest of all others, most to be dreaded in a state."

The Shepherd of the Valley, a leading paper, formerly published at St. Louis, Missouri, said:

"Protestantism of every discription, Catholicity inserts in her catalogue of moral sins, she endures it when and where she must, but she hates it and directs all her energies to effect its destruction!"

Again, on 23d of Nov., 1851, that paper says:

"The church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all her energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So our enemies say. So we believe."

On the 22d of October, 1853, the same paper

says:

"We think the 'masses' were never less happy, less respectable, and less respected, than they have been since the Reformation, and particularly within the last fifty or one hundred years, since Lord Brougham caught the mania of teaching them to read, and communicated the disease to a large portion of the English nation, of which, in spite of all our talk, we are too often the servile imitators." The Rambler, in 1853, says:"Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by every man to choose his religion, is one of the most wretched delusions ever foisted on this age by the father of all deceit." Brownson, in his October number, 1852, page 456, says:"The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not right. * All the rights the sects have, or can have, are derived from the state, and rest on expediency. As they have, in their character of sects hostile to the true religion, no rights under the law of nature or the law of God, they are neither wronged nor deprived of liberty, if the state refuses to grant them any rights at all!"

*

*

I shall now close with two extracts from the "Paris Universe," which Professor McClintock, in his reply to Mr. Chandler, speaks of us as a leading ultramontane journal. It says:

"A heretic, examined and convicted by the church, used to be delivered over to the secular power, and punished to death. Nothing has ever appeared to us more necessary. More than one hundred thousand persons perished in consequence of the heresy of Wickliffe; a still greater number for that of John Huss; and it would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by Luther, and it is not yet over.

"As for myself, what I regret, I frankly own, is that they did not burn John Huss sooner, and that they did not likewise burn Luther; this happened because there was not found some prince sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against Protestantism."

These citations will show which party has manifested the intolerant and aggressive spirit which party is opposed to the "cause of civil and religious freedom!"

332

I offer no comments of my own, but leave ciples and policy of the Democratic party, every reader to judge for himself. The price left it, as did many of the Whigs, and joined of liberty is eternal vigilance. The remark the American party. But I was not before applies to religious as well as to civil liberty. aware that it was such a heinous offence for a All we ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do free citizen of this great republic to change. not be so engrossed with the ordinary busi- his party relations. I did not know that the ness of life, as to close your eyes to the im- shackles of party allegiance were not to be portant events that are transpiring around thrown off without incurring the odium of you. Watch with jealousy every measure being "renegades," and subjecting themwhich is calculated to abridge your political selves to the denunciation of having "sneaked

or religious freedom, and resist it at the threshold. Prevention is easier than cure. There are some measures that are so monstrous as to seem incredible; but history tells us that bloody persecution has, in former times, been the order of the day. Martyrdom has been suffered, and the massacre of St. Bartholomew's did take place, for religious opinion's sake. What has happened once may happen again. Let us, being forewarned, be likewise forearmed. Whilst we make no

away." I had thought that with all true patriots the obligation to country was stronger than that to party. That parties were mere instruments to subserve the best interests of the country, and that it was not only the right but the duty of every patriot to leave his party when he thought it was not ministering to the good of his country. Mr. Rives announced that every man should recollect that "he had a country to serve, as well as a party to obey," and the whole country applauded the senti

assaults on the liberty of others, let us not, ment as the offspring of a patriotic spirit. by a blind sense of security, and a culpable The right to change his party relations, is one neglect of duty, suffer our own to be put in which has been exercised by Mr. Wise himjeopardy. Such is the position of the Ameri- self, and by hundreds of others, now high can party. They feel no disposition to inter- in the confidence of the Democratic party.

fere with the faith or worship of the ultramontane Catholics, but they are unwilling, by elevating them to positions of trust and infiuence, to give them the power to trample upon the rights of Protestants.

I have now completed my defence of the American party, against the charge of being hostile to "the cause of civil and religious It will be for impartial public to decide how far the vindication has been successful.

freedom."

an

I propose to close the series by two additional numbers, one of which will be devoted to the examination of the grounds on which Mr. Wise stigmatizes the American ticket as "a mongrel" or "mulatto ticket," and the other to the claims of the Democratic party to the title of the "White man's party."

No. 11.

Having vindicated the principles of the American party from the more serious charges preferred against it by Mr. Wise, this number will be devoted to a commentary upon certain other passages of his letter, and more particularly to the subject of "renegades," "conscientious Whigs,' and the mongrel or mulatto ticket.

Mr. Wise, in his letter, says:-
"We gladly took them (the Whigs) in ex-
change for the renegade Democrats, who
sneaked from their former friends, and took a
test oath in the secrecy of the culvert, by the
light of a dark lantern."

It seems to me that Mr. Wise is somewhat
harsh upon his old political friends. The
term "renegade," to say the least of it, is by
no means courteous, and the charge that they
"sneaked away," is liable to the same criti-
cism. It is true that many independent and
upright Democrats, disatisfied with the prin-

Where was there a more bold, eloquent, and
fearless champion of Whig principles than
Mr. Wise himself? His noble sentiment,
"the union of the Whigs for the sake of the
Union," thrilled the heart of every Whig in
the nation; and yet Mr. Wise left the Whig
party, and is now the accredited champion
of the party which he once so vehemently
opposed. Surely Mr. Wise ought to extend
the same toleration and charity to others, whe
have hought proper to change their political
relations, which he claims for himself.
would hardly fancy the epithet of "renegade,"
ds." if applied to himself, and
or the charge of having "sneaked away from
his former friends,"
he should therefore abstain from applying
them to others.

nom

He

But it seems to me the Democrats who left their party, and joined the Americans, have at least given the strongest evidence that they did not, like the brethren of Joseph, "go down into Egypt" after "corn!" They could not have been influenced by selfish motives, or the hope of advancement. They left a powerful party, flushed with a triumph unparalleled in the history of our country, and attached themselves to a new one, which could hold out them no hopes of promotion. Surely this is the highest evidence of disinterestedness, and should at least protect them from imputations of improper motives. If the case had been reversed, if they had left a party whose fortunes were on the wane, to join one in the zenith of its prosperity, -able to confer high offices and rich rewards, then suspicion might have attached to their motives. But such not being the fact, justice and charity alike concur in according to them the credit of being influenced by high and patriotic principles.

"Whether these Whigs can be reclaimed by the new nomination at Philadelphia, says

Mr. Wise, time will show. I think they can- | Wise, at least by the concurrent voice of the

not be."

nation, "Washington-like!"

longer a Whig; he has been changed by the hocus-pocus of the necromancy of Sam."

And why not? Did not Mr. Wise himself, But Mr. Wise says, "Mr. Fillmore is no in the canvass of 1852, contend that the failure of the Whig National Convention, to nominate Mr. Fillmore, was such an outrage on the party as to absolve its members from their allegiance? Was not Mr. Fillmore then the choice of the Whigs of Virginia? Was he not universally conceded to be a conservative,constitution-loving, law-abiding, and law-enforcing chief magistrate? Did he not fulfil every requisition of the Jeffersonian test? was he not honest and capable, and faithful to the Constitution? Did he not perform all his duties to the South and to the North with strict fidelity and impartiality? Did he not restore harmony to a distracted country? Did he not see that the laws were faithfully exe

When the Whig party, after the defeat of 1852, retired from the field, Mr. Fillmore had to choose between the American party, whose principles he had approved as early as 1844 (as appears by his letter to Mr. Clay in that year), and the Democracy. I have no doubt that Mr. Fillmore was attached to the Whig party. He had been nurtured in its lap; he had been reared in its conservative principles; he had proudly borne its banner both in viotory and de defeat; he had learned wisdom at the feet of its great sages, Webster and Clay. Mr. Fillmore's opposition to Democracy was a matter of principle, not of expediency. It

cuted? Did he not maintain the honor of our was not a thing that he could pick up, or lay country inviolate at home and abroad? Did down, as interest or caprice might prompt. he pander to sectional prejudices, or seek by He had denounced its tyranny, its misrule, its duplicity-looking one way and rowing an- disregard of the Constitution-its reckless other to conciliate popularity for himself? Was he not bold, straight-forward, manly, and true?

And what has he done since to forfeit the confidence of the Union-loving Whigs and Democrats? Has he intrigued or manœuvred for a nomination? Has he written letters or made promises to commend himself to popular favor and regard?

None of these things has he done, for he has been absent from the country for the greater part of a year. Why then, I repeat, should not Union and conservative Whigs support him? The Democracy profess to regard the slavery question as the great question of the day. Has not Mr. Fillmore proved himself sound on that? Where is the Democrat who has given as strong evidence as Mr. Fillmore of his determination to uphold the guarantees and compromises of the Constitution? And can any one doubt that, if elected, he will do the same thing again? Why then not support the man who safely guided the ship of state through the storms and tempests of 1850?

extravagance from the conviction that his denunciations were just. He could not, therefore, when the old adversary of that party retired from the conflict, eat his own words; retract his own charges, and falsify Lis whole life, by affiliating with a party which he had contended to be unworthy of trust. Interest might have dictated such a course, but duty and patriotism forbade it. Mr. Fillmore saw the Democracy, in violation of all its pledges renewing the agitation of the slavery question which he had composed-opening the flood gates of sectional strife, and endangering the peace and security of the Union. Knowing that the only available power to stay the torrent which threatened to overwhelm the country, was the American party, with the energy and promptness which distinguish him, he extended the right hand of fellowship fello to it, and sought to aid it in the fulfilment of its great mission of peace.

And does Mr. Wise suppose that the Whigs of Virginia, who, for more than twenty years, have been doing battle manfully against the Democracy; crying aloud and sparing not; denouncing its harsh tyranny, its vindictive proscription, its reckless prodigality, its gross usurpations of authority not

Is the fact that Mr. Fillmore is in favor of a modification of the naturalization laws-that he is an American in heart and sentimentthat he loves his own country and his own conferred by the Constitution, its official corcountrymen better than foreign countries and ruptions--will now consent to impliedly adforeign men-sufficient to cancel the debt of gratitude which Virginia owes him, and to obliterate from the hearts of her sons the record of his virtues and his patriotic devotion

mit that all their charges were false, that all their clamors were mere idle words, and tamely put on the Democratic yoke, in order that they may, perchance, pick up a crumb as

to the national welfare? Oh no! It cannot it falls from the rich man's table! If he

be! The hearts of the Whigs of Virginia will leap toward him. They will remember his ability, and fidelity, and truth, and although they may even differ with him on some of these questions, they will make them secondary to the great object of securing domestic tranquillity, and placing in the chair of Washington a man whose administration, in times of peculiar peril, was pronounced, if not by Mr.

cherishes any such hope, I think he sadly mistakes the metal of which Whigs are made. They are bold, gallant, and true. Majorities have no peculiar charms for them. They have been long used to defeat. Principle, not success and its incidents, has been the object for which they struggled. They are not now prepared to admit that their whole career has been one of falsehood and unfounded calumny. They are not prepared, and cannot be per-ous storm, and you were again beset by temsuaded to admit that they have all the time pests, would you not a second time call him been slandering the Democracy, and that it is to the helm? Why then should not the people in truth pure and immaculate. No! the old of the United States again avail themselves

line Whigs-the conservative, Union-loving Whigs-may have been deterred by the faults and follies of the original organization of the American party, from co-operating with it. They may have been misled by the secrecy which prevailed [and which was justly obnoxious] to fear that there was some unhallowed purpose entertained by the American party, and therefore were opposed to it. But now, that the veil of secrecy is thrown off;

of the services of the statesman whose wisdom and patriotism guided them in 1850 through perils like those that now threaten their safety? MADISON.

Maine.

THE state of Massachusetts having, by act of the 19th of June, 1819, given its consent that the people of that part of Massachusetts, theretofore known as the District of Maine,

now, that everything is revealed to their view; should form themselves into an independent now, that a sure guarantee is given to them, state; in pursuance thereof, they formed a by a presentation of their own trusted favorite state constitution agreeably to the provisions

Fillmore, as its standard-bearer, the Whigs can no longer doubt that the ends and aims of that party must be patriotic and national, whose battle-cry is "Americans must rule America," and who rally their hosts beneath the banner of Millard Fillmore!

Conservatism of principle, pride of consistency, and sympathy of old associations, will conspire to induce the Whigs of Virginia, either collectively or as individuals, to yield to Mr. Fillmore a cordial support in the coming contest, and to win for him a glorious triumph in the Old Dominion.

But Mr. Wise says there will be new issues presented in the next Presidential canvass, by three parties "the white man's party, the Democratic; the black man's party, the Black Republicans; the cross of Northern and Southern Know-Nothings, the ticket of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson."

of the said act. Accordingly Congress, by act of March 3, 1820, admitted Maine as a state into this Union, on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever.

The proceedings on the admission of Maine, complicated as they were with those on the admission of Missouri, can be seen by refer ence to the history of the latter.

Matteson, Gilbert, Edwards, and Welch.
ALLEGED CORRUPT CONGRESSIONAL COMBINA-

TIONS.

On the 9th of January, 1857, Mr.William H. Kelsey, a member of the House of Representatives from the state of New York, rose in his place, and after causing to be read an edito rial article in the New York Daily Times of the 6th January, 1857, introduced the following resolution :

That there will be important issues pre-ing that members of this House have entered into corrupt

sented in the coming election is unquestionably true; but I am not aware that they will be new issues. They are pretty much the same, though presented in a new phase, which have distracted the country in times past, and more especially since 1848. They still involve the slavery question; the same questions which convulsed the country in 1850; the same questions which Mr. Fillmore grappled with and put to rest from 1850 to 1853; the same questions which the Democratic party, by their solemn pledge given at Baltimore in 1852, promised not to agitate again, but which, in violation of their pledge of faith to the country, they have re-opened and re-agitated with tenfold more bitterness than ever, and which they have been unable to adjust.

Whereas statements have been published, charg combinations for the purpose of passing and of preventing the passage of certain measures now pending before Con reserefore

Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five members, be appointed by the Speaker, with power to send for per sons and papers, to investigate said charges; and that said committee report the evidence taken, and what action, in

their judgment, is necessary on the part of the House, with out any unnecessary delay,

Mr. PAINE. I scarcely know, Mr. Speaker, whether to say anything in relation to this matter or not. I know nothing about the editor of that journal, or of the journal itself. I know nothing about any communication which has been made to that paper. I know not how its editor got his information. I know not whether what he says is true or false. But this I do know, that there has been a proposition made in this House, by a mem The first inquiry which naturally suggests ber of this House, upon this very subject. itself to the reflecting mind is, how is the ["Name! name!") I shall not name the country to be extricated from the difficulties gentleman at this time. It was with feelwhich now environ it? And the reply comes ings of indignation that I heard the propo up at once, by invoking the aid of the man sition. The reason I did not resent it was who settled similar difficulties before. Com- because it would have been a violation of the mon sense would seem to indicate the pro- rules of this House. The reason I did not de priety of such a course. If a physician, by nounce it to the House was because, during skilful treatment, had brought you through a the pendency of the struggle for the organiza severe spell of illness, and you were attacked tion of this House, when a member rose in a second time with the same disease, would his place and stated to the House that a direct you not call him to your relief again? If a effort had been made to tamper with him in pilot had steered you safely through a danger-reference to the election of Speaker, the only

[blocks in formation]

I say now distinctly upon this floor, that there is not an entire want of truth in the allegations contained in that article; that a distinct proposition has been made by a member of this House, and in regard to the Minnesota land bill, that $1500 would be guarantied to a member for his vote for that bill; and when the committee is raised and I am called upon, I will give my evidence before the committee.

After some farther debate the resolution was adopted.

The Speaker appointed the committee the next day, to consist of Messrs. Kelsey of N. Y., Orr of S. C., Davis of Md., Ritchie of Pa.,

and Warner of Ga.

On the 19th of February, 1857, the committee reported the following resolutions through the members of the committee respectively under whose name the resolutions appear.

The committee were unanimous in their conclusions upon all the cases, with the exception of the chairman, who declined to unite with the committee in their recommendations with reference to the guilty members.

The following are the resolutions.

By Mr. Warner of Geo. :

Resolved, That Orsamus B. Matteson, a member of this House from the state of New York, did incite parties deeply interested in the passage of a joint resolution for construing the Des Moines grant to have here and to use a large sum of money and other valuable considerations corruptly, for the purpose of procuring the passage of said joint resolution through this House.

Resolved, That Orsamus B. Matteson, in declaring that a large number of the members of this House had associated themselves together, and pledged themselves each to the other not to vote for any law or resolution granting money or lands, unless they were paid for it, has falsely and wilfully assailed and defamed the character of this House, and has proved himself unworthy to be a member thereof.

Resolved, That Orsamus B. Matteson, a member of this House from the state of New York, be, and is hereby expelled therefrom.

By Mr. Davis of Md.:

Resolved, 1. That William A. Gilbert, a member of this House from New York, did agree with F. F. C. Triplett to procure the passage of a resolution or bill through the

present Congress for the purchase by Congress of certain copies of the book of the said Triplett on the pension and bounty land laws, in consideration that the said Triplett should allow him to receive a certain sum of money out of the appropriation for the purchase of the book.

Resolved, 2. That William A. Gilbert did cast his vote on the lowa land bill, depending heretofore before this Congress, for a corrupt consideration, consisting of seven square miles of land and some stock given or to be given to him,

Resolved, 3. That William A. Gilbert, a member of this House from New York, be forthwith expelled from this

House.

By Mr. Ritchie of Pa. :

Resolved, That Francis S. Edwards, a member of this House from the state of New York, did, on the 23d day of December last, attempt to induce Robert T. Paine, a member of this House from the state of North Carolina, to yote, contrary to the dictates of his judgment and conscience, on a bill making a grant of lands to aid in the construction of a railroad in the territory of Minnesota, by holding out a pecuniary consideration to the said Paine for his support of the said bill.

Resolved, That the said Francis S. Edwards be, and he is hereby expelled from this House.

By Mr. Davis of Md. :

Resolved, That William W. Welch did corruptly combine with William A. Gilbert, a member of this House from New York, to procure the passage of a resolution or bill through this House for the purchase of certain copies of

the work of F. F. C. Triplett, on the pension and bounty

land laws, for a share in the money to be paid to the said

William A. Gilbert on its passage.

2. Resolved, That William W. Welch did attempt to procure money from James R. Sweeney for reporting favor ably on the claim of Roxana Kimball from the Committee

on Invalid Pensions, at this Congress.

3. Resolved, That William W. Welch, a member of this House from Connecticut, be forthwith expelled from this House.

Messrs. Matteson, Gilbert, and Edwards resigned. On the 27th of February, 1857, the question

was taken on the resolutions relative to Mr. Matteson.

The first resolution was adopted by yeas and nays as follows:

YEAS. Messrs. Aiken, AKERS, Allen, Allison, Ball, Hendley S. Bennett, Bishop, Bliss, Bowie, Boyce, Bradshaw, Branch, Brenton, BROOM, Buffinton, Burnett, Cadwalader, James H. Campbell, JOHN P. CAMPBELL, CARLILE, Caruthers, Caskie, Clawson, Clingman, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Comins, Covode, Cox, Craige, Crawford, CULLEN, Damrell, Davidson, HENRY WINTER Davis, Jacob C. Davis, Day, Denver, De Witt, Dowdell, DUNN, Durfee, Edmundson, Elliott, Emrie, EUSTIS, Faulkner, Flagler, Florence, FOSTER, HENRY M. FULLER, Thomas J. D. Fuller,

Galloway, Garnett, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, Harlan, J. MORRISON HARRIS, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, HARRISON, HAVEN, Herbert, HOFFMAN, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Houston, Jewett, George W. Jones, Keit, Kelly, KENNETT, Kidwell, Knapp, Knight, Knox, Kun kel, LAKE, Letcher, LINDLEY, Lumpkin, ALEXANDER K. MARSHALL, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Millward, MOORE, Morrill, Morrison, Mott, Orr, Packer, PAINE, Parker, Peck, Pennington, Perry, Pike, PORTER, Powell, Purviance, PURTEAR, Quitman, READE, READY, RICAUD, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Ruffin, Rust, Sabin, Sandidge, Sapp, Savage, Scott, Seward, Shorter, William Smith, WILLIAM R. SMITH, Spinner, Stanton, Stewart, Stranahan, Talbott, Taylor, Todd, Trafton, Tyson, UNDERWOOD, Vail, VALK, Walker, Warner, Cadwalader Č. Washburne, Watkins, Wheeler, Winslow, Wood, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright,

ZOLLICOFFER.-145.

NAYS.-Messrs. Albright, Henry Bennett, Burlingame, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard Clarke, Colfax, Tim othy Davis, Dickson, Granger, Holloway, Killian, Miller, Morgan, Murray, Andrew Oliver, Walbridge, Woodruff.-17.

The second resolution was adopted unani

mously.

The third one was laid on the table. The resolutions relative to Messrs. Gilbert and Edwards were laid on the table after their resignations.

The resolution relative to Mr. Welch coming up on the 27th of January, 1857, Mr. Smith of Va., offered the following substitute for the same :

Resolved, That there has been no sufficient evidence elicited by the committee having charge of the subject, and reported to this House in the case of William W. Welch, a member thereof, and that no further proceedings shall be had against such member.

Which was agreed to by the following vote:YEAS.-Messrs. AKERS, Albright, Ball, Barbour, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bishop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, BROOM, Buffington, Burlingame, Cadwalader, James H. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard Clark, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comins. Covode, Cragin, Cumback, Timothy Davis, Dean, De Witt, Dickson, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Emrie, Etheridge, Flagler, HENRY M. FULLER, Galloway, Granger, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, J. MORRISON HARRIS, Herbert, Hodges, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Howard, Hughston, Kelly, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Letcher, LINDLEY, ALEXANDER K. MARSHALL, HUMPHREY MARSHALL, McCarty, Killian Miller, Millson, Millward, MOORE, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Norton, PAINE, Parker, Peck, Pelton, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, PORTER, Pringle, Purviance, Robbins, Roberts, Sabin, Sage,

« PreviousContinue »