Whatever may have been the merits of the_The Reconstruction of Georgia Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1901

Reorganization Act adopted by the War Department, it is certain that the

proceedings taken under it greatly astonished those who had passed the

act. On January 19 the House of Representatives adopted a resolution

requesting the general of the army to inform it by what authority three

United States soldiers were acting as a committee in the legislature of

Georgia.[244] On February 4 the Senate asked for official information

regarding the proceedings had under the Reorganization Act.[245] The facts

disclosed in response to this request created such surprise that the

Senate directed the judiciary committee to inquire and report whether the

act had been complied with.[246] The answer of the committee, as we saw in

the early part of the chapter, was that the act had been misconstrued and

violated. The appointment of presiding officers by the governor, the acts

of those officers, the revival of the military governorship, and in

particular the interference of Terry in the organization of the

legislature--these, said the committee, were wholly unlawful. But though

unlawful they had resulted in no substantial injustice, since all the men

debarred by Terry were undoubtedly ineligible. And in any case a general

state election was approaching, so that if any injustice had been done it

would soon be righted. For these reasons the committee recommended that

Congress undertake no more legislation for Georgia, but admit her

representatives to each house as soon as possible.[247]

The committee believed that the Reorganization Act was to be construed as

a law entitling Georgia to representation in Congress as soon as she had

ratified the Fifteenth Amendment. This opinion was held by many

Republicans, who had followed Trumbull's example and who appeared from

this time on as opponents of further Congressional interference in the

South. The radical Republicans, however, led by Butler--those Republicans

characterized by a Republican paper of the time as "the screeching wing"

of the party[248]--insisted that Georgia must be admitted, as the first

Reconstruction Act had said, "by law," and that no law to that effect had

been passed. The reason why this argument was urged was that the passage

of a new act for restoring the state would give an opportunity to annex

other provisions besides the declaration of restoration. The particular

provisions designed to be annexed were for the purpose of prolonging the

term of the present state government.

On February 25 Butler introduced the bill to admit Georgia.[249] One of

its sections was as follows:

That the power granted by the constitution of Georgia to the general

assembly to change the time of holding elections ... shall not be so

exercised as to postpone the election for members of the next general

assembly beyond the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the

year 1872.

The power here referred to was that conferred by Article III., section 1,

of the state constitution;

The election for members of the general assembly shall begin on

Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every second year ...

but the general assembly may by law change the time of election, and

members shall hold until their successors are elected and qualified.

The constitutional term of the present legislature (except of one-half of

the senators, who held four years) would expire in November, 1870. But

this section of the constitution, Butler pointed out, would enable the

legislature to postpone the election and perpetuate its power. This grave

danger he proposed to remove by the clause of his bill above quoted. In

order to prevent the legislature from prolonging its tenure forever, he

proposed, not to forbid prolongation, but to allow it for two years.

I also propose [he said] by this [clause] to give to the present

State officers of Georgia a two years' term of office in that state

as a state in this Union.

That Congress should pose as the defender of the people of Georgia against

a usurping legislature, and at the same time by the guaranty of its

approval encourage that legislature to double its constitutional

term--this was a conception of political genius which, independently of

its realization, should make Butler immortal.

The moderate Republicans of the House of Representatives were willing, for

the sake of settling doubt, to pass a bill declaring Georgia restored, but

were decidedly opposed the scheme to use the bill as a means of prolonging

the tenure of the Georgia Radicals. An amendment to Butler's bill, known

as the Bingham amendment, was offered, to the following effect:

... neither shall this act be construed to extend the official tenure

of any officer of said state beyond the term limited by the

constitution thereof, dating from the election or appointment of such

officer.[250]

The bill with this amendment passed the House by a large majority on March

8.[251]

In the Senate the necessity of any bill and the propriety of the Bingham

amendment were warmly debated for some weeks. Then the so-called Drake

amendment was offered. It provided that whenever the legislature or

governor of any state should inform the President of the existence within

that state of associations organized for the purpose of obstructing the

law and doing violence to persons, then the President should send troops

to that state, declare martial law, suspend the privileges of the writ of

_habeas corpus_, and take such other military measures as he saw fit, and

should levy the cost of the expedition on the people of the state.[252]

The propriety of grafting this general measure on a special bill like the

present should not be discussed, it was said, in view of the pressing

necessity of passing it in some way, no matter how.[253] The debate thus

complicated continued until April 19, when the bill went to the committee

of the whole. There, the night being far spent, two entirely new

amendments were suddenly offered. One commanded Georgia to hold a general

election in the present year; the other declared that the existing

government of Georgia was still "provisional" and provided that the

Reconstruction Acts of 1867 should continue to be enforced there. These

amendments were adopted by the committee. The Drake amendment was also

adopted. Finally, the entire bill as it came from the house was stricken

out.[254] Thus transformed so that, as a Senator said, "it would not be

recognized by the oldest inhabitant," the bill was passed by the

Senate.[255]

The House of Representatives did not take up the bill again until June 23.

On June 24 it decided to insist on the passage of the bill substantially

as before passed.[256] As a result of the conference following, the Senate

yielded to the House. The bill became law on July 15, 1870. It said:

... It is hereby declared that the state of Georgia is entitled to

representation in the Congress of the United States. But nothing in

this act contained shall be construed to deprive the people of

Georgia of the right to an election for members of the general

assembly of said state, as provided for in the constitution

thereof.[257]

One would suppose that this act of July 15 should close the chapter; that

it recognized Georgia as a state, and that henceforth all peculiar

relations between Georgia and the federal government were at an end. The

Georgia Radicals were able to avoid this conclusion. In a message to the

legislature on July 18 the governor said that according to the act of

March 2, 1867, the federal military power was to remain until the state

was not only entitled to representation but actually represented in

Congress. Section 5 of that act contained this language:

When ... any one of said rebel states shall have [fulfilled all

requirements], said state shall be declared entitled to

representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be

admitted therefrom ... and then and thereafter the preceding sections

of this act shall be inoperative in said state.

Hence, the military authority, said Bullock, would continue in Georgia

until the following December. But he informed the legislature that it

might proceed with legislation, since Terry had informed him that he would

allow it.[258]

The Radicals in the legislature took advantage of the theory announced by

the governor to make one last attempt at prolongation of power. On July 26

a resolution was offered in the upper house to this effect: That the

authority of the United States was still paramount in Georgia; that no

offence ought to be offered to Congress by an apparent denial of this

fact; that therefore no election should be held in the state until

Congress had fully recognized its statehood by receiving its

representatives.[259] On July 29 the senate adopted a resolution similar

to this, but the lower house rejected it by a few votes.[260] With the

failure of this attempt, the Reconstruction Acts ceased to operate in

Georgia, either in fact or in any one's theory.

At the next session of Congress a delegation from Georgia composed of men

elected in December, 1870, was seated in the House of Representatives.[261]

In the Senate, Farrow and Whitely, elected by the legislature in February,

1870, presented credentials. They were referred to the judiciary

committee, which reported adversely. It recommended that Hill, elected in

1868, be seated, and reported that Miller, elected with Hill, would be

entitled to a seat except that he was unable to take the Test Oath

required of members of Congress by the act of July 2, 1862.[262] Since

this committee had decided in January, 1869, that the Georgia legislature

was not legally organized in 1868, and in March, 1870, that its

organization in January of that year was also illegal, and since therefore

the election of Hill and Miller and that of Farrow and Whitely were both

illegal, the committee had to decide the question: To which of these

illegal elections ought we to give _de facto_ validity? It decided in

favor of the earlier one on grounds of equity. The Senate adopted the

committee's opinion. The Test Oath act was suspended in favor of Miller by

a special act of Congress, and he and Hill were sworn in, in February,

1871.[263]

Thus, after federal intervention had been imposed in 1865 and apparently

withdrawn in the same year, again imposed in 1867 and again apparently

withdrawn in 1868, and yet again imposed in 1869, it was now withdrawn for

the last time, and Georgia was completely restored to statehood.

CHAPTER IX

RECONSTRUCTION AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT

In the preceding chapters we have mentioned the immediate effect of

reconstruction upon social conditions. To its immediate effects upon

political conditions, in other words to the character and conduct of the

new state government, which have been mentioned only incidentally, we

shall now give a more direct and consecutive consideration.

With reference to the political reforms of reconstruction the white men of

Georgia formed three distinct parties. There were those who favored them,

either on their ethical and political merits or (more often) as a means of

attaining political power otherwise unattainable. They were called

Scalawags, Carpet-baggers and Radicals, of which terms we shall adopt the

last. There were those unalterably opposed to them, called Rebels by their

critics and Conservatives by themselves. There were, thirdly, those who

supported them not upon their merits, which they doubted, but because they

saw the state at the mercy of a conqueror and believed that, bad as the

measures were, it was better to accept them quickly than to make a vain

resistance, which could only prolong the social and commercial

disturbances in the state, and which might occasion the administration of

a still worse dose. This group embraced many of the commercial class,

which was especially large in Georgia, and one of the men prominent in

former politics, namely Governor Brown. They were classed by the

Conservatives with the basest of Radicals, but we shall call them the

Moderate Republicans. The admixture of this group with the Radical party

had important consequences. Differing from their party in principle and

allying themselves with it to bring peace to the state, when the peace of

the state seemed secure, they sometimes adhered to their principles rather

than to their party. It is true, many of them became so interested in the

great game of politics then going on that they played it for its own sake,

but some party splits of importance occurred.

The first fruit of the policy of negro enfranchisement and rebel

disenfranchisement was the constitutional convention of 1867-68. It was

stated in the latter part of Chapter IV. that in the election for members

of this convention many Conservatives declined to take part. For this

reason the Radicals obtained a predominance in the convention which they

did not retain in the state government after the Conservatives decided to

fight. The convention, in fact, was extremely Radical. The constitution

which it framed shows the thoroughness with which it entered into the

Humanitarian reforms. The speeches and resolutions show that a close

sympathy with the Republican party and a bitter antagonism to the

Conservatives were entertained by most of the members. The temporary

chairman, Foster Blodgett, in his opening speech, mentioned the

suspicious, hostile and contemptuous attitude of the Conservatives toward

the convention. He said:

They may stand and rail at us and strive to distract us from our

patriotic labors; but we are engaged in a great work ... we are

building up the walls of a great state.[264]

Parrot, the permanent chairman, said:

Many of us come here from amongst a people who have spurned us and

spit upon us ... the enemies of the convention are watching with

envious eyes to see whether we shall be able to meet public

expectation.... We should form a state government for an unwilling

people based upon the soundest principles ... and in governing them

rescue human liberty from the grave, and prevent them from trampling

us under foot.

On the other side, he said:

The Republican party of the nation is waiting with intense anxiety

the movements of this body. Our friends will soon be able to

determine whether we shall be a burden upon them ... or aid them in

the great work of restoring our state.[265]

When Governor Jenkins brought suit against Stanton on behalf of the state,

the convention declared the action unauthorized and in the name of the

people of Georgia demanded that the suit be dismissed.[266] On December

17, 1867, a resolution was passed, asking Pope to appoint, in lieu of

Governor Jenkins, a provisional governor, and asking that the person

appointed be Rufus B. Bullock.[267] Unsuccessful here, the convention

tried again on January 21. It requested Congress to allow it to vacate the

governorship and all other offices now filled by men unfriendly to

reconstruction and to fill them with new appointees.[268] These two last

named resolutions suggest not only Radical sentiment, but also Radical

organization in the convention.

The attitude of the convention toward the military authorities was most

cordial. On December 20, a reception was given to Pope. The general made a

speech and received an ovation.[269] Resolutions of friendship and

gratitude were voted him on his departure.[270] Meade, on his arrival,

received resolutions of welcome,[271] and resolutions of friendly import

on various other occasions.[272] Meade did not entirely reciprocate this

cordiality.

Toward Congress the convention was not only cordial; it was almost filial.

Not only was the United States government eloquently thanked for its

magnanimity,[273] but it was appealed to by the convention as a kind

parent by a child confident of favor. It was petitioned to appropriate

thirty million dollars to be loaned on mortgage to southern

planters;[274] to loan a hundred thousand dollars to the South Georgia and

Florida railroad,[275] and "to make a liberal appropriation" for building

the proposed Air Line railroad.[276]

The constitutional convention of 1865 had met on October 25, and adjourned

on November 8, thus completing its work in fourteen days. This dispatch,

as well as the style of its resolutions and of the speeches of its

members,[277] had marked it as a body where good taste, decorum and public

spirit prevailed.

The reconstruction convention met on December 9, 1867, and continued in

session (excepting a recess from December 24 to January 7), until March

11, 1868. The first article of the new constitution on which the

convention took action was reported on January 9.[278] Before that time

many resolutions and ordinances were introduced. Most of them related to

"relief" (such as suspension of tax collections, homestead exemption, stay

of execution for debt, etc.), or to the pay and mileage of delegates, and

only rarely was anything said about the constitution. On December 16 the

more conscientious members secured the appointment of a committee to

inquire whether the convention had power to do any business besides frame

a constitution.[279] This committee did not discuss the law of the

question, but recommended on moral grounds a resolution to this effect:

That all ordinances or other matter ... already introduced and

pending are hereby indefinitely postponed; and in future no ordinance

or other matter ... not necessarily connected with the fundamental

law shall be entertained by this convention [except relief

legislation].

This report met with vigorous opposition. It was saved from the table by

two votes. But it was adopted.[280] The contemporary Conservative press

describes the convention as very infamous and very disgusting.[281] It

contained thirty-three negroes, and the transactions recorded in the

official journal show that it was composed largely of men of low

character.

Hence, to many of the delegates, framing the constitution was only a minor

incident of the convention, and the main part of that work was left to a

small number of men. Their work shows intelligence and ability. Moreover,

in the records of the convention there are not wanting traces of that

undoubted public spirit which animated many of the supporters of

reconstruction--the honest desire to repair and develop the material

welfare of the state. This spirit is evident in the speeches we have

cited, and in some of the resolutions.

We have stated how the campaign of 1868 resulted in giving the

governorship to the Republicans and a majority of twenty-nine in the

legislature to the Conservatives; how Governor Bullock tried to reduce

that majority through Meade, and how Meade refused his aid; and how the

majority was more than doubled by the expulsion of the negroes and the

seating of the minority candidates. From that time to the reorganization

of the legislature in 1870, the most remarkable fact in the state politics

was the hostility between the governor and the legislature.

After the expulsion of the negroes, the lower house asked the governor to

send it the names of the candidates who at the election had received the

next highest vote to the persons expelled. The governor sent the names and

with them a long protest against the expulsion of the negroes.[282] The

house, on hearing the message, adopted a tart resolution, reminding the

governor that the members of each house were "the keepers of their own

consciences, and not his Excellency."[283] A similar message to the upper

house in response to a similar request provoked a similar resolution,

which was defeated by two votes.[284]

It will be remembered that in December, 1868, and January, 1869, the

governor urged upon Congress, through his letter presented in the Senate

and through his testimony before the Reconstruction Committee, the theory

that Georgia had not yet been restored. On January 15, 1869, he urged the

same view upon the legislature. He advised it to reorganize itself by

summoning all men elected members in 1868, requiring each to take the Test

Oath, excluding only those who should not take it, and thus constituted to

repass the resolutions required by the Omnibus Act. If the legislature did

not do this, it must submit to Congressional interference.[285] This

message apparently caused the legislature some apprehension. It adopted a

joint resolution to the effect that it desired the question of the

eligibility of negroes to office to be determined by the supreme court of

the state. The governor sent this resolution back with one of his

admirably keen and powerful messages. He said that Congress had two

grievances against the present legislature; that it had admitted members

disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to the Omnibus Act, and

that it had expelled twenty-eight negroes. The present resolution,

intended to appease Congress, ignored the first grievance and proposed no

remedy for the second; therefore it was meaningless and absurd.[286]

On January 21, 1869, the state treasurer, Angier, in response to an

inquiry from the house of representatives regarding the affairs of his

department, intimated that the governor had drawn money from the treasury

under suspicious circumstances.[287] Thus began the feud between the

governor and the treasurer which continued during the rest of Bullock's

term. Angier's report was referred to the committee on finance. The

majority of the committee reported that the governor's acts had been

irregular but in good faith. The minority reported that his acts were

culpable and his explanations inadequate, and concluded: "The facts herein

set forth develop the necessity for further legislation for the security

of the treasury."[288] This report the house adopted by a large

majority.[289]

Another index of the relations between the governor and the legislature is

furnished by the governor's message submitting the proposed Fifteenth

Amendment. It opened thus:

It is especially gratifying to learn, as I do from the published

proceedings of your honorable body, that senators and representatives

who have heretofore acted with a political organization which adopted

as one of its principles a denunciation of the acts of a Republican

Congress ... should now give expression to their anxious desire to

lose no time in embracing this opportunity of ratifying one of the

fundamental principles of the Republican party ... and I very much

regret that the preparation necessary for a proper presentation of

this subject to your honorable body has necessarily caused a short

delay, and thereby prolonged the suspense of those who are so anxious

to concur.[290]

The radicals probably desired the rejection of the amendment, since it

would furnish another strong argument to Congress in favor of reorganizing

the legislature. Hence, the Radical governor, as his message shows, did

not do his best to induce the legislature to ratify, and probably some

Radical members for the same reason voted against the amendment or

refrained from voting for it. It was defeated in the lower house on March

12,[291] and in the upper on March 18.[292]

In the last chapter we saw that Terry excluded five men from the

legislature because the board of inquiry had found them ineligible, and

excluded nineteen others because they had failed to take the required

oath, and had applied to Congress for removal of disabilities. It is safe

to assume that all of these twenty-four men were conservatives. Nineteen

of them had been elected to the lower house, five to the senate.[293]

Immediately after organization, on advice of Bullock and with the sanction

of Terry, the senate gave the five vacated seats to the minority

candidates,[294] and the house gave fourteen of its vacated seats to the

minority candidates.[295] The result was that the Republicans secured a

majority in each house.[296] The Republican control thus secured remained

uninterrupted for the remainder of 1870. Perfect accord now existed

between the governor and legislature, and in the quarrel between Bullock

and Angier, which went on with increased acerbity in the press and before

a congressional committee,[297] the legislature proceeded to transfer its

support to the governor.[298]

But Republican supremacy was in danger. It was threatened by the Moderate

Republicans. J. E. Bryant, a Republican, prominent in the state politics

since the beginning of the new _regime_, in testifying before the

Reconstruction Committee in January, 1869, had advocated reorganization of

the legislature, but had opposed any other interference, especially the

restoration of military government.[299] He and other Republicans who

shared his opinion were disgusted with the proceedings of Bullock and

Terry. As early as January 12, 1870, there were reports that the Radicals

were apprehensive of a combination between the Moderate Republicans and

the Conservatives.[300] Probably the strenuous efforts of the Radicals to

take and make every possible advantage for themselves in the

reorganization is partly accounted for by this apprehension. On February

2, Bryant caused to be entered on the journal of the house of

representatives a protest denouncing the reorganization proceedings as

illegal.[301] Shortly afterwards he published a statement of his position.

He said that he was a Republican, but was opposed to the corrupt ring

which controlled the party in Georgia.[302] From this time on the papers

frequently referred to the alliance between the followers of Bryant and

the Conservatives as the salvation of the state.[303]

The Radical majority was not quite strong enough to pass a resolution

declaring that there should be no election in 1870, as was attempted in

August of that year.[304] But it was strong enough to pass an election law

very favorable to the Radical party. It changed the date of the election

from the regular time in November to December 22, and following the

example set by General Pope in 1867, provided that it should continue

three days. It established a board of five election managers for each

county, three to be appointed by the governor and senate, and two by the

county ordinary. It provided that the board should have "no power to

refuse the ballot of any male person of apparent full age, a resident of

the county, who [had] not previously voted at the said election." Also it

said: "They [the managers] shall not permit any person to challenge any

vote."[305] Another act was passed, calculated to prevent the loss of

Republican votes through disqualification of negroes for non-payment of

taxes. It declared the poll tax levied in 1868, 1869 and 1870

illegal.[306]

At the election thus provided for were to be chosen a new legislature

(except half of the senators, who held four years) and Congressmen. To

what extent the Republicans availed themselves of the advantages offered

by the election law we do not know. At any rate, the Conservatives

obtained two-thirds of the seats in the legislature, and five of the seven

seats in Congress.[307]

This result meant trouble for the governor, whose term ran to November,

1872. His efforts to secure Congressional interference, his conduct in

January, 1870, and the accusations of extravagance, corruption, and other

crimes continually made by an intemperate press, had raised public

indignation to a high point. It was certain that when the new legislature

met it would investigate the charges, and it was hoped that the governor

would be impeached.[308] The time of reckoning had been postponed,

however, by the prudence of the outgoing legislature, which had provided

that the next session of the legislature should begin, instead of in

January, the regular time set by the constitution,[309] on the first

Wednesday in November, 1871.[310]

The first Wednesday in November, 1871, was November 1. On October 23, the

governor recorded in the executive minutes that he resigned his office,

for "good and sufficient reasons," the resignation to take effect on

October 30.[311] He then quietly left the state. The fact that he had

resigned was kept secret until October 30.[312]

In case of a vacancy in the office of governor, the constitution directed

the president of the senate to fill the office.[313] On October 30,

therefore, Conley, the president of the senate at its last session,

hastened to be sworn in as governor.[314] By resigning just before the

meeting of the incoming Conservative legislature, Bullock had thus

cleverly prolonged Republican power, while at the same time resigning. The

question whether under the constitution the governor's office should not

be filled by the president of the newly-organized senate, was raised by

the papers.[315] But Conley was by common consent left in possession of

the office. Though, as he said in his first message to the

legislature,[316] "a staunch Republican," he was not personally

unpopular.[317] Moreover, the legislature intended to furnish a successor

very soon.

On November 22, a bill was passed ordering a special election for governor

for the remainder of the unexpired term, to be held on the third Tuesday

in December.[318] The authority for this act was found in the following

provision of the constitution: "The general assembly shall have power to

provide by law for filling unexpired terms by a special election."[319]

Conley vetoed the bill, on the ground that the section of the constitution

quoted empowered the legislature to make general provisions for filling

unexpired terms, not to make special provision for single cases.[320] The

bill was passed over his veto.

Although Republican power was now doomed in a few weeks, and although

resistance to a legislature which could easily override his vetoes was

futile, yet Conley stubbornly continued to offer obstructions to the

legislature at every possible point up to the very day when his successor

was inaugurated.[321] He exhibited a courage and a political efficiency

worthy of his predecessor, but accomplished nothing. He was able, however,

to help his friends by means of the pardoning power. Several prominent

Republicans were indicted at this time for various acts of public

malfeasance. On the ground that in the existing state of public excitement

these men could not obtain a fair trial, Conley ordered proceedings

against several of these to be discontinued.[322]

On January 11, 1872, the returns from the special election were sent to

the legislature by Conley, under protest,[323] and James M. Smith was

declared elected. On January 12, Smith was inaugurated. Conley assisted at

this ceremony, thus yielding the last inch of Republican ground.[324]

Reviewing the events recorded from the beginning of this chapter, we

observe that the period of reconstruction in Georgia was not a period when

a swarm of harpies took possession of the state government and preyed at

will upon a helpless people. The constitutional convention of 1867-68

forebodes such a period, but when the Conservatives rouse themselves, from

that time on the stage presents an internecine war between two very well

matched enemies. This struggle is usually represented as between a wicked

assailant and a righteous assailed. That it was a struggle between

Republicans and Democrats is much more characteristic. In such a contest

mutual vilifying of course abounded, and it is not to be supposed _a

priori_ that the vilifying of one party was more truthful than that of the

other.

It is often vaguely said that reconstruction resulted in government by

carpet-baggers. John B. Gordon, the Conservative candidate for governor

who was defeated by Bullock, expressed before a Congressional committee in

1870 the belief that there were not more than a dozen men holding offices

in Georgia who had recently been non-residents. He further said that the

judges appointed by the Republican governor were entirely

satisfactory.[325]

The reconstruction government is charged with having imposed such heavy

taxes that as a result the people were impoverished, industry was checked,

and many plantations went to waste. During the decade before the war the

law provided that a tax should be annually levied at such a rate as to

produce $375,000, provided the rate should not exceed one-twelfth of one

per cent.[326] The revenue law of 1866 provided that a tax should be

levied at such a rate as to produce $350,000.[327] Owing to the vast

destruction of property during the war, this necessitated a higher rate

than that before the war. The law of 1867 ordered a levy at such a rate as

to raise $500,000.[328] This law, made by the Johnson government, before

reconstruction began, was continued by the legislature in the four

following years.[329] In 1870 the rate of assessment was two-fifths of one

per cent.[330] This rate was much higher than the one prevailing before

the war, but this misfortune cannot be charged to reconstruction, since

the reconstruction government merely followed the example of the Johnson

government.

That the reconstruction _regime_ did not do the economic harm often

attributed to it is shown by the fact that during that _regime_ the value

of land and of all property in the state steadily increased, as appears

from the following table:

ASSESSED VALUATION.

Land. Town and Total

City Property. Property.

1868[331] $79,727,584 $40,315,621 $191,235,520

1869[332] 84,577,166 44,368,096 204,481,706

1870[333] 95,600,674 47,922,544 226,119,519

1871[334] 96,857,512 52,159,734 234,492,468

Nevertheless, the reconstruction government spent the public money

extravagantly. This fact is shown by a comparison of the expenditures of

the state under Bullock's administration and under that of his

predecessor. Such a comparison, it is true, has been employed to prove the

contrary. Governor Bullock was wont to rebut charges of extravagance by

showing that the state spent more under Jenkins' administration than under

his, in proportion to the time occupied by each.[335] This was true, as

the following figures show:[336]

Gross expenditures in 1866 and 1867 $3,223,323.46

Average annual expenditure during these years 1,601,661.73

Gross expenditures from August 11, 1868, to Jan. 1, 1870 2,260,252.15

Gross expenditures in 1870 1,444,816.73

Gross expenditures in 1871 1,476,978.86

Average annual expenditure during this period 1,554,614.32

A comparison of gross expenditures, however, is of no significance unless

the sums contrasted represent payments for the same purposes. Under the

earlier administration the government undertook large expenditures for the

relief of destitute persons, especially of wounded soldiers and the

relicts of soldiers.[337] This accounts for the remarkable size of the

amounts credited to "special appropriations" in the report for 1866 and

1867. Under Bullock's administration the government spent nothing for

these purposes. For a fair comparison of the economy of the Johnson

government and the reconstruction government, it is necessary to compare

the amounts which they spent respectively for the same objects. Their

payments for the more important administrative purposes are shown in the

following table:[338]

+----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

| | 1866. | 1867. | 1868. | 1869. |

+----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

|Civil Establishment |$20,771.66|$75,222.44|$50,373.72|$85,666.41|

|Contingent Fund | 6,128.62| 15,430.74| 10,059.06| 19,968.16|

|Printing Fund | 1,021.75| 16,114.90| 20,452.96| 7,673.38 |

|Special Appropriations|304,955.05|879,897.77|210,916.11|261,097.37|

+----------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

+----------+----------+

| 1870. | 1871. |

+----------+----------+

|$77,851.77|$78,365.21|

| 38,284.44| 20,296.95|

| 60,011.78| 20,000.00|

|260,442.05|806,419.08|

+----------+----------+

These figures show that almost all the annual expenditures of Bullock's

administration, aside from "special appropriations," were well above those

of the preceding administration, and that the payments from the printing

fund, especially in 1870, and from the contingent fund in 1870, were so

large as to convict the administration of great extravagance.

The reconstruction legislature was reproached because of its large _per

diem_--nine dollars. This _per diem_ was established by the Johnson

government,[339] and is, therefore, not a charge against reconstruction.

But the other expenses of the legislature fully corroborate the charges of

extravagance made against it. This is shown by the following table:[340]

+-----+---------------------+-------------+-------------------+

+-----+---------------------+-------------+-------------------+

|1865 | Jan. 15 to March 13.| | |

| and | Nov. 1 to Dec. 14. | $121,759.75 | $33,207.18 |

|1866.| ------------------- | | |

+-----+---------------------+-------------+-------------------+

|1867.| No session. | | |

+-----+---------------------+-------------+-------------------+

|1868 | July 4 to Oct. 6. | | |

| and | Jan. 13 to March 18.| $446,055.00 | $84,161.33 |

|1869.| ------------------- | | |

+-----+---------------------+-------------+-------------------+

|1870.| July 6 to Oct. 25. | $526,891.00 | $95,798.32 |

| | ------------------- | | |

+-----+---------------------+-------------+-------------------+

The state debt created by the reconstruction government was of two kinds;

direct and contingent. When the reconstruction government went into

operation the state debt was $6,544,500.[341] The reconstruction

government incurred a bonded debt of $4,880,000.[342] This includes bonds

to the amount of $1,880,000 which were issued to a railroad in exchange

for its bonds to a greater amount and bearing interest at the same rate.

This amount, therefore, was not a burden on the state, provided the

railroad remained solvent; though in form a direct, it was virtually a

contingent liability. Further, $300,000 of the money borrowed was used to

pay the principal of the old debt. Deducting these two sums, we find that

the burden of direct debt was increased by $2,700,000.

Contingent debt was incurred by the indorsement of railroad bonds. In 1868

the state offered aid of this kind to three railroad companies,[343] in

1869 to four,[344] and in 1870 to thirty.[345] The state offered to

indorse the bonds of each of these companies to the amount, usually, of

from $12,000 to $15,000 per mile, sometimes more and sometimes less. If

all the roads had accepted the full amount of aid offered, the state would

have become contingently liable for about $30,000,000.[346] But only six

roads accepted, and the contingent liability thus created was

$6,923,400.[347] The laws offering the aid involved little risk to the

state; they made substantial progress in construction and substantial

evidence of soundness conditions precedent to indorsement, and secured to

the state a lien on all the property of each road in case it defaulted.

The indorsement of railroad bonds is not a reproach to the reconstruction

government. The great policy of that government, when it was sufficiently

free from partisan labors to have a policy, was to repair the prosperity

of the state, and the construction of railroads was an important means to

this end.[348]

The worst stain on the reconstruction government is its management of the

state railroad. The Western and Atlantic Railroad, owned and operated by

the state until 1871, was placed under the superintendence of Foster

Blodgett by the governor in January, 1870.[349] Thenceforth hundreds of

employees were discharged to make room for Republican favorites; important

positions were filled by strangers to the business; the receipts were

stolen,[350] or squandered in purchases made from other Republicans at

monstrous prices; and the road suffered great dilapidation.[351]

The preferred object of the Conservative abuse in the reconstruction

government was Governor Bullock. We have seen that he was remarkably

powerful as well as remarkably active in promoting the interests of his

party. He was abused for that. For the extravagance of the state

government the governor was held largely responsible. He was abused for

that. But he was further accused of fraud in financial matters.

Although this charge has never been established, the public had some

excuse for believing it at the time. As a result of the quarrel between

the governor and the treasurer, the governor ordered the bankers who were

the financial agents of the state to hold no further communication with

the treasurer after June 3, 1869, but to communicate only with the

governor.[352] The effect upon the public was an impression of great

confusion and irregularity in the finances. The treasurer's reports could

not give a complete account of state moneys, and the governor was not

careful to inform the public of the condition of that part of the finances

over which he had assumed control. Moreover, the governor and the

treasurer kept up a constant interchange of accusation and insinuation in

the newspapers. In another way the governor put himself in an unfortunate

light. In his letter to the Ku Klux Committee his statements regarding his

bond transactions were so vague as to give the impression (rightly or

wrongly) of a desire to conceal something.[353] The same laxity of

statement appears in Conley's statement of the use to which the bonds

issued by Bullock had been put.[354] His sudden resignation and departure

on the eve of a threatened investigation seemed to confirm the evidence of

his guilt.

But though he did not keep the public informed, it has never been

established that his accounts were wrong. He spent money freely, and in

some cases without authority;[355] but none of his accusers has ever

proved that he spent any without regular and correct record by the

comptroller. And though he issued bonds perhaps in excess, he issued none

without proper registration in the comptroller's records.[356] His

apparent efforts to conceal facts do not prove fraud; a sufficient motive

would be furnished by desire to conceal the extravagance of his

administration. Furthermore, he has been positively acquitted of the

charge of fraud. In 1878 he returned to Georgia, and the courts proceeded

to give him "a speedy and public trial." Of his many alleged crimes,

indictments were secured for three. One indictment was quashed.[357] Upon

the other two the verdict was "not guilty."[358] His resignation was

explained in a letter to his "political friends," published on October 31,

1871.[359] He said that he had obtained evidence of a concerted design

among certain prominent members of the incoming legislature to impeach

him (as they could easily do, with the immense Conservative majority), and

instal as governor the Conservative who would be elected president of the

senate. To resign and put the governorship in the hands of a Republican

who could not be impeached was the only way to defeat this "nefarious

scheme." This explanation was of course ignored by Bullock's enemies when

it was made; but in view of the lack of evidence that he was guilty of any

fraud, and in view of the positive evidence to the contrary, there is now

no reason to doubt it.

The governor made extraordinary use of the pardoning power. According to a

statement sanctioned by him, he pardoned four hundred and ninety-eight

criminals, forty-one of whom were convicted or accused of murder,

fifty-two of burglary, five of arson, and eight of robbery.[360] The

leader of the Conservative party at that time, B. H. Hill, emphatically

declared in a public statement that the governor had no worse motive than

"kindness of heart."[361]

To sum up the case against the reconstruction government, we have seen

that it was extravagant, that it mismanaged the state railroad, and that

it pardoned a great many criminals. It was not guilty of the enormities

often associated with reconstruction; but it was a government composed of

men who obtained political position only through the interference of an

outside power--it was the product of a system conceived partly in

vengeance, partly in folly, and partly in political strategy, and imposed

by force. It was hated partly for what it did, but more for what it was.

CHAPTER X

CONCLUSION

A Confederate veteran recently remarked amid great applause at an assembly

in Atlanta that there never was a conqueror so magnanimous as the North,

for within six years from the surrender of the southern armies she had

allowed the South to take part in her national councils. Nevertheless,

within those six years the Congressional Disciplinarians gave the South a

discipline which she will never forget. It did not result in permanent

estrangement between the North and the South, for sectional bitterness

seems extinct. But whether there was any profit in it--whether, in case

the South never again attempts to secede, that happy omission will be due

to reconstruction--may be doubted.

Was there a clearer gain from the humanitarian point of view? We have seen

that at the close of the war a spirit of gratitude and philanthropy

prevailed among the most influential of the southern white people as

regards the negroes. Instead of allowing this spirit to develop and in the

course of time to produce its natural results, the North, believing that

suffrage was essential to the negro's welfare and progress, forced the

South to enfranchise him, by reconstruction. This caused the negro untold

immediate harm (since reconstruction was a contributary cause of

Kukluxism), and delayed his ultimate advance by giving the friendly spirit

of the white people a check in its development from which it has not yet

recovered.

From the point of view of the Republican Politicians, reconstruction at

first succeeded, but later proved a mistaken policy. By it they lost the

support of the southern white men who had been opposed to secession. These

formed a large party in Georgia. The victory of the federal arms had the

nature of a party victory for them. They would have added their strength

to the Republican party. Reconstruction, with its threat of negro

domination, drove them into the Democratic party, where they still remain.

For a time this loss was made good by negro votes, but not long.

Without reconstruction there would have been no Fifteenth Amendment. But

the good will and philanthropy of the people among whom the negro lives,

which reconstruction took away, would have brought him more benefit than

the Fifteenth Amendment. Without reconstruction there would have been no

Fourteenth Amendment. But a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court

has determined that the Fourteenth Amendment did not achieve the

nationalization of civil rights--an end which might justify reconstruction

as a means. In short, reconstruction seems to have produced bad

government, political rancor, and social violence and disorder, without

compensating good.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

PUBLIC RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS.

_Of the United States Government._

Congressional Globe.

Public Documents.

Statutes at Large.

Supreme Court Reports.

Military orders in the archives of the Department of War.

Correspondence in the same archives.

Correspondence in the archives of the Department of State.

Unpublished records in the same archives.

_Of the Government of Georgia._

Journal of the constitutional convention of 1865.

Journal of the constitutional convention of 1867-8.

Journals of the legislature.

Reports of the four committees appointed by the legislature in December,

1871 to investigate respectively--

The management of the state railroad.

The lease of the same road.

The official conduct of Governor Bullock.

The transactions of Governor Bullock's administration relating to

the issue of state bonds and the indorsement of railroad bonds.

These reports were published in Atlanta in 1872.

Session Laws.

Supreme Court Reports.

Reports of the State Comptroller.

Executive minutes in the archives of the state in Atlanta.

Minutes of the Fulton County Superior Court in the office of that court

in Atlanta.

NEWSPAPERS.

Atlanta _New Era_.

Atlanta _Constitution_.

Milledgeville _Federal Union_ (during the war called the _Confederate

Union_).

Savannah _News_.

Savannah _Republican_.

CONTEMPORARY PAMPHLETS.

A letter from Rufus B. Bullock to the chairman of the Ku Klux committee,

Atlanta, 1871.

Address of the same to the people of Georgia, dated October, 1872.

Letter from the same "to the Republican Senators and Representatives who

support the Reconstruction Acts," Washington, May 21, 1870.

HISTORICAL WORKS AND COMPENDIA.

_American Annual Cyclopaedia_. New York.

Avery, I. W., _History of Georgia_. New York, 1881.

Bancroft, F. A., _The Negro in Politics_. New York, 1885.

Clews, Henry, _Twenty-eight Years in Wall Street_. London, 1888.

Cox, S. S., _Three Decades of Federal Legislation_. Providence, 1886.

Dunning, W. A., _The Civil War and Reconstruction_. New York, 1898.

Fielder, H., _The Life and Times of Joseph E. Brown_. Springfield,

Mass., 1883.

Hill, B. H., Jr., _The Life, Speeches and Writings of Benjamin H. Hill_.

Atlanta, 1891.

Lalor, J. J., _Cyclopaedia of Political Science_. New York, 1893.

Articles on Reconstruction, Georgia, and Ku Klux.

Poor, H. V., _Manual of the Railroads of the United States_. New York,

published yearly.

Sherman, W. T., _Memoirs_. New York, 1875.

Stephens, Alex., _The War between the States_. Philadelphia, 1868-70.

Taylor, Richard, _Destruction and Reconstruction_. New York, 1893.

_Tribune Almanac_. New York.

Wilson, Henry, _History of the Reconstruction Measures_. Hartford, 1868.

Footnotes:

[1] Alex. Stephens, _The War Between the States_, vol. ii, p. 623; W. T.

Sherman, _Memoirs_, vol. ii, pp. 346-362.

[2] M. C. U., May 9, 1865.

[3] See the account of the gigantic relief operations of the federal army,

A. A. C., 1865, p. 392.

[4] M. C. U., May 9, 1865.

[5] Letter from Joseph E. Brown to Andrew Johnson, dated May 20, 1865, in

the Department of War, Washington. Brown was arrested on May 10. On May 8,

upon surrendering the state troops to the federal general Wilson, he had

been paroled. (The parole paper is in the above mentioned archives.) Hence

the arrest was a violation of his parole. When Wilson entered into the

parole engagement he had not been informed how his superiors would regard

the summoning of the legislature. Immediately afterward he probably

received orders from the central authorities to arrest Brown. He preferred

obeying orders to observing his engagement.

[6] G. O. D. S., 1865, no. 63.

[7] See G. O. D. S., 1865, _passim_. Also Savannah _Republican_, May 1, 2,

3, etc., 1865.

[8] Savannah _Republican_, July 4, 1865. See also James Johnson's

proclamation of July 13, 1865, M. F. U. of same date.

[9] M. F. U., July 25, 1865.

[10] U. S. L., vol. 13, 760. The provisional governorship, it may be

remarked, was characterized by the Secretary of War as "ancillary to the

withdrawal of military force, the disbandment of armies, and the reduction

of military expenditure by provisional [civil organizations] to take the

place of armed force." The salaries of the provisional governors were paid

from the army contingencies fund. See S. D., 39th Congress, 1st session,

no. 26.

[11] U. S. L., vol. 13, p. 764.

[12] M. F. U., July 13, 1865; A. A. C., 1865, p. 394.

[13] M. F. U., August 15, 1865; A. A. C., _loc. cit._

[14] Letter from Brown to Johnson, dated May 20, 1865, archives of the

Department of War, Washington.

[15] Letter from Johnson to Stanton dated June 3, 1865, in same archives.

[16] M. F. U., July 11, 1865.

[17] M. F. U., July 18. Savannah _Republican_, July 1 and 3.

[18] J. C., 1865, p. 3.

[19] J. C., 1865, p. 8.

[20] _Ibid._, pp. 17, 18.

[21] _Ibid._, p. 234. The ordinance to this effect was passed only after a

hard fight, and after a telegraphic warning from the President that if it

failed the state would fail of restoration. See S. D., 39th Congress, 1st

session, no. 26, p. 81.

[22] J. C., 1865, pp. 18 and 28.

[23] S. J., 1865-6, p. 3.

[24] S. D., 39th Congress, 1st session, no. 26, p. 95.

[25] S. L., 1865, p. 313.

[26] M. F. U., December 19 and 26, 1865.

[27] See Jenkins' message to the legislature, M. F. U., December 19, 1865.

[28] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 320 (testimony of John B. Gordon).

[29] Report of Carl Schurz on conditions in the South, made in December,

1865. S. D., 39th Congress, 2d session, no. 2.

[30] Report of Carl Schurz on conditions in the South, made in December,

1863. S. D., 39th Congress, 2d session, no. 2.

[31] Art. v, sect. 1, Sec. 1.

[32] Art. ii, sec. 5, Sec. 5.

[33] S. L., 1865-66, p. 6.

[34] S. L., 1865-66, p. 234.

[35] Before, the maximum penalty for rape, arson, and burglary in the

night had been imprisonment for 20 years, and for horse stealing

imprisonment for 5 years.

[36] S. L., 1865-66, p. 232; 1866, p. 151.

[37] _Ibid._, 1866, p. 150.

[38] _Ibid._, 1865-66, p. 233.

[39] S. L., 1866, p. 153.

[40] _Ibid._, 1865-66, p. 239.

[41] _Ibid._

[42] _Ibid._, p. 240.

[43] _Ibid._, 241.

[44] S. L., 1866, p. 59.

[45] J. C., 1865, p. 16.

[46] _Ibid._, p. 17.

[47] _Ibid._, 137.

[48] S. L., 1866, p. 216. For the governor's message and the report of the

committee to which the amendment was referred, see A. A. C., 1865, p. 352.

For a further expression of public opinion, see Atlanta _New Era_, October

19, 1866.

[49] S. L., 1865-66, p. 315.

[50] S. L., 1865-66, p. 14, and S. L., 1866, p. 143.

[51] S. L., 1866, p. 219.

[52] Report of Carl Schurz above cited.

[53] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session. Appendix, p. 1.

[54] One of the Senators elect from Georgia had been Vice-President of the

defunct Confederacy.

[55] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 2.

[56] R. C., 39th Congress, 1st session, vol. ii, p. iii.

[57] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, appendix, p. 82.

[58] C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 915.

[59] U. S. L., vol. 14, p. 27.

[60] Trumbull's speech, C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 474.

[61] R. C., 39th Congress, 1st session, vol. ii.

[62] Senate resolution (by Andrew Johnson), C. G., 37th Congress, 1st

session, pp. 243, 265; House resolution (by Crittenden), _ibid._, pp. 209,

222.

[63] U. S. L., vol. 14, P. 358.

[64] _Ibid._, p. 173.

[65] U. S. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 21.

[66] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 814.

[67] _Ibid._

[68] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 251.

[69] U. S. L., vol. 14, p. 428.

[70] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 1076.

[71] U. S. L., vol. 15, p. 2.

[72] _Ibid._, p. 14.

[73] Mississippi _versus_ Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475; Georgia _versus_

Stanton, 6 Wallace, 51; _Ex parte_ McCardle, 6 Wallace, 324, and 7

Wallace, 512.

[74] 7 Wallace, 700.

[75] The _Federalist_, no. 43.

[76] Story on the Constitution, chap. 41 (4th edition).

[77] Cooley on the Constitution, p. 23 (4th edition).

[78] Prize Cases, 2 Black, 687.

[79] _Ex parte_ Garland, 4 Wallace, 333.

[80] Archives of the Department of State, Washington.

[81] C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 615. For other expressions of

the same doctrine, see Cullom's speech, _ibid._, p. 814; Sumner's

resolutions, C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 2; Sumner's

resolutions, C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 453.

[82] G. O. H., 1867, no. 18 and 104; 1868, no. 55; G. O. T. M. D., 1867,

no. 1; 1868, no. 3 and 108.

[83] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 5.

[84] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 20.

[85] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 50.

[86] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 69.

[87] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 83.

[88] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 89. Also see Pope's Report, in R. S. W., 40th

Congress, 2d session, vol. i, p. 320.

[89] There is a slight inaccuracy in the official figures.

[90] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 89.

[91] Georgia Constitution of 1868, art. i, sec. i.

[92] _Ibid._, art. i, sect. xi.

[93] _Ibid._, art. ii, sect. ii.

[94] _Ibid._, art. ii, sect. vii, Sec. 10.

[95] _Ibid._, art. i, sect. xxii.

[96] _Ibid._, art. vi, sect. i.

[97] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 39 and 40.

[98] _Ibid._, no. 76, 90 and 93. Also, E. D., 40th Congress 2d session,

no. 300.

[99] Pope's Report in R. S. W., 40th Congress, 2d session, vol. i, p. 320.

[100] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 1.

[101] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 10.

[102] For the correspondence between Jenkins and Pope see A. A. C., 1867,

p. 363.

[103] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 49.

[104] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 45.

[105] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 28.

[106] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 69.

[107] S. O. T. M. D., 1867, _passim_.

[108] G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 53.

[109] S. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 92, 100, 104.

[110] _Ibid._, 1867, no. 263.

[111] These figures are compiled from the special orders of the Third

Military District.

[112] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 22.

[113] Ordinance of Dec. 20, 1867, J. C., 1867-8, p. 564.

[114] Avery, _History of Georgia_, p. 378.

[115] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 8. Meade acted with the greatest courtesy,

and the relations between him and the officers remained friendly. See

Meade's letter to Jenkins, A. A. C., 1867, p. 367. The removal of the

treasurer was a formality to preserve the appearance of due discipline;

Jones was allowed to retain the money then in the treasury, and to use it

in paying the state debt and other expenses of the state government. See

his report to the legislature, Sept. 18, 1868; H. J., 1868, p. 359.

[116] J. C., 1867-8, p. 581.

[117] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 12 and 17.

[118] S. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 112.

[119] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 39 and 57.

[120] _Ibid._, 1868, no. 58.

[121] _Ibid._, 1868, no. 51.

[122] _Ibid._, 1868, no. 54.

[123] _Ibid._, 1868, no. 57.

[124] _Ibid._, 1868, no. 27 and 37.

[125] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 27, 55, 99, 123, 136, and 148.

[126] M. F. U., Oct. 29, 1867.

[127] Atlanta _New Era_, Nov. 16, 1866; March 13, 1867; March 19, 1867.

[128] Testimony of John B. Gordon, K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 308.

[129] Atlanta _New Era_, March 13, 16 and 30, 1867.

[130] M. F. U., Oct. 29 and Nov. 5, 1867.

[131] A. A. C., 1868, p. 309.

[132] Testimony before the reconstruction committee, H. M. D., 40th

Congress, 2d session, no. 52, p. 26. See also M. F. U., March 10 and 17,

1867.

[133] Tribune Almanac for 1869, p. 78.

[134] U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Laws, p. 41.

[135] See sects. 5 and 6.

[136] The vote in Alabama on the adoption of the constitution resulted in

favor of adoption; but less than half of the registered voters voted, and

the vote was taken before the passage of the act of March 11, 1868, above

mentioned. Excuse was found by the Republican leaders for waiving this

irregularity. C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 2463.

[137] C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 2859 (Trumbull's speech).

[138] U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Acts, p. 73.

[139] S. J., 1868. p. 3.

[140] The Iron Clad or Test Oath, to the effect that the person swearing

had never borne arms against the United States, or in any way served the

Confederacy. U. S. L., vol. 12, p. 502.

[141] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 61.

[142] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 38. See also C. G.,

41st Congress, 1st session, p. 594.

[143] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 98.

[144] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 7.

[145] _Ibid._ See also H. J., 1868, p. 25.

[146] S. J., 1868, p. 34.

[147] H. J., 1868, pp. 36, 44.

[148] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 8.

[149] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 38.

[150] _Ibid._

[151] _Ibid._, p. 13.

[152] H. J., 1868, p. 52.

[153] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 103.

[154] G. O. H., 1868, no. 55.

[155] H. J., 1868, p. 57.

[156] C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, pp. 4472, 4499, 4500.

[157] H. J., 1868, p. 104.

[158] C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 4518.

[159] A. A. C., 1868, p. 312.

[160] The most prominent of these was Ex-Governor Brown. He went as a

delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1868, but in a speech

there declared his opposition to the granting of political power to the

negro. Avery, _History of Georgia_, p. 385.

[161] S. J., 1868, p. 84.

[162] Constitution of 1868, Art. xi, Sec. 3.

[163] Irwin's Code, 1868, Sec. 1648.

[164] Art. i, sec. 2.

[165] This ingenious argument of intent was made by Bullock. H. J., 1868,

p. 300.

[166] White _versus_ Clements, Georgia Reports, vol. 39, p. 232.

[167] H. J., 1868, pp. 242, 247. S. J., 1868, pp. 278, 280.

[168] Irwin's Code, 1868, Sec. 121.

[169] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 3.

[170] _Ibid._, p. 2.

[171] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 3.

[172] Richard Taylor, _Destruction and Reconstruction_.

[173] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 93 (testimony of Augustus R. Wright); p. 274

(testimony of Ambrose R. Wright); p. 236 (testimony of J. H. Christy); p.

818 (testimony of J. E. Brown).

[174] _Ibid._, vol. 7, pp. 812, 818 (testimony of J. E. Brown); p. 786

(testimony of B. H. Hill).

[175] _Ibid._, vol. 6, pp. 21 (testimony of C. D. Forsythe), 118

(testimony of Aug. R. Wright); vol 7, pp. 988 (testimony of Linton

Stephens), 1071.

[176] _Ibid._, vol. 6, pp. 426, 440 (testimony of J. H. Caldwell), 108

(testimony of Aug. R. Wright); vol. 7, p. 818 (testimony of J. E. Brown).

[177] _Ibid._, vol. 6, p. 344 (testimony of J. B. Gordon).

[178] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1929 (Trumbull's remarks).

[179] Report of committee on reconstruction, H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d

session, no. 52, pp. 12 (testimony of Akerman), 27 (testimony of J. E.

Bryant).

[180] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 107 (testimony of Aug. R. Wright).

[181] K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 838 (testimony of C. W. Howard).

[182] This statement is corroborated by the testimony of B. H. Hill, K. K.

R., vol. 7, p. 767.

[183] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 2.

[184] S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192.

[185] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 27.

[186] _Ibid._, p. 144.

[187] _Ibid._, pp. 10 and 674.

[188] H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52.

[189] U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Laws, p. 257.

[190] C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, pp. 934, 976. A precedent for this

rule was found in the similar treatment of Missouri's electoral vote in

1821.

[191] C. C. 40th Congress, 3d session, pp. 1057, ff.

[192] G. C., 1867-8, p. 567.

[193] C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, pp. 16, 18. The committee of

elections reported on Jan. 28, 1870, that the Georgia representatives were

not entitled to seats in the 41st Congress, having sat in the 40th. R. C.,

41st Congress, 2d session, no. 16.

[194] C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, pp. 8, 263, 591.

[195] U. S. L., vol. 15, appendix, p. xii.

[196] W. A. Dunning, _The Civil War and Reconstruction_, pp. 226-228, 243.

[197] S. J., 1869, p. 806; H. J., p. 610.

[198] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 251.

[199] _Ibid._, p. 4.

[200] H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52.

[201] S. D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 3.

[202] _Ibid._ Halleck's annual report of Nov. 6, 1869, speaks to the same

effect. R. S. W., 1869, abridged edition, p. 70.

[203] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 246.

[204] U. S. L., vol. 16, Pub. Laws, p. 59.

[205] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1710 (Lawrence's speech).

[206] _Ibid._, pp. 165 (Carpenter's speech) and 208 (Conkling's speech).

[207] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 2062.

[208] _Ibid._, p. 1710 (Lawrence's speech).

[209] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 90.

[210] G. O. II., 1870, no. 1. This and other documents relating to Terry's

administration are published in E. D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 288.

[211] S. R., first Congress, 2d session, no. 58.

[212] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 2, 14, 16, 17.

[213] S. O. M. D. G., no. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17.

[214] _Ibid._, no. 10 and 11.

[215] H. J., 1870, p. 3.

[216] S. J., 1870, p. 3; H. J., p. 7.

[217] H. J., p. 17.

[218] S. J., 1870., p. 26.

[219] H. J., 1870, p. 3.

[220] _Ibid._, pp. 19 and 21.

[221] See also a letter from Sherman to Terry, published in K. K. R., vol.

i, p. 311.

[222] Judge Cabaniss in Atlanta _Constitution_, Jan. 8, 1870.

[223] H. J., 1870, p. 9.

[224] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 3 and 4.

[225] _Ibid._, no. 9 and 11.

[226] _Ibid._, no. 9.

[227] _Ibid._, no. 9 and 11.

[228] Atlanta _Constitution_, Jan. 27, 1870.

[229] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1926 (Trumbull's speech).

[230] H. J., 1870, p. 22.

[231] H. J., 1870, p. 23.

[232] _Ibid._, p. 25.

[233] _Ibid._, p. 26.

[234] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 10.

[235] H. J., 1870, p. 33.

[236] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 208.

[237] S. J., 1870, p. 74; H. J., p. 74.

[238] See Bullock's message, H. J., 1870, p. 52.

[239] H. J., 1870, p. 95.

[240] _Ibid._, pp. 113, 156.

[241] H. J., 1870, p. 106.

[242] _Ibid._, p. 140.

[243] _Ibid._, p. 121.

[244] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 576. For Sherman's reply see E.

D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 82.

[245] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1029.

[246] _Ibid._, p. 1128.

[247] S. R., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 58.

[248] Chicago _Tribune_, Dec. 7, 1868.

[249] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, pp. 1570, 1704.

[250] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1770.

[251] _Ibid._

[252] _Ibid._, p. 1988.

[253] C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 2091.

[254] _Ibid._, pp. 2820, ff.

[255] _Ibid._, p. 2829.

[256] _Ibid._, p. 4747.

[257] U. S. L., vol. 16, Public Laws, p. 363.

[258] H. J., 1870, p. 181.

[259] S. J., 1870, vol. ii, p. 29.

[260] _Ibid._, p. 50; H. J., p. 343.

[261] C. G., 41st Congress, 3d session, pp. 527, 530, 678, 703, 1086.

[262] S. R., 41st Congress, 3d session, no. 308.

[263] C. G., 41st Congress, 3d session, pp. 871, 1632.

[264] J. C., p. 14.

[265] J. C., pp. 16, 17.

[266] _Ibid._, p. 587.

[267] _Ibid._, pp. 49, 53.

[268] _Ibid._, p. 581.

[269] _Ibid._, p. 75.

[270] _Ibid._, p. 63.

[271] _Ibid._, p. 84.

[272] _Ibid._, pp. 581, 594.

[273] _Ibid._, p. 68.

[274] J. C., p. 583.

[275] _Ibid._, p. 593.

[276] _Ibid._, p. 591.

[277] See J. C., 1865, p. 201 (speech of H. V. Johnson).

[278] J. C., 1867-8, p. 90.

[279] _Ibid._, p. 39.

[280] _Ibid._, p. 47.

[281] M. F. U., Dec. 24, 1867, Jan. 7, Jan. 14, 1868.

[282] H. J., 1868, p. 294.

[283] H. J., 1868, p. 303.

[284] S. J., 1868, p. 326.

[285] H. J., 1869, p. 5.

[286] _Ibid._, p. 228.

[287] H. J., p. 54.

[288] _Ibid._, p. 260.

[289] _Ibid._, p. 265.

[290] H. J., 1869, p. 575.

[291] _Ibid._, 1869, p. 618.

[292] S. J., p. 806.

[293] G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 9 and 11.

[294] S. J., 1870, p. 39.

[295] H. J., pp. 34, 40, 84, 88.

[296] The complexion of the legislature when composed of the men elected

in April, 1868, was as follows:

Senate. Lower House.

+-------------+-------+------------+

| Republicans | 22 | 73 |

|Conservatives| 22 | 102 |

+-------------+-------+------------+

After the colored members were expelled and their seats given to the

minority candidates, it was as follows:

Senate. Lower House.

+-------------+-------+------------+

| Republicans | 19 | 48 |

|Conservatives| 25 | 127 |

+-------------+-------+------------+

After the reorganization of 1870 it was as follows:

Senate. Lower House.

+-------------+-------+------------+

| Republicans | 27 | 87 |

|Conservatives| 17 | 83 |

+-------------+-------+------------+

The figures in the second and third tables are based upon the changes

produced only by the official transactions referred to. Perhaps some

slight corrections might be made on account of accidental circumstances,

such as the non-attendance or death of a few members.

[297] See K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 149; vol. 7, p. 1062.

[298] H. J., 1870, p. 156.

[299] H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52, p. 27.

[300] Savannah _News_, Jan. 12, 1870.

[301] H. J., p. 50.

[302] M. F. U., Feb. 15, 1870

[303] M. F. U., Jan. 25, 1870.

[304] H. J., p. 343.

[305] S. L., 1870, p. 62.

[306] _Ibid._, p. 431.

[307] Tribune Almanac, 1871, p. 75.

[308] M. F. U., March 14, 8871; Atlanta _Constitution_, Oct. 26 and 31,

1871.

[309] Art. iii, sect. i, Sec. 3.

[310] S. L., 1870, p. 419.

[311] E. M., 1870-74, p. 197.

[312] See entry of the secretary of state, _ibid._

[313] Art. iv, sect. i,Sec. 4.

[314] E. M., 1870-74, p. 198.

[315] Atlanta _Constitution_, Nov. 3, 1871.

[316] S. J., 1871, p. 17.

[317] Atlanta _Constitution_, Nov. 2, 1871.

[318] S. L., 1871, p. 27.

[319] Art. iv, sect. i, Sec. 4.

[320] H. J., 1871, p. 179.

[321] For vetoed bills see S. L., 1871 and 1872, pp. 12, 15, 18, 27, 68,

74. See also _ibid._, p. 260, and H. J., 1872, p. 25.

[322] E. M., 1870-74, p. 277 (pardon of V. A. Gaskill); Minutes of Fulton

County Superior Court, vol. J, p. 404 (pardon of F. Blodgett).

[323] H. J., 1872, p. 25.

[324] _Ibid._, p. 31.

[325] K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 327.

[326] Digest of tax laws, 1859, p. 11.

[327] S. L., 1865-66, p. 253.

[328] _Ibid._, 1866, p. 164.

[329] _Ibid._, 1868, p. 152; 1869, p. 159.

[330] B. L., p. 11.

[331] C. R., 1870 (printed in S. J., 1870, part ii, p. 83).

[332] C. R., 1870.

[333] C. R., April, 1871.

[334] C. R., April, 1872.

[335] B. L., p. 9; B. A., p. 42.

[336] Report of state treasurer Jones, published in H. J., 1868, p. 361;

R. C., 1870; R. C., April, 1871; R. C., April, 1872.

[337] S. L., 1865-1866, pp. 12 and 14; _ibid._, 1866, pp. 10, 11, 143.

[338] Compiled from the financial documents above cited.

[339] S. L., 1865-66, p. 250.

[340] Compiled from the financial reports above cited.

The enemies of reconstruction were fond of placing the state expenses of

Bullock's administration in juxtaposition with those before the war.

Contrasts truly horrible could thus be produced. But it was not a fair

comparison, for the expenses in such circumstances as prevailed after the

war and after the social revolution would naturally be larger than before.

The expenses of many states besides those which enjoyed reconstruction

increased largely after the war. _E.g._ the records of Pennsylvania show

that "Expenses of Government" were--

In 1857 $423,448.89

1858 399,888.36

1860 404,863.41

1866 668,909.63

1867 802,878.58

1868 845,539.89

1869 804,730.17

1870 826,069.25

Pennsylvania Executive Documents, Auditor's Reports, for the years named.

In Massachusetts the "Ordinary Expenses" were--

In 1857 $1,236,204.26

1858 1,008,620.50

1859 999,899.76

1860 1,193,896.41

1866 6,877,720.85

1867 5,953,003.31

1868 5,908,678.48

Massachusetts Public Documents for the years named.

[341] C. R., 1870.

[342] C. R., April, 1871, p. 14; C. R., April, 1872, p. 17; B. L., p. 13;

Conley's message to the legislature, Jan. 11, 1872 (quoted in B. A., p. 6,

and in K. K. R., vol. i, p. 141).

Of these bonds 3,000, representing a debt of $3,000,000, were issued under

a law of Sept. 15, 1870 (S. L., 1870, p. 10), authorizing the governor to

issue bonds for various purposes without specified limit as to amount. The

rest were issued under an act of Oct. 17, 1870 (omitted from the session

laws, see Conley's message just cited), authorizing the governor to issue

to the Brunswick and Albany railroad state bonds to the amount of

$1,880,000 in exchange for bonds of the railroad to the amount of

$2,350,000.

In addition to the bonds already mentioned, bonds to the amount of

$600,000 were issued under acts of 1868 (S. L., 1868, pp. 14 and 138.)

These were not sold and were returned to the possession of the state

during Bullock's administration (Angier's statement, K. K. R., vol. 6, p.

162). Also, before the issue of $3,000,000 mentioned, bonds to the amount

of $2,000,000 were issued (Conley's message cited). These were

hypothecated with several bankers in New York. Some of them, amounting to

$500,000, were returned and cancelled during Bullock's administration

(Conley's message). The rest, amounting to $1,500,000, remained in the

hands of the bankers. Conley stated, in January, 1872 (message cited),

that these bonds had been replaced by bonds of a later issue and canceled

during Bullock's administration, and had therefore ceased to be a claim

against the state. This statement conflicts with three facts. 1. The

bankers who held these bonds refused to return them after their alleged

cancellation. 2. One of these bankers sold the bonds which he held after

their alleged cancellation (Henry Clews, _Twenty-eight Years in Wall

Street_, p. 277). 3. The legislature of Georgia repudiated these bonds in

1872, which would have been unnecessary if they had been cancelled. It

seems probable, therefore, though not certain, that this $1,500,000 should

be added to the debt incurred by the reconstruction government.

[343] S. L., 1868, title xvii.

[344] _Ibid._, 1869, title xv.

[345] _Ibid._, 1870, title xi, division vii.

[346] Angier's statement, K. K. R., vol. i, p. 129.

[347] Conley's message above cited.

[348] It is to be remarked, however, that four of the roads whose bonds

the state had guaranteed became bankrupt before 1874. See Poor's Railroad

Manual for 1873-4, pp. 432 and 582; and for 1874-5, p. 426.

[349] E. M., 1870-74, p. 449.

[350] See the case of Hoyt, Minutes of Fulton County Superior Court, vol.

I, pp. 371, 445.

[351] Report of the investigating committee of the legislature appointed

in Dec., 1871. Its report was printed in Atlanta in 1872. It is bitterly

partisan, but a minority report made by a Republican admits, with humorous

resignation, that the charges are true.

[352] A. A. C., 1869, P. 305.

[353] See K. K. R., vol. i, pp. 137 and 138. The statements are on pp. 11

and 12 of the letter as published in Atlanta in 1871.

[354] See Conley's message cited.

[355] In the latter part of 1868 and in 1869 the governor paid to a

certain H. I. Kimball $54,500 from the treasury. He paid this to be used

in furnishing a building which was at that time occupied as the state

capital. (Bullock's statement, B. A., p. 29.) There was no law authorizing

this payment, nor was the state under any obligation to make it. The state

bought the building in 1870 by an act of the legislature which provided

that the $54,500 should be counted as part of the price. Thus Bullock's

advance was ratified by the state. (S. L., 1870, p. 494.) This, however,

does not change the character of the act.

[356] See C. R., April, 1871, and April, 1872. Bullock was accused of

indorsing the bonds of three railroads contrary to law. In the case of two

of these (the Cartersville and Van Wert, or Cherokee railroad, and the

Bainbridge, Cuthbert and Columbus railroad) he refuted the charge beyond

contradiction in his address to the public of 1872. In the case of the

third (the Brunswick and Albany railroad) he admitted that he had indorsed

bonds before the road had complied with the conditions required by law,

but said that he did it for the public good. (B. A., pp. 39-41.)

[357] Atlanta _Constitution_, Jan. 3, 1878; Minutes of the Fulton County

Superior Court, vol. N, p. 261.

[358] _Ibid._, pp. 263, 273.

[359] Atlanta _New Era_, Oct. 31, 1871. Printed as an appendix to B. A.

[360] Appendix to B. L. (printed in K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 825).

[361] K. K. R., vol. 7, pp. 767 and 780.

STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW

EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

VOLUME I, 1891-2. Second Edition, 1897. 396 pp.

Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.

1. The Divorce Problem--A Study in Statistics. By Walter F. Willcox, Ph.

D. Price, 75c.

2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from

Colonial Times to the McKinley Administrative Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph.

D. Price, $1.00.

3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island. By George

Ashton Black, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

4. Financial History of Massachusetts. By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph. D.

(_Not sold separately._)

VOLUME II, 1892-93. 503 pp.

Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.

1. The Economics of the Russian Village. By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph. D.

(_Out of print._)

2. Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. By Samuel W. Dunscomb,

Jr., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

3. Special Assessments: A Study in Municipal Finance. By Victor Rosewater,

Ph. D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00.

VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp.

Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.

1. History of Elections in the American Colonies. By Cortlandt F. Bishop,

Ph. D. Price, $1.50.

_Vol. III, no. 1, may also be obtained bound._ Price, $2.00.

2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. By

George L. Beer, A. M. Price, $1.50

VOLUME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp.

Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.

1. Financial History of Virginia. By W. Z. Ripley, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

2. The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph. D. (_Out of print._)

3. History of Taxation in Vermont. By Frederick A. Wood, Ph. D. Price,

$1.00.

VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp.

Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.

1. Double Taxation in the United States. By Francis Walker, Ph. D. Price,

$1.00.

2. The Separation of Governmental Powers. By William Bondy, LL. B., Ph. D.

Price, $1.00.

3. Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio. By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph. D.

Price $1.00.

VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp.

Price, $4.00; bound, $4.50.

History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. By William Robert

Shepherd, Ph. D. Price, $4.00; bound, $4.50.

VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp.

Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.

1. History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in

Massachusetts. By Harry A. Cushing, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.

2. Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States. By

Henry Crosby Emery, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.

VOLUME VIII, 1896-98. 551 pp.

Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.

1. The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over

Reconstruction. By Charles Ernest Chadsey, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

2. Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational Administration. By

William Clarence Webster, Ph. D. Price, 75c.

3. The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris. By Francis

R. Stark, LL. B., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

4. Public Administration in Massachusetts. The Relation of Central to

Local Activity. By Robert Harvey Whitten, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp.

Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.

1. English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations of Central

and Local Government. By Milo Roy Maltbie, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.

_Vol. IX, no. 1, may also be obtained bound._ Price, $2.50.

2. German Wage Theories. A History of their Development. By James W.

Crook, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

3. The Centralization of Administration in New York State. By John

Archibald Fairlie, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

VOLUME X, 1898-99. 500 pp.

Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.

1. Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts. By Fred S. Hall, Ph.D.

Price, $1.00.

2. Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union. By Frank Greene Bates,

Ph.D. Price, $1.50.

3. Centralized Administration of Liquor Laws in the American

Commonwealths. By Clement Moore Lacey Sites, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.

VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp.

Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.

The Growth of Cities. By Adna Ferrin Weber, Ph.D. Price, $3.50; bound,

$4.00.

VOLUME XII, 1899-1900. 586 pp.

Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.

1. History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. By William Maxwell

Burke, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.

2. Colonial Immigration Laws. By Edward Emberson Proper, A.M. Price, 75c.

3. History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States. By

William Henry Glasson, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.

4. History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. By Charles E.

Merriam, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50.

VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp.

Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.

1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. By Isidor Loeb, Ph. D.

Price, $1.50.

2. Political Nativism in New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco; Ph. D.

Price, $2.00.

3. The Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woolley, Ph. D. Price,

$1.00.

VOLUME XIV, 1901.

1. Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. By Alexander

Clarence Flick, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.

2. The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By Allan H. Willett, Ph. D.

Price, $1.50.

VOLUME XV, 1901.

Civilization through Crime. By Arthur Cleveland Hall. [_Ready in July._]

The set of thirteen volumes (except that Vol. II can be supplied only in

unbound nos. 2 and 3) is offered bound for $43.

For further information apply to

Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University, or to THE MACMILLAN

COMPANY, New York, London: P. S. KING & SON, Orchard House, Westminster.

Transcriber's Notes:

Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.

Footnote 141 appears on page 51, but there is no corresponding marker on

the page.

Punctuation has been corrected without note.

The following misprints have been corrected:

"consitutional" corrected to "constitutional" (page 12)

"conventton" corrected to "convention" (page 12)

"repudiaation" corrected to "repudiation" (page 12)

"and and" corrected to "and" (page 14)

"attitnde" corrected to "attitude" (page 22)

"acording" corrected to "according" (page 59)

"admendment" corrected to "amendment" (page 83)

"we we" corrected to "we" (page 87)

"reconstructien" corrected to "reconstruction" (page 91)

"circumsances" corrected to "circumstances" (page 93)

"expeditures" corrected to "expenditures" (page 101)

"iuterchange" corrected to "interchange" (page 106)

"hfs" corrected to "his" (page 107)

"polictical" corrected to "political" (page 108)

Other than the corrections listed above, inconsistencies in spelling and

hyphenation have been retained from the original.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Reconstruction of Georgia, by Edwin C. Woolley

The Reconstruction of Georgia Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1901 · 第 11 / 11 章

Whatever may have been the merits of the construction of the