that your request came in the same spirit of questions put to a reformer about eighteen hundred and forty-six years ago. (See Matthew XXII, verses 15 to 18 inclusive.)

These suspicions are greatly strengthened by the fact that it is well known that Stewart McKee is a very plain man, that his education at first was barely sufficient for a farmer or mechanic, that he performed manual labor for forty years, a great part of the time working by the day, the month, or the year for others, and that consequently he could not be very well versed in ancient history, or the two hundred thousand quarto pages of the common law.

You have been very kind, however, in furnishing me with the knowledge of "the arbitrative authority of ecclesiastical pastors," and its being enforced by the civil magistrates, and is a law of Constantine, and of receiving similar support at various times afterwards. This I esteem as proof, to some extent, of arbitration and ancient trial by jury being one and the same thing.

For the benefit of those whose votes I expect to receive I will give a question [quotation] or two from Blackstone, remarking as I go along that my principal guide will be justice and reason rather than ancient forms, but as I think the ancient forms will bear me out here they are:

Blackstone, Book III, chapter 4, says:

The policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated by Alfred the Great, was to bring justice home to every man's door, by constituting as many courts as there were manors and townships in the kingdom, wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends. These inferior courts, at least the name and form of them, still continue in our legal constitution; but as the superior courts of record have, in practice, obtained a concurrent original jurisdiction with these, and as there is besides, a power of removing actions thither from all the inferior jurisdictions, upon these accounts it has happened that these petty tribunals have fallen into decay, and almost into oblivion, whether for the better or worse may be a matter of speculation,

Judge Blackstone says, Book III, chapter 23:

The subject of our next inquiries will be the nature and method of trial by jury (called also trial by the country) a trial that seems to have been coeval with the first civil government thereof certain it is that they were in use among the earliest Saxon colonies, and hence it is that we find traces of juries in the law of all those nations which adopted the feudal system, as in France, Germany, and Italy, who had each of them tribunals composed of twelve good men and true (boni homines), usually the vassals or tenants of the lord, being the equals or peers of the parties litigant; and as the lords' vassals judged each other in the lords' courts, so the king's vassals, or the lords themselves, judged themselves in the king's courts.

(No learned judges there to instruct the jury.)

This tribunal was universally established among all the northern nations, and so interwoven in their very constitution that the earliest accounts of the one give us also some traces of the other.

With regard to the present form of trial by jury, you say that, in your opinion, "it is as free from objection as any that could be substituted." This is only matter of opinion. My opinion is quite different; but as I am only a common farmer my opinion of itself has but little weight. I will, therefore, call to its aid the opinion of a man honored and beloved for his wisdom and virtue, not only by the people of these states, but by the whole world-a man who filled the highest office in the gift of a free people with profit to them and honor to himself-the only man that ever lived whose fame and reputation could excite the envy of Bonaparte. His name is George Washington. I will give his opinions by an extract from his last will, as follows:

In this construction of this my last will and testament, it will readily be perceived that no professional character has been consulted, or has had any agency in the draught; and although it has occupied many leisure bours to digest, and to throw it into its present form, it may, notwithstanding, appear crude and incorrect-but having endeavored to be plain and explicit in all the devises, even at the expense of prolixity, perhaps tautology, I hope and trust that no disputes will arise concerning them;

but if, contrary to expectation, the case should be otherwise, from the want of legal expression or of the usual technical terms, or because too much or too little has been said on any of the devises to be consonant with law, my will and direction expressly is that all disputes (if unhappily any should arise) shall be decided by three impartial and intelligent men, known for their probity and good understanding-two to be chosen by the disputants, each having the choice of one, and the third by those two; which three men thus chosen shall, unfettered by law or legal constructions, declare the sense of the testator's intentions; and such decision is, to all intents and purposes, to be as binding on the parties as if it had been given in the Supreme Court of the United States. In witness, [Signed]

GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Here, sir, is some authority for settling disputes by friends and neighbors, arbitration or ancient trial by jury, as established by Alfred the Great, as you please to term it; and that too, cheaper, quicker, and more certain than our present form. A FARMER Of Grant.

SELECTIONS FROM THE LANCASTER WISCONSIN HERALD

CANDIDACY OF THOMAS P. BURNETT

[January 29, 1846]

To the People of Grant County:

FELLOW CITIZENS: During the spring and early part of the summer, I was frequently solicited by citizens in different parts of the county to become a candidate for delegate to the convention. To these requests I generally replied that I thought the station one of too much importance, the duties to be performed too serious in their consequences to the people and to posterity, to be sought after with avidity and managed for by the common tricks of electioneering. I said that as a citizen I would rather see the people act deliberately and select from among themselves the men best qualified by their capacity and integrity to serve them, than to see individuals pushing themselves forward for a trust of such high responsibilities. I, however, said that, if the people desired that I should serve them in that capacity I would not refuse to do so.

When I left home to attend the supreme court at Madison I knew not whether I should or should not be a candidate. While absent, I was written to from this county upon the subject, and I authorized some of my friends, if they should be satisfied upon inquiry that it was the wish of the people, to place my name before the public; and these are the circumstances under which it has appeared among the list of candidates. Trusting the matter entirely to the candid judgment of the people, who alone have a right to say who shall serve them, I had not intended to say anything upon the subject myself. Having prescribed this course for my own action, neither feeling nor making any opposition whatever

to any candidate for popular favor, and considering the circumstances under which my name had been presented, I had hoped that my merits, whatever they may be, would be considered fairly, and that it would not be thought necessary by anyone to misrepresent me. A little reflection, however, might have satisfied me that this was a vain expectation.

Upon reaching home from Madison on the twelfth instant, after an absence of near four weeks, I received a letter that had been sent to my house before I returned, by a friend in Beetown, informing me that a report had been started "that I was in favor of the 'Alien Law,'” and that in proof thereof it was stated, "that, in a public speech in Madison last winter, I declared that personally I was in favor of that law, and the reason why I opposed it was because my constituents wished its repeal." I received another letter from a friend at Lancaster written about the same time communicating the same information.

My first impression was to pay no attention whatever to so gross a falsehood. Some of my friends, however, seem to think that silence might be construed unfavorably by some, and have urged me to correct the impression that has been attempted to be made against me; and in accordance with this desire on their part, I now address you this communication.

The report alluded to has not the semblance of truth for its foundation. Since the legislature first undertook to confer the right of suffrage upon foreigners not naturalized, I have never expressed any such sentiments as those attributed to me by it, either at Madison or elsewhere, in any public speech or private conversation. I have always believed, and still believe, that the power is possessed by Congress alone of prescribing the terms upon which foreigners may become entitled to the rights and privileges of nativeborn citizens, and that the local governments cannot constitutionally exercise that power. I have expressed no opinion to the contrary of this upon any occasion. I believe that many who favor the contrary doctrine do so for the purpose of courting foreign influence to advance their own selfish