members of the bar, in regard to the prisoner, before his trial. The same afternoon, one of them (Mr. Lloyd) met the judge in the upper fauxbourg, and accosted him in abusive and menacing language. On Thursday, the judge issued his warrant against him, and he was lodged in prison during that night. The day following, he was brought before the court, and after hearing a variety of testimony in relation to the conversation between him and the judge, he was ordered to find security to keep the peace during one year, in two sureties for one thousand dollars each, and to be committed till he find such sureties. He was accordingly conducted to prison. WESTERN STATES. 1825.] TENNESSEE. During the month of June, a correspondence was opened between governor Carroll, and governor Troup, of Georgia, on the subject of a canal, connecting the waters of Hiwassee with those of Coosa, and also the practicability of a canal around Muscle shoals in the Tennessee, and through what is called the Tennessee valley, on the south side of said river. The following questions were proposed by governor Carroll: 1st. Is it probable that Georgia would co-operate with Tennessee in making the canal spoken of? 2d. Have you any correct information of the probable expense of completing a canal from Hiwassee to Coosa? the ground through which a canal would have to be cut; the quantity of water that may be commanded with convenience, and the practicability of the plan? Do you know of a skilful engineer who could be procured to make the necessary examination of the ground? Is it likely that Georgia would take any interest in the canal around the Muscle shoals, or would she give her aid to the enterprise? Governor Troup, in his reply, says, "This government will cheerfully unite with that of the state of Tennessee, in devising and carrying into effect measures for uniting the waters of Tennessee with those of Georgia, which empty into the Atlantic. It is not presumed that Tennessee would choose to pass into the gulf of Mexico, if a way could be opened for her to the Atlantic. Of the practicability of 3d. Have you any knowledge of this, there is not the least doubt.” The judiciary of this state has been for some years in an unfortunate condition, and the citizens and the legislature have been divided with respect to two courts, each of which assume to be the supreme and final legal tribunal of the state. This contest had its origin in the pecuniary difficulties in which its citizens involved themselves shortly after the late war with England, and in the injudicious legislative measures adopted for their relief. Upon the conclusion of the war, the western merchants finding it easy to obtain credit, in the Atlantic states, purchased larger quantities of foreign manufactures and produce, than the consumers required, and beyond their means of payment. To enable the mer. chants and farmers, who had become indebted to them, to comply with their engagements, the legislature authorised a bank, which only aggravated the mischief, by procrastinating the time of final payment, and thus encouraging the spirit of extravagant speculation. The inefficacy of this palliative having appeared, the legislature was induced to try new remedies for distress, which, although extreme, could only be relieved by economy and industry. Laws were enacted, delaying the return of executions for two years. At the end of that term, the property was to be appraised, and the judgment creditor was compelled to take it at three fourths of its appraised value, or to relinquish the benefit of his execution. Debtors were, also, invested with the power to designate the property, upon which the execution was to be first levied, and judgment creditors might be thus sent to levy on land in a distant county, of little or no value. These laws constituted what was called the relief system. The constitutionality of these laws was denied, and the supreme court of appeals, in Kentucky, when the question was presented for its decision, declared them to be in violation of that clause of the constitution of the United States, which prohibits the passage of "any law impairing the obligation of contracts." This decision caused much excitement against that tribunal, and this anti-judicial feeling was not a little augmented by a decision of the supreme court of the United States, which declared certain laws of the state of Kentucky, in favor of occupying claimants, to be in violation of the original compact between that state and Virginia, and, consequently, unconstitutional and void. Governor Adair, in his message to the legislature, in November, 1823, called the attention of that body to these decisions, and recommended that measures should be taken to `vindicate the rights of the people of the state against judicial usurpation. In the legislature, however, it was discovered that a strong party disapproved of the opinions of the governor, and were disposed to support the judicial decisions. A proposition to call a convention, to alter the constitution of the state, and, especially, in reference to the judiciary, was lost in the senate, that body being equally divided. In the house, Mr. Rowan in troduced resolutions, protesting against the decision of the supreme court of the United States, as subversive of the dearest rights of the people, and declaring the decision of the court of appeals to be erroneous, and that it is the right of the legislature, and not of the judiciary, to repeal any existing law. These resolutions passed by an average vote of fifty-five to forty. Another resolution, to prevent the issuing of any executions, except under the relief laws, was rejected; and another, recommending a memorial to the congress of the United States, against the decision of the supreme court of the United States, was withdrawn. The next year, Joseph Desha was elected governor, by a majority of 8211 over Mr. Tompkins, who was the anti-relief candidate: and a majority of the new representatives elected to the state legislature, was in favor of the relief system In order most effectually to support that system, a law was passed re-organizing the court of appeals, and four judges were appointed constituting this new court. The judges who were thus removed by the re-organization of the court, had been appointed during good behaviour; and as they were not deemed to be constitutionally removed, they determined to resist this attempt to legislate them out of office. The new court party took efficient measures to place their judges in possession of all the insignia of authority. In pursuance of a resolution of this legislature, the office of the clerk of the old court was forcibly entered, and the re cords and papers taken therefrom and placed in the custody of the new court. The old court however continued to meet at its stated terms, but being deprived of its records, did not transact any business. The new court also went into operation, and the singular spectacle was presented in Kentucky, of two courts, each claiming to be the tribunal for the ultimate decision of all legal questions arising in the inferior state courts. These circumstances produced great excitement among the people; and parties in the state were formed upon the express ground of supporting or opposing the old court of appeals. In the elections which took place in the summer of 1825, after one of the most arduous political contests ever exhibited in this country, the "old court" party succeeded in returning to the house of representatives more than three-fifths of the whole number; and 5 out of 9 of the senators who were then elected, were also in favor of the old court; but a small majority of those who had been previously elected, was in favor of the new court; and thus the efforts of the more popular branch to restore the judiciary to its former state, were rendered nugatory by the opposition in the senate. The governor also coincided in the views entertained by the majority of the senate, and even intimated his determination to put down the opposition of the old court by force. In his message to the legislature, he entered into the history of the relief system; defended its policy; condemned the course pursued by the state and federal courts; and imputed the evils which had befallen the state, to the establishment of the United States bank on one hand, and to judicial encroachment on the other. In the house of representatives resolutions were introduced by Mr. Breckenridge, calling upon the governor for information in relation to these charges against the bank and the judiciary. These resolutions were passed by a large majority; and upon their being transmitted to the executive, he made a long and elaborate reply for the purpose of substantiating his accusations. The house also passed a law abolishing the new court of appeals ; but the senate, by a small majority, refused its concurrence to this law so essential to the quiet of the state; and the legislature of 1825, adjourned without settling the controversy at that session. During that session, in consequence of an attempt to obtain possession of some records in the hands of the clerk of the new court, this party feeling was on the point of breaking out into open violence. Arms were provided and preparations made to resist the officer of the old court; and by the report of the committee of the house of representatives, it appeared that persons high in authority were concerned in making these preparations. Although these violent measures prevented the old court from taking possession of its records, it now appeared from the elections, that public opinion was decidedly in favor of that tribunal, as the constitutional court. The public mind had now recovered its proper tone, and the delusion of the moment was succeeded by a sober determination to restore order, and a sound system of laws. These indications of popular feeling, induced the judges of the new court, to retire from the contest; and the old court commenced its ordinary course of business. with liberal privileges, for making a canal round the falls of the Ohio, at Louisville. An engineer was appointed to survey a route for the canal, and the estimate for the work with two locks was not exceeding $500,000. A large subscription was made to the stock, and the work was expected to be completed in 1827. : 1825.]-November 9.--The following account of the assassination of colonel Sharp, is taken from the Kentucky papers --About two o'clock on Sunday night last, colonel Solomon P. Sharp was awakened by a knocking at his door, and on inquiring who was there, was answered that it was Covington. His wife observed it was not Covington's voice, and advised him not to rise. He, however, got up, and the stranger informed him that he had come in town late, and could not get a bed at any of the taverns, and solicited lodging for the night. Colonel Sharp told him he should have a bed, and opened the door. The assassin entered, and passed with colonel Sharp by the door of Mrs. Sharp's room. He then asked, "are you colonel Sharp ?" The colonel answered in the affirmative. The assassin then said, "my name is John A. Covington." Colonel Sharp replied, "I do not know you." The assassin said, "damn you, you shall soon know me," and plunged the fatal weapon into his At the next election, in 1826, the old court party succeeded in obtaining a majority in the senate, as well as in the house; and the law creating the new court of appeals, was formally repealed. In the mean time, the chief justice of the old court had resigned, and governor Desha filled the vacancy by placing on the bench of the old court, Mr. Bibb, the chief justice of the court, which had been just abolished. Harmony was thus re-established, and law which had for a short time been driven from the judgment seat, by passion and violence, resumed her sway over the state of Kentucky. A company was incorporated body. Mrs. Sharp heard her hus |