Chatham County GaArchives History .....Savannah Duels - Chapter VII 1923
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ga/gafiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Joy Fisher http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00001.html#0000031 October 25, 2004, 6:15 pm

CHAPTER VII. 

DID THEY FIGHT, OR DID THEY NOT FIGHT?

PECULIAR INSTANCES OF PROMINENT MEN LIBELING EACH OTHER IN PUBLIC PLACES WITH
OPPROBRIOUS EPITHETS, BUT WITH NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR SUBSEQUENTLY MEETING ON THE
FIELD OF HONOR—GUNN vs. WELSCHER, SHICK vs. SARZEDAS, McINTOSH vs. CUTHBERT,
PUTNAM vs. WOOD, LEAKE vs. MILLER, —HOW JOHN HOUSTON McINTOSH HANDLED A
SPANIARD—NO MAN IMMUNE FROM THE TONGUES OF SLANDER.

    Did they fight, or did they not fight? This is the question that often
puzzles one in studying the published correspondence in the early newspapers, in
which two Savannahians denounce each other, apply the epithets "coward", "liar",
"scoundrel", "rascal", or something else equally as unpleasant to face in cold
print and realize that everyone in the community is discussing it.

    There are the letters setting forth the trouble, each one's version of it,
and there are the vituperative remarks by the contending men—and then there is
an utter absence of any further information.

    It was not a time when men tamely submitted to private reflections upon
their manhood, let alone to wholesale advertising of such charges. Generally the
parties to the disputes which are spread before the readers of the "Gazette", or
later newspapers, are recognized as men of bravery. In the years immediately
following the revolution they are found to be those who had served their country
courageously in that struggle.

    Reading the notes that passed between them and the final statements to the
public, generally closing with the posting of one or the other, or both, in the
most opprobrious manner, one is constrained to believe that they must finally
have resorted to the code and for the satisfaction of their "honor" taken a shot
or two at one another. Neither being seriously wounded or killed, the newspapers
simply refrained from mentioning the meeting; after a few days further
discussion the minds of men and women turned to other subjects, and with the
passing of that generation all remembrance of the affair faded away.

    Take the trouble between James Gunn, then Colonel of the Chatham County
Regiment, and Joseph Welscher, Captain of the West Company of that regiment.
Welscher was not popular with his men and there was talk of their appealing to
the line officers for his removal. He was unquestionably unpopular with Col. Gunn.

    At the Fourth of July celebration in 1787, after the regimental parade and
review, there was the customary dinner. All were more or less mellowed by the
popular liquors of the day when Welscher arose to sing a song. He rendered one
written before the War for Independence. In the song were allusions that were
offensive to Gunn and other officers. It was evidently an unwise selection. Some
officers hissed and Gunn peremptorily ordered Welscher to sit down. There were
all the elements for an affair of honor.

    Capt. Welscher later said:

    "The company prest me to sing it—that it would give no offense—wherefore I
began:

    " 'It was in the gates of Calais, Hogarth tells' " Col. Gunn and others
loudly groaned.

    Welscher stopped and explained that he had apologized for the song before he
began it. He had been called on to sing and it was the only song he knew, so he
continued "The Roast Beef of Old England", as it was called, a popular song of
the years before the country had tried the issue of freedom with the mother land.

    Sentiment with regard to the song had changed. At one time its "hits" at the
French and the Irish had brought forth uproarious applause. But the French had
become allies instead of enemies and the cause of Ireland was now looked upon
with a favorable eye. But Welscher made the room ring with offensive lines:

    "Then Britons be valiant, the Moral is clear;
    The Ox is Old England, the Frog is Monsieur,
    Whose Puffs and Bravadoes we need never fear.
         *    *    *    *
    His Fellow-Guard, of right Hibernian Clay,
    Whose brazen Front his Country did betray,
    From Tyburn's fatal Tree had hither fled,
    By honest means to gain his daily bread."

    Col. Gunn's wrath was up. "Damn your song and you, too," said he.

    Then Welscher's feelings were aroused. "Col. Gunn, that is language which I
am not used to, nor ever receive."

    Col. Gunn abandoned his position as presiding officer and rushed at
Welscher. Other officers interfered, and when the colonel ordered the captain to
leave the room Mr. William Stephens interposed and told Welscher he should not go.

    Whereupon Gunn told Stephens that he was now "the ostensible person and he
should call upon him."

"Whenever you please, Sir," replied Stephens. Here was the opening for a second
duel.

    After this Gunn, by entreaties and arguments, was persuaded to resume the
chair until the party broke up about midnight.

The more serious trouble came later. On his way home Capt. Welscher passed Col.
Gunn's house. As Welscher told the story, Gunn called from his -piazza: "Mr.
Welscher I want to speak with you."

    Welscher waited and his colonel came out.

    "I have been waiting for you the whole night, Sir," said he. Snatching
Welscher's sword, which the captain was carrying under his arm, the colonel
threw it in his house, called for a whip, and fell upon the captain. After
beating him Gunn called for the swords and ordered the captain to take one and
defend himself.

    Mrs. Gunn sent a servant posthaste for Maj. Berrien, living close by.

    When the major arrived he found the two swords sticking in the ground and
Gunn commanding Welscher to take his choice of them. Major Berrien wrested the
sword from Welscher's hand, without trouble, and after a struggle got the one
from Gunn.

    Col. Gunn put Capt. Welscher under military arrest, made two formal charges
against him of conduct unbecoming an officer or a gentleman, and a court-martial
convened with Maj. Frederick Shick as president, the other members being Capt.
Josiah Tattnall, Capt. James Bulloch, Capt. Thomas Elfe, First Lieut. William
Lewden, Second Lieut. Win. H. Spencer, John Eppinger, and Justice Justus H.
Scheuber. Added to the charge of failing to act as an officer and gentleman
should have done in the affray with Col. Gunn. there was the additional
accusation that he had permitted James Simpson to disarm and assault him without
properly resenting it—again an instance of too much liquor at military events in
the old days. The court exonerated him of the charge in his trouble with Col.
Gunn, doubtless on the score that at the time he was in no condition to defend
himself, but held that his conduct as regards the affair with Simpson was highly
censurable and recommended that he should be severely reprimanded.

    We shall meet with both Gunn and Welscher in later affairs of honor. The
incident related did not injure Welscher with the public, it seems, as he became
very popular and prominent in local politics and at the bar. Some years later,
with George M. Troup as his second, he calmly faced a political foe and almost
fatally wounded him. There is no evidence, though, that after the court-martial
brought on by Gunn he further resented what his commanding officer had done.

    A few weeks later one finds Maj. Frederick Shick, presiding officer at the
Welscher court-martial, being advertised by Dr. David Sarzedas, whom Shick had
refused to honor by accepting an invitation to adjust their personal troubles
with duelling pistols. Strange to say, the same Capt. Edward Cowan who figured
as second for Welscher in an attempt to bring Gunn to accept a challenge from
Welscher the day after their midnight affray, is found representing Dr.
Sarzedas, who charged Shick with "unbecoming conduct to him in the street".

    Sarzedas, it appears, hired a slave from Maj. Shick's parents' for domestic
service, and, as Shick charged, had failed to pay for the services except with
physical abuse of the negro. He had also failed to pay a note on which Shick was
endorser. In an encounter in the street the major whipped the doctor for this
combination of offences, and when challenged replied:

    "When you pay the note you gave William Welscher, and the debt you owe my
father, I shall talk to you of satisfaction."

    Sarzedas published the letters that passed between them and as a final shot
informed the public that "The character of Maj. Shick I hold in abhorrence; his
conduct on the present occasion shall be the criterion whether he merits the
appellation of the soldier, gentleman, or coward, which I shall leave men of
honour to determine."

    Maj. Shick threatened to chastise Dr. Sarzedas again and the physician left
for Charleston. On his return he stated that if Shick was satisfied he was, but
that if assaulted he would be found prepared. Shick closed the affair with a
letter to the editor of the "Gazette", which is useful as showing the position
sometimes assumed in these personal affairs:

    "When a man conducts himself beneath the character of a gentleman or a man
of honour, I do not hold myself bound by any custom to risk my salvation with
him, but, on the contrary: the man whom I esteem in a different point of view, I
shall ever conceive myself highly honored by attending his invitation. I am
equally as bound to pay every respect to the gentleman as I am to chastise the
rascal whose conduct merits abuse."

    If the major and the doctor met to satisfy honor with bullets or sword
pricks it does not appear. Major Shick had an excellent revolutionary record and
no one questioned his bravery. Sarzedas was an officer in the Light Dragoons of
the First Regiment of Chatham County Militia. The correspondence serves to show
that men could say very harsh things at times, have street encounters, and still
apparently fail to actually meet on the duelling ground, challenge or no challenge.

    Nine months later, in June, 1788, came the falling out between Maj. William
McIntosh, Jr., and Col. Seth John Cuthbert, both men of local prominence, and
both with war records that proved they were men of personal bravery. This affair
grew out of a court trial in which McIntosh's father, General McIntosh, was
making a defence in an action brought against him by John Cuthbert, Sr. Maj.
McIntosh claimed that Col. Cuthbert "acted in a most unjustifiable manner,
interrupting the general at a very inappropriate time, and declaring the
general's assertions to be 'infamous falsehoods.'" The general, he pointed out,
was referring to things that had occurred before Seth John Cuthbert was born,
and of the truth of which he could not know. Gen. McIntosh had referred to the
senior Cuthbert's "attempt to learn the cooper's trade, without possessing
either industry, frugality or temper." Either the allusion to his father having
been a cooper, or the accompanying remarks in derogation of his efforts to learn
that trade, grievously wounded the younger Cuthbert.

    When called on, Cuthbert promptly admitted what he had said in the court
room. "The words were forced from him," he said, "by the most illiberal and
personal reflections on myself and my nearest connections that I have ever
experienced."

    The offending words having been admitted, and no apology forthcoming,
McIntosh sent a challenge at once:

    "I demand satisfaction at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning at the Fort, where I
shall attend with a gentleman."

    The "Fort" was old Fort Wayne, at the foot of the Bay, where the gas works
now stand. It was a favorite resort for the duellists of that day.

    The challenge was not accepted. Seth John Cuthbert felt himself bound "in
reason and honor to answer no person but your father in any personal dispute
between him and myself." He declined the challenge but stood ready to accept one
from Gen. McIntosh. "There is a much greater similarity in his situation in life
and my own. than there is betwixt yours and mine," said he to Maj. McIntosh,
"and it is unreasonable to accept your challenge because, on the same principle
that you demand satisfaction, it might be demanded by every member of your
family in succession."

    McIntosh repeated the challenge. The next morning Mr. Clay, Jr., acting as
the friend of Cuthbert, waited on Mr. Gibbons and informed him that Col.
Cuthbert wished to refer the question of acceptance of Maj. McIntosh's challenge
to two persons, and mentioned Mr. Gibbons and Dr. MacLeod as proper persons.
Maj. McIntosh finally agreed and accepted Mr. MacQueen to represent him.
MacQueen unexpectedly left the city and the board gave no decision. Then
McIntosh published the correspondence and added that he had posted Col.
Cuthbert, under the vendue house on Sunday afternoon, in the following words:

    "I do declare Seth John Cuthbert to be a coward. My reasons shall be made
known in the publick Gazette.

                                 "WM. McINTOSH, Jun."

    Was there a hostile meeting between the two? It would seem almost inevitable
that the former patriot officers should have met at ten paces at Fort Wayne
after this public posting. Seth John Cuthbert died a few months later, in
November, the "Gazette" states, "after a tedious and painful illness", which
leads one to infer he may have been an ill man at the time of the trouble with
Maj. McIntosh. The "Gazette" said he "was among the first who stood in the cause
of their country. In 1776 he was appointed major of the Second Continental
Battalion." He also represented Chatham in the legislature and served acceptably
as State Treasurer in 1784. The "Gazette" speaks of his "amiable qualities and
brilliant abilities."

    It was an age when self-restraint appears woefully lacking. Next appear
Henry Putnam and Lieut. John Wood. Putnam sent a note to Wood, through Dr.
Geoghegan, accusing him of slandering him. Wood verbally denied this to the
doctor and sought his friend, George Throop. Throop called on Dr. Geoghegan and
asked him what should be done in the matter:

    "Your man must make an apology or else take a crack in the field," was the
reply.

    'He is determined not to apologize and our pistols are ready," was Throop's
message.

    Wood anticipated what Putnam would probably do and the vendue house speedily
bore this placard:

    "Having received a note from Mr. Henry Putnam by his friend, and having sent
an answer thereto by my friend, I do declare said Putnam a coward and not worthy
the notice of any gentleman.
                                        "JOHN WOOD."

    Putnam was in bed ill and Maj. McIntosh called and informed him of the
posting. Putnam then called in Maj. Hopkins and this is the card he bore to Wood:

    "My friend, Major Hopkins, will point out the ground, time and mode of
settling the business. Although you have been so expeditious as to publish to
the world my deficiency, let the test prove the fact."

    Lieut. Wood stuck the note in his pocket when Maj. Hopkins handed it to him.
"I have posted my answer already at the vendue house," said he. He then
expressed a willingness to meet Maj. Hopkins at Fort Wayne and give that
gentleman satisfaction, but Hopkins declined to assume his principal's quarrel.

    Another note at the vendue house gave the public something to talk over. It
read:

    "Mr. J. Wood having published me yesterday as a coward &C. the public will
please to suspend their opinions till Thursday next when by a state of facts
they will find him a liar, coward and no gentleman.
                            "HENRY PUTNAM."
Savannah, 11 June, 1791.

    Wood then advertised Putnam and concluded:

    "I drop him into that contemptible state from which he endeavored to emerge
by a seeming display of courage, though unfortunately it forsook him when called
to exercise it."

    Did they fight? It was only five minutes walk to the vicinity of Fort Wayne
where more than one duel had been fought under less provocation. If they fought,
neither was killed.

    Duelling had become a fad, or perhaps a passion might more suitably express
it. Even the free negroes became infected with the spirit. One of the most
amusing items in the "Gazette" about this time is the account of two well known
Savannah negroes who put on "white men's airs":

    "So prevalent has the practice of Duelling become lately, that Major Small
and Capt. Qua, two men of color, some few days past agreed to meet at a time and
place appointed, each attended by a friend with a pair of pistols, to decide a
dispute which happened betwixt them.

    "Copy of the challenge: Capt. Qua tink himself injure by Major Small, esq.
and require satisfaction for insult. Major Small must eider beg pardon, or fight
to-morrow on pistols. My fellow servant Dick fix a place, and will let me know
where. You must eider do one oder of the two tings, Mind, me say so. Afternoon
near dark." 
"To Major Small, Esq., Gentlemen's Barber, Savannah."

    "The Answer: Major Small informs Capt. Qua that he has received his
challenge and will accordingly meet him agreeable to appointment, in order to
put out of the world a rascal and a thief that does not deserve to live in it.
By gar. 
9th June, 1790. To Capt. Qua."

    The major, though, failed to appear and the angered Capt. Qua, imitating
white men, armed himself with a whip to flog the major. Then the law intervened.

    "0 wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us,
    To see oursels as ithers see us!"

    The "Gazette" facetiously observed: "Both of the gentlemen got their titles
from the British during the late war."

    Most bitter of all the cards published in the one hundred and fifty years,
1732-1882, were those in 1798 between Richard Henry Leake and John Miller. Leake
was an attorney of prominence, Miller apparently a business man of standing.
There was no preliminary peppering with small arms in their dispute. They spent
no time in voluminous correspondence and the publication thereof in the local
papers. Two cards only appeared, but they left nothing to be said. Each knew
what he had in mind and each said it in unmistakable English. As the most
virulent specimens of this class of public denunciations they are given:

    "For the assertion of repeated falsehoods, and the highest provocations, I
thought proper to send a message to John Miller, formerly of Belmont, by my
friend Capt. John Lyons, requesting him to meet me, and give me that
satisfaction I was entitled to demand. I therefore proclaim to the world, that
the same John Miller, refusing to accept my said message, has evinced himself a
lyar, a scoundrel, and a cowardly assassin.
6th June, 1798.          RICHARD HENRY LEAKE."

"ATTENTION
    "I DO proclaim RICHARD HENRY LEAKE, Attorney-at-Law, to be an infamous LIAR
AND VILE DEFAMER. Fathers of families, if you value the reputation of your
daughters, suffer him not to enter your doors.
                                        "JOHN MILLER."

    Not a line as to where and when they fought, nor what with, nor the result
of the meeting. It was practically impossible for two men to live in Savannah
after such cards as these and fail to wipe out the stigma through the code
unless they resorted to a "recontre" on the public streets.

    Nowadays no newspaper would permit the publication of such cards. It is safe
to say money could not buy the space. Even the Savannah journalists' of that
time felt a bit squeamish about it. Seymour & Woolhopter, publishers of the
"Columbian Museum", thought it advisable to protect themselves and stated in
their journal: "We do not attempt to regulate or criticise the language of our
advertising customers. We should hope, therefore in future, to be spared the
trouble of being considered in any respect as parties' between persons who may
chuse to apply to each other (through the medium of our paper) the most
scurrilous or indecent epithets."

    Some years after this (1807) Leake disappeared. What became of him was never
known. He may have been murdered. For some times he was advertised for broadly.
Then his property went through the usual disposition. Nearly a century later it
was found necessary again to re-establish, in some Northern court, that he had
been diligently sought and no trace found, and Mr. William Harden furnished the
proof and affidavit as to the ancient legal notices.

    The McIntoshes have already figured in three duelling stories, but two more
remain to be told—perhaps more, if the records of all duels and challenges were
available.

    John Houston McIntosh, grandson of John Mohr McIntosh, had all of the
antipathy of his race to the Spaniards. His clan had suffered severely in the
earliest days of Georgia in the border struggles with the Spanish. Old John Mohr
McIntosh, who had led them after Culloden out of the mountains of Scotland to
the far-away wilderness of the Altamaha, and Col. John McIntosh, grandson of the
Highland chieftain, had lain in the darkness of Spanish dungeons for months. No
McIntosh could forget that. There was no love, either, on the part of any of the
frontiersmen of Georgia for the rulers of Florida. When the war came with the
British in 1812 there was a well-defined fear that the Spaniards would turn
Florida over to them and that it would become a source of great danger to the
southern coast and country.

    Relying on assurances from Washington, a little army of Georgians and
Floridians, "with all the woodchoppers and boatmen in the neighborhood of St.
Mary's," formed a provisional government and chose the Georgian, John Houston
McIntosh, as Director of East Florida. They organized as patriots seeking to
establish republican institutions. United States gunboats came to their aid and
Fernandina and Amelia Island were surrendered to them. Congress was disinclined
to support the venture, the president finally disclaimed the acts of his agents,
and the seized territory was returned to the Spaniards.

    The Spanish leaders were intensely indignant over the invasion of their
territory, and especially of the action of the "Patriots" in setting up an
opposition government. One Don Manuel Solana sent a challenge to Director
McIntosh "to fight him by day or night, on foot or on horseback, with any
weapon." McIntosh despised and disdained the Spaniards. His reply was cutting in
the extreme:

    "Was he a private man and Don Manuel Solana (whom he did not even know) a
decent character, he would meet him by day, with any weapon but a knife or
stilletto, but as Mr. McIntosh had lived among the Spaniards long enough to know
that those among them who have any honor left are great sticklers for etiquette,
and as he is the Director of East Florida and is extremely solicitous to retain
the love of his dear and honorable friends in St. Augustine, he could not
condescend to accept a challenge from any individual in that place but Colonel
Kinderland (Kintelan), Governor of all the town and castle of St. Augustine."

    No challenge appears to have been forthcoming from the Spanish governor of
St. Augustine and Don Manuel Solana, not being acceptable as a substitute, was
left to fume and fret over the sneering tone of the communication that had come
in response to his challenge. In Savannah and in all the country to the St.
Mary's there were doubtless many hearty laughs over the manner in which McIntosh
had handled the presumptuous and bombastic Don.

    This quintette of difficulties between leading white men of the community
amply illustrate the spirit of the closing years of the 18th and the opening
years of the 19th century in Savannah and nearby country, the methods pursued,
and also explain the somewhat frequent essays in the "Gazette" and "Museum"
condemning duelling and deprecating the readiness shown to resort to it in this
city and vicinity.

    There was a reason for this readiness to appeal to the code. All too often
slander went broadcast through the community. A man's social or business
standing, or even the magnificent patriotism he had shown, was no protection
from the defiling tongues. No less a man than Col. James Jackson, to whom the
Georgia legislature two years before in appreciation had presented the Tattnall
home, was accused of accepting bribes while in the legislature in the interest
of Tories, eager to escape from the dreariness of exile and seeking to be
restored to citizenship and their properties.

    He scorned the libels, but in the end found that public repudiation of the
tales was necessary. There was no one of position on whom he could pin direct
responsibility and publicly brand as a "liar." In the "Gazette" he denounced the
"infamous reports" being circulated that "he had been bribed by Dr. MacLeod",
and a second report that he "had received sixty guineas from Mr. Thomas Young to
serve his purpose". Mr. Young, of Liberty county, had presented to the Assembly
a petition "signed by many staunch Whigs" for his reinstatement in American
citizenship. This slander, Jackson found, had made an impression on his friends
in the country, going the rounds as it had done without specific denial from him.

    A young man for whom Jackson had done much, and whom he did not dignify by
naming, had industriously circulated the report and declared Jackson "a
secondary planet in Mr. Young's business", an intimation that he had played
second fiddle to some corrupt and more influential member of the Assembly. This
seemed to sting worse than the general charge of corruption. "Did he know me,"
cried Jackson, "he would be convinced that my pride, however deficient I may be,
will never permit me to rate myself second to any at the Georgia Bar, and
therefore, was I to be bribed, it would take as large a purse to buy me as any
of the profession." He then published an affidavit, drawn in the strongest
possible terms, vigorously denouncing the charges, and concluding, "He had many
and repeated tempting offers, which he had rejected as frequently."

    Two young men, afterwards well known, James Benjamin Maxwell and Jacob Henry
Waldburge(r), clerks in Jackson's office, who had "access to all his papers and
were privy to most of his transactions", told that they knew of applications to
him to "speak to points in the legislature, which he always refused, declaring
it repugnant to the duty he owed his country." They remembered especially one
letter from a rich Tory, offering him one plantation out of two, or both, if he
would use his endeavors to re-establish him and "get him off the Bill of
Banishment and Confiscation"— a revelation of the means resorted to by the more
obnoxious Tories to recover their lost positions in the country they had failed
to defend. This especial proposition came from Philip Dell, large owner of lands
on the Savannah river, then a refugee with the British in Florida.

    If a gallant and popular officer like Col. Jackson could not escape the
calumniator, what could a former pro-British surgeon like Dr. MacLeod expect?  
That able surgeon, progenitor of a number of well known Savannahians of to-day,
had already been through the agonies of a campaign of slander and once more was1
forced to undergo the fiery ordeal before his enemies allowed him peace of mind.
  No less atrocious charge was made against him than that of putting powdered
glass in drugs prepared by him for the Americans wounded in the attack on
Savannah in 1779.   The accusation had been investigated before the Assembly and
proved false, but that did not prevent its being revamped more maliciously in
1784 by a Dr. Rehm and others.   MacLeod proved by affidavits from former
officers and privates that he had never compounded drugs for the Americans, that
in his capacity as surgeon for the British he had secured improved conditions
for the American sick and wounded, that he had been recognized among them for
his humanity and kindness.   For a while, at least, he silenced the serpents'
tongues, and the next year he was restored to citizenship. One wonders if the
scurrilous reports of all sorts were originated by old and bitter Tories, not
all of whom had left the community.   Perhaps the Grand Juries of this and other
counties thought so when they recommended that those who had been antagonistic
to their country, and who would probably be a disturbing element in the great
work of reconstruction ahead, should be sent to other realms, and returned
special presentments against those "who harboured persons banished from Georgia
or any other State."

    Savannah, like other places, in the period of evolution that followed
revolution, was far from being a paradise of fraternal affection. Malice and
envy and hatred and slander and selfish ambition were strong forces at work, and
the lifting of the lid at times tells of the seething passions and harsh
bitternesses that were the inevitable aftermath of a war that wrought so
complete a political change and left for several years chaotic conditions.


Additional Comments:
From:

ANNALS   OF   SAVANNAH

SAVANNAH DUELS AND DUELLISTS

1733-1877
BY

Thomas Gamble

COPYRIGHT 1923
REVIEW PUBLISHING & PRINTING COMPANY SAVANNAH, GEORGIA




File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/chatham/history/other/gms410savannah.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/gafiles/

File size: 29.4 Kb