Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-07-21

| So mucb for the basis and the School Fund. We
have shown. first according to Mr.. Gilmer himself,
that Gov. Reid had to speak for Mr.. Aerr on those
important questions; secondly, that ME- Gilmer does
not DENY that Mr.. Kerr used the s. mixed ba-
sis thirdly, that Mr. Gilmer admits Mr.. Kerr to
have been profoundly silent, Gas charged by Cor
respondent.) in two hours speech the subject of
the School Fund. .E ..i. .-..- .r ......e .f.,at
But says Mr.. Gilmer, &C Mr.. Kerr in all things
clearly understood to occupy the same ground - he
I occupied here If so, how could Messrs. Hill, Nc
Lean, and others, who just veracious and INTEL
igent as Mr. Gilmer and his co-signers, have under
stood him differently? Is that /" clear :" which in-
wolves or requires argumenr2
| Again: 1t is admitted, by Mr.. Gilmer, that Mr..
Kerr declared himself for Convention called az
cordng TO the provisions of the Constitution, the
people being first consulted the question at the
POLLS" This is all We Correspondent charged,
to wit, that Mr.. Kerr asserted the right of majority
OF the people of the State to change their Constitu
ton. This, then, as we have heretofore stated, is
MI kerr's doctrine: A msjortyof the people of the
State have right TO command change of their Con-
stitution if they command at the polls, the Leg
| isature is bound to obey the command and give a
twO-thirds vote accordingly; and that member from
New Hanover, Wake, Brunswick, Berthe, Johnston,
or Norhampton, who votes under the crcums tances,
in obedience to the wishes of his constituents against
Convention, is " an arsstOcrut, and republican ~
Again: 1t is admitted, by Mr.. Gilmer and his
sgners, that Mr.. Kerr took the ground that MAORI
ty of the people of the United States acting sepa
ratey - as States'' in their highest sovereign
pacity," have right change the Constitution of
the United States; whereas, Mr.. Hill and his
sgners declare that Mr. Kerr said majority of the
whole people of the United States have right to
he If he nit Rnf
if there be difference in this matter, how in what
way is it practical important? Suppose the States
were to act in their "hghest sovereign capacity"
what would be the result! Suppose New York,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the empire States of the
Union, and non-slavehClding States, were to come
| forward and demand of Congress that steps should
be taken to alter the Federal Constitution to
strike the three-ths principle, and also to give
Congress other and further control the nstItu-
ton of Slavery; and suppose all the other non-slave-
holding States should follow the examples of these
three States-WHO COULD ARREST SUCH
AN AGITATION, OR FORESEE ITS END =?
Would could Seward ask any more ! And yet
these rights of majorities urged by canddate
sustained by SHAREHOLDERS and we are told that he has
been slandered - when the truth only has been fast
ened on him and his destructive doctrines exposed
So much as to a Convention and the rights of bare
majorities, opposed to express provisions Of the Con-
situations of the State and of the United States. We
have shown, first, according to Mr.. Gilmer himself,
that Mr. Kerr is o- Convention, to be called the
result of the action the vote of bare majority !;
secondly that Mr.. Kerr holds the right of majority
Of the people of the United States, acting in their
highest sovereign capacity" to change the Const
tuition of the United States; and thirdly, have
shown the runous agitation the Slavery question
ioh IF iS cal TO
inUit- and produce in the free States.
We might elaborate these va rous points, but do
not deem it necessary to do All intelligent
readers will comprehend glance Mr.. Kerr's posi-
tions-their opposition express provisions Of our
fundamental laws-their dangerous nature, and the
importance of checking the growth Of such doctrines
in midst. We have shown that if the certificate
of Mr.. Gilmer and his co-sgners amounts to any
thing, it susains all we have heretofore charged,
whether the authority of Correspondent or by
the certificate heretofore published and now repub-
lished in columns; that, in other words, Mr. Gill
o. either fails to deny important facts, con-
esses Mem or auoidher force by skiu and ingenious
special pLeading.RI0
But, we repeat, we rely implicitly on the state
ments of Mr. Hill and his co-signers. There can be
doubt that ,oha they say is true Their statements
are confirmed if confirmation be at all necessary, by
!
! Rockingham. Our Rockingham Correspondent, writ
! ing under date July 8, says:
s. After seeing the Asheville News, Kerr, thnk,
determined to shuttle little; and it was amusing TO
hear him loom at Greensborough about how he lnten-
ded to go the polls and vote for open Conven-
ton; which declaration, believe, barely pump
! ed out of him in monosylables while in the East
and though repeatedly asked what he wanted with
Convention, and what changes in the Constitution he
proposed 10 make he unbuttoned his lips, evil
DENLY very willing fora Western audience to believe
ould allow him openly advocate. lie did not say
who were present and heard him, believe to this day
that he has been msrepresented on that question,
and that he is in favor of changing the present mode
of distribution. -
Our Wilkes Correspondent says that at the discus
sion in Wilkesborough Mr.. Kerr exhibited great
reluctance 10 his position with regard TO the
distribution of the School Fund - And another
Rockingham Correspondent says that in the discus
sion at Salem, Gov. Reid, who led off, asked Mr.
Kerr to define his position the School Fund; that
Mr. Kerr went through his Speech without thus de-
enng his position; and that after Mr. Kerr had con-
oI,deo. Gov Reid again asked him 10 define his po'
si,ion On HI. subject. Mr.. Kerr replied, ''Oh yes
Ihod foreotten thai but occupy precisely the same
grounds that Gov. Reid does on that question
IS Look out g" excaims our Correspondent, MI
Kerr is becoming forgepfpla as he goes West
GNHU