Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1853-06-15
a. &C. rn,non o. nur RAlRlen SrANpARp:

AS i supnosed The last Raleigh Register contains
the iilh appearance OF NJ. =. "adaeit.
is made up mainly Of blackgnardism, IN isstasemens
of facts, and equivoeal denias of the truths
single. Hpnrtant fact, stalled in my last iet ;,;
disp0ied, is there single arguDentln o. go.
10 the rian construction of the revenue Ia hs ~
in contained Thai Ritter stods tna,rs Uered and ""'
0nS1eraDk. ,,..l !
The statement Of ". A. Sredman is repn6lish'd'
somewhat altered 10 snIt the occaSio"; ""t s" ',
ally the same as that paraded ROUND tue county laS'
GUNNER / alluded this statement IN my last lei
ter as irrelevant and pnlmPoiIan!, the 9ness'Jn
not being what said. but what did or Jaea 10 u"
in 1881 considered it fortunate, as now do, thdt
The question of my liability does not depend upon
The recollection of conversation had in 1851; s"d
much less upon the recollection of known ana IN
scrupnIous enemy, " no banded win W. ~.
Waddell and others to defeat my election jas ""'
meas Take the statement Of Nathan A. SieGmd"'
either old new, to what said aid IL goes no'
affect the question OF my liability In me SH9"GS' r'
gree. As stated in my last letter. oeIIeSeu w.
money al tsuru could be consider MONEY III TN
ferest, but wishing do what was night IN the mat
ter, proposed 10 refer the question ot law 10 'ie
Attorney General the legal officer appointed oy lne
State to decide such questions, and 10 'cAom mr.
edDa0n hfnaSeE /tW gears SINCE 0dp'Sed me TSe'
ence Of similar question! But II seems nuns case
he refused, and am sure iheS pubic VIII hear' hS
should have heard. with profound establishment thai
tax receiver should refuse to refer disputed qneS-
ton of taxation TO the proper officer appointed ny me
State, simply because he had confidence in the legal
opinion of w. H. Haywood. Weil-suppose the
question had been referred to w. II. Haywood, and :
suppose further he had decided that money al u$'Tg
is nUney at Interest, still the interest was neither
I" secured " due required by law nor coud
it be considered sate for the very reason mat IL
was at usurysS 1t is enough in all conscience TO I'M
pose so heavy upon interest after 1t becomes
due orshas Aeen secured. l did not list the same
money similar interest In 1852 IN my lax isl LOT
1852, and sallnot list portion OF The same money
at the interest this year, in my tax list tor THIS
year. No objection was then made-none will now
be made.
Equally unimportant is his statement in relation
to my carriage. lie says did not list 1t in 1851
Well. suppose said for that was the TACT ana
suppose the reason assigned was not valid one /
Mr.. Stedman knew had just received 1t: and 'hal
having received ii after The Isl OF April, was not
bound by law list il. When, therefore, this mat
ter was sprung upon me through the agency oil Nj.
@. Waddell, the first thing did, and the only thing
thought it necessary 10 do, was to call up Uhtg
gentleman to when received my carriage, and
he stated received it ubOut The first IF June. This
answer, though il may not have satisfied the tax re-
ceiver satisfied. believe, every intelligent lax pay
eT who heard IT,
So too of my silver plate. The law imposes tax
upon silver plate 6 in by the oa0neTS
thereof" But the receiver by his statement
wished the people infer that in his opinion at least
was bound 10 list silver plate moi in use by the OWL
owners thereof.
But while willing admit the statement of the
tax receiver true for the sake of argument, by
means admit its truth in point Of fact. On the
contrary, my recollection Cf the person TO whom the
question of law be referred is altogether dit
ferent. 1t seems strange indeed that tax receiver
should refuse TO refer question of taxation 10 the
proper legal officer, especially as he had heretofore
advised similar reference himself and insist
ferring TO one whose opinion however able, could
not be official and which therefore could neither
teve him nor me from any responsibility whatever
think, therefore, the receiver does himself great
Injustice and is mistaken | think for another
reason. If the question TO be referred TO W. H.
Haywood IN person, stated by him, there could
have been necessity for - the 0rifen statement"
of which he speaks, and which we'll remember l
10 draw up for the consideration of the Attorney
General. But Mr.. S'edman will also recollect that
in his other certificate he stated that refused list
my carriage because did not use it, /" oAhough at
august Court Jchen The TAG lis! 10 be reiurn-d my
carriage rolling through the streets Of Pills
b0Iough" The lax list, therefore, ~ BE- return
ed at August Court, but il is we'll known w. H.
Haywood did not attend County Court, and
therefore II could not be referred TO him in person.
and il Mr.. Stedman proposed 10 refer the matter
Mr. Haywood at September Court, it after had
explained TO him reasons for not referring it at all
as stated in my last communication, and after had
supposed the tax list was returned TO Court. This
alone can account for my abrupt and disreSpeciful
manner to him OF which he speaks, but of which
have no recollection. Mr.. SIedman, therefore,
cordIng 10 his own statement must have been mis-
taken. He certainly is according to my recoIec.
Hon o. what occurred But do consider this
sdtfereI &c of opinion as a. all important, and am will
5 ling the public should Judge between US.
completed my list, the tax receiver appeared to
: be satisfied, SO much so that he did swear
me to The list returned" Mr.. Stedman SAYS he was
not satisfied only said he appeared so, not only
for the reason assigned, but because supposed that
sworn and faithful magistrate who believed anotI-
er had rendered false list of his property, would
not only swear him 10 it, but would also certify his
failure 10 the County Court, especially if he had
been treated in manner at once unkind and disre-
spectfui. Instead of that heard the slightest
whisper of complaint from any quarter until the End
day OF the electoneering campaign, twelve months
thereafter, when was informed by friend that NJ.
u Haddell had procured this statement from the
tax receiver, the dirty means, among others, of
creating popular prejudice and thereby defeating
my election Therefore chearnlly submit to i'm
partial public whether the tax receiver in the course
which ne has pursued upon this subject has had
proper regard either for his own character or for
mne.'
Such is the unimportant statement which M. O.
WaddeH paTades before the public as proof positive,
that IN 1851 failed TO list property which by law |
was bound TO list But this is not tie only instance
otslls false and fraudulent Measurements
s2inshIs last communication is found the following
statement" Mr.. Rencher says AnUe finer carriage
thnnHiS." This is a wfuI and deliberate falsehood
Tor he knew said no such thing. Speaking Of my
Old buggy isted in 1851, and which he attempted to
ndlcule by calling it an old cduyall, l replied by
saying 'rhe has the good fortune to enjou much
better though The public Golfers are not at all benefit
ed by II. Without denying the truth of this state
ment himself, he equiVocates by saving that | knew
II was not true. On the contrary / Know as eyerv
body here knows, that he seldom rides except in
buggy. Far be it from to have said it was his