Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-04-19

GEN DocKERY AND THE EEEcrIoN 81 (soFFkSoR
HE THE People. Gen. Doekery, it VIII be, reneln-
bersd stated in his speech ia sritlfieId that
Free Suffrage is s first long, big and heavy lick
when he voted in the Convention of 1885 to give the
election of Governor to the people We showed in
reply to this, rs that this question of eecting the
Governor by the people had no connection with that
Of Free Suffrage as known and treated at this day
and that therefore, Gen. Dockery was endeayoring
to deceive the people by making them believe that
such connection did exist, or that the propositions
We're one and the same. We showed Furthermore
from the Debates of the Convention Of 1885, that
Gen Dockery gaze such rote, but that he was alb
sent, or lodged In reply toour article the Raleigh
Register says
- - w have the authority of Gen. Dockery. for the
assertion, that he ardent friend of the promo
siton giving the election of Governor to the people
while in the Convention of 1886 and not anticnat.
ing that the vote the proposition would be taken
at the time 1t was, he absented himself visit to
wake Forest, upon business connected with that
Institutions but that he ultimately voted for the Con-
stitution, as amended-therebyo of course. endorsing
and voting for the right of the people to elect
their Governor!"
Gen. Dockery, then, said he voted for the propo-
to give the election of Governor to the people,
but the Register says by his authority, he was alb
sent at the time and did not vote! How is this
vote for the proposition by ITSELF why did he not say
SOP Why did he not give thepcople the aoho1e truth
on the subject? Did he hope that it would be taken
for granted that he voted for the proposition as
separate measure, and that he would get the credit
of it. and not be driven to the unworthy bubble of
saying he sustained it in voting for the Constitution
whole? If he was the ''ardent friend :" OF the
measure, as the Register claims, why was he
silent in regard to it in the Convention? He spoke
on the Catholic test and he moved to strike out the
two-thirds provision for calling Convention and to
insert the threeffths but he said nothing in favor
of this measure, though he now claims that he was
its ardent friend" Again, the vote adopting
the Constitution whole was 81 to 20 and many
members, therefore, voted for twho did not approve
all it contained Gen. Dockery, the records show,
opposed to the article in the old Constitution
which excludes Catholics from Office but he did not
vote to alter it because he feared the people would
reject the Constitution if the alteration made.
victons of expediency; and yet he voted for the
Constitution a whole, which contained not only
this but the two-thirds provision already referred
to, and which he proposed to strike out. If there
FORE the Register claims he voted for every thing
embraced in the Constitution when he voted for it
whole he deliberately voted to undo to reverse
his former action in relation to the two questions
above named. But this cannot be reasonably pre-
sumed he voted for the Constitution as a whole as
the best that could be done; and there is proof
which deserves the name of proof, aside from his
assertion at this time) that he favorable in
the Convention of 1885 to extending to the people
the right to elect their Governor