Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1855-08-18
MESSRS. RAYNER AND BARRINGER.

with the Roman Catholic Church. by which, as is
ALLEGED the votes of that Church were secured to
Gen. Pierce and a Cabinet Office conferred on a Ro-
man Catholic in return and we have already shown,
in the judgments of all intelligent and unprejudiced
persons the utter groundlessness of the charge But
Mr. Rayner is attempting, not only to break the force
of the facts which have come to light but he is en-
deayoring, through one of his organs, the Raleigh
STAR to errert tie facts and change the issues; and
this of ITSELF renders it necessary that we should
give the whole matter fuller and more thorough
investigation Besides, the character of the Demo-
cratic party and the good name of the Republic are
involved and this foul stain upon both should be
wiped off, whatever may be the consequences to
those who have been prominently instrumental in
prcfe1ring such charge. The author of so grave a
charge should be held to rigid account, and con-
dcmned or acquitted as may be justand right. The
elections are over-the preudices and passions incl
dent to them have somewhat subsidized; and the pub
lie mind is therefore, in a'better condition than
while the charge was being circulated to receive the
evidence and to decide upon it fairly and impartial
w. The traducer of his country's honor cannot
hope to escape that judgment, which, in the calm
ness of sober thought virtuous people never fail
to render.
We think there can be no room for doubling the
from the adjournment of tire Philadelphia Con%en-
ton up to the day Of the election declared the
authority of Mr. BarTtger, that the Popes Na7acio
sud to ham, at Nadrid that lie could tell Aiaaoho
WOULD 6e-not scA0 wAs-q member Of Gen. Pje1ce'S
Cabinet Here is tie turning point in the whole
matter; and now for the proofs; We make the fol-
lowing extract from letter from gentlemen of as
high character for veraeity and integrity there is
in he State whO heard Mr. Raw at Weldon on
the Goth July:
s'AIr Rayner said, charge upon the Democracy
bargain-a corrupt understanding with the Cath
ole Church during the last Presidential election by
which the support OF the latter was pledged and car
red in consideration of high political preferment to
and who dares deny it here? VIII any one do SO 4?
Here Mr.. R. paused for denial do not, however,
that Gen. Pierce was party to 1T himself, or
was acquainted with this infamous alliance. dare
say he is innocent of any personal participation IN
the matter. But repeat, there was a corrupt bar
gain between the Democracy and the Catholic Church,
by which the aid of the latter secured, and in
consideration thereof Cabinet appointment con-
ferred. Now, will any one present deny It? dare
any one to do so-for | hold in my hands CONCLUSIVE
evidence of the charge. A voice-"l deny it;
bring forward your proof."l You deny iii Now,
felow-citizens it has been dened-you are the jury,
and must decide according to the evidence-and
what is it? Here it is, JuU pointed u1equiD0cdL
1t is letter from the Hon. d. NJ. Barringer, Ex-
Minister to the Court of Madrid, extract from
which will read to you. Let me, however, prem
Use that Mr.. Barringer is no Know Nothing; and
hence the charge of its being Know Nothing lie
cannot attach to it. Meeting with Mr. Ellis some
time since in Washington City, he remarked to me
- Rayner, you must get me out of this Pope Nun
clio difficulty, as l have charged the Democracy with
a corrupt bargain your authority Certainly,
replied; Barringcr told me just what stated to
you, that the Pope's Nuncio told him who would be
member of Gen. Pierce's Cabinet before it was
known by him, generally in Madrid. But will
get Mr. Barringcr's statement in writing saw
Barringer afterwards, and mentioned the matter to
him. He reiterated his statement, and at my request
furnished it in writing, and here is an extract
from this letter. II quote from memory.l Before
it generally known in Madrid, ard while it was
yet subject of conjecture who would compose the
Presidents Cabinet, the Pope's Nuncio told me, at
private party in Madrid, upon my informing him
of my ignorance on the subject, that he knew one
who would be member of the Cabinet and named
Mr.. Campbell, of Pa, Catho!c-remafking he was
gratifed at the influence the Catholic Church exer-
ted in that country voice give us the date
of that conversational Here Mr.. Rayner turned
over the letter time two, and replied that the
date had not been furnished him. After Mr.. Rayner
had concluded his speech the gentleman who had
denied his bribery and corruption charge went into
the stand and asked for copy of Mr.. Barringers
letter. Mr.. Rayner said: 'Certanly-but don't you
think it would be violation of courtesy for me to
90 so? 1t is private letter Certainly not, re-
piled the gentleman after having made public
use Of it, Mr. Rayner then said it would all appear
in the next American Organ and so copy was
furnished"
This, be it borne in mind, the Goth July.
On the 18th and 21st of July the Raleigh Register
one of Mr.. Rayners organs, promised that this let
ter thus used by Mr.. Rayner, would be ",ferthcom-
ing in day two that u.s. the entire letter would
be published; but instead of being published at
length here where the charge being circulated
and having effect the publication made in the
American Organ printed in Washington City, 1
and then only brief extract was given. Mr. RayH-
err have heretofore shown, wrote to Mr.. Ellis
on the subject under date 10Th July-Mr. Barringer
having written to him on the 9th July, from Niagara
Falls. We publish at length, in another column,
from the Raleigh Star, Mr. Rayner's letter to Mr.
Ellis. Mr.. Rayner states, it will be observed in one
place in that letter, that he had received "a fe0
days since a letter from Mr.. Barringer; ana in
other place he says the letter had Just been "re
ceaced" Mr.. Ellis, too must have received Mr. RaYn
ers letter on the 2lst; and he therefore, kept it
back from the public for five days. Why this delay?
Was it not that the SANDER might do its work p
that the people of North Carolina might notsee Mr.
Barringers correction until after the eection? Let
fair minded men decide And why not the en- |
TIRE letter of Mr.. Barrnger, of the 6th published?
Was 1t not because Mr.. 3. cenSuTed Mr.. Il. therein
ana complained that he had maisreprese'ated him p
" as that the reason? Mr.. Rayner declined to fur
nlsh our correspondent at Weldon with copy, on
the ground that it was priOdte letter; and this is