Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-03-22

~,neesivu and zoe shall adopt plan BY (Which they
mil be thereafter regularly notified Of tie dates echieh
their subscriptions sciU erpire q az
TIE CuRRENcY-TnE FAYErrEv1LLE OBSERVER
The Observer of the 9th instant says: We take
OCCASION however, at once to deny that We have
aver insinuated or thought, that the distinguished
Commissioners who superintendent the publication of
the Revised Code had altered the law after it pass
Cd All this is fiction of the Standard" Let US
coo how this is: The Observer Of the 18th Februa-
nv said: "The question is, who altered the laws,
from the shape in which they were presented in the
original printed bill laid before the memberss The
members themselves supposed, SO we learn, that
they passed in that shape. Did they? If 50, ho~
came they othersoise in the printed ooIume Now,
is not that an nsinuaton that the laws were altered
utter they passed. Itisn fiction of the Stand
ard Dit is the language of the Observer ITSELF To
whom, then, would this insinuation apply? After
the laws are passed the keepers of them are, first,
the Clerks of the two Houses, and then the Secre-
tary Of State and afterwards in this case, the Com.
missioners of publication became the repositories
If they were altered, as the Observer insinuates
they we're, one of these three keepers must have
made the alteration; yet the Observer says it made
no insinuations-it never even thought" the dis
tinguishcd Commissioners capable of so fragrant an
act Really the Observer is most artfal in concen-
trating suspicion, and at the same time of making
no irsinuation! This art we do not comprehend
sufficiently to practice ourselves, to commend it.
to others So we are content to let it abide where
it can be harmlessly and dexterously practiced ;
giving at the same time to the Observer the benefit
Of its disclaimer on the subject, as above.
The Observer insists that the law of 1880 applied
only to notes issued by banks in other States and
adds-"there was therefore, no general law in this
State in 1S48, when the Bank of Fayetteville was
chartered, which forbade the issue of rs and 2's"
Waving this question for the present. especially as
we have heretofore discussed it, we again call the
attention of the Observer to the policy of the Leg
islaurc with reference small bills since 1880,
as shown in all the bank charters with the excep-
ton of the Bank of Fayetteville; and we now take
the liberty Of respectfully propounding to the Oh
server few plain questions, which the Editors may
answer at their leisure:
Does the Observer believe that the Legislature of
1913 would have granted the charter Of the Bank
Of Fayetteville as it is, if the power had been open
ly claimed for it at the time under said charter, of
issuing Is and 2s?
If the said bank can, under its charter expoun-
died. issue dollar bills may it not also issue dime
and half dime bills?
Where is the evidence that the Legislature in
tended to limit the lowest issue to one dollar? By
what process of reasoning does the Observer fix
any limit?
1t cannot be denied-indced, the conclusion is in
evitabe, that if the power exercised be right
full, the Legislature has empowered one bank in the
State, and only, with capital of $780, 900, to
flood the State with sixteen millions of paper dimes!
or thirty-two millions of paper half dimes!! Will
the Observer insist that such power was intended
to be granted, or, in fact, is granted?.
Again The Observer still insists, notwilhstand-
ing our full and explicit explanation on the subject
that the currency law was sprung on the Legisla-
ture, and passed without the knowledge of the MEM
bers Now section 2, of the currency act, as re-
ported by the Commissioners and printed for the
use of members contains much of what is complaiie
ed Of by the Observer and sGreensborough Patriot
that is an express prohibition against the circu-
lation Of any note under s., "issued by any State
or sovereignty, or by any body polite or corpora
ton created without within this State, unless the
issuing thereof shall have been expressly author
lied by this State" So far as the circulation is
concerned, the prohibition was as emphatic by the
reported law as by the enacted law;--thc only diff
ference is in the penalty. But the Observer, in the
face of our statement Of the facts, says:
"Here is very important measure concoeted in
secret, and neither entreaty complaint has been
successful to drag out the truth in regard it. 1t
an odious act, attempting to do unconstitutional
thing by indirec,ion. Suggested by somebody
and performed by somebody else; and if not snug
gled through the Legislature at least passed with
out the knowledge Of the legislators. which we
take to be pretty much the same thing"
The bill, as we have already shown, was prepared
and laid before the committee on the Revised Code
was discussed, approved, reported to the Senate
in open day, with the Recommendation of the COM
mittee that it do pass-was read three several times
in each House, was duly ratified by the Speakers
and made a law. What sort of "secresy what
kind of smuggling" is thisr If connected in
secret" then Gov. Graham, Mr.. Haughton, Mr..
Phillips, and others, friends of the Observer, were
parties to the 'secresy" and smuggling" for they
were members of the committee which had the sub.
ject in charge.
The Observer thinks the Standard exhibits incon-
sstency in its course in relation to small notes, and
especially the Bark of Fayetteville This is mat
ter Of opinion. Our articles, from first to last
on the subject will show that the Observer is in
error.