Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1856-03-26
OBJ Stanbarb*
RALEIGH. SATURDAY MARCH 22. 1856.


Tur CrrEExCY-TuE FAYETTEVILLE OBsERvER.-
Th.. Observer of the 9th instant says: We take
OCCASION, however, at once to deny that we ha'e
ever insinuated, thought, that the distinguished
Commissioners who superintendcd the puhhcat''h ol
the Revised Code had altered the law alter II pass
ed All this is a fiction of the Standard Let us
GOO hos, this is: The Observer Of the 1lth Februa-
ry sail: "The question is who altered the laws,
from the shape in which the were presented IN the
oripina printed bill laid before the members: The
members themselves supposed, so we learn, that
they passed in tina, shape. Did they: II So, ho"
cume then o,aereixe in the printed rolume'" Now,
is not that an insinuaton that the laws were altered
after they passed? 1t is no " fiction of the Stand
ard 1t is the language OF the observer 'tSeh lo
whom, then, would this insinuaton apply? After
tie laws are PASSED the keepers of them are, hrst,
the Clerks of the two Houses and then the Secre-
,ary If State and afterwards in this case, the Com
u,issi ,ners of publication became the repositories
II thew were altered, as the Observer insiluates
they were one of these three keepers must nave
made the alteration yet the OF server says 1t made
no ipsinuarions-it never even . thought" the dis
tnguishud Commissioners capable OF so flagrant an
act Really the Observer is most artfnl III concen-
trait g suspicion, and at the same time OF making
no insi .ration! This art we do not comprehend
sufficiently to practice ourselves, or to commend 1t
to Others So we are content to let it abide where
it can be so armleSsly and dcxtcrsusly practiced;
giving at the same time to the Observer the benefit
Of its disclaimer on the subject, above
The Observer insists that the law of 1880 applied
only to notes issued by banks in other States; and
.d1 u. N
State in 1913, when the Bank of Fayetteville was
chartered, which forbade the issue of Is and 2'>"
Waving this question for the present. especially As
we have heretofore discussed It, VIC again call the
attention of the Observer to the policy of the Leg
slaturc with reference small bills ever since 1880,
as shown in all the bank charters with the exccp-
ton Of the Bank of Fayetteville; and we now take
the liberty OF respectfully propounding to the OBJ
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 is if the power had been OPEN
ly claimed for at the time, under said charter OF
issuing Is and rs?
If the said bank can, under its charter expoun-
ded, 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 he denied-indecd, the conclusion is in
eviiabe, that if the power now exercised be right
full, the Legislature has empowered one bank in The
State, and one only with capital of $soO,O0o, to
flood the State with sixteen millions paper dimes!
Or thrtytwo millions Of pape: half dimes!! Will
the Observer insist that such power intended
to be granted, or, in fact, is granted?
Again: The Observer still insists, notwithstand-
ing full and explicit explanation the subject
that the currency law was sprung on the Legisla-
ture, and passed without the knowledge of the
bers. Now section 2, of the currency act,
ported by the Commissioners and printed for the
use OF members, contains much of what is complain.
ell Of by tie Observer and Greensborcugh Patriot
that is, an express prohibition against the crcu
iaton of any note under S., issued by any State
Or sovereignty, or by any body polite corpora
ton created without or 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 the only diff
ference is in the penalty But the Observer, in the
face of our statement Of the facts, says:
Here is a very important measure concocted in
secret, and neither cntrcaty nor complaint has been
successful to drag the truth in regard to it. is
an odious act, attempting to do unconstitutional
thing by indirec'ion, "suggested by somebody,
and performed by somebody else; ard if not smug-
gfed through the Legislature, at least passed with
ont 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
nttee that it do pass-was read three several times
]" each House, was duly ratified by the Speakers
ana made a law. What sort of "secresy what
A'"o OF Smuggling" is this? If "concocted in
nc. 1eeret' then Gov. Graham, Mr.. Haughton, Mr.
jumps, and Others, friends of the Observer, were
s''"es % the 'secresy" aud "smugglins," for they