Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-09-14


but as Mr.. Branch was the author of it it was left
to him and to the party generally to defend the bill
against the unjust attacks of the opposition; the
VIII 'le party being for him the nominee with the
n lerstanding that to vote for him was neither to
approve nor diapprove the bill. That was the feel
ing-that was the sense of the Franklnton Conven-
ton. And yet though the Convention which nom-
mated Mr. Branch, the author of the bill, declined
to endorse the and to bring it forward as
Democratic test the Warrenton Neaos insists that it
was test and has in substance expressed its graft
6cation at the defeat of DR.. Shaw and Mr.. Scales,
because they did not advocate the bill.
Again: Some four weeks before the late election,
Mr.. Branch published Card in the Standard, in
which he emphatically declared that the Thirty Mil
lion bill was not test Mr. Branch also stated in
the Card referred to, that he had exhausted every
effort with 1.-THE side which had manifested most
zeal in his behalf" meaning the Ne,os and the Fire.
brand, and their peculiar fricnds-to settle the fcud
which existed in this District The inference was
that these efforts had failed and that Mr. Branch as
the candidate of the party in the District had sepa
rated himself as far as was practicable or proper,
referred to. And what was the result? NEITHER THE
Ners NOR TIE FTebrand PUBLISHED MK BRANcH's
CARD OR EVEN REFERRED IT; but, feeling keenly
the inference against them which every one drew
from Mr. Branch's Card, they went to work with
renewed energy to make the Thirty Million bill a
test. What their motive was we know not but
their course calculated, if not intended, to in
jure Mr.. Branch and every Democratic candidate for
Congress in the State.
Again: About this time the Hon. Weldon n Ed
wards wrote some articles on the subject for the
Warrenton Neus in which he insisted that this bill
was Democratic test We demonstrated respect
fully against this view, and at length told Mr. Ed
wards in substance that it did not become one who
had defeated Free Suffrage as he had done in the
State Senate to attempt to thrust issues tests
the Democratic party. That was all-and yet the
Nens affected great indignation, declared that we
had "slandercd" venerable statesman, and dwelt
at length on the indignation which our allusion to
Mr.. F. had excited in Warren County! We have
always respected Mr.. Edwards as gentleman and
have never referred to him except as public man.
When he defeated Free Suffrage, spoke freely and
but on the contrary he complimcnted us for the
frankness and boldness with which We had perform
ed our duty according to our own convictions We
told him then that we thought he had grievously
erred, but that We never expected to impeach his
honesty or integrity. We think now just what We
thought then. Our late allusion to him was not
even disrespectful, much less offensive We do not
| rorrof n 1ro do MT toEo hoc dn mt ovop
qualify it. Let the Neus and the, Firebrand make
the most Of it. %
The Ne,cs and the Firebrand are constantly charg
ing that we governed in our course by selfish
considerations and that are endeavoring to shape
| things so as to obtain office Our motives are i'm
peached and every effort is made to prejudice Demo-
Gratis against u.s. We appeal to the Democratic
party of the State to say if these impuations are
just. In 1s43 we took charge of the Standard,
when the party in minority in the State
We elabored necessarily, with small pecuniary means,
with all the State patronage against us, in the face
! of triumphant and domineerng opposition, and
when to be Democrat was to be more less odious
both politically and socially. That was no time for
"summer patriots or sunshine soldiers" We in
|
truthfully say, are did our duty In 1916 the
Democracy of Wake, of their own accord and with
out the slightest solicitation on part nominated
and elected lis to the Legislature. We served one
| term, and as soon the session was over we pub
| lished Card declining reelection. Did that
evince selfisbness or love of Office? In 1851 Gov.
Reid appointed us m, mber of the Literary Board,
| nd in a., tod Wo
ed seven years this Board, and aided in managing
a fund amounting to millions of dollars, for which
service we did not receive all together, we think,
more than $780, Did that evince a mercenary
spirit? We have also served two or three years as
Director of the Institution for the deaf and dumb
and blind and two years as Director of the Insane
| Asylum-for which we received not one cent We
have also served three years Warden of the Poor
of Wake County Does all this show merccnary
disposition? In 1858 our friends voted for us for
Governor in the Charlotte Convention against John
W. Ellis. We were defeated but no Democrat in
the State sprang to the support of the nominee with
more alacrity than we did. Did that evince com.
planning dsorganizing, selfish disposition? In
1858 $50 some of our friends voted for us in Caucus
for United States Senator. We were defeated, but
we supported the nominees, and we Immediately
bore testimony in the Standard to the worth the
ability, and the integrity Of our rivals Does all
this indicate selfish or dangerous ambition, on
our part? No, brother Democrats, ,oe are not an
obice-seeker. We have always been true to you
and to the cause. Neither malice, nor detrac
ton, nor envy, ''nor principalities nor powers
nor things present nor things to come" will be
able to separate US from Democracy or from the
gallant spirits who march beneath its flag There
is something better than ofice-something better
than honors, even at the hands Of an intelligent and
honest people. sense of integrity, of fidelity to
principles and to the people, and sincere affection
for ones native land can neither be added nor taken
q away by Office.
We beg in conclusion again to call the attention
of our Democratic cotempOraries to the attack made