Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-02-08

STATE Us FAIRLY-We have no idea that the
Raleigh Standard would Intentionally misunderstood
misreprcsent us, and yet, in article IN that
paper Of the 2Sth, some remarks would appear to
place us in position which we do not occupy. In
all illusions to the agitation arising out of the
ad ralorem question, so far as change OF the Con-
stituton is concerned have scrupulously avoided
the impugnment Of any persons motives; and in our
last article upon that subject we have taken the
trouble to state position in unmistakeahle Ian
guagc, leaving nothing for inference. Of this the
Stdndrd is fully aware, and will, we trust indeed
feel certain, do Us justice i'll the premises. Of
course our views on that subject arc own, al
though we share them with many others.
We would request another paper, the Greens
borough Patriot. to state position fairly, and
put nothing in mouths that we have not said.-
We arc Of age and can speak for ourselves. That
paper in its issue of the 21th says: "The Whining
ton Journal although admitting that our revenue
law is very unjust saws that is not the time to
alter it." On the contrary, the Wilmington Jour
nal has suggested that the earliest time is the best
has pointed to obnoxious taxes that the Legislature
may and ought to dispense with at its very next
session, enumerating among these the tax upon
wages and salaries.
We do not suppose that either the Standard or
Patriot wish 10 put us in false position. We
know the StdnJard too well to dream that it does
and we are willing to take it for granted that the
Patriot is equally indsposed to do so.-HH Jour
nal
In our remarks of the ssth we quoted language
from the Journal which we really thought was in
tended for U.S. We arc happy to know, from the
Journal itself, that were mistaken.
We would remind Our friend of Journal that we
have taken no part in the discussion Of al ralore,
and that We have copied nothing Of cur own accord
on the subject.
The Journal did not copy the National Era arti-
Gle. Our remarks therefore in regard to that arti
Gle did not apply to the Journal, and were not in
tended to apply. We were mixed up in TINT article
with certain aspirations for certain offices, which
niring up was unjust and unfair. The Only Demo-
cratic paper which, in copying the article, suppress
ed that portion of it, the Salisbury Banner, for
which that paper has our thanks. And by the way,
while upon this point we beg leave say to brother
Britton, of the Bulletin, that rule is to permit
our correspondents being responsible persons, 20
discuss questions in their own way, so long they
arc respectful and decent in their language and tone
The Bulletin thinks that courtesy should have
prompted us to suppress certain language in relation
| to it, IN one of the communications Of A Ndtire"
That may be So but VIC do not think it IS, especial
ly when our rule in relation to the latitude give
| our correspondents is considered but if so, how
did the Bulletin stand, in relation to us, btore the
language which he complains OF was uttered? Why,
he had copied and he was the first one in the State
to copy the article from the Era in which we were
unjustly referred to- We will do him the justice to
state, however, that he did not approve Of the sent
ments contained in that article.