Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1862-01-22
The ssTest Oath'' in Columbus

We have received the following letter from j. A.
Maultsby, Esq, in relation to the charge made by
our correspondent &C." that test oath or oath
ministered to certain citizens Of Columbus, when
they gave in their tax lists -
WHIrEvILLE, Jan. IL, 1862.
W. W. HOLDEN, ESQ., ..rss .n>v
Dear Sir: In the Raleigh Standard, of January
LIST, 1862, see a letter from some one in Columbus
county, in regard to the "test OATH" signed &C"
am the Assessor referred to, and pronounce the
author of said letter base coward, and too mean
to remain longer unknown. / therefore demand of
You his real name. r--. a
Please publish this, and send me your bill for
same with the name of the above mentioned letter
writer.
Yours, &c, j. A. MAULTSBYr
And in the Fayetteville 00serrer, of Monday
last, We find the cSllowng letter from Mr. Maultsby:
WniTEvILLE. N c., JAM 9th, 1862.
MEssEs. E j. HALE AND SoNs:-Gcnts In the
Observer OF the 9th inst, noticed an article headed
- Outrage, and found on reading it, that
was the person with others, who had committed the
outrage Of administering an oath of allegiance to
sundry citizens Of Columbus county while taking
their lists of taxable property under an Act of the
Congress Of the Confederate States of America 1t
county informed the Raleigh Standard that the Tax
Collector of this District had committed said out
rageous act, but can inform you that Col Alfred
Smith the Assistant Tax Collector of this District
did no such thing. did it as one of the Assessors,
and nasmuch as you are kind, Il might say oficious)
enough to advise and direct the grand Jury to ndict
said "otficious officer for misdcmeanor," would
like for you to prosecute the case 1t might be in
teresting as well profitable. The Standards in
vho (l,,l tba f.Lo
All outrageous assault upon huself and others, will
no doubt pay we'll to vnd;cate the laws of his
try. Why did he take the oath without objection
at the time-two months ago! Was he forced to
take it! Can he or you tell what crime was COM
mtted by rendering oath to one who had right
to refuse taking it but did not, and more especially
when the oath itself was one which all true South
ern men delight to take whether prescribed by the
Convention Of this State not? have not seen
the Standard lately. In that it may be explained
why its informant submitted to great ar outrage
without murnur. 1t was an otficious act of mine
but inasnuch as the oath not rendered to either
OF you, | hope you will excuse me for insinuating
that it will be equally ottciouS in you to ndict inc
for it. although make no Objection to your doing
so. In justification of Col. Alfred Smith the As
slstant Tax Collector of this District who had
nothing to do in administering said 'ath, please
publish the foregoing remarks and obligc
"A MA ~
So it seems tina. Mr. Maultsby by his own con-
iession, did administer the oath to the citizens Of
his district The statement of our correspondent
is, therefore, confirmed /; and it seems that Mr.
Maultsby is excited, and abuses correspondent,
simply because he wrote US the truth on the sub.
ject Our correspondent is no doubt man ol
character and will not be injured by the epithets
IL, NJ. Il
ithets will injure no one but Mr.. Maultsby who il
seems, first committed very improper act, and
then lost his temper because he was told Of il
through the columns of the Standard. Our CORES.
pondent, having stated nothing but what is true,
and nothing but what he had right as citizen to
state. Mr.. Maultsby is not entitled tt. lis name
| We shall, therefore, not give it up =
! If the Confederate government, or the Legisla
| ture, or the State Convention had authorized Mr.
Mautsby to administer such an oath, he would
stand before the country justified in his conduct
but We have yet to learn, that, as an Assessor, hi
had right to frame oath, and even tender it to
the people who were giving in their lists lie ha:
not only overstepped the law, but he has assumed
to make law for the occasion. We presume there
is not man in Columbus who is not as true to tht
Confederate government as Mr.. Maultsby is; bu
the people Of Columbus, and the people of the Stat
are not prepared for inquisiton Of any kind, by
which they suspected to be untrue and required
to purge themselves by an oath from genera
charge of disloyalty and treason.
We repeat that we think this Assessor ought tt
be removed He admits tina. he has performed al
"officous act and he has added to this by abusing
worthy citizen whose only fault is that he ha
complained of the improl or conduct Of the Assesso
towards himself and others.
What will the Wilmington Journal say now?
We make no charge against Mr.. Maultsby 70
publishing his letter.