Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1862-01-18
The sTest OATH in Columbus.


Maultsby, ESQ.,, in relation to the charge made by
our correspondent &C" that test oath" or oath
of allegiance to the Confederate government was ad
ministered to certain citizens of Columbus, when
they gave in their tax lists -
WuIrEvILLE, Jan. IL, 1852.
W. W. HOLDEN, Esq
Dear Sir: In the Raleigh Standard, of January
LIST 1862, I see letter from some one IN Columbus
county, in regard to the test oath, signed -;
| 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.
Please publish this, and send me your bill for
same with the name of the aforementioned letter
writer.
Yours, &c, j. A. MAULTSBf.
And in the Fayetteville Observer, of Monday
last, We find the following letter from Mr. Mautsby
WnIrEvILLE N G., Jan. 9th, 1862
MEssRs E. j. HALE AND SoNs:-Gemts In me
Observer of the 9th inst, noticed an article headed
IAN 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
appears from your article that some one from this
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 Of the Assessors,
and naSmuch as you are kind Il might say oticiouSl
enough to advise and direct the grand jury to ndict
said "Otticious officer for misdemeanor," / would
like for you to prosecute the case. 1t might be in
teresting as we'll as profitable. The Standards in
fOrmant who regarded the conduct of the officer
an outrageous assault upon himself and others, will
no doubt pay well to vndicate 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 COM
mtted by rendering an oath to one who had a right
to refuse taking it but did not and more especially
when the oath itself was which all true South
ern men delight to take whether prescribed by the
Convention Of this State or not? have not seen
the Standard lately. In that it may be explained
why It's informant submitted to so great ar outrage
without murmur 1t was an officiouS act of mine.
but inasmuch the oath not rendered to either
of you, hope you will excuse me for inSinuatng
that 1t will be equally ocious in you to indict me
for it. although make no objection to your doing
In justification OF Col. Alfred Smith the As
sStant Tax Collector of this District, who had
nothing to do in administering said cath, please
publish the foregoing remarks and oblige
j. a. MAULTSBY.
So it seems that Mr.. MaultSby, by his own con-
feSSon did administer the oath to the citizens Of
his district. The statement of our correspondent
is, therefore, confirmed; and it seems that Mr.
Mautsby is excited, and abuses our correspondent,
simply because he wrote us the truth on the sub
ject. Our correspondent is no doubt a man of
character and will not be injured by the epithets
which Mr.. Maultsby has applied to him. These ep-
ithets will injure one but Mr.. Mautshy, who, it
seems, first committed very improper act, and
then lost his temper because he was told of it
through the columns Of the Standard. Our CORES
pondent, having stated nothing but what is true,
and nothing but what he had right as a citizen to
state, Mr.. Maultsby is not entitled to his name
We shall, therefore, not give it up.
If the Confederate government, or the LegSla-
ture the State Convention had authorized Mr.
Maultsby to administer such an oath, he would
stand before the country justified in his conduct ;
but We have yet to learn, that an Assessor, he
had a right to frame oath, and tender it to
the people who were giving in their lists He has
not only oyerstepped the law, but he has assumed
to make law for the occasion. We presume there
is not a man in Columbus who is not true to the
Confederate government as Mr.. Maultsby is but
the people of Columbus, and the people of the State
not prepared for InquisitiOn of any kind, by
which they suspected to be untrue and required
to purge themselves by an oath from a general
charge of disloyalty and treason.
We repeat, that we think this Assessor ought to
be removed. He admits that he has performed an
"oficous act" and he has added to this by abusing
worthy citizen, whose only fault is that he has
complained of the improper conduct Of the Assessor
towards himself and others.
What will the Wilmington Journal say now2
We make no charge against Mr. MaultSby for
publishing his letter.