The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-08-22

RALEIGH, Aug. 9th. 1855.

- i . q. 4 .t-
Messrs. PsA& Gazess-I have read
with surprise and regret the letter Of
Judge Howard, prefacing his speech on
the recent Stay Law ordinance. / shall
ask the fayorof your columns to pub
ish my reply.
IT pains me to be informed by this
gentleman, that he considers any re-
marks in my speech as personal to him
self. I assure him that it was not nv
purpose to wound his feelings, or those
of any other delegate supporting the
measure ;yand since he appears to value
my expressioni that the general provis-
ions of the ordinance. seemed ssto be
more Just thss5 5sax & had seen, = take
much pleasure ID. paSIcly stating that
used the expression. l think it was
made when / first heard the ordinance
read. ~
He complains, that there is " bitter
ness in my speech; and that I have
directed st point blank at the ordinance
and its supporters"
Upon perusal of it do not find one
word of personal allusion to that gen.
tleman, or to any other supporter of
the measure. Throughout it is argu-
mentative; and if there be any pungency
in its composition it arose from my
conviction, that deep and dangerous
wound was about to be inflicted on the
Constitution of the Union which had
sworn to support. My earnest purpose
was to expose that growing and fear
full fallacy, which maintains, that leg
islator may, under the toTms Of doing
a laacfid act, designedzy do am asaIaao-
.fA one. 1t was my purpose to de-
nounce it as a mode of undermining the
citadel of Constitutional ibery, more
successful, and therefore the more DAM
gerous, than any ever yet employed in
popular bodies. / did believe, that the
ordinance was designed to hinder and
delay the creditor, and, therefore, did
impair the obligation of contracts. If
in my earnestness, / have departed
| from the courtesy of debate, | have
more cause for sorrow than any other
person.
Iregret deeply that Judge Howard
allowed himself, in his letter, to 90 be-
yond what might be deemed necessary
| for his purpose. He says In the first
place, as a leader of the majority, Mr..
Moore had induced the Convention to
consider and ordain new Constitution,
although he well knew that our present
Constitution was in force, and that in
recognized no Convention not called by
legislative authority, and although he
knew that the Convention had termina-
ted its original functions by full COM
piiance with tie acquisitions of the au.
thority by which it is called"
The questions raised by this para
graph, it is my purpose to argue at no
distant day, and shall not stop to argue
them now. Now, it SO happened, that,
when the Convention assembled, the
distinguished delegate from Warren,
William Eaton, ESQ.,, and myself un-
known to each other, had prepared the
Constitution of the State, re-arranged
under appropriate heads, and almost
| ready to be submitted to the Conven-
ton, each had noted suggestions for
amendment. Both concurred in the pro-
priety of doing this, and neither ex-
pressed doubt of the power of the
Convention to do it. We, with others,
were placed on the committee to ere
wise the Constitution" and were pre-
pared to report even when the Conven-
tion adjourned in November last. Thus
it is perceived, what were the views en-
tertained by the committee, and espe-
cially by Mr.. Eaton and myself, before
and after the assemblage ofthe Conven-
tion, in regard to its powers over the
| Constitution.
II is true the Convention was not
SCALED by the legislative authority,
and if this objection be valid for one
purpose it must be so for all purposes,
so that the ordinance abolishing slavery
is without any force whatever, as is
that, also, which convened the General
Assembly, of which the Judge was a
member. The Judge, moreover, says
that "knew that the Convention had
terminated its original functions"
cannot mistake that the object OF
the paragraph cited is to convict me of
having violated the Constitution of the
State. The only answer have to
make is, that / am not conscious of it !;
and if 1 cannot defend myself by the
logic of argument, l shall not attempt
to do SO by the logic Of recrimination.
If had we'll known, OF eve,s believed,
| that the Convention was illegally called,
because it could be called only by "leg-
islative authority" I would not have
been member of it; and if had been
satisfied that it's work had been assigned,
and when done, it ceased to legally ex-
list, l would have acted in conformity
with my convictions. would as soon
have voted in the Convention for the
stay law ordinance as for the proposed
Constitution.
have an easy conscience upon these
matters.
But, if Judge Howard as well knew
these objections, as he supposes l did,
how does he reconcile it to himself to
have introduced into that body, and ad-
vocated any ordinance at all fit
was not ComoentS0n for any purpose,
it was not legislative body for any
| purpose. Yet, in his action on the Stay
Law ordinance, he assumed that it was
both. The ordinance is purely legisla-
tive throughout, till the last section to
this is impaired force which lawtui
Convestion, alone, can give. It pro-
vides, that the General Assembly
shall have no power to repeal, alter
or modify this ordinance until the third
Monday Of November, 1865"
The Judge proceeds as follows: In
the second place, under Mr.. Moore's
! advice, the Convention had broken 9
] clear Cnnstitutinnal OBLIGATION of thf