The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1866-02-13
n. G. LEGISLATURE.
Saturday, Feb. Sd.


bill authorizing a court of Pleas to be held
In Cabarrus county, was taken UP, the rules
were suspended, and the bill passed its severa
readings
Mr. Winstead from the Committee on Propo
sitlons and Grievances to whom was referred
the bill relative to building Penitentiary and
work houses, reported back the same recon.
mending that it do not pass
HoUsE.-Mr Hutchison introduced ga bill
! to incorporate the Trustees of the General AS.
sembly of the Presby terian Church in the Uni
ted States of America" Placed on calendar.
! A bill to amend the 18th section of the 11Sth
chapter Revised Code, was put on its second
reading. provides that widows dissenting
from their husbands wills, may take of his per,
sonsl estate as in cases of intestacy)
hlr Mckay opposed the passage of the bill
He saw no good reason fer changing the exist
ing law, especially as the alteration proposed
would operate to the pref judice Of children by
giving the widow an undue proportion of the
personal estate.
MIR Manly said that the gentleman from Har-
nett had misapprehended the scope and object
of the bill. The existing laws in cases of in
testacy gave to the widow when there was but
one child one half of the personal estate, but 10
cases of dissent from will, when there is but
one child, the law allows her but one third of
the personally. lie saw no good reason for
making distinction between the two cases to
the widows prejudice.
MIR Hoke opposed the change contemplated
In the bill. The provision allowing the wife
but one third Of the personally when she dis
sents from the will, was in his opinion, Just and
reasonable. Some respect was due to the hus-
bands wishes.
Mr. Smith, of Hert1ord, thought that as long
as the law allowed widows to dissent, from their
husbands will full legal effect should be given
to such dissent by creating an intestacy as to
her. He hoped the bill would pass
MIR jenkins, of Warren, was not only in
favor Of the bill, but when the husband dies in
testate, if the property came by the wife, he
was in favor of giving her the whole of it,
Mr. Moore, of Martin, thought that when the
widow dssents from the will, such dissent
should have the effect of creating virtual in
testacy as to her. He was in favor of the pass
age OF the bill as reported.
Mr. Cameron, said the effect of the bill was to
give the vito one half Of the personally in cases
of intestacy, instead Of one-third when there is
but one child. No change was contemplated
when there Is more than child. 1t was
eminently proper that this change should be
made. lie concurred with the gentleman from
Martin, and was in favor of giving the widow
the whole Of the personally when there we're no
children, and if he were Cal of Bagdad such
decree should issue immediately. Daughter
Mr. Mckay again addressed the House, in op-
position to the bill He thought it would en-
courage dissents from wills and consequent liti-
cation, prejudicial alike to the widow and the
children, as the costs would speedily absorb the
personally in question. The women were dis
senting class any way, aud the tendency of the
bill would be to foster the spirit Of dissent, and
il the Court House with caveats
Mr. Hoke, asked leave after hearing the dis
cussion, to take. ':the back track" He had
thought at first that the bill would work injury
to orphans. If it applied only to cases where
there was but one child, he should Withdraw
his objection and accord it his support.
The bill passed its second and then its third
reading under a suspension Of the rules.
-----1 @-----
REpUDIATING THE FLAG.-Tbe House of
Representatives. has adopted the views of Mr.
McCulloch, which in hostility to granting
the privileges of national registry to American
vessels which, during the Rebellion, were sold
to foreign owners, or adopted foreign flag
The argument is, that the owners Of those YES
ses, having deliberately repudaed the protec-
tion of the country during time Of war, should
not be allowed to return to that protection in
time of peace BY their action they escaped
the risks which those shipping merchants dared
who would not give up the ship" The latter
flew their flag, and were not intmdated by Reb-
ell priva,eers. They paid for their patriotism
also in heavy premiums insurance, which
their more crafty colleagues escaped by their
subtcrfuge. The latter knew that the laws of
their country denationalized these vessels, and
what they did could not have been for want of
reflection. On the othr hand, it is. urged that
the United States Government, having failed
to protect American commerce, In fault,
and drove ship owners into the course which
was adopted by such Of them as registered their
vessels as Dutch or French. They had either
to submit to the risk of loss indulge in STRAIT
egy. The arguments seem to be very fairly
balanced, but the lower House of Congress has
adopted the views of Mr. McCulloch.-Ih'la-
dcIphia Inquirer
Hon. W. W. Boyce, of South Carolina, (who
has removed to Washington City, in addressing
farewell letter to his constituents, says: Look
ing to the great future, [ should say the first
thing for the South is white immigration; the
second thing is white immigration; the third
thing is white immigration. You should do
everything in your power to invite white pop
ulatioD, both by your legislation and favorable
public sentiments Receive immigrants from
Europe and the United States with open arms.
The danger in the future is in a collision of
races; your safety is in the closest sympathy
with your own race in the United States. You
need the friendship Of the American people;
take every step to obtain It.
A Washington letter says: ln due time Con-
gressmen will ascertain that they cannot de-
nouuce the President and bis policy at the Cap
ito, and then come to the White House to ask
and receive good places fer their friends.