The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1866-08-16
LETTER FROM b. F. MOORE, ESQ.
RALEraH. Aug. 9th, 1866.

! the recent stay Law OruliistHce. sudIl
ask the favor Of your columns to pub
lish my reply.
1T 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 my
purpose to wound his feelings, or those
of any other delegate supporting the
measure and since he appears to value
my expression, that the general provis-
ions of the ordinance seemed "to be
more just than any had SEEM" [ take
much pleasure in publicly stating that
fused the expression. | think it was
made when [ first heard the ordinance
| read.
He complains, that there is &C bitter
ness - in my speech; and that I have
directed {" it point blank at the ordinance
and its supporters"
Upon perusal of it I do not find one
word of personal allusion to that gen
tleman, or to any other supporter O..
the measure. Throughout it is argu-
mentative; and if there be any pungency
in its composition it arose from my
conviction, that a 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, uaeder the forms Of doing
q la,ofiM act, designedly do an eualaao-
.ful 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 dan
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. II
in my earnestness, I have departed
from the courtesy of debate, [ have
more cause for sorrow than any other
person.
I regret deeply that Judge Howard
allowed himself, in his letter, to 90 be-
yond what might be deemed necessary
for his purpose. He says &C In the first
place, as leader of the majority, Mr.
Moore had induced the Convention to
consider and ordain a 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 a full COM
pliance 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
chem now. Now, it so happened, that,
when the Convention assembled, the
distinguished delegate from Warren,
William Eaton, Esq, and myself I'M
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 re
wise the Constitution" and were pre-
ton adj iourned in November last. Thus
tertained by the committee, and espe-
cially by Mr.. Eaton and myself, before
and after the assemblage of the Conven-
ton, in regard to its powers over the
Constitution.
II is true the Convention was not
"called 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
member. The Judge, moreover, says
that I 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 l have to
make is, that am not conscious of it;
and if cannot defend myself by the
logic of argument, 1 shall not attempt
to do so by the logic of recrimination.
If had we'll known, or eueaa believed,
that the Convention was illegally called,
because it could be called only by "leg
islative authority" 1 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-
ist, would have acted in conformity
with my convictions. I 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 I did,
how does he reconcile it to himself to
have introduced into that body, and adj
vocated any ordinance at all ? If it
was not Contention 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 loactul
Conveaatioaa, alone, can give. 1t pro-
rides, 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 Mace under Mr. MoOre'S.