The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-01-15

For these reasons they voted against MIR.
Biggs test-oath. The secessionists in the
Convention were for it, because they were de-
voted to the Confederacy, and the Unionists
were against it, because they were not devo-
ted to the Confederacy. The Unionists of
that day entertained the same feelings to-
wards the Confederacy which President
Swain's present political friends now enter
tain towards the Union. They submitted to
the Confederacy because they could nothelp
themselves, but they cherished no real affec-
ton for it, just as President SWANS present
friends submit to the Union, but cherish no
real affection for it. They were ready at any
moment, and especially ready after the 4th
of March, 1864, when the great peace move
ment in this State WAS commenced, to cut
themselves loose from the cotton States and
return to their allegiance to the United
States. Whatever President SWANS private
opinions may have been, he co-operated with
Governors Vance and Graham in resisting
this movement up to the last moment, when,
with the latter, he proceeded on that fruit
less, not to say absurd and ridiculous mis-
sion tc Gen. Sherman, twelve miles below
Raleigh.
We do not perceive the proprety with
which President Swain compares Mr. Biggs'
test-oath with the test-oath in Mr. Stevens
bill The former was the emanation of law
lessness and violence. 1t was conceived in
the worst passions of a bloody and dis
astrous rebellion. Its authority was, at BEST
doubtful. 1t was to have authority and
responsibility if the rebellion succeeded, but
it was to perish as infamous if the rebellion
failed. But the oath in Mr.. Stevens bill
comes to US from rightful authority. 1t is the
emanation of a benignant and merciful gov
eminent. 1t is not stamped with either
violence, lawlessness, or usurpation. The
hands that present it have never been lifted
against the temple of the Union. 1t is
part of the bargain we promised to keep
when we submitted Internationally to the
national arms, in April, 1865. If it be harsh
so far as some of our citizens are concerned,
it can not be said that those of us who ap-
prove it are answerable for this harshness.-
1t is simply necessity, if we would restore
the Union. The presidents plan," as it is
called, imposed an exceedingly mild oath.
That plan was defeated in this State by
President SWANS present political friends.
IfPresident Swain, Gov. Graham, and others,
had shown any zeal for the Presidents plan
as it was originally announced, and if they
had labored for it as they have against test
oaths, and as they have for such settlement
of our troubles as would be agreeable to
themselves, that plan would have succeeded,
and the State would doubtless have now
been IN the Union. This plan having failed,
mainly as the result of the action of Presi-
dent SWANS present friends, the Howard
amendment was presented. This amend
ment proposes only to secure, in the funda-
mental law, the great objects for which the
war was prosecuted against the rebellious
States. There is not q principle in this
amendment which was not universally con-
coded by the people of the South at the close
of the war. But as the Presidents plan was
at first embarrassed and at last destroyed by
the love of Office on the part of President
ton obtrudes itself as hindrance when the
is proposed. The main objec-
ton to the amendment is that it will exclude
certain persons from Office. Let no one say
that this statement in regard to President
SWANS friends is unfounded, for in his first
letter to Gov. Perry, in which he discusses
this amendment, he quotes and most emphat-
ically endorses an expression attributed to
Mr.. Adams, that the Disqualification to hold
office" is "punishment aeorse than death."-
Here, then, is the key to this opposition to
the amendment. We have it from President
certain public men for office,
and this is punishment worse than DEATH"
They would rather die than to give up the
offices. We thank President Swain for his
frankness. He has "spoken out in meeting
He has told the whole truth. 1t is we'll
tlemen, but if it be necessary that we should
renounce office in order to restore it, it shall
not be done. Hence their opposition to the
Presidents plan, to the Howard amendment,
and to Mr.. Stevens bill. They will restore
the Union on no conditions that do not pro-
vide for them as the office-holders of the
country; and as the Union must be restored,
it is indispensable that some bill like that of
Mr. Stevens should be passed, by which
these former office-holders shall be excluded
not only from office but from the ballot-bo3.
The country must not suffer longer on their
account Even if they had not incurred
public odium, and forfeited all claims to
political consideration by the use they have
made of office and power to ruin their coun-
try, they would have no special claims ON
our people. The Unionists of the State have
IS able men in their ranks-men who have
the confidence of the government and of the
Northern people, and who would be infn-
tely more useful than any of President
5wain's political friends could be in the
work of reconstruction.
We regard the oath in Mr.. Stevens bill as
ust and proper. After what has occurred,
no man ought to be allowed to take part in
new government for the State