The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-02-05

Il.
late speech .
81 declined being candidate in 1861 for
the Convention, because l could not and
sion. l also declined being candidate for
the late Convention, after my friends had
presented my name, for the reason that
knew that we should be require to rejoice
and be exceedingly glad, that we were rob-
bed of our property; and, sir, my notions OF
honesty would not allow me to endorse and
sanction the theft-the indiscriminate theft,
which has been perpetrated upon this peo-
pie"
There is not one word of truth in the
above, except that Mr.. Russ regards the led
eral government as common thief.
The Union party of Wake nominated its
candidates in February, 1861, in mass meet
ing. The candidates were George E. Badger,
@. Busbee, and w. w. Holden. If Mr.. Russ
was named at the time by any one, we did
not hear of it. He received no votes in the
meeting. In May, 1861, the candidates of
the Union party were George E. Badger, K.
P. Battle, and w. w. Holden. If Mr.. Russ
was spoken of on this occasion as a candi-
date, we Q10 not near OF IL.
Nor is it true that he was solicited to any
respectable extent to be Il candidate for the
late Convention. We remember distinctly
that he was in favor of those candidates who
were regarded as most radical, to wit, Messrs.
Pennington and Hood, both of whom
were defeated. Mr.. Russ had at that time
lucrative office; and though he might have
craved q seat in the Convention, the Union
party thought that the Sheriffalty of the
County was sufficient to crafty even his APP
petite fol place. Therefore, he was not asked
by the party to be a candidate.
But if Mr.. Russ had been candidate, and
had shown himself in his true colors at that
time, he would not have received one hun
dred votes in the County. Indeed, if he had
mounted the stump in August, 1865, and had
stated, as he does now, that the government
had "robbed him Of his property, he would
have been instantly arrested and punished.
He would have deserved it then, and he de-
serves it now: HIS motions of honesty"
would not allow him to endorse the act cman-
cipating the slaves! Why, then, did he
seek and hold Office under the authority that
passed this act? He thought the govern
ment robber and common thief, and yet
he-this immaculate politician-asked for
received, and held Office under that govern
ment. But, in addition to this, Mr. Russ
took the following oath in 1865, before lie
was allowed to vote or hold office:
Il, j. P. H. Russ, of the County of Wake,
State of North Carolina, do solemilv swear,
in presence OF Almighty God, that will
henceforth faithfully support, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States,
and the Union OF the States Hereunder; and
that l WILL in like manner. abide Iy and
taithfulty support all la'os and proclamations
acjtich huce been mule during the eristing re-
de!lion 'ciN retertncs to the emancipation Of
s!arcs. So help me Cod"
Now, fellow citizens, behold this ''honest"
man with his 81 honest opinions Mr. Russ
solemnly and voluntarily swore, in 1865, that
he would abide by and faithfully support
all laws and proclamations under which
his slaves had been set free; but noc he says
that the government, in thus emancipating
the slaves, committed robbery and theft.
What did he take that oath for? If he be-
lieved the government had robbed him, was
he bound to endorse the robbery Was he
bound to swear that it was not robbery p
but that, on the contrary, he would "abide
by and faithfully support it," as proper
and honest act?
One of two things is certain He believed
at that time either that the emancipation was
robbery and theft, or that it was just and
proper. If he believed it robbery and theft
at that time, the inference is clear that he
did violence to his conscience and took the
oath solely from love OF Office, for no other
wise could he obtain office; but if he has
changed since, the inference is equally clear,
not Only that he has tri1ed with his oath,
but that he has thoroughly identified HIM
self With secessionists and traitors
No patriot or true man will use such Ian
guage about the government of his country.
The man who uses such language is traitor,
and deserves to have his property contiscat-
ed and to be himself executed as a traitor
This man is double traitor He has been
false to his allegiance both in war and
peace and no better proof of the lenity and
mercy of the government could be offered
than the forbearance which it shows towards
Just such men as j. p. H. Russ No wonder
he says he is q no unconditional Union man.
He was in 1865, but he is not now. He is as
defiant and rebellious, and as full of treason
as Pryor was when he had that first gun
fired at Fort Sumter. But the government
will handle all such characters. 1t will not
ask them what they think, or what they want
in the work of reconstruction. 1t will deal
with them as subjects, and, if necessary, as
criminals.
J. P. H. Russ is not only false to his coun-
try, as his recorded speech proves, but he is
guilty of gross political fraud In misrepre-
senting the Union people of Wake. If he
had any sense of propriety, not to say shame,
he would at once resig his scat. He Eno,os
he is disappearing his constituents.
We do not regard the abuse directed at
us by Mr. Russ in his speech The differ
ence between Mr.. Russ and ourself is. he is
against the government, and we are uncon-
ditionally for it. We are too we'll known
here and throughout the State, to be injured