The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-10-03

troduced by the committee were voted down
there is no more pointed answer to make a
to the absolute falsity of such an accusation
than by reference to the unconditional en-
dorsment on the part of said body of tn
policy and measures of ongress.-New5erJ
Republican.
Our friend of the Republican is certainl
correct in this view. There is no conisea
ton in the reconstruction measures. Indeed
the only way to avoid confiscation by the en-
forcement of the law of 1862 on that sub
ject, is to carry out those measures in goo(
faith, and thus restore the State to the Union
There is no confscation in any State plat
form of the Republican party of the North
ern, Eastern, or Western States. There is nc
confiscation in any document issued to the
people by the Republican members of Con.
gress, or by the standing Committee in
Washington which acts for the Congress -
Leading Republicans of both races have
spoken in various parts of this State, under
the auspices of the national Republican par
ty, and not one of them has advocated con-
fiscation. It is true, Mr.. Senator Wilson
very properly declared that if any landhol-
der or employer should discharge tenant or
employee for voting his sentiments at the
polls, then and in that case the estate of such
a person should be confiscated, but he did
not 60 beyond this. Wherefore, then, this
cry about confscation? Because the Con-
Vention did not expressly denounce it e.
There were many things it did not specifcal-
ly or expressly take ground for or against
If it had set out in full all its views in detail
on every question, the platform would have
filled all the columns of the Standard But
the progress of this discussion, which has
been forced upon US, renders it our duty to
speak with more plainness than heretofore
There was Committee on Platform and
Resolutions consisting of John Pool, Byron
Latin, E. r. Brink, G. r. Thomas, j. w.
Hood, James Sinclair, d. r. Gooclloe, James
H. Harris, Henderson Adams, Wyatt Out
law, G. j. Cowles, ]. T. Schenck, C. L. Har-
| ris, John A. Dula, r. P. Dick, and A. H.
Galloway. This was an able Committee
Its report is understood to have been made
unanimously. Was the report defended q
Were any reasons urged by the members of
the Committee with one or two exceptions,)
or by the Chairman of the Committee, why
the entire report should beadopted9 No.
1t is not surprising, therefore, that that part
of the report which was supposed to need
defence, and was not defended, was voted
down. We hold that those gentlemen who
are mOao protesting against the action of the
Convention, declaring they will not submit
to its organization, and will not serve" the
party on the basis laid down in March and
September, owed it to the Convention and to
their own convictions and purposes to speak
out in the Convention, first for the report as
an entirety; and then, being minded to per-
sue the course they have, it was due to can
dor and good faith between Republicans that
then and there they should have said so.
But the Republican party is not worthy of
confidence, it is said, because, refusing to go
beyond the reconstruction measures, it de-
clared for confscation! Bynegative it took
positive action. That is the argument. We
leave it to every candid person to say what
it is worth.
We now state, in reply, that the only per-
son of high official consideration who is on
record in this State for .confiscation, is Presi-
dent johnson, the idol and leader of the So
called Conservatives of this State. In his
proclamation of the Goth May, 1865, APP
pointing the writer of this Provisional Gov
ernor of this State, he ordered
"Tbat the District Judge for the Judicial
District in which North Carolina is included,
proceed to hold Courts within said State, in
accordance with the provisions of the act of
Congress. The Attorney General will instruct
the proper officers to LIBEL and BRING
TO JUDGMENT, CONFISCATION AND
SALE, ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO
CONFISCATION,. and enforce the admins
tration of Justice within said State in all
matters within the cognizance and jurisdic-
ton of the Federal Courts" .r.r
5, By theIact of 1862, which is still in force,
two-thirds of all the property in this State
was and is liable to confscation and SALE Was
this order of the President enforced No.
Did the Provisional Governor urge its en-
forcement2 No. Did he not, on the con-
trary, do all he could to restore to the former
owners the forfeited property of corpora
tions 2 He did. Did he not labor, most
earnestly and anxiously, to restore the State
under the Presidents plan, and mean
while. did he not avert. confscation, thus
ordered by the President9 He did, Did
he not, when the Presidents plan failed,
urge the acceptance of the Howard amend
ment, though it excluded him from of
foo q He did Tho Houard or,anl,,o,.
having been rejected, does he not now,
for the sake Of the Union, from his regard
for the great body of the people, and to
avert contiscation, most earnestly urge his
fellow-citizens to accept the present recon
struction measures, though under them per-