The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1867-03-16
SPEECH OF GOV. BROWN.

Il
Supreme Court. But what would such
IN appeal be. worth? Do you not re-
member q few days ago, if the newspa
pers report correctly, that Gov. Pier
point, of Virginia, made requisitior
upon Gov. I'enton of New York, fol
the surrender of violator of the laws
of Virginia? Gov. Fenton refused, on
the ground that Virginia was not legal.
ly State, and that the question was
carried up before the Supreme Court.
who held it to be inadmissible, because
a political one. 1t is also said the
Supreme Court has resolved to decide
no more political questions, but to leave
them to the other departments. As
the issues involved in the Sherman mil
itary bill are political ones, it is hardly
to be expected they will be decided by
that tribunal. You will also remember
that Congress has passed an act that
whenever vacancies occur on the SUI
preme bench, they shall not be filled
until the number be reduced to seven.
As the Supreme Court is now CONSTITUTE
ed, majority ofthe Justices have ruled
the test oath unconstitutional; but
three of them, Justices Nelson, Grier
and Wayne, who concurred in this
ruling are now old men, physically in
firm, and cannot be expected long to
occupy their positions. When their
positions are vacant, majority of the
Supreme Court will most likely enter
tain political opinions in accord with
the party now inpower. [ think, then,
that the South has but little relief III
the present emergency to hope for, from
that august tribunal. Their present
docket, as | was informed when in
Washington, is sufficient to engage their
attention for the next two years, and it
will be in their power to put the cases
which may arise under the Sherman
military bill to the foot of the docket,
and thus avoid decision till reached in
their order.
During the whole of that time you
will be under the military bill as it
passed Congress.
1 know that 1 am slandered and mis-
represented, and my motives attacked
for the course have felt 1t my duty to
pursue on this question; but l pass by
all imputations of the kind as the idle
wind that [ regard not. Applause.
They say | am not consistent. | admit
it. And who of us is? | was born in
South Carolina, in Mr.. Calhoun's Dis
trict; was reared in his political faith,
and sincerely believed that the doctrines
which he taught were the true princi-
Piles of this Government. But the
sword has decided against the doctrines
of that political school, and we ought
TO acquiesce. | was reared a seces-
sionist, but bow to the decision of the
august tribunal that dictates between
States and nations in the last resort.
I am not, therefore, a secessionist now.
Applause. Therefore, gentlemen, l
am not consistent. l do not claim it.
The man who sets himself up to be con-
sistent at all times, and under all cir
cumstances, in my judgment, acts very
unwisely.
That which is expedient to-day as a
matter of policy, may not be expedient
to morrow. AS an illustration: would
anybody in this audience, ten years ago,
have thought it expedient that negroes
should be allowed to testify in courts
of justice, where white man was con-
cerned? Clearly not. Then they were
slaves; but since that time they have
been made as free as you and I. Would
anybody, ten years ago, have thought
it expedient that negro should be al
lowed to sue a white man? Clearly
not. But now the case is different.
Then he had a master to look after his
rights now he must look after them
himself, and he must have them. and If
they are denied him, he must have the
right to sue for them. Applause.
Then we are not consistent.-Who is
there that, ten years ago, would have
advocated the abolition of slavery in
this State? But now that measure has
been adopted by unanimous vote.
An ordinance to that effect has been
passed by the Convention of the State,
and | do not remember whether it had
a single opponent. Every man in
Georgia, then, by his representative,
has voted for the abolition of slavery,
and every one who has been pardoned
under the amnesty proclamation of the
President, has laid his hands upon the
Holy Evangelists and taken an oath
that he would abide by it. Why did
you do it? Because the fortunes of war
were against you. The tribunal Of the
sword had decided against you. Were
any of you consistent then? I think
not.
Is man degraded because he sub
mits to this bill? My friends, let us
reason together upon this subject. 1t
is, indeed, very humiliating, especially
to some of us who are DISTINGUISHED by
the bill; but is there anything degrad-
ing in it? When Napoleon Bonaparte,
who fought as CALAMITY as ever man
fought, was overwhelmed by superior
he surrendered to the COM
bined powers of Europe. He was hui
but he was not degraded. !
Was General Robert E. Lee degraded |
when, after his forces had melted away.
phalanx by phalanx, he surrendered to |
General Grant ? Let us look to this
lllustrious example. You say that, al
though you have surrendered, you will !
not do what the conqueror requires.
You will simply do nothing, and sub
init to whatever follows; but General |
Lee did not do this. After he had sur
rendered his sword to General Grant
who, it is reported, with magnanimity
that has seldom been equaled and never
returned it to him with ex-
DreSSiOns of admiration on5 ,,,,,.l