Wilmington journal., 1868-04-03
TCOArAIUNICATED.1
Col. VIII, B. RCdman.

with esteem and respect IF mistake not
YOU were an elector for the State at larg
on the Breckenridge and Lane ticket II
mistake not, you admitted the right Oh Sc
cession, and favored its exercise IN the con
tingency that happened. You joined tn
army and raised an artillery company
which yop commanded at Newbern. 1ol
were afterwards Quartermaster to the Brig
ade OF the lamented BRANCH. You ,wer'
afterwards Judge in General ANDERSON
| Corps Court, and thus, if not all the while
in line Of battle, yet all the while IN th'
field. You staid with us to the last, unit
we were SO reduced that you had to make
your way on the memorable retreat from
Petersburg on a mule. I cannot say yor
were at the surrender at Appomattox, for
did not see you there. You returned home
and behaved as other Confederate officers
did-attended to your own business, pos
sessing the good will and esteem of all true
Southern men, and the respect, at least o1
all others Just before the last election
you became q candidate for the Convention
with one Stilley, an avowed Republican
DISPOSED to allow wide latitude in con.
duct pertaining to matters since the war, to
those men who had fought through the war,
I withstood the opinions of those who
thought you had joined the Radicals. Ny
faith in your antecedants was such that l
could not believe it. Especially was [ com
forted when was informed that +. i. Sat
terthwaite, Esq, was opposed to you.
Upon matters pertaining in any way to the
war could not think you were wrong and
he was right
Time rolled on--you and Stilley were
elected The Convention met and Con-
stitution was framed. You were no OBJ
scure member of that Convention. You
are now and were then the candidate OF
the dominant party in it for a seat upon
the Supreme Court bench. So far as l
could gather from the published proceed
ings of that body, you identified yourself
thoroughly with the Radicals. You voted
for Cowles for President In every in
stance almost, certainly in every main ques-
ton, you went with the Radicals. You did
indeed make a feeble opposition to the
election of Judges by the people. In no
account of the proceedings have l yet seen
any mention made of any protest from you
against any one of the many outrages at
tempted to be perpetrated by that Conyen-
ton. You did not protest against the clause
of the new Constitution allowing marriages
between whites and negroes. You did not
protest against the clause allowing whites
and blacks tomuster together, and allowing
whites to be oficered by blacks nor
against the one allowing white and black
children to attend the same public schools;
nor against that allowing white children to
be bound to black masters ; nor against
that allowing negroes to be guardians for
white wards None of these outrages
against your color and race were sufficient
to excite to harmless, peaceable protest
even, the blood that made you take up
arms against the United States, or that
made you sit in judgment on the lives of
those who deserted the Confederate States.
I have, however, just seen two commu-
nications from you in the STANDARD, in re-
gard to these matters. [ propose to ex
anime them briefly, and to ask you n few
questions relative thereto. They are both
to the people of North Carolina;
the first being signed by yourself alone.
In this you declare the assertion, ''that the
new Constitution has in it provisions tend
ing to produce social equality between the
white and colored races" is entirely I'M
founded - L" that the charges against the
Republican party in the Convention on
these subjects are palpably false.'' Why
did you not deny the charge on behalf of
the Republicans out of the Convention as
we'll as on behalf of those in it =? Your de-
nial is based upon the fact, first, that the
Constitution does not, in so many words,
"require" Gtalics your OWN white and
black men to muster in the same company.
You assert that now, as heretofore, the
whole matter is in the hands of the Legis-
lature Do you intend by this to create
the impression that your Constitution gives
to the Legislature the same power, and no
more, in this matter than was given by the
Constitution of 1885 A Constitution that
recognized negroes as slaves, and slaves as
property that in express terms excluded
free negroes even from participation in a
Government that recognized as citizens
white men only
You seem to lay much stress upon the
word "require." Doyou deny that your
Constitution dlloWS this thing? Do you
assert that the Constitution of 1886 allowed
it? I'd. That the Constitution does not
"require white and black children to go
to school together. Do you deny that it
allows it ? Do you assert that the Consti-
tuition Of 1885 allowed it Sd. You deny
that your Constitution fur0yS marriages be-
tween whites and negroes. Do you deny
that it allows it ? Do you assert that the
Constitution Of 1885 allowed it? Have
you not already favored such marriages by
legaIizipg, in more than one case, marriage
between white and black Were there
not amendments offered In Convention to
this Constitution expressly prohibiting and