The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1868-11-25


giving, as reason, that he was banned.
Why, then, did he become candiateY He
was in favor of taking final action in this
matter without delay.
Mr.. REsPAss had heard no positive evil
tlence given yet to show that Mr.. Avery was
banned. If he had not taken the oath to
support the Constitution of the United
States he had never heen an officer at all,
and ifshe had never been an officer, lie could
not he banned. As to Mr.. Avery's not reg
istering last spring, he might have felt him
self banned by the reconstruction laws. We
were now acting under the Howard Amend
ment, not under the reconstruction laws
He thought Mr.. Avery entitled to his seat,
and should vote to give it to him.
Mr. GALLOWAY was opposed to the adj
mission of Mr.. Avery, and did not consider
him entitled to his seat. '.9fe
Mr. REsPAss replied.
Mr. Rich thought it singular that Mr..
Avery's case should be singled out while
other like cases were not troubled. He
should be very sorry to see the Senate re-
cede from its recent action. 1t would be
only twenty days before the case would
come up again, as matters now stood, which
was sooner than new election could be
held. He hoped that the motion to recon
slider would not prevail. ]al
Mr. ROBBINS considered this simple
question of law. He recognized the How
ard Amendment as part of the Constitution
of the United States, and be was under allie
glance to support it, and if it could be
proved that Mr.. Avery was banned by the
Howard Amendment he would vote for his
exclusion. He thought it the duty of Sena
tors to rise a!nyc party in this matter and
decide it according to law and justice He
begged to remind them that they must lay
aside all questions as to who or what Mr.
Avery was, and simply decide whether or
not he was legally entitled tc his seat. The
only question was, whether Mr.. Avery was
banned by the Howard Amendment or not
The reconstruction laws had nothing to do
in this matter: they had accomplished the
purpose for which they were designed; this
State was in the Union, and they did not
apply to the present state of affairs.
We were now under the Constitu
tion of the United States, and he
thanked God for it, for it was the best gov
eminent the world ever saw if properly adj
ministered and he had never thought other
wise. 1t was objected that Mr.. Avery had
produced no proof beyond his readiness to
make oath, that he had not taken the oath
to support the Constitution oil the United
States How had many of the Senators
he saw around him obtained their seats
By their own declaration that they had
never held office before the war or taken an
oath to support the Government of the Uni
ted States. Mr.. Avery now came In the same
manner and made the same declaration they
did, and he hoped no one would doubt his
vcracity, or insult his constituents by pre-
suming that they would send an improper
man here. The Senate had believed Others
why should they not believe him9 Why
impeach the honor of North Carolinians by
declaring officially that it could not be-
lieve them upon oath9 If Mr.. Avery did
not take the proper oath no blame could lie
attached to him. Grant that the men who
swore him in did not administer the proper
oath, and that that did not ban him. But
that was not the question before the Senate.
The question was, did he take an oath
1t was presuming too much to say that he
took any oath. IF Mr.. Avery had never
taken the oath of Office according to law he
had never been an officer at ALL This was
a legal proposition that could not be refuted.
North Carolina seeded on the Goth of May
1861. The Howard Amendment said "be-
fore the war; The war was a month old
before Mr.. Avery was even appointed to the
| Office which was now claimed to ban him, it
having commenced April 18th 1861. How
then could the Howard Amendment apply
to this case and how could Mr.. Avery be
banned by it, when he did not take the
oath before the ware When Mr. Avery pre-
sented his credentials here the presumption
was that he was entitled to his seat, and if
that right is disputed the burden of proof
must be made to- rest upon those who dis
pute it, and if the Senate excluded him it
must show the reason why it did so. The
recent political questions had been settled
and all should work in harmony to build up
the interests of North Carolina We had
now fixed government and he for one
would swear allegiance to it. Let US get
| out of party ruts and determine all matters
solely by justice. He did not act according
to party in this case; if proof could be
| shown that Mr.. Avery was banned he would
certainly vote for his exclusion, but no snch
| proof had been given, and unless it was
shown the Senate would not be warranted
in depriving him OF his seat, and would do
manifest injury both to him and his constit-
uents. If the motion to reconsider was in
tended to favor Mr.. Avery, he approved of
it and thought the Senate would do itself
honor by voting him in, but if it was in
tended to reconsider that he might be voted
out entirely, he was opposed to it. ,s.
Mr.. BARROW inquired whether Mr.. Avery
was registered voter in the spring of 1868.
Mr. ROBBINS did not know and did not
consider it had anything to do with the
matter. The tests applied by the recnn-
| struction laws went further than those APP
piled by the Howard amendment, and under
them many different tests were required to
register as voter. These tests were not the
tests of the Howard amendment but many
others besides, and many men who had not
been allowed to register were eligible to Of
| flee. All that men in New York or Massa-
chusetts had to do to hold office was to show
| that they were not banned under the Howard
amendment. 1t was the same here. North
Carolina was in the Union, and her citizens
possessed the same rights as the citizens of
other States. Old reconstruction law tests
could not now be applied here. sq ~
Mr.. DAVIS would ask the honorable gen.
tleman if the Senate was not the proper
| Judge of the election and qualification of
/ its own members. ~ 1@4Ii ~ 't"+l
Mr. ROBBINS conceded that it was but it
had no right to apply old reconstruction
law tests now that the State was in the
Union. No tests that were not applied in
New York or Massachusetts could be APP
piled here. These acts had expired by
limitation and their tests were no longer
binding upon us. ia8sfd t.''i-i9i E!s's
sd The PRESIDENT here stated that all debate
upon the merits OF the question was out Of