The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1868-08-12
AUGUST 12. 1868.


Mr. s5ymsiir appealed from, the decision ofthe
Clair, as made en- yesterday. When the main
question was called, only thing could be
DONE viz TO vote cousecutively upon the motions
before the body.
The Chair said that in accordance with his de
cision Of yesterday, the motions should he put
according to the manner in which they were
made,-1st, to adjourn; 3D. to lay on the table,
and 3rd, "slalf the main question be now put"
Mr.. Argo proceeded to address the House.
when Mr.. Seymour withdrew his appeal.
Mr.. Argo renewed his motion to adjourn.
Mr.. Durham moved to lay that motion on the
table, and called for the yeas and nays.
After discussion as to whether or not q motion
could be made TO lay melton to adjourn on the
table, the Speaker decided such motion in order.
The House decided to lay the motion to ad-
joprn on the table. Yeas, IS nays, 25.
Mr. Argo moved to reconsider the vote by which
tffe House reiSsed 20 lay the motion to 6djouri'
on the table.
sThe Chair ruled the motion out of order.
Mr.. Argo appealed from the decision of the
Chair, and upon that appeal asked for the yeas
and nays, which we're ordered.
The decision of the Chair was sustained. Yeas
60; nays 26
Mr.. Durham announced that the hour of 12 NJ.
had arrived, and called up the special order for
that hour.
The Chair ruled that the bill under considera-
tion took precedence of the special order for IL
o'clock.
Mr.. Durham appealed from that decision, and
called Tor The yeas and nays.
Mr.. Seymour arose to u point Of order, which
was, that motion in order pending the
| previous question.
The Chair adhered TO his ruling Of yesterday.
Mr.. Seymour appealed from the decision of the
| Chair, and asked for the yeas and nays, which
| were ordered.
Tie Speaker said If the appeal were sustained,
| his decision of yesterday would be reversed in
accordance with his own ideas and intentions.
The decision OF yesterday was not sustained.
| Yeas 2T nays So.
The question being OF the passage OF the bill
| on It's third reading, the following explanations
| of votes were given:
| MIR. Durham: The bill was unconstitutional,
| and would entail an expense of one million OF
| dollars upon the people On tomorrow he
should enter his protest against it. He should
| vote no" .
Mr.. Gatling: First, he knew the bill was m
constitutional; second, it was wholly anncces-
sary third, it was too expensive; and fourth, it
was excessively Incompatible with the Constitu-
| tiun. He should vote "no."
Mr.. Harris, of Wake: II the bill, as affirmed
by its opponents, were unnecessary, no expense
would thereby be incurred as the militia only
received pay When in activs service He should
vote "aye."
Mr. Hodgin: He should vote for the bill,
though he had favored full discussion ofits pro-
| visions.
Mr. Ingram The bill was, 1st, constitutional;
2nd it was necessary; and 3rd, if the views of
its opponents were correct to its necessity, no
expense wOuld be incurred He should vote
"ayc" t- ..
Mr. Justice, of Rutherford: He did not wholly
approve of the bill as it stood, and thought the
militia could be organized on much less Obec-
tional grounds He should vote no." but alter
wards changed his vote.
Mr.. Long, OF Chatham: The only objection he
had to the bill. was, that italowed the Aujutant
| General S100 per month, whereas he thought the
sum should be $50. Heshould vote "aye."
Mr.. Lcary: He should vote 'no" on account
of the 3rd and 18th sections, ana for tue reason
that he had not he9@ allowed to discuss the bill.
I Sal. Nici.olson He should vote mo- Tor the
reasons, LIST, the bill was absolutely unnecessa-
ry; I'd, it was unconstitutional; 3rd, it imposed
expenses tia! the people were not able to bear
and 4th, it was inimical to the spirit OF repub-
lican form OF government to keep L standing ar
my iii time OF peace.
Dir. Pou: lie should vote against the hill be-
cause his own consistency required him to do so.
During the CANVASS lie had met with constant
denial the charge that the militia would be'arm-
| ed. While lie would not adhere to his promises,
| if at the expense OF the public interests, yet he
had seen nothing since that time TO change his
convictions. In the second place, he saw no ne
cessity for the bil and he would not feel right
to vote for BILL when he deemed it unnecessa-
| ry. lit was necessary, cheaper and better
way was to call upon the President for troops
He believed the bill to oe detrimental to the in
tcrests of the State, and calculated TO raise the
very food on which it feeds.
| hT. IfUCICT. iic SilOuiu fOlC no,
the Conservatives were not allowed the right to
discuss the bill. He afterwards changed his vote
Tor the reason that he believed the bill would
have contrary effect to that mentioned by his
colleague, Mr. Sinclair.
Mr. Parker: lie should vote "no," because
the militia could be organized on a cheaper
plan; and also because it would injurc the Re-
publican party.
Mr.. Rhodes should vote "no," because he con-
Sidercd the bill unnecessary, and also because the
civil authorities could suppress disorders.
Mr. Smith of Allegheny, opposed the bill be-
cause it provided no remedy against illegal ar
| rest by the militia
Mr. Smith of Martini The bill was uuneccs-
sary; would engender the object it was intended
to prevent, and would injure the Republican
party. He should vote "no."
Mr. Stilley said he should vote faye" because
no better bill had been proposed. He entered
his protest against of its provisions, viz
that which empowered mitiaman to arrest and
hold one in custody without authority from a
civil officer.
Mr. SWEET: He should vote "no,' because 1st
he believed so miliJiamen to each member OF the
House to be too small Il number; Sd, because oi
section IS, which requires the two races TO serve
in different sections; and Sd, because the Con
stitnt0n provided for the organization OF the mi
litia on different and less expensive plan.
Mr.. Sykes voted g no,' on account OF the eN
pcnsc, and because the Constitution provided loi
the organization of the militia.
Mr.. Sinclair voted "no," because 1st he be
HeNeu tnc passage OF the Dlil Wouiu lllJurc tHs
colored man; I'd, the bill was unconstitu
tional; Sd, it was inimical to the Constitution o
the United States, which instrument makes ;
residence of only three days necessary to con
siitute one citizen, while the bill. says every
mtiaman shall he an cicctOr; and lastly, be
cause 1t was equal TO 10000 votes for Seymour
) and Blair.
Mr.. Barnett could not see the importance o
the bill, from tie arguments oi its friends ii h'
could, he would cheerfully support it, regardless
of the objections urged by the Conservatives
: While unable to speak of the feeling existing il
! other parts OF the State, hc could say that th
! county of Person needed nothing of the kind
The people need rest; they wanted quiet, ant
desired to blot out the last scmblance of the lat
war. He believed the passage of the bill would
. result in opening afresh the wounds of the war
would ring from the sea shore to the mountains
Could members defend it? He feared not Ill
then, with the present lights before him. SHOULD
vote "nO."
t Mr. Williamson voted "aye'' because the bill
was the best that could be got. His only objec
tion that it provided to pay the militia
, The question being on the passage of the bill
on its third reading the vote was decided in tn
| affirmative, as follows:
f YEAs-Messrs. Argo Ashworth, Blair, Barnes
Banner, Carson, Gambler, Clayton OF Chowan
Cherry, Crawford, Cawthorn. Dixon, Downing
| Ellington, Estes, Foster, Franklin, Forkncr
. Gahagan, Gunter, Gilbert, Graham, Hutchings
Harris of Wakc Hoffman, IIorney, Hodgin
| Hayes, Hendricks Ingram, Justice OF Rutherford
, Kinney, Kelly of Moore, Long of Chatham
Latin, Morrill,, McCanless, MorinS, Proctor
) Pearson, Robbins, Ragland, Renfrow, Reynolds
Rea Shlley, Simonds, Seymour, Stevens
, Siegrist, Vestal, Vest, Wilson, Williamson
WiIkie, Wiswall and Waldrop-57.
NAYs-Messrs. Ames, Armstrong, Bodaie, Ba,