The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-02-03

1
Mr.. SWEAT moved to indefinitely post
pone the resolution. al
| A debate sprung up between Messrs. Sey-a
mour, Downing, Ingram and Harris, of
Wake, covering the same gounds as previous
| debates in the Standard.
Mr.. PoUgreviewed the case at length, read
| ing extracts from the report of the Senate
Investigating Committee, and speaking in
favor of the indefinite postponement.
| Mr. SEYMOUR said he would be willing to
| indefinitely postpone, and leave it that
| these bonds are not valid, were it not for the
consideration that some subsequent Legisla
ture might take up the bonds. He was in
favor of giving the bonds and giving back
the land by express agreement.
The motion to postpone indefinitely pre-
vailed-yeas "A, nays %.
Senate bill to repeal an act to provide for
the employment of convicts and the erection
of penitentiary was taken up, and after
short debate the House adjourned.
SENATE.
TUESDAY, Jan. 26th, 1869.
The Senate met according to adjourn
ment.
The PRESIDENT in the Chair.
tSJournal of yesterday was read and APP
proved.
The report of the committee of investiga-
ton ON fraud and corruption under cOnside-
ration as unfinished business, the question
being Mr. Cooks motion to reconsider the
vote recommtting the report to the COM
mittee
Mr. BARROW moved to lay the motion
on the table, upon which motion Mr.. Cook
called for the yeas and nays.
The motion to reconsider prevailed by the
following vote:
YEAs-Messrs. Barrow, Blythe, caves, Ether
idge, Eppes, Hyman, Moore Of Yancy, Welker
and Wynne-9.
NAYs-Messrs. Bcasey, Beeman, Burns, Col
grove, Cook, Davis, Galloway, Graham Hayes,
Harrington, Jones of Wake, Lassiter. Lindsay,
Martindale, Mechor, Moore of Carteret, Rich,
Shofner and White-19.
The question then required as to the adop-
ton of Mr. ETHERIDGE's resolution, recon-
hitting his report to the committee
Mr.. BARROW wished to know if any Sena-
tor upon the floor could deny any part of
the report
Mr.. RICH could say that the committee
had sworn to make full and impartial re-
port, and, unless the Senate believed the
committee had violated that oath, it should
not recommlt the report.
Mr.. WELLER said it was to give the COM
mittee an opportunity of making their re.
port more full.
Mr. FoRKNER considered it due himself
and due the committee to say what had been
the course pursued by thc-committee For
several days after the committee was organ
ized; they had discussed the rules by which
they should govern the taking of evidence.
and had finally adopted the rules of the
| courts of justice. Consequently, questions
and evidence decided under these rules to be
irrelevant, had been ruled out. Yesterday
it was reported that Senator who had ia
ken an active part as witness, had said
that part of his evidence had been rejected.
He would state to the Senate what that re-
jected evidence was. The gentleman had
been asked what he expected to obtain from
the Senator from Rowan In return for the
twenty dollars he had paid to him. He
had gone on to say that he did not
expect to buy Mr.. Robbins vote, as
he had already voted in his favor, but had
not wanted nor expected to obtain Mr.. Rob
bins influence with his party. This acas
e0ery particle of eridence which had been re-
jected. After hearing the discussion yester.
day, he did not know what the Senate
wanted. If the Senate wanted the commit
tee to state what Mr. Robbins stated before
the com mittee, he (Mr. Forkner) had ex
pected both Mr.. Robbins and Mr.. Stephens
to do it. After the examination of Mr.. Ste
phens the question arose as to MIR. Robbins,
statement, and Mr.. Robbins had said he
would make a full statement before the Sen
ate. The Senate had never accepted the re-
port OF the committee, and consequently the
case of MIR. Robbins had never been before
the Senate, and they had waited until they
could properly set forth the facts in the case.
The committee had not regarded it nee.
essary to state all that had occurred between
MIR. Robbins and members of the committee
IN private conversation They had Thought
IL enough that Mr.. Robbins had said flat
ne was guilty OF the charge preferred against
MIN. lie tMr. Forkner) considered it strange
10 see men say he (Mr. Rohbins) was guilty
ana should be expelled, and Immediately
aiter turn round and say that the evidence
was incomplete, and vote for II recommit-
iheht OF the report He had accepted his
appointment on this committee without
hur'haf. and had always acted impartially
anu WITHOUT reference to party politics. He
mao hoped that no member of the General
assembly would be found to be guilty, and
although Mr. Robbins had been harsh in
many things and had made many hard
statements. he had not been in the least
P!e!udleed, and had considered it to have
nothing at all to do with the case. He con-
sidered 1t highly improper and unnecessary
TO re commit the report.
Mi. DAVIS offered an amendment to the
resolution
Mi. HAYES said that when the report was
hrst made by the committee he had moved
Its adoption. If that motion had been adopt
ed the case would now be properly before
US. 1t had not been DONE however, and the
resolution of the Senator from Montgomery
was not in order. He was in favor OF the
motion to reconsider because he believed the
the report of the committee was full and
fair.
MIR. WELLER thought there was great
Misrepresentation of this case. We were not
Trying MIR. Robbins. After all the testimony
was presented We would be able to Judge