The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-02-24

MT. MALONE Sd1Q tu6 congress VI Tilt
United States would not exercise the dies
potic authority desired by this resolution
He favored indefinite postponement.
Mr.. BOWMAN said the State pride of the
Virginians would prevent the wore for an
nexation. He opposed the resolution becaus
1t was absurd and would be unfair and I'M
wise.
Mr.. JARVIS said a great majority o
the people of Norfolk were North Car
lolinians, and before the war three-fourth
of the voters voted in favor of annexation t,
this State While he sympathised with tin
movement, and asked all to vote for it whr
saw no Constitutional objections. it was OPP
posed to bis idea of proper legislation and
he must vote to postpone.
Mr. PoU called attention to the Constitu
tionaI provision that the State lines shall
remain as they are. 100 s @
The motion to postpone indefinitely pre-
vailed--yeas "a, nays 2s. ~ saa9l
Mr., FRENCH voted in the affirmative ant
gave notice that he should move to recon
sitler
On motion of Mr.. ESTES, bill to authoriz,
bond of the State to be properly authen
ticated. was taken up and passed its severa
readings
On motion of Mr.. HARRIS, of Wake, tn,
resolution to raise committee to inyesti
gate the affairs of the Public Treasurer wa,
taken up. - 5e,ss -..i 3;
Mr.. SEYMOUR said we had spent too much
time upon useless investigations, and moved
to postpone indefinitely. '
Mr.. HARRIS, of Wake, said grave charges
had been made against the Public Treasu.
rer, and he should have the investigation
which he asked.
The motion to postpone indefinitely did
not preyail-yeas4, nays 6s. $
Resolution passed third reading.
Bill to authorize the Commissioners of
Franklin county to levy special tax was
taken up, the amendment OF the Finance
Committee to limit the amount to $1,000
adopted, and the bill passed second reading
On motion of Mr.. ESTES, the revenue bill
was taken mp, the question being on the
motion of Mr. DURHAM to reconsider the
vote adopting the amendment limiting tax
alton for State and county purposes to e6a
cents on the 800.
MIR. JARVIS moved to lay on the table.
The motion did not prevail by the follow
ing vote:
YEAs-Messrs. Allison, Armstrong, Blair, Bow
man. Clayton of Pennsylvania, Ellis, Ferebee,
Gibson, Gunter, Hawkins, High, Hodnett, Hoff-
man, Hqmphries, Ingram, Jarvis, Justus of Hen
derson, Kelly of Davie, Long of Chatham, Long
OF Richmond, Mcmillan. Mendenhall, Nichol.
son, Parker, Pou, Profftt, Robinson, Siegrist,
Smith of Allegheny, Smith of Wayne, Stanton,
Sykes, Thompson, Vestal, Whitley, Williams of
Harnett, and Williams OF SampsOn-57.
NArs.Messrs. Ashworth, Barnett, Gambler,
Carson, Carey, Cawthorn, Cherry, Crawford, Ell
lington, Estes, franklin, French, Gahagan, Gil
bert, Graham, Harris of Franklin, Harris of
Wake, Hodgin, Horney, Justice of Rutherford
Kelly of Moore, Leary, Morris, Painter, Pearson,
Proctor, Renfrow, Robbins, Reynolds, Seymour,
Simonds, Snipes, Stilley. Vest, Waldlop, WEIGH,
White, Williamson and Wilson'S. III
The motion to reconsider prevailed by
the following vote 5 10 rrs
YEAs-Messrs. Ashworth, Barnett, Blair, Can
dler Carson, Carey, Cawthorn, Cherry, Filing
ton, Estes, Franklin, French, Gahagan, Graham,
Harris OF Franklin, Harris of Wake, Hendricks,
ford, Kelly of Moore, Kinney, Leary, Malone,
Mayo, Morris, Painter, Pearson, Proctor, Rem
frow, Robbins, Reynolds, Seymour, Simonds,
Stilley, Vest, Waldrop, WEIGH, White, William
son, Wilson and Wiswall-43.
NAYs-Messrs. Allison, Armstrong, Clayton
Gunter, Hawkins, High, Hinnant, Hodnett
Hoffman, HUMPHREYS, Ingram, Jarvis, Justus OF
Henderson, Kelly of Davie, Long of Chatham,
Long of Richmond, McCanless, Mcmillan, Men
denlial, Moore, Nicholson, Parker, Pou, Profit,
Robinson, Shaver, Siegrist. Smith Of Allegheny,
Smith of Wayne. snipes, Stanton, Sykes. 1homp
son, Whitley, Williams ofHarnett, and Williams
of Sampson-40. ff5T,iia ,.ng s. II -au5if .
Mr.. SEYMOUR moved to amend the proyi.
SO by inserting after me word Estate" the
words exclusive of the special taxes levied
by the railroad appropriation bills passed at
this session of the General Assembly SC
that the proviso will read: "a s,tse.,
Provided, That all the taxes for the State and
county purposes imposed upon the real and per
sonal property OF the State, exclusive of the spe
cial taxes levied by the railroad appropriation
bills passed at this session OF the General Assem-
bly,, shall in no case exceed two thirds ofone pei
cent"
MIR. SEYMOUR said. According to sec. 1,
article 6 of the Constitution, the tax on prop
ty is apparently limited by a maximum oil
two dollars on valuation of three dollars
Section provides that the General AS
sembly shall by adequate taxation provide
for payment of interest on the public debt
In this section there is no limitation. The
ordinary principle of statutory interpreta
ton here comes in and enlarges the powers
limited in section Gf they are limited
there) by excepting the case IN section 5.
Bishop, in his work in Criminal Law
volume 1, section 17S, says: "There are of
ten clauses in the same act, which may well
stand together at certain point; but ar
rived there, one must give way. One rule is
the more specific provision controls the
general one. So when a general act gives
tojustices of the peace Jurisdiction over of
fences punishable by fine not exceeding sew
en- dollars, and another act confers on then
jurisdiction over particular offences therein
named punishable by more than seven dol
lars fine, the latter act being specific con
trolls the former F.ss
If the first section bears the Interpretation
put upon it by gentlemen, it clearly conflicts
with section 4, because rate of taxation,
66a cents on the 800, will not pay the in
tercst on the public debt. 5ElH
fit further applies to county taxation, il
not only limits but conflicts with section Z
which allows counties to levy an unlimited
tax for special purposes with the approval
of the General Assembly. I would ask the
gentleman from Johnston to state what he
would advise the county commissioners oil
his county to do in this case. Suppose his
county sued writ of mandamus Issued
from the United States District Court or
dering the commissioners to levy tax oi
two cents on the dollar to pay interest or
the county debt due before the passage oil
the Constitution. Would he advise then
to disregard the writ of mandamas or t.
violate his Interpretation of the Constitu
tion9 would further ask him would-h,
not consider section l as interpreted by hin
in conflict with the Constitution of the Uni
ted States in such q case as injuring con
tract2 If be answers yes, would it not b,
as much violation of the Constitution i
applied to tax for the pavment of Stat