Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1870-01-21
From the Raleigh Sentinel.
hEGPONDENCE
COL. SWEET TO JUDGE TOURGEE.
RALEIGH, N. c., Jan. Sd, 1870.

RALEIGH, N. c., Jan. Sd, 1870.
Judge Il. W Toswgee, Greensboro, ". c.:
DEAR SIR:-Your communication of the
22d ult., was received after some delay, oc-
casioned by my absence from the city. In
so far as you therein disclaim ever having
reflected upon my integrity aud good faith
in what have said, from time to time, in
the Senate, about the subject matter of
this controversy, las the Winston Sentinel
represented you as having dOne,) it is en-
tirel satisfactory.
While you also relieve me from the i'm
putation of duplicity in my course, in the
Constitutional Convention, upon the term
of Office of members of this General AS
sembly, you make a series of statements
in reference thereto, which I cannot, in
justice to myself, permit to pass I'M
noticed.
/, of course, accept your declaration, that
it was your honest, deliberate purpose to
enlarge said term, but assure you that
have not the faintest recollection of ever
having heard you aVow such purpose,
and l am positive that such a purpose
was never developed in debate upon my
report
You say that for the purpose of secur-
ing such enlargement you prepared Sec
ton which you submitted to Col. Heaton.
and that he called my attention to it.
know nothing of your having submitted
such section to Col. Heaton; [ do know,
! however, that he never called my attention
| to any such section.
You say that when the report was under
consideration, upon third reading, while
some one was addressing the Convention,
yourself, Col. Heaton and myself retired
into the lobby behind the Presidents desk
and talked it over-that Mr.. Heaton insist
ed that it ''would never do"-''would ruin
| the Constitution" &C., &c.
J My answer to these assertions is that l
lave no recollection of every having re-
| tired into the lobby to consult with you and
Col. Heaton on that Or any other subject,
and unhesitatingly concur with Col. Hea
ton in the declaration that no such CONSUL
tation ever occurred. (See Col. Heaton's
letter, dated Washington, D. C, Deem
Der %, 1862
| You say that I then ''suggested an
amendment to section % (section 81 in the
Constitution instead of the one" you pro-
posed; that you looked it over and chang
ed word or two, by inserting, as you say,
the word ''ensuing." I have already de-
MED any knowledge of your proposed
amendment, and as [ understand you to
alleee that all this occurred OF the time of
| the consultation which you assert took
place, but which Col. Heaton and myself
dony, second denial is unnecessary.
! I am unable to account for your state
m emit, except upon the hypothesis that
your recollection has been disturbed by
| he action of the Convention upon the
terms of our Supreme and Superior Court
Judges.
You remember that largo and respect
able minority in the Convention was OPP
posed to an elective judiciary-that the
Committee on the Judiciary, of which you
and [,were members, Was instructed to pro-
vide for an elective jndiciary-that this
having been determined upon, those OPP
posed to an elective judiciary sought to
have as long term as possible, and that
it was the purpose of the Convention to
rior Court Judges first elected. This was
we'll understood, fully discussed, and una
! quivocally accomplished.
1t is not improbable that you have mis-
applied this enlargement Of term to this
General Assembly.
After the Committee on the Legislature,
its organization, &C., of which was Chair
term of Office for members of the General
Assembly, the suggestion was made by my
self in Committee, that the first General
Assembly would probably be elected soon
after our adjournment, and the question
was asked, "What shall be done about
their term of Office %
My Committee very naturally and prompt
| lY aSSonted to the proposal TO ada TO the Or
binary term of two years the time inter-
vening between their election and the 1st
Thursday of the succeeding August Sec
ton % of my report (see Convention Jour-
nal page 1867 was framed by me for the
purpose of accomplishing such result
Upon the third reading of my report, sec.
% was stricken out, the Journal says, (erro-
neously think) upon my motion, and a
substitute adopted which became sec. ~ OF
art. 2 of our Constitution.
| I think the Journal is in error IN report
| ing me as the author of the substitute for
the following reasons, viz
1st. I was the author of the section
stricken out
ID. I was originally and continuously in
favor of the term expiring on the LIST Thurs
day of August, 1870, as provided in my
section, which was stricken out, which fact
I doubt not, many members of my Com
mittee remember.
Sd. I never heard any delegate publicly
! or privately avow any other purpose.
| There is no latitude of construction suf-
| ficiently broad to harmonic sections ~
and 90 of article 2 of our Constitution.
The conflict is AN evident blunder. This
blunder would not have been perpetrated
if there had been, as you assert, purpose
of accomplishing such enlargement OF
| term.
| l. was not until after the adjournment OF
the Convention that / discovered this con-
fiict, and it occasioped regret as sincere