Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1871-12-08

had heard nothing though in Wilmington
the day after il is reported to have been /
held. and for week subsequent. No dis |
orders like those complained of were ever |
known to have occurred in New Hanover. !
Disorders of different character had been |
committed there-colorcd men being whip |
ped for remaining away from the polls, and |
he had never heard of a meeting being !
called to condemn them. The good people !
Of New Hanover needed no defence at his |
hands. Mr.. McClammy, on behalf Of the |
people of New Hanover repudiated this
memorial. The character of that people
placed them above suspicion of presenting
any communication disrcSpectful in its Ian
guage or that would brand as teIOns ana
murderers members of either house. He
hOped the memorial would be rejected.
Price claimed the right Of the people to
assemble and to apply to their representa-
tives for redress Of grievances.
Mr. Speed denied that the paper before
the Senate was Il petition. For one he
would not permit certain people who did
not have courage enough openly to make
charges, to skulll behind the scruf Of party
in obscure political meetings and throw
their filth and POISON at this body. The
Senate was not bound to receiv" such pa
per as this. Let these who make these
charges openly show their hands aad come
forward and make their charges good. The
courts were open-tederal courts, all over
the State, as numerous rs constable courts,
with their swans Of detectives. He pro-
tested against the Senate being used for the
lowest of party purposes.
Mr.. Latham said the Senators from COIln-
ties where these meetings are alleged to
huve been held should share the response
bility of the course pursued. The Senator
who introduced this paper did not seem to
realize his responsibility on that floor. lie
was not only not bound to introduce, but
was rot justified in introducing paper not
proper in its character. 1t was not paper
on which the Senate could act-the names
Of petitioners were not TO it. He moved
| that the paper be returned 10 the Senator
! who presented it.
| Mr.. Graham, of Orange, said it called
upon the Senate to usyrp power forbidden
by the Constitutional called upon that
body either to punish without conviction,
or to try and convict and punish without
/ authority of law. He proposed to modify
his resolution SO as to put on record the
reason for refusing to receive the paper.
Mr.. Murphy thought the paper should be
] read to get at its full contents, and the
Senate could then reject it if found to be
improper i'll its character, and even cenSure
the inroducer.
. Mr.. Robbins, Of Davidson, only regretted
that he did not object to the reading sooner
( than he did, on the statement of its con-
! tents by Price. lie did lot recognize the
right of Senator to introduce under the
/ guise Of the sacred right of petition, any
kink of stuff. The Senate must protect it
self against everything like disrespect.
Price insisted that the paper be read--he
was ready to take the responsibility.
Mr.. McClammy did not concur in the
views of Mr.. Murphy. The reading had
: been stopped at the proper time.
Mr.. Latham COncurTed with the views of
Mr. McClammy. The statement Ct the
introduccr was sufficient to cause the re-
lection of the paper. He moved the pre-
viOus question, but gave way to Mr.. Lin
neV.
Mr.. Linney cOncWTed with Mr.. Murphy
that the paper should be read to ascertain If
it did not contain ali the elements Of pc
titiOn.
Mr.. Flelnming would not be drawn into
doing what was not right by fear of being
considered an endOrser of the acts of viO-
lence referred to by those who concOctCd
these resolutions. He did not endorse any
such acts, but regardless OF what might be
thought to the contrary he intended to do
his duty as a Senator. He never would he
guilty of doing any act to abridge the right
Of petition: but this was no petition. 1t
was a paper demanding the expulsion Of a
even. No faction in New Hanover or else
where had right to dictate to the Senate
what course it should pursue to maintain its
own dignity. If any Senator has charge
to make against another, let him boldly pre-
fer it and demantl an investigation. and not
screen himself behind such paper as this.
Mr.. Jones said that the matter involved
the dignity Of the Senate, and he viewed it
as i'll no way personal to himself, and he
4 Il
would actuatC any friend he had on the
floor in his course in regard to the paper
At the proper time he would have some
thing personal to say. but he how desired
the paper to he read.
Mr.. Robbins, OF Rowan, thought the pa
per ought to have been read and laid on
the table long ago. The motive Of the
OriginatOr5 Was base and not patriotic, but
lie desired to avoid even the appearance of
interfering with the right Of petition.
Tie question was on the reception of the
paper. aud it was rejected by the following
vote:
Those WHO voted i'll the affirmative We're:
Messrs. Albright, Brogden, Cook, Ed
wards, Eppes, Flythe, LYMAN, King, Leh-
man, Linney, Love, McKotter, Murphy,
Norment, Oids, Price, Robbins of Rowan,
and Worth-1S.
Those in the negative:
M0SSrS. Alien, GaItlC, bSaSlcy, Brown,
Council, Currie, Dargan, Flemming, Gra-
ham, Of 4NamanCC, Graham, Of Orange,
Latham, Mauney, McClammy, Merrimon,
Morchead, Robbins, Of Davidson. Skinner,
Speed and Waddel-1p.
All the Conservatives voting aye did SO
to get the paper before the Senate that they
might vote it down.
Mr.. MerrimOn in explanation Of his vote
said, that whether the paper now asked to
be read was received or not, he felt quite
sure, from the statement Of its contents
, made by the Senator who offered it, that
the final vote Of the Senate upon it would
indicate that i'll the opinion of the Senate
its language was disreSpectful TO that body
and especially SO to one Of its members
He regarded this as an attempt to intro
duce party political questions into the de
alterations of the Senate, and he thought
the Senate should steadily set their faces
against every attempt of the kind. The
courts, both federal and State, have juris-
dictiOn of the crimes which the Senator of
fering the paper states are mentioned in it.
and it was proper that such matters should
be investigated there-nOt here, He would
vote against receiving the paper.
Mr.. Jones rose to a question Of personal
privilege. He said.
Mr. President, rise to question of per
sonal privilege. I have taken no part in
the discussion of the motion to reject the
so called petition of certain citizens of New
Hanover county, for l have long since
marked out for myself a course Of action
that was in no way involved in or affected
! by the fate Of this petition. For some time
past a set of malignant miscreants have
= ! been aSSailinp nv name through the nedi-