Vholctfo. 683.
Tarborough, (Edgecombe County, A C.J Saturday, March 30, 1839
vol xrxo. i3.
fit 2 TxrforoiiZ'i Vres, .
BT GEORGE HOWARD,
t, nublished weekly at two Dollars and Fifty
n , oer vear, if paid m advance or, 7W
n 1L at the expiration of the subscription year.
ffSi period less than a year, twcnty-Jln
1 tvet month. Subscribers are at liberty t6
JiscontW at any time, oil giving notice thereof
Tnavin arrears-those residing at a distance
t invariably pay in advance, or give a respon
se reference in this vicinity.
Advertisements not exceeding a square will be
..j One. Dollar the first insertion, and 25
nreneu . T , .
rnr pvprv continuance.
Longer advertise
Cenw ' pAllrt flrra nrl T.i.
... in like proportion. Cou
J I advertisements 25 per cent, higher. Ad
wrtisements must be marked the number of in
L tions required, or they will be continued until
Otherwise ordered and charged accordingly.
Letters addressed to the Editor must be post
paid or they may not be attended to.
MERCHANT TAILOR,
RESPECTFULLY informs his friends
and I he public generally, that he has
received his
Fall and Winter
Conning of supeifine blue and black
Cloths,
I. viable green and brown do.
Sniped and corded Cassimeres of various
colors
Plain bliick and figured V.-shngs,
black and figured Velvets,
Pliin and fignred Vsdeiici.-is
,lo do Marseilles,
Plain black and fancy Slocks, Umbrellas
isf)"S Collars, Gloves, Suspenders, &c.
All of which hp will sell low for-Ca;h,
nrnn a short Credit lo punctil l CUslrtrhers.
lie irtils by due attention to business,
ami hi long experience therein, lo gtvi
die s-jiNfaciion to thoe who may favor
hi-n with their orders.
lie aln will keep constantly on hand
an assortment of
Rendu made Clothings
TarHoro', Nov. 5'h, IS3S.
II. Johnston,
B
KliS leave to inform his customers
aiid the public, that he has
Htceired hi Fall Supply of
GO IPS
0' all the mnst Fashionable Articles,
Suitable for Gentlemen's wear.
SUCH AS
Sqieifine Cloths, Cassuneres & Vesting,
H aver rlntlj and Lion ?kiii, for overcoats,
fomblet for cloaks,
S'cM-ks, Collar?! Bosoms, and black silk
Ciavats,
Suspenders, of superior quality.
He a so has a frit)
Fine black In aver Hals,
Of the latest lashion. (lentlerr.en wish
'nR'o purchase Goods in his line, will do
w'ell to call and examine before they pur
chaS as he is detet mined to sell low for
or on a short credit to punctual
cusiomers.
Tarboro', Nov. 1 5th, 1838.
At the cheap Cash Store.
JAMES WEDDEL.L,,
AS now on hand a large and general
assortment of
H
Groceries, Hardware cutlery
cw. Glass and Earthenware, Col
m Baling Hope, Twine, &-c $c
DroCh he ers CneaP or Cash, country
Puuce, or on a short credit to piinclual
J Nov. 24th, 1838.
jp
'-in in, TrTl
Cotton Yam.
subscriber has just received n
Tntiiy of Cotton Yarn, different
C. ' ,rnm ,he ncloTy al ,he Fi,,u 'rai
, Y1" 'Ch he will ell on reasonable
cuinmodaiing terms.
T . GEO. HOWARD.
Woro', February 2J.
MR. DUNCAN'S REPLY TO MR.
STANLY.
From the Globe.
On the 16th and 17th Januiry last, I
made some rennrks in the House of Repre
sentatives on the resolution to appoint a
committee to inquire into the defalcation
of Samuel Swartwout, which remarks were
soon after published in the Globe, and
have since .been published in pamphlet
form. Mr. Stanly of North Carolina fol
lowed me in reply. At the commenceme it
of his remarks, he insinuated that I was an
Abolitionist. I promptly pronounced the
insinuation a base falsehood, and a foul de
traction, whether it dwelt Upon the lips of
the unprincipled calumniator, or floated on
the breeze in the corrupt, poisonous, and
slanderous, Federal sheets of the day.
My intention at the time was to insult the
member. So he understood me. So all
who heard me understood me My mean
ing was that the membar w.s a base liar
and a foul calumniator; and the only rea
son that he was indirect It thus denounced,
was because the rules of the House prohib
ited me from doing it directly, without
laying myself liable to its censure. All
this, too, was well understood at the time;
and for this intended and well understood
insult, I held myself in readiness to give
the member any satisfaction which he
might have the moral courage lo seek.
But no disposition to seek for redress was
manifested within the time I had a right to
expect it, or within the time it might be
expected, from a man who had any regard
for his honor or reputation. So I was dis
posed to let the member go for what 1 be
lieve him to be, a mean poltroon and a base
liar; and which I believe he may at any
lime, and in any place, be pronounced with
impunity.
Some ten or twelve days after making
the remarks to which I allude, 1 saw a
communication in the National Intelligen
cer, occupying the space of four or five
columns of that paper, purporting to be
"the reply of Mr. Stanly, of North Caro
lina, to Dr. Duncan." I was surprised to
see a reply of such length. I was not pres
ent all the time the member was speaking.
I was present as I have stated, when he
finished, and his last remark was, "I have
detained the House no more than fifteen
minutes." I thought he was correct as to
the time he occupied the floor (a short
time in which to make a speech occupying
four and a half columns of one of the largest
newspaper sheets.)
Leave is sometimes asked of the House
to write out a speech which there may not
be time to make, and the privilege is gent-rally
granted This is an accommodation
to the country, whose business is permitted
to progress. Hut, in all cases of this kind,
leave of the House ought to be obtained,
and a notice of the fact ought to accompany
the written speech. It is rrieatl and basely
dishonorable, and it is a falsehood and a
fraud practised upon the community, to
promulgate a speech purporting to have
been delivered on the floor of Congress
which never was there spoken, on any oth
er conditions than by the leave and with the
notice which I have named.
I say that the speech published in the
National Intelligencer of the 4th instant,
purporting to be "the remarks of Mr. Stan
ly, in reply to Dr. Duncan j" never was de
livered in the House of Representatives nor
any other place, except through the pollu
ted columns of the corrupt, Bank bought,
servile and degraded sheet, through which
it makes its appearance; therefore, its very
caption or title contains a falsehood, and a
mean attempt at fraud and imposition upon
the public. Its whole body is a tissue of
. . . . i . i : ; . :
misrepresentations, unmaniy insinuations,
and low vulgarity, worthy of the man that
can be charged with base falsehood and
foul detraction with impiinity; In order
to know that I could not be mistaken as to
the time the member occupied in his at
tempt to reply to me, and to ascertain some
other facts, of which I will soon speak I
addressed the following notes, to the gentle
men whose names are prefixed, to which I
received the subjoined answers:
House of Representatives,
February 9, 1S39.
Sir: If you were present on the 17th Jan
uary, 1839, when Mr. Stanly of North
Carolina replied to some remarks made by
me on the resolution to appoint a commit
tee to inquire into the defalcations of Samu
el Swartwout, will you hare the goodness
to state what time Mr. Stanly occupied in
making his reply? Whether Mr. Slade of
Vermont did, or did not, hand him (Stanly)
a paper containing my answer to some Ab
olition interrogatories, and whether Mr.
Slade did or did not, point out Mr. Stan
ly such 'passages of said answer as Mr.
Stanly exhibited in his reply.
Your attention to this, will much oblige
your friend, A. DUNCAN.
Hon. H. I. Turney.
House of Representatives,
Febuary , 1S39.
Sir: I hive received your note of the 9th
of this month, and in answer thereto have
the honor to state, that I was in my seat in
the House of Representative on the 1 7th
of January last. 1 heard your speech de
livered in the House on that day, on the
sjbject to which you refer, and the reply
thereto of the Hon. Mr. Stanly of North
Carolina, on the same day. I did not tax
my recollection with the precise time occu
pied by Mr. Stanly in making his reply,
but my impression is it did not exceed fif
teen or twenty minutes.
In the course of Mr. Stanly's remarks,
I understood him to make allusions to a let
ter which he alleged had been writen by
you on the subject of Abolitionism. He
regretted that he had not the letter to read
to the House. In a few seconds after this,
my attention was directed to Mr. Stanly
by some gentlemen who sat near me, and
who c died my attention to ihe fact, that
Mr. Slade was prompting Mr. Stanly, by
pointing out to him certain partsof your let
ter, to be read by him to the House. I
have no knowledge how or from whom
Mr. Stanly received the letter above refer
red to.
I am, sir, respectfully yours, &c.
H. L. TURNEY.
Hon. A. Duncan.
House of Representatives,
Feb. 9. 1839.
Sir: Were you in the House on the 17th
January, 1S39, when I made some remarks
on the resolution providing for the appoint
ment of a committee to inquire into the
defalcations of Samuel Swartwout, or
were you present when Mr. Stanly, of
.Morlh L-arolina, replied to me? It so, will
you be so good as to state, first, if Mr.
Slade of Vermont did, or did not, hand him
(Stanly) a paper containing my letter in
answer to some Abolition interrogatories?
Second, state whether Mr. Slade did, or did
not, stand by him (Stanly) and prompt or
point out such passages of said letter as
were exhibited in his reply? Third, will
you state what time Stanly occupied in his
replv, and whether or not the greater por
tion of that time was occupied in reading
portions ot the letter above alluded to?
Your attention to this, will much oblige,
Yours, &c. A. DUNCAN.
Hon. J. tV. By num.
Washington City,
10th Feb. 1839.
Sir: In reply to your note of the 9th in
stant, and the questions therein contained,
I can only say that I was present, and
heard the concluding part of your remarks
on the occasion alluded to; after which,
I saw Mr. Stanly rise, and heird his reply.
1 did not see Mr. Slade hand Mr. Stanly
the paper containing your letter on the
subject of Abolition. Mr. Slade has in-
lormed me since, however, that he did
hand Mr. Stanly such a paper at the time
alluded to by you.
While Mr. S. was speaking, I saw Mr.
Sl ide standing by, or behind Mr. Stanly,
pointing, as 1 thought, at different para
graphs in the paper held by Mr. S. As to
the last question, I think I heard Mr. Stanly
say, in concluding his few remaiks, that he
had not addressed the House more than fif
teen minutes, and I think that about the time
he did speak.
With respect, I have the honor to be,
your obedient servant,
J.A.BYNUM.
TThe Hon. j2. Duncan.
House of Representatives.
Feb. 9, 1S39.
Sir: Were you in the House on the 17th
January, when I made some remarks on
the resolution providing for the appoint
ment of a committee to inquire into the de
falcations of Samuel Swartwout, or were
you present during the time that Mr.
Stanly replied to me? If so, will you be
so good as to state the time, as near as pos
sible, or as well as you can recollect, that he
(Stanly) occupied in his reply. Your ear
ly answer will much oblige your friend,
A. DUNCAN.
To Hon. Ely Moore.
Hoiise of Representatives,
Feb. 12j 1839.
Sir: In reply to the interrogatories con
tained in your communication of the 9th
inst. I will state that I was in the House
al the time referred to, and heard the re
marks both of Mr. Stanly and yourself.
The time occupied by Mr. S. in his reply
to you did not, to the best of my recollec
tion, exceed fifteen minutes.
Very respectfully,
ELY MOORE.
Hon. A. Duncan.
I think I am sustained in the fact which
I have asserted, viz: that "the speech of
Mr. Stanly of North Carolinaj in reply to
Dr. Duncan," &c. never was made in the
House of Representatives or, if made must
have been made in the short space fifteen
rrtinulesl" But even all that time was not
occupied in making the speech purporting
to be the reply to Dr. Duncan." When
I charged upon the member a basri false
hood, &c. for making the insinuation which
he did, some part of the fifteen minutes Was
occupied in denying that he had insinuated
that I was an Abolitionist. Here is where
the member showed the white feather.
That denial was but a squirming from un
der the responsibility of answering in an
honorable way the charge of being guilty of
base falsehood A part of the balance of
these precious fifteen minutes, (and a great
part, too,) was occupied in reading g irbled
extracts from a letter which I wrote in an
svver to some Abolition interrogatories
propounded to me shortly before my re
election. The member first regretted that
he had not the letter in his possession; but
it was soon furnished. Who furnished it?
Mr. Slade of Vermont. Ah! Mr. Slade, 1
am happy to meet you on this board of ex
position. I have been talking all this time
about (to use a vulgar phrase) "the little
end of nothing," a thing that requires the
use of a telescope to see if it be at any con
siderable distance; hardly the ninth part of
a man; a thing now out of time and out of
place; a tiling that the Almighty never in
tended for any other purpose than the use
of the bodkin, shears, and thimble. But
you, sir, are a man six feet five in your
shoes. I feel a freedom in talking to you;
and, in order to have a full and ample case,
I will splice the member from North Car
olina to you, and for a short time will con
sider you one person, or in "cahoot," and
in that capacity I will hold myself responsi
ble to you for all I say.
You profess to be an Abolitionist; relig
ously, morally, patriotically and civilly, a
modern Abolitionist; even so, I have been
told, to amalgamationism. You furnish
ed the member from North Carolina, did
you, with my answer to the Abolitionists,
from which to read garbled extracts? You
stood al his elbowvtfid you, prompting
him, and pointing out suitable passages of
my letter, to enable him to make an anti
Abolition speech, and attach to my name
that of Abolitionism? Only think of this!
A rank Abolition Whig from the North in
"cahoot" with a rank anti-Abolition Whig
from the South, in exposing the pernicious
doctrine contained in a letter which depre
cates slavery in the abstract, or, rather, a
Northern Abolition Whigmaking a conve
nience and a parrot of a Southern anti-Abolitionist,
through which to expose the dan
gerous tendencies of an expression of hos
tility to slavery in the abstract, and its ef
fects, without regard to time or place!
What base sophistry ! black hypocrisy ! what
political swindling for base and corrupt par
ty purposes!
Yes, black hypocrisy, take it as you may.
If I am an Abolitionist, why should the
member from Vermont lend himself to
make me odious to the shareholding people?
Or, if the member from Vermont is sincere
in his profession of Abolitionism, why is he
assisting and prompting an anti-Abolitionist
to expose opinions of mine, to the prejudice
of the principles of his faith? If the mem
ber frtm North Carolina is sincere in his
professions of anti-Abolitionism, why does
he permit himself to be made the tool ol an
avowed Abolitionist? All this unnatural
connection is well understood. Abolition
ism and Whigery, like twin brothers, walk
hand and hand here and every where else.
There is not ah isni on earth, however de
graded, that Whigery will not take by the
hand. Here we have the evidence of the
submission and acknowledgement into
which the member from North Carolina
was either kicked or coaxed by party disci
pline, evidenced by the following letter,
by which the member from North Carolina
is made publicly to retract a charge which he
had made against the member from Ver
mont, and to declare, publicly, that he
Stanly believes that the open, avowed,
and reckless Abolitionist, Slade, "means
no harm to the South." But read the letter.
Here it is:
td f llE EDITORS;
Washington, Dec: 14, 1S33.
Messrs. Gales & Seaton: In the Intelli
gencer of this morning I find the following
report:
Mr. Slade introduced the following re
solution: "Whereas there exists, and is carried on
between the ports in the district of Colum
bia and other ports of the United States,
and under ihe sanction of the laws thereof
a trade in human beings, whereby thou
sands of them are annually sold and trans
ported from parts said District to distant
of the country, in vessels belonging
to citizens of the United States; and where
as, such trade involves an outrageous viola
tion of human rights, is a disgrace to the
country by whose laws it is sanctioned,
and calls for the immediate interposition of
legislative authority for its suppression.
"Therefore, to the end lhat all obstacles
to the consideration of this subject may be
removed, and a remedy for the evil spee
dily provided,
"Resolved, That so much of the fifih of
the resolutions on the subiect of slaver?
passed by this House on the 11th and 12th
of the present month, as relates to 'the re
moval of slaves from State to State,'
and prohibits the action of this House on
every petition, memorial, resolution, pro
position, or paper touching' the same, be,
and hereby is rescinded;"
After which, it is reported that "Mr.
Dawson called for the reading of the reso
lution: which having been again read, Mr.
Stanly said he wished to introduce an
amendment. The Chair said it was not
now in order, the resolution not yet being
in the possession of the House "
When Mr. Slade's resolutions were
read, and I heard the words "outrageous
violation of human rights" and "disgrace
ful" applied, as I thought, to the slave
holding States, and to North Carolina
as one of them, I could not repress ihe in
dignation I felt at such language. It was
under the influence of this excitement that
I wished to ''introduce an amendment,"
wheri the "Chair said it was not now in
order;"
The amendment I wished to introduce
was in the! words following:
'"Resolved, That said resolution is dis
respectful in its language and outrageously
insulting to the Representatives of the
slaveholding Slates; that it is calculated to
provoke and irritate the members from
said States; and that the consideration of
said resolution would be an 'outrageous
violation' of the respect due to the slave
holding States, and would necessarily tend
to weaken the bonds of our Union.
"Resolved That said resolution is 'dis
graceful' to the member who presents it, as
it evinces a total disregard of the feelings
of the Representatives of the slaveholding
States of this Union, and does not deserve
to be considered by the House."
But the" rules of order, different at differ
ent times, prevented me from introducing
this amendment, and I do not now regret
it, as the resolution was not considered by
the House, and as I have been since satis
fied that, though the language sounded
harshly to the ears of a Representative
from the South, nothing offensive was in
tended, and I ivrite this note now, that my
constituents may know What my amend
ment was; wailing for an hour of leisure,
when I will inform them more fully why it
was that I did not vote npon the resolu
tions recently offered by a member from
New Hampshire.
I have good reasons for refusing to join
in the miserable farce which has been
played by the instruments of party in tha
House of Representatives during Tuesday
and Wednesday last.
Oblige me by publishing this note.
Very respectfully, yours.
EDWARD STANLY.
Comment on this letter, it would seem,
is unnecessary. The resolution of the
member from Vermont not only strikes at
the root of every interest the Southern
States have in the institutions of slavery,
but it uses the most degrading and abusive
language that a foul tongue could express,
or a poisoned pen recoid; and so the mem
ber from North Carolina virtually expres
ses himself; but either from being whip
ped into the traces by force of party discip
line, or from cowardice unworthy a son of
the South, whosu heart ought to be in her
interests, and her reputation his boast, he is
forced to the degrading5u6c acknowledg
ment thai nothing offensive to the South was
intended by the member frOm Vermont!
1 think, as the people of North Carolina will
understand this matter, it is useless for me
to expand upon it.
But a word in relation and in justice to
m)self. A few days prior to my re-election,
several interrogatories were propoun
ed to me on the subjici of the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia; and I,
probably on the spur of the occasion, an
swered them without time for reflection, or
opportuninity for examination; but I am to
say lhat, on mature examination, 1 have not
one word, contained in lhat letter, to take
back, as it regards slavery in the abstract or
Abolitionism. When I wrote that letter
I felt as 1 wrote. I wrote as I now feel,
and I hope always to feel on the subject of
slavery, in ihe abstract, ana as lnousanus
and hundreds of thousands of the best men
the world ever produced j have thought,
and now think, both in free and in stave
States.
My remarks in that letter were made with
reference to slavery in all time, present,
past, and future, and without reference to
any particular realm, kingdom, empire, or
repuonc; ana l now say, mat the man who
will otherwise express himself to this gene
ral view of the subject of slavery in the ab
stract, is no philanthropist, j no friend to
numan uoei ty, and would be unvvoriny.ine
proud name of an American.
My objections to modern Abolitionism
are strongly expressed in the sajrie letter.
1 there deprecate it as disorganizing in itf
tendencies in violation of the compact by
which the Union was brought into exis
tence, and, if ptrsiited jn will endtngef
j.
5 1
If
i