..... 1 ... .. K. . w ,. .r . . .J J
The Tarborough Press,
Br (jeoroe Howard, Jr.
- .. ;f.. ... . -sj, ' . , - , 7 '. -f'
if paid in advance or. Two Dollars and Fifltf
: Cents at the expiration ot trie suoscnjJiion veirj
Subscribers are at liberty to discontinue at any
time on jn",n uom iiipitrw " r j c
Adrertisemexits not exceeding a square will b
inserted at One Dollar the first insertion, and 2
monta tkaV rata npr anna re. Cnurt Orders an
Mivii V w v - , -
Judicial Advertisements 25 percent, higher. Ad
vertisements mast be marked the number of inser
tions required, or they will be continued unti
karwico Aire-f toA. and charoed accordingly.
w-.w' . - - - , . - c - i I
, Letters add ressed to the Editor must be post
paid, or mey may not u ttiieiiueu u-
From the Raleigh Standard.
, PROTEST
rjy oenaiors against ine txesoiuiians -ia
.-.. CT 1 . It. J . . J J
exnel the Senator from Onslow.
The undersigned members of the Sen-j
4 a ........ 1 .... ... InumaalirAa nf tlcxtv Ynnatiln
tional privilege, as secured by the 45ih
section of.the Constitution of the StateJ
to dissent from, and protest: against .qnu
act or resolve of the Senate, which then
may think injurious to'the public, or tc
any individual and to have their reasom
'for such dissent entered upon theJoUrnah
of the Senate
Da here, how present to the Seriate
their most solemn dissent and protest a
gainst certain acts and resolves of the Sen
ate, in the case of Mr. L.nne tt, Senator
from Onslow, wtfth their reasons thereforJ
that the s ime may be entered on the Jour
nafs of the Senate.
" The committee appointed to investigate
his case, reported the following Reolu
tions: i
Resolved That the certificate of the Sen
ator from Onflow, and by him' introduce(
to the Senate as genuine, the first day o
the session, is a forgery. '.
.f?0jQnftrf A That 5 n o emnoVi aa nrt
evidence has been offered before the Com
mittee to implicate any other person in the
transaction, that the Senator himself has
either been guilty of the forgery, or procti
red it to be done, or was at least aware
that it was not genuine; and therefore
practised a fraud upon the Senate and
ought to be expelled.
Resolved, That for the reasons afore
said, the Senator from Onslow be, and is
hereby expelled from" the Senate, and his
seat therein vacated.
The first resolution passed the Senate
unanimously, the two last by the casting
vote 01 us speaker, (Mr. Oaiiher.;
The undersigned protest against the pas
sage of the two lasj resolutions, because
the rule of evidence which That major ity o
the committee in iheir reDort anolied l
his case, was laid down in too broad, harsli
anu unquauneu a sense; oecause, tne evi
dehce was not correctly: reported- because,
mat report was accompanied by an argu
ment against Mr. Ennett, based upon un
founded assumption, and tended to preju
dice his trial because, that report, ant
the principle contained in ihe second reso
lution threw upon him , the burthen of es
tablishing his own innocence, because hi;
counsel was denied that liberty of speed
swhich;is indispensable to fair and imuartia
trial; and because, Mr, Ennett's own ac
count of tljie way he was put in possession
of the alegd spurious certificate, and
which was part of the evidence reported
bv the Committee, bein? uncontradicteo
t i O : .1
aiid fully supported by the whole evidence
pui in on nis trial, and corroborated by urn
Questioned! nrnnf, nf hi hairincr thf mn.U
unblemished character, formed a weight of
testimony, which repelled every suspicion
wi nis gunty connection with the spuriou
certificate. .
rhe undersigned will now proceed to
state the reasons and facts which form the
grounds of their bejief." I K
The proof shortly stated, was that Mr
Ennett left home under the most confi
dent belief and expectation, of receiving
is cenmcate lol election in time to, take
hraaeat; 6ri Monday, the I kth of November,
the day of the meetings of-the Legislature
uidi ne nad assurances to thisenect Iroc
the Sheriff arid two other nersons - that h
was advised before he left home, and afle
aching Raleigh; by several members.
cgisiaiuie, that his certihcate was no
'uispensable to his 'Uking his seat, bu
s colleagues or others, would b
neard to prove his election as had been th
practice in other cases -that he had men
tioned it publicly,' on the day he arrivec
ere, (Saturday,) that he had come withou
JI8certificate--that on -Monday mbraini
ne informed his. room-mate, Mr. Jackson
and also Mr. Me vinj and stated publici)
" company ofgentlemen at M r. H olden'; :
ce, that he had received! his certificate
,,n the n'ght before , (Sunday night) tha
"statement he theh made to Mr. Melvin
f he way and manner he had received it
corresponded substantially with his t iwV
tea.ents, lone made to Mr. Stone 5i
uuay muimug a ter, ana the other to
tneenaieon me symo t November, altho',
meauer was not so lull: Which were in
su net a nee, that a sranger called at his
room on Sunday night, about 8 o'clock,
sai( he had a letter for him, did not make
himself known to Mr, Ennett he asked
him to walk in ther stranger replied he
was in a hurry, and handed him Mr. E.l
the; letter, and immediately retired in the
dark that Mr. E at first supposed it ' to
be a letter from some office-seeker, but on
opening it discovered it contained the cer
tificate h expected of his election. The
certificate resembled the ; handwriting of
Sheriff A verett, only slightly, but enough
to rpake a person acquainted .with it, sup
pose it might have been written on his
knee; that on Monday after Mr. E. pre
sented the certificate and took his seat in
thej Senate, Mr.-Senator HeUen obtained
possession of the certificate from the Clerk,
Mr. Stone, without any order or authori
ty jrom Jhe Senate took it out, kept it
for fsome time, showed it to several per
son, marked their initials on the certificate,
among them Mr. Gaither (afterwards cho
sen Speaker) and Mr. Senator Boyden
that it did nut appear that this movement
on the part uf Mrv Helten and others, in
timat ing theirsusp icio n.was made kn own
to IMr. Ennett at the time that as soon
as Mr. E. heard of the susnicion of its
genuineness, which waseithejr on Monday
night of 'J'uesday morning, he repaired to
Mrj Storte, the Clerk of the Senate, on
Tuesday before 10 o'clock, and asked to
see jihe certificate. Mr. Stone handed ii to
him, and afier examining it, he stated to
Mr: S. that he was noVsuflQcfently aoquainr
ted with Mr. Everett's handwriting to say,
that1 the body of it did resemble Mr. A:'s
handwriting, but parts of the signature not
so much- and then gave Mr. Stone the
account as above set forth of the manner
he had gotten possession of it that this
statement of Mr. Stone was made after he
had taken his seat, but before the Senate
had organized on Tuesday morning the 2d
dayjof. the session that on the 29lh of
November he had received the certificate
of his election in a letterTrom Sheriff Av
erett, enclosed to him in a letter from Mr
Marble, Sand on that day presented the cer
tificate and the two letters to the Seuate,
made his statement how the possession of
the alleged spurious certificate had been
put upon him, and that he now believed,
fom comparing the two, he had been im
posed upon, and asked the Senate to raise
a committee of investigation on the matter.
The Hon. Wm. H. Washington, of the
House of Commons, proved that Mr. E.'s
general character was that of an ignorant
inoffensive harmless man without a ble
mish resting on it. Mr. Tho. D. Meares,
of Wilmington, that he stands as fair as
any man in Onslow. . Mr. Jeremiah Nix
on, of the House of Commons, that he has
known his character intimately for ten
years, that his general character was that
of an honest good man, without a blem
ish simple and confiding a domestic
man in his habits, a sober moral, indus
trious farmer .a kind father and an obli
ging benevolent neighbor. No one dis
puted this testimony.
The proof was also, that the committee of
investigation had incorrectly reported Mr.
Sanders' testimony, before the committee.
They reported, that Mr S. ' said - before
them that he thought it was on Monday
morning Mr. Ennett told him. that he had
not received his certificate,, whereas, Mr.
Sanders when brought to the bar of the
Senate swot e, that he told the committee
several times, that he was uncertain whe
ther it was Sunday or Monday, and that
since his examination before the commit
tee, upon reflection, he was still uncer
tain, and Mr. Senator Louis D. Wilson,
also stated on the trial, that Mr. Sanders
had, when examined before the commit
tee and after his testimony was written
down, stated twice or thrice that he was
uncertain- whether i i was Sunday or Mon
day!
The whole proof then established these
facts: 1st, that Mr. Ennett's three sever
al statements of the manner he got posses
sion of I the spurious certificate was not
unnatural or improbable that he was that
good, honest,' simple, confiding man, that
might easily nave oeen imposeu upon in a
city where he was a stranger and did not
know the habits of intercourse. 2d, That
he had no motive to palm. a forged certifi
cate upon the Senate, as he knew he could
obtain his seat by other proof of his elec
tion. 3d, i hat as soon as he heard it ru
mored that 'its genuineness was suspected,
on Tuesday morning before the Senate
was organized, he called'on 'the Senate's
oflBcer, Mr. Stone made' a full and 'open
statement of the malter,(which if he was a
guilty man, it is improbable he would have
done, as the officer by reporting it to the
Senate placed it in the power or that body
to rescind theorder admitting , him to his
seat, and thus have defeated ; his whole pur
pose. 4ih? That as soon as he received
the genuioecertificate from ihe SherifH
wherebv hwaS enabled to form a belief
as to fthd true character of the first certifi
P1Ib4 AM '. ' MM mm t m m iA " ft
cate, he lost no time in stating that belief
to Ahe Senate and asking for a Committee
of Investigation.
estigauon.
7 he Committee of Investigation rested
their belief of Mr. Ennett's guilt uponfthree
principal points; 1st, the general maxim of
lawthat he who is in the possession! of a
jfbrged instrument, and gives no satisfacto-
ry account oi me manner ne got inq. pos
session, nor the person who did it, and use
it for his 'own benefit, must be presu
med to have forged it himself. 2d, jThat
the manner that Mr. Ennett got possession
of the certificate, was so suspicious in it
self, that every other man would have sus
pected it under like circumstances. 3d.
That Mr. Ennett's statement ought to be
discredited because he did not inform his
room mate, Jackson, he had receivednt.
We shall examine these points in j their
order. '
1st. As to the maxim ot law. VVe su
that its application to Mr. E 's case was
too harsh and unqualified, and that jeven
as harshly as they applied it, it only raised
a technical presumption of guilt which
under the exercise of a small degree of the
ordinary benignity of the law, wascom-
pletely repelled by the fact, of all abpewce
of motive on his part to forge a certificate;
by his consistent and reasonable account
of the way it came into his possession; and
by the proof of his unblemished, si (n pie,
confiding character, which latter fact;, his
good character, the committee do not al
lude to in their report, and therefoje we
mu.t presume did not enquire into it,1 notv
withstanding in their report, they ex;preMt
such a great anxiety to find out and re
port to the Senate all the evidence! that
might establish Mr.
Ennett" s innocence
The
rule of evidence which the Com
mittee ought to have applied to his case, is
this, lhat where the possession is of such
a kind, as man ifes tsJLhnt the stolen goods
4(or forged certificate) have come to the
'possessor by his own act or with his
"undoubted concurrence'9 it affords pre
sumption of guilt. (See Judge Gaston's
opinion in the late case of theiatev.v.
Smith, 2d Iredell's Rep.) In Mr. Enjnett's
case the evidence did not manifest thbt the
spurious certificate came to his possession
by his own act nor by his own concur
rence, nor, that no other person could
have had a motive to put the possession
upon him. His statement being that of
an honest man, and made part of the evi
dence in the case, showed, that a LET
TER was put into his possession, by an
unknown hand, and that until he opened
it, he did not know what it cont lined; and
that before he opened it, the unknown
bearer of that letter was gone. He had
no suspicion of any thing being wrong,
because letters are often times handed by
unknown hands- because office-seekers a
bout Raleigh are in the habit of sending
letters to members in every, form andvay,
and he expected at first that it was a letter
from an office-seeker, and after he opened
it, and found it; contained a, certificate of
his election, it was what he also expected
to arrive every hour, although he did njt
know certainly in what way, by hand or
by mail; and he i had enquired that night
at the post office, and had not obtained it,
before this letter was handed to him. ? His
statement then showed, that he did not ac
quire the possession of the certificate, by
his own agency, but that it was put upon
him under cover of a letter not by:his
own concurrence, for he did not know
what the letter, contained, until opened
nor, that no other person had a motive to
do itt for office-seekers had a motive to do
so, as he had been a day in Raleigh-, and
had made known he was without his certi
ficate' .
I The rule of evidence which the Com
mittee applied, they rested on the authori
ty of the Stat4 vs. Britl, 3d Vol: Deve:
reux Reports of j the Supreme Court, page
122. That case was this: Britt, the de
fendant, was found in the possession of a
forged qrder in Bis own favor, had presen
ted and obtained on it money or goods,
and upon being charged with the, forgery,
said, (ihe had intended to take up the or
der before it was discovered. ' In this
hease, the rule ;of the committee was ap-
mw i
plieiHiy the Court, because, the defendant
did notajteropt to account for the way he
acquired the possession, by any accompa
nying statement! of his own, or otherwise;
nor did he impute any other agency or
concurrence than his own in obtaining it;
on the contrary, he stated, that he intended,
to have taken up the order before the for
gery was discovered, ' which manifested,
that Hehadcome to the possession by; his
own act and concurrence ( J
I The next iu' hority cited in argument by
the majority Committee, was 'the State! vs .
Morgan, reported ' in 2d Vol; Devtt Bai.
page 348.' JThat case showed t bat the de
fendant had himself presented arfo'rged note
to the Uahk at Salem, for.dtscount iii his
oWri favbri and had received the money
no ' statement' of 1 the defendant imputed
guilt in othersrnor circumsUnce appeared!
fto raise a suspicion that any ptber person
had been concerned -in the possession than
the ueienaani, nor aia it appear mat any
-' : . -S
other person!had a motive to impose it up-.! f heir report is, that the manner of his. re
on him, but all the! evidence manfestedAceiymg, ihe certificate, was so strange and
that he alone forged the order.. But eyen
jin that case, the Court in applying the
Committee's rule of evidence, said, iThe
-force of the presumption, depends fpon
hthitability of the accused 4o show (VITH
hFrfCIL l TV, tiel real truth; and his
)f refusal ' to do so, if there be other- cir
'cums duces Jrohkjvhich it moy bejndg
led that certainly or PROBABL Y his
'possession was nut acq u 'red by his Own
'"taking, then , the whmle presumption
'fails" The case) of the Slate v.?. Brut
was decided jn June, 1831, the latter case
in June, 1 S37.. ; ?
In a very late case decided by the Su
preme Court, iJune, 1842, Stale vs ScipijV
Smith, 2d Vol. Iredell's Rep piige 402.
Judge Gaston; as organ of the pourt, lays
down the rule of evidence truly applicable
fco Mr. hinnett s case. I he evidence in
that case was,1 that one Chambers had hai
his tobacco stolen, on Friday nighr. that he
followed'" the tract of a carl from near his
tobocco house, to a house of the dofeudant,
Scipio Smith, on the next morning, Satur
day that said house was fon Smith s land
and within 80 or 100 yards of his dwel
ling house, and that on that day (Satur
day) his tobacco jwas found in Smith'?
house that Smith claimed the tobacco so
found in his house) as his own,-in the pre-
rstnoe ot Lnambers, ana statea in wnai
field it was grown and that he. Smith, hail
ordered it to be but in the house. It Was
also nroved. that Scinio Smith's two sons
lived with him it the time, who were joint
Iv indicted and tried with their; father.
The Judge who tried the cause below, ap
plied to Scipio Smith, th'e father's case
ihe rule ot law which the committee have
applied to Mr. Knnjj it's case. All the de
fendants were conviced: they appealed to
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme
(lourt set aside the
Smith, the father.
verdict
against Scip'o
Gysion, ho
-Judiie
has been trulv called a good man and
great Judge," delivered the opinion of the
whole Court. ' He savs as follows: "when
"we examine the cases, in which such
presumption has jseen sanctioned, or cpn-
'sider the grounds or reason and expert
ence on which the presumption is clear
'ly warranted, we shall find that it applies
'ONLY; When this possession isof a kind,
which manifests that the stolen goods
. .. - .. t - -. ' w
"nave come to tne posssessor oy nis own
"act at all eventsjhy HIS UNDOUBT
"ED CONCURRENCE." He then men
tions a leading case, slated by that great
and good Judge, Lord Hale, where a horse
was stolen from A and that same day B
was found upon him U was tried, convic
ted, and hung for stealing the horse, on the
ground that being found in possession of
the horse, and not able to account for it,
he must be presumed to be the thief. Yet,
shortly after this, p was apprehended and
tried for robbery and convicted;, and when
executed, confessed that he had stolen the
horse for which B was hung, and being
closely pursued, requested B. a stranger to
him, to walk his horse for him while he
turned aside on a j necessary occasion, and
escaped. Here B was hung, because be
ing found in possession, he count not ac
count how he came to'tbe possession
The Jury, forgetting that the possession of
a horse might be put upon a man, and he
nevertheless be unable to account for it, as
the Senate may have in Mr.' Ennett's case,
forgotten, that a man may been put ih pos
session of a letter containing a fbrged cer
tificate or counterfeit notes, and the posses
sor be unable to prove who gave him that
letter-much more easy and common it is
to palm a letter upon a man, than to palm
a horse upon him, j and yet both have and
may happen. Another case is mentioned
by Judge Gaston; where the sheep of
stray from his flock to the flock of B, and
ri drives them upt wnn nis own nock and
shears them. B was held not guiltyy be
cause he might not have suspected Hhey
were not his sheep, and it was better that
99 gujfefons shojuld escape than that
one innocent' person- should sufier
The coincidence of many circumstance.-
pointing to one thing, forms so natural r a
ground of belief according to human, expe
rienpe, that it is upon that very ground,
that the rule of evidence has been so well
established in law,1 that ha ndwriting'may
be proved by a person who has' received u
letter from a stranger lo him iri the due
course of business, from whom heexfieci
ed to receive a letter onthat 'particular
business j altho9 ie never before had seen
his Writing So strong were the coinci
dences in M r. Ennett's case that he was
npfloniy in law and according to common
experience, warranted in believing the cer
tificate to have comevfrorn.,the Sheriff, Mr.
Averett; ,but it,wpuld vhaye . been, ihought
strange indeed if be had suspected iti bad
n'oL:- It' came in a letter Which he ea
pected--at that time and purporting to
be Jrr m tne person ne e&pccieujio sena ti
resembled that person1 s hanpwriting
and he was , not well enough acquainted
with that person s handwriting to detect
a plausible impositidn:
The next ground the Committee take in
unnatural, that it ought to have excited his
suspicion . Had the Committe! examined
with due care all the foregoing ? roinciden-
ces, (six in
consist wib
number)' i which could'only
innocence had the v compar
ed thnm with Mr. Ennett's i confiding sim
plicity of character with the consistency
of his three several statements with the
absence of all motive on his part to 'f. perpe
trate such a cnm ; with his open disclosure
to the Senate's (?l rk on I uesday mor
ning soon; after a fraud was suspected, of
ii'm - :" '' . . . ' m . m .
ail tne , circnmsiances wmcn attended the
way.he got into possession of the certificate,
.ii id with hisj unblemished innocent life,,
and character, they, would indeed have
shown that anxious wish they professed, lo
search'out in the eyiderice. the circumstan (
ces of his innocence, instead of fii&Vassu-
ining a they have Vlone. that his account
of the matter ipa suspicious and from that
suspicion, in their owji mpds9' drawing,
the most .unfavorable inferences against'
him, and arguing the case in . their report
altogether on one.fide.' v, ; ; '.'
: .The next ground ,the committee lake is,
'hat his whole statement ought? to be dis
credited because he did not mention to his .
room-mate, iackison, , on Sunday, -night,
when he returned t home from preaching at
9 o'clock; that he hadfxreceived his.certifr
cate. lladMr.. Ennett taken extraordina
ry pains to make known the receipt -of his'
ceiiificate, wouldn't not have excited suspi
cion? As it was he did inform Mr,' Jack
son, his room mate, although" a stranger. 16
him until, that day, and MrfSanjr!ers,'his
colleague,ofjit the. next morning. nd. when
the ques'iqn was asked jinja; public compa
ny atv Mr. llolden'. ollice on that j same
morning; 'who was the member that had
left home without his certificate," he. being
present replied, l e upposd that lie was
the person meant, but that he had received
it on the night . before. " Here, then, the.
Committee so anxious to establish Mr. En-,
nett's innocence, assumtd the fait that' not
to mention the 'rccept ton' of the certifi
cate to his rcom mate was suspicious.
and when. the fact appeared on -the trial,:
that he had not onlv mentioned it to his
f s : ....... i. . m -
room-mate but to his colleague ;and to
others, it availed him nothing with ' hisc-
cusers. ! ."!,'. .- -y,:, 'k,uy' ur, ::f
The undersigned further, protest N twis,
that as the committee in their report, & thoT.
Senate by the modejof his trial, had thrown
upon Mr. Ennett theurthen of proving his
own innocence, contrary lo the. maxim of
law and usages in such cases, his Counsel
ought not to have been refused, as they
were, the right and privilege of replying
to such objections as mighthave been made,
in argument to t hat proof, and more espe-
cially as ihe . Committee's report charged
,wiih alf its errors. ...had been printed, circu
lated, aud must have prejudiced Mr. En
n etV cause, find the undersigned' also
protest in this, that the Speaker ought not ,
to have interrupted M r, Ennett's 4 counsel ,
as he did, by reppaiedjy calling him to or-
der, for we think it was ihe counsel's duty
to say what he did, when tbus called to or
der, with the vie w.of, securing an unpreju
diced trial to his rli nt. -!4 , - ? , . v"
The facts being ' these, the counsel csu
tioncd ihe j: Senate agninst any unfavorable
impressionsor prejutlice that. the report of
the Committee, might have made in their
bosoms, s that 'repoW , coritainedvaricq:
errors iof law and fact, and .bad 'been fer
some time printed & circulated Iron which
he was Tea r f u I h i s c I i e n t's 4 case rn a jr; b a 70
been prejudged, .disclaiming atx the eamc
time any intention to impute Tmpfoper'm o
tivestff trie Cbmmitteeijor to the Senate.-
The counsel;was JierecjHed to "order by
the Speaker for; charging ihe Senate with
having prejudged jhejeaseJ He prompt
'yC?j!eratcd his disclaimer of-intenrJinr
anything personal and was permitted to
proceed. ' ,, i .s -
'he counsel uhen remarked, tupori' ilv:
embarrassment which surrounded Jiiscli
ent's defence against such charge it this
time; lhat all 'men in al ages were subject
to thejnfirmity f entertaining prejudices,
boWever honest might be their, hearts and
intentions; that the most'ridnest and confi
ding men we re so me times the'mostinsensi
bleto, its .(influence, tbatl he imputed nb
more infirmity to the Senate than. our otrn
experience; than the laws, ,than the Biblo
ind the decalogue impulted to all mankind,
anil to bimsel f, (trie counsel. )' ; Therefore,
he begged leave to assume-ihe province cf
the PieacherasthePreacherfA "
tion ought jivotnft
lence w
ivheii iJie;xiecarogue j wasjread lOi
.: : -. " . - . V ... y . )r . . . . $
an infamous Crime, c-uld fakeoo personal
offence ai j l)eiriMef.cirullvarne( s'd '
cautioned to, examine ' their- hearts, end 1
guard a gainst , a ny prejud i?e insetisi bly, ta- j
posseshion there. He spoke of the
Justice, 'where, not only- was it made thai 1
duty; of counsel, but; also? of the Judge, to 5
warn the jury jagainst the danger Qfeatsr- r n
tainipgtany prejudices, or- participating ia
anv publicexcftemeht on the defendant'a
lease that he ilt it to be! his duty as ccua-
I