{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6437, "word_count": 1115, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9702000021934509], "ccnet_perplexity": [1212.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
thai llSOQ, QeInOCrdI, StaeQ OH


the trial that Mr.. Sanders stated in the committee,
1.-Two or three times, he did not recoIlec whether it


was Sunday or Monday Fiat Mr. Emmett told him


he had no certificate that Mr.. Sanders, when


called "to the bar of the Senate, swore that be


told the Committee, several times, that he was un-


certain whether it was Sunday or Monday, and


that since his examination before the committee,


be was sill uncertan;" that the Hon VIM. n.


Washington, of the House of Commons, proved


that Mr. Ennetfs general character was that of


6 on ignorant; iaofensirc, harmless man, aoitkout


a 6lemisb resting upon II - another gentleman
proved "that he stands as fair as any man in
Onslow )" Mr., Nixon, of The House of Commons,
proved that he had known him intimately for ten


years, and that bis general character was that Of


'san honest, good man, aeitha9t a blemi&h, simple


and cQnytdingi a domestic man IN his habits; q


sober, aoral, Industrious farmer, a Kind father,


aud an o5iiging, beneuolent neigh6or."


! These are briefly the facts set forth in the pro-
test, about which believe there is no controversy


1t presents, also, clearly and forcibly. the perver


sion and rnsappication of the principle of law
upon which was founded the report of the COM
mltec and the second resolution, embodying the


reason Tor Mr. Ennett's expulsion, declared in the
third resolution. The committee say in their re-


port: " 1t must be manifest upon The least consid-
Grafton, that if man produces and uses for his
own benefit forged instrument, and gives no sat.
! isfactorY account either of the manner in which
he became possessed of the instrument or of the
perpetraor Of the offence, he, ought to be held
himself to have forged or aided in the forgery"
This is the groundwork and foundation of the
committees report and resolutions, and it must be


presumed Of the vote of the Whig Senators for the
expulsion of Mr. Emmett.
| "The rule of evidence which the committee
ought have applied to his casen says the protest,
us this: that where The possession is of such a
kind nadnifests that the stolen goods (or forged
cert6cate) have come tothe possessor by his oVn
act 1cith his aadou6ted concurrence, it affords
presumption of guilt (See Judge Gaston's opin-
ion in the late case of the State VS.. Smith, Ire
delE's Rep.) 10 Mr. Enhett's case, the evidence e
did not manifest that the spurious certificate came
to bis possession by his oion act nor by his o1rn
concurrence, nor that no other persem could ha0s
had a nioGpe to put the possession upon him"
| In another case, the rule is laid down by the
Supreme Court, with this important qualification,
so strongly demanded by the.circumstances of MIR.
Ennctrs case: ......


/" The force Of the presumption depends upon
tie ability of the accused to ShotD WITH FACILITY
The dEtruh and his refusal to do so, If there be
other circumstances from uhch it may be judged
that certainly or PROBABLY his possess'on 1cds not
acquired by his otOn taking, then the 1ohoLe pre-
sumption fuiks"


In very recent case, the State VS.. Scpio Smith,
the rule relied upon, is stated by Judge Castor,
as follows; --. 81.


"When we examine the cases, in which such a
presumption has been sanctioned, or consider the
grounds OF reason and experience on which the
presumption is clearly warranted, we shall 6Rd that
il applies ONLY when his possession is of kind
which mdnifestS that the stolen goods have come
TO the possessor by his act, at all events by
his UNDoUBTED CONCURRENCE" nia,r -.. .-s.


The protest, in speaking ofthe interruptions Of
Mr.. Ennetts counsel, says: 'Tbe undersigned
c,.,lo tnoF he IN
their report, and the Senate by the mode of his
trial, had thrown upon Mr.. Emmett the burden of
proving his own innocence, contrary to the max.
i'm 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 might have been made in argument to that
proof and more especially, as the committee's re-
port, charged with all its errors, had been printed
circulated, and must have ,prejudped Mr., Ennet's
cause: And tie undersigned also protest IN ht's
that the Speaker ought not 10 have interrupted
Mr. Ennelt's counsel as he did, by repeatedly call
ing him to order; for we think it was the coun
sels duty to say what he did. when thus called 10
order, with q view Of securing an unprejudiced
trial to his client" From the repeated calls 70
order by the Speaker, and the limited range Of
remark allowed, the counsel OF, Mr.. Ennett be-
fieving he could not DO justice TO his client took
bis seat, and soon afer, the resolutions expelling
Mr. Emmett were passed by Inc w mig oeHatoIS,
with The casing vote ofthe Wing Speaker. -.,1


have, Mr., Chairman, sketched briefly, but
believe truly, the features of Mr., .Ennens case
from which the committee and The country will
be enabled to preceiye what part the Whig Sen!
ators, as well as the Democratic Senators, acted
in it, and will Judge whose course is most COM


mendable, and best calculated to uphold andmainr
tain the principles of representative government
and popular rights, so ally involved in the
case Sir, the people. Of North Carolina, who
are more Immediately interested, will iudgeafor
themselves, and do not fear the result, Of their
Judgment. So far as the county Of 0uslow is
Concerned they have already spokep, by sending
Mr.. Emmett back to resume his seat with those
Whig Senator'S soh9seI TGrs and eEtrGOrdNGry
preteasions to honar and purify drove him from
their presence, regardless Of the deep wound they
inficied upon the rights of his constituents with
bnt seventeen votes cast against him. Sir, must
be permitted 10 say, in dismissing this topic, the
Democratic Senators have cause to, regret the
course they pursued in the case ef Mr. Enpeh
and as little cause to pine at laures which4 4heirs
Wing opponents have gained by theaebieyementI
of which my colleague has go proudly boasted


In a6ptoaching ithe subject before The commit
tee,olwilp direct my 1remarks to the principal
sf6tnd upon 1@hieh9hes opposition 10 the adtnis 4
SION Of Texas has bee6 placed the want Of con-
stituti6hal power and aifa'my time will permh,
esafnne the other objections. : - 2hi 10 s.'at 4


The first clause oftfs4 4hrd section of The fourth
article Of the Constitulion, Is ia these words I