Newspaper Page Text
I \ ,
CHRONICLE SENTINEL.
** - AUGUSTA.
M N .
IHt TUESDAY MORNING, JUL^7.
FOR PRESIDENT,
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON*
» 0/* Ohio;
The invincible Hero of Tippecanoe—-the incor
ruptible Statesman —the inflexible Republican—
the patriot Farmer oi Ohio.
TOR VICE-PRESIDENT,
JOHN TYLER,
Os Virginia;
A State Rights Republican of the school of *9B—
—of Virginia’s noblest sous, and emphatically
one of America’s most sagacious, virtuous and
patriotic statesmen.
FOR ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT,
GEORGE R. GILMER, of Oglethorpe.
DUN JAN L. CLINCH,.of Camden.
JOHN WIHTEIIKAD, «£ Dur Kc.
CHARLES DOUGHERTY, of Clark.
JOEL CRAWFORD, of Hancock.
SEATON GR ANTE AND, of .Baldwin.
CHRISTOPHER B. STRONG, of Bibb.
JOHN W. CAMPBELL, of Muscogee.
EZEKIEL WIMBERLY, of Twiggs.
ANDREW MILLER, of Cass.
WILLIAM KZZARD, of DeKalb.
FOR CONGRESS,
WILLIAM C. DAWSON, of Greece.
K. A. NISBET, of Bibb.
J. C. ALFORD, of Troop.
li. W. HABERSHAM, of Habersham.
T. B. KING, of Glynn.
LOTT WARREN, of Sumpter.
It. L. GAMBLE, of Jefferson,
T. F. FOSTER, of Muscogee.
J. A. MERIWETHER, of Putnam.
i.’oi. Harrison and Missouri Restriction.
In our paper of the 2d inst., we charged the
r.l>»! e and the Standard of Union, with ‘‘one of,
the most glaring and disgraceful attempts to im
pose open people of the South,” by copying
extracts from the Journals of the Senate qf Ohio,,
endeavorin; to prove that Genera! Harrison was a
Missouri Restrictionist. We now make .the same'
charge against the Constitutionalist. Wc charge 1
t'.e editor of that print with having suppressed,
material parts of the Journal from which he quoted
—we charge him further, with having suppressed
those puts for Hie purpose of making a false im
pression upon (he minds of his readers—and it re
sults us a consequence, that he not only suppressed
truth, hut suggested falsehood. We have often
heard that Herod had been out lleroded,but in this
i;is(ar,?o Haynes has been out Haynes’d, and that
t o, by (he editor of the Constitutionalist, who is
always ready with his hypocritical professions of
fai: less, and of his being governed by a high sense
of jus.ioo in the conduct of his paper. If he is
sincere in his professions of doing justice, why did
he keep back a portion of the Journal ? And why
, ,V| * 1 ' keep back that particular portion of the
Journ.il, which showed what w'ete the sentiments
of u. neral iiairison ? Why did he not publish all
the proceedings on these resolutions, rather than
garbled extracts from them ? Sacha curse as this 1
would not have suited his purpose, it would have
inanife'ltd too much of that fairness and love of
truth in political controversy, of which he boasts so
much and practices so little.
In our notice of th extracts from the Journal
cf the Oliio Senate on P e 2d inst., we had no copy
oi that Journal, and all our extracts were made
ironi the Standard of Union, Since then we have
uecn the Journal in the po°scs?ion of the editor of
the Constitutionalist, and we have made copious
extracts which u*e shall be able to
bring home all the charges we make
against it, and to make his defence
t-> attempted to practice
t .;- u.c-nts and confidence.
But the
Fum the JournJl of the Senate of Ohio, ISI9-20.
“ Saturday, January I, 1820.'
“ Senate met pursuant to adjournment^—Mri ■
Thompson moved tbe adoption oi a resolution, for I
the appointment of a joint committee, to draft a
memorial to Congress, on the subject of admitting
new States in the Union, tire Constitutions of wide* .
authorize involuntary slavery. •
And on motion, said resolution was committed
to a committee of the whole Senate, and made the
order of tills day.”
“ -Monday, January 3, 1820.
“ The subject being out of the Committee of the
Whole, and now before the Senate, Mr. Thompson
moved the adoption of the following preamble and
resolution :
“ \\ liereas the existence of slavery in ourcoun
try, has ever been deemed a great moral and politi
cal evil, and in its tendency, directly calculated to
impair our national character, and materially af
jeet our national happinessand inasmuch as the
extension oi a slave population in the U. States, is
draught with the most tearful consequences to the
permanency and durability of our republican in
stitutions : and whereas the subject of the admis
sion of slavery in the new State of Missouri, is at
tins time befo.o the Congress of the United Stales:
Therefore,
Resolved, by ike General Assembly qf the State qf
Okio, That our Senators and Representatives ip
Cngross, be requested to use their zealous en
deavors to prevent tte adoption of so odious and
dangerous a measure.
On mo lion cf Air. Harrison, to strike out all after
the '.void “ pni" in said resolution, and in
sert in lieu thereof the following: *
“ That our Senators and Representatives be re
quested to use their utmost exertions, and take
every means to prevent the extension of slave
ry within the Territory of the Uaited States, west
of the Mississippi, and the new States to be funned
within that Territory, which the constitution
ANE THE TREATIES MADE UNDER IT WILL ALLOW.”
On motion to strike out,
The yeas were, - Known,' Furnass, HARRISON’
Hooker, -Nejvcom, Pollock, Hobb, Ruggles,Shedby,.
Swearingen and Sullivan.” —11.
The nays were, “ Baldwin, Campbell, Fithian,
Foos, Irwin, Jones, Lucas, Madcara, McLaugh.in,
McLean,Rus=el,Simpson, Spencer, Stone, Thomp
son, and (Speaker) Trimble.” —16.
“ Whereupon, Mr. Harrison moved to recommit ,
■the said resolution and preamble, to a Select Com
mittee of three members, to report thereon—which
motion was decided in the negative.” i
The yeas w ere : “ Hrown.Foos, Furnass, HAR
RISON, Hooker, Newcom, Pollock, Ruggles, Rus
sel, Shelby, Swearingen, Sullivan and Trimble,
(Speaker”)—l3. j
The nays were: “ Baldwin, Campbell, Fithian,
Irvin, Jennings, Jones, Lucas,Madcara,McLaugh
lin, McLean, Robb. Simpson, Spencer, Stone and
Thompson” —15.
“ And on motion to agree to said resolution,
with the following,”
*• Resolved further. That his Excellency the
Governor be instructed to send a copy of the fore
going preamble and resohffion, to each of our Sen
ators ami Congress of the United
thc-ycas an 1 Lays wore ordered,
Campbell, JV 11,Foos. Furnass,
.4’»V'*.(Lt' , C*|Bgg,Jones, Lucas, Madcara, McLaugh
■BßßHHHKtlobb, Russel, rm-.y-o Spencer.Sul-
HBHH .
livan, Stone, Thompson and Trimble, (Speaker”)
—2O.
Nays,“ Brown, HARRISON, Heoker,Newcom,
Pollock, Ruggles, Shelby, and Swearingen”-^B.
“Ordered, That the Preamble and Resolution be
sent to the House for concurrence.”
Here then, we see Gen. Harrison offers an
amendment which proposes to admit Missouri
into the Union with slavery, because in the treaty
which was entered into between Franee and the
United States at the time the territory of Missou
ri was the United States expressly
agreed, by the third article, to protect the citi
zens in holding their slave property. (See 3d arti-,
cle es the treaty in our paper of the 2nd instant.) -
Consequently, if Genial Harrison's amendment
bad been adopted,it would have been in favour of
slavery in Missouri.—Again, when foiled in bis
amendment, be proposed to recommit the matter
to a special committee of three—in this again, he
voted down, be then voted against the send
ing copies of them to the Senators and Represen
tatives in Congress, and finally against the pre
amble and resolutions. But we desire particularly
to point our readers to the yeas and nays, and see
if Gen. Harrison is not always found voting in
opposition to those Missouri restrictionists, Lucas
and Thompson.
Now, we ask the Editor of the Constitutional
ist) to account, why, in his very special and par
ticular regard to fairness and plain straight-forward
honesty in political discussion, of which he boasts
so much, why, sir, did you. not insert these
proceedings in your paper of Thursday ? Why
did you keep them back, if you wished your rea
ders to arrive at truth ? Come out, sir, and an
swer these questions, and defend yourself, before
you again lay claim to the smallest panicle of
fairness in the conduct of your Journal, and until
you have defended yourself, do not aspire to any
thing higher than the contemptible tricks of the
Globe and Standard of Union. Hid you dare to
publish these things? no, you did not; it would
have shown how utterly futile all your parade
about Gen. Harrison*s being a Missouri restric
tionist was, and hence it would not answer your
purposes, to aid you to traduce an honest upright
citizen before his countrymen.
Thubsii.it, January 6, 1820.
“The Senate took up the amendments made by
theHouseof Representatives, to the resolution,
requesting our member? in Congress to oppose
the extension of slavery, in the Territories of the
United States, and the first amendment being
read as follows : strike out all said resolution af
ter the word “ Resolved ” as follows: by the Gen
eral Assembly of the State of Ohio, that our Sen
ators and Rcprescnlativesin Congress, he reques
ted to use their mostzealous endeavors, to pre
vent the adoption of so odious and dangerous a
measure, and insert in lieu thereof,.the following;
That our Senators and Represcnativeq in Con
gress, be requested to use their utmost exertions,
by EVERT CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD, to prevent
the admission of slavery in any Slate or Territo
ry of the Union, where slavery does not exist,
to prevent the further extension where it has
been introduced, and that they be further reques
ted to oppose the admission of any Slate into
the Union, unless the further extension of slavery
within such state, he expressly prohibited.”
“Mr. Lucas thereupon moved to disagree to
the said amendment, which motion was decided
in the affirmative. Yeas 18; nays 10.
And the yeas and nays being required, those
who voted in the affirmative were,
Messrs. Baldwin, Campbell, Fithian, Foos,
Irwin, Jennings, Jones, Lucas. Madcara, McLau
ghlin, McLean, Robb, Russell,Simpson,Spencer,
Stone, Thomspson, and Trimble (Speaker.)
Those who voted in the negative, were,
Messrs. Brown, Furnas, HARRISON, Hooker,
Newcom, Pollock, Ruggles, Shelby, Swearingen
and Sullivan.”
The second amendment being read as follows:
strike out the preamble, after slavery, in the first
line, which part to be stricken out is as follows:
In our country has ever boon deemed a great mor
•I and political evil, and in its tendency, directly
calculated to impair our national character, and
materially affect our national happiness; and in
asmuch as the extension of a slave papulation in
the United Slates, is fraught with the most fear
ful consequences to the permanency and durabil
ity of our republican institutions ; and whereas
the subject of the admission of eabtery into the
new State of Missouri, is at this time before
the Congress of the United States.- Therefore,
and insert in lieu thereof, the following: “In
the United States, must be regarded as a mo
ral and political evil, and theexlension thereof
in its tendency, directly calculated to impair the
national character, and materially affect the hap
piness of the people; and inasmuch as the ex
tension of a slave population in the new States
and Territories hereafter to be.crectsd and admit
ted into the Union, must increase on evil so
much to bo deprecated, which if not promptly
guarded against will probably, at some not very
distant period, shake.the foundation of our polit
ical fabric. We would, .therefore, fondly hope,
that.thc consistency of our national character,
will never be tarnished by acknowledging an
gvil, while we tolerate its extension : and whilst
ffic civilized nations of the world, not through
Necessity, but acting on the broad principles of
philanthropy, are laudably uniting, to prevent
the extension of trafic in human beings, that the
"United States, who are se immediately interested
in this important subject who understand so well
their own rights, and who have so much to dread
from the extension cf slavery into the interior of
tills vast republic: and who have in their power
to prevent the evil, will not let pass, the present
opportunity, but will, by an act of the National
Councils guard against the extension of Slavery
into any of the States, hercalter to he admitted,
or into any of the Territories thereof.”
“ Thereupon, Mr. Lucas moved to disagree to
said second and last amendment cf the- House,
which was decided in the affimative. Yeas 16
—Nays IS.”
“ Those who voted in the affirmative, were,
Messrs. Baldwin, Campbell, Fithian, Foos, Ir
win, Jennings, Jones, Lucas Madcara, McLaugh
lin, McLean, Robb, Simpson, Spencer, Stone,
and Thompson.
Those who vtted in the negative, were,
Messrs Brown, Furnass, Harrison, Hooker,
Newcom, Pollock, Ruggles, Russel, Shelby,
Swearingen, Sullivan, and Trimble, (Speaker.”)
Reader, let us examine the vote of General Har
rison on the motion to disagree. Does net every
man of common sense see, that if he had vote 1 in
the affirmative to disagree, that he would have
been in effect voting for the original preamble and
resolution of the Rcstrictionist Thompson, which
he had so determinedly opposed on tfce.Sd of Janu
ary', as you have What course had
he then to pursue—he was compelled to vote in
the negative or not vote at aIL What then was
the object of his vote in the negative ; it was most
clearly to array the two houses against each other,
and have the Senate adhering to one set of
resolutions, arid tire House to another, by which
means he would accomplish his object, of prevent
ing any instrustions to the members es Congress
against Missouri.
But suppose for the sake of argument alone, that
he did vote “ for the adoption” of the amendments
of the House ; and does not every man see that
the insertion of the words “ by every Constitution
al method” secured to the people West of the
Mississippi, the possession of slaves ? How so >
simply because the treaty which was made with
Franca in pursuance of the Constitution, securcd i
tbe .right to hold slave property.
Look reader, at the votes, do. you see those
restrictionists, Lucas, McLaughlin, and
voting on any occasion with General Harrison ?
Noj not on a single quest’on. What says “ the
raise and worthy editor” of the Constitutionalist J
Will he, in his high regard for fairness, panlish
these facts of the Journal which he has suppressed, |
or will he play “ mum,” as he has done on the :
Army Bill es Mr. Van Buren and his Secretary.
Saturday, January 8, 1820.
Menage from the House.
“ Tlwy insist on their amendment? to the reso
lution, requesting our Senators amt Representatives
in Congress to oppose tbe extension of slavery,
&c. They request a conference, on the snbject of
difference between the two Houses, relative to
said amendments, aa J have appointed conferees
on their part.”
“ On motion, the Senate then agreed to the con
ference requested by the House of,Representatives
on the resolution aforesaid, and appointed confer
ees on tbeir part, of Mkssif. Lucas, Thompson and
‘ McLaughlin.” >
Ordered the House to be informed thereof.
Here, gentle reader, examine who composed
this committee of conference, do yon not see that
they are all restrictionists, and on every question
which has lieen taken, they have invariably voted
against General Harrison.
Thursday, January 13.
“ Mr. Lucas from the Joint Committee made a
report, recommending the adoption of tbe follow
ing preamble and resolution, in lieu of the original,
and amendments.”
“ Whereas, the existence of slavery in our coun
try must be considered a national calamity, as well
as a great political evil: And whereas, the admis
sion of slavery within the new States, or Territo
ries of the United States, is fraught with the most
pernicious consequences, and calculated to endan
ger the peace and prosperity of our country. There
fore,”
“ Resolved, by the General Assembly of Ohio,
that our Senators and Representatives in Congress
be requested to use their utmost exertions to pre
vent the admission or introduction of slavery into
any of the Territories of the United Stales, or any
new State that may hereafter be admitted into the
Union.”
The report was agreed tor, without the yeas and
nays being ordered.
But as a thing is never done till it is well done,
we propose to give the sentiments of General Har
rison two years after, uu this same question, when
he was a candidate for Congress, and he was
charged with being in favor of the admission of
Missouri with Slavery. What docs he say, when
his votes in Congress and in tbe Senate of Ohio
are brought in judgment against him ? Does he
shrink, or express any regrets about those votes ?
Does he say, I repent and ask forgiveness,—l was
in error ? No, none of these things; but he comes
out and replies like an independent son of Virginia,-
like a freeman. Hear him:
“ Congress had no more legal or constitutional
right to emancipate the negroes in those sections
of Louisiana, (Missouri or Arkansas,) without the
consent of their owners, than they have to free
those of Kentucky—these people were secure 1 in
their property by a solemn covenant with France,
when the country was purchased from that power.”
This is the language of General Harrison in
1822. What say you to it, most “ wise and wor
thy editor” of the Constitutionalist, does this
sound like he had “ qualms of conscience." If he
had no qualms of conscience, how must you feel,
most “ wise and worthy editor ,” who have, after
a lapse of twenty years, raked up these voles and
attempted to draw inferences from them which
you knew were untrue, and to give your reasoning
the semblance of truth, suppressed half the record ?
Have you no qualms of conscience ? Speak out—
do not play “ mum” as you have on the Army
Bill.
But you say, most “wise and worthy Editor,’'
that the resolution of the Ohio House of Repre
sentatives “is an absolute, direct, unconslitution
aT' instruction. Will you tell us, and your rea
ders whit you think ol the following preamble
and resolution, which was passed by the Legisla
ture of New York, for which your high priest of
Locofoco democracy, MARTIN VAN BUREN
voted.—ls that an “ absolute, direct, unconstilu
tional instruction.” Speak out, Mr. Editor, and
give your readers your opinions of this resolution,
and the resolution itself, and probably you will
give them some information, which yon have ne
ver essayed to do, notwithstanding your hypercri
tical love of truth and fairness.
WnEKKjU, thm inAihtiling tUm /-WArr mjctenslon
of slavery in these United States, isa subject of deep
concern to the people of this State : and whereas, we
consider slavery us an evihmuch tube deplored, and
that every constitutional barrier should he interpi sed
to prevent its further extension ; and that the Con
stitution of the United States clearly gives Congress
the right to require new States not comprised within
the original boundaries of these United States the
prohibition of slavery, as a condition of their ad
mission into the Union — Therefore,
Resolved, (If the honorable Senate concur
therein,) That our Senators be instructed, and our
Representatives in Congress be requested to oppose
the admission as a State, into the Union, of any
territory not comprised, as aforesaid, without ma
king the prohibition of slavery therein an indispen
sible condition of wlmission.
On the 20th of January, 1820, the Senate took
up the resolution and passed the same unanimous
ly, the following Senators being present:—Messrs.
Adams, Austin, Barnum, liarstow, Bowne, Childs,
Dudley, Dayton, Dilmiss, Evans, Irothingham,
Hammond, Hart, Livingston, Lounsberry, McMar
tin, Moores, Mallory, Moore, Noyes, Paine, Ross,
Rosencrantz, Skinner, Swart,
its-MARTIN VAN BUREN,
Wilson, Young —2B.
In conclusion, most “ wise and worthy editor ”
of the Constitutionalist, we charge you with urg
ing upon the South the claims of Martin Van Bu
ren to the Presidency, who opposed the admission
of Missouri and Arkansas into the Union, unless
slavery was excluded, in opposition to the plighted
faith of the Government as expressed in the treaty
with France —who voted to exclude Florida, un
less slavery was prohibited, and who also voted
in the New York Convention to admit free negroes
to vote in all elections of [the people. We charge
upon you and your party these things, and we
challenge you to deny the truth of these charges.
Verily you are an admirable specimen of Loco
Foco democracy to urge, (even if it were true,)
that General Harrison was in favor of Missouri
restriction, and offer it as an argument against his
election, when you are supporting Marlin Van Bu
ren, who is a known and acknowledged restric
tionist.
From the Georgia Journal.
Who are Federalists !
The Van Buren Press of this State, will an
swer this question very readily whenever it is pro
pounded to them. Why say they, you are the
Federalists!!! You have connected yourselves
with the Whig Party, in the ranks of which
are to be found Daniel Webster, Henry Clay,
and others, notorious Federalists—therefore act
ing with these men, associated with them to
promote the election of Harrison, you must be
Federalists!! Well, this is excellent logic !!! !
These gentry we suppose must have the bene
fit of their notable discovery; and ail that we
can do, to obviate the evils that would neces
sarily result to our cause, by an admission, on
our part, of the soundness of their argument (!)
is, to turn their own batteries upon them, or, to
use a more homely phrase, “ to fight the devil
with his own fire.” This we now propose to do
in as brief a manner as possible.
The Slate Rights Parly then, are Federalists,
are they ? because they have nominated Harri
son, and are found in his support, acting in con
cert with Daniel Webster and others of the same
political school. But with whom are the Van
Buren Party, in Georgia, acting to promote the
re-election of their chief? Has this Parly no
avowed Federalists in its ranks ? Nay, more,
has this party, no acknowledged Federalists, act
ing as leaders in the cause of Van Buren Democ
racy? What was Mr. Van Buren in 1812? A
federalist. What is he now? A pampered Aris
tocrat, who has fattened upon the people’s mon
ey, and who seeks to unite, with the purse of the
Nation, the sword, in the shape pf a standing
a unit, to rob tbe nation of its birthright, and the
people of their liberties.
Who is James Buchanan ? A leader now of
the self sty led “Democratic” Party; but he is the
man who once said, that if he thoughrthere was
j one drop of \kmoeratic blood in his veins he
' would let it oik. This is the man too, who, when
speaking of Malison’s Administration, uses such
language as thk
“ Xhe de jiocrtic administration declared war
against commence. They were not satisfied with
depriving it ol 4e protection oi a navy, but they
acted as tfaoughjthej had determined upon its an
nihilation.
• », • • •
“Time will yoy allow mi to enumerate
ALL THE OTHER WILD AND WICKED ACTS OP THE
DEMOCRATIC ADNINIBTRATIOE.
• m[ * * *
“ After they hsd, by refusing the Bank of the
TJ. S.TL—ttf*iM|pice ft its charter, embarrassed
the finsncHtKgctrfts of the Government, they
RASHLY PLOaisD A WAR.
••■ • • •
“ Glorious it has been in the highest degree to
the American character, but disgraceful in
THE EXTENT Vo THE ADMINISTRATION.
Thanks thm, to Heaven, that we have obtain
ed a peace, BAD AND DISGRACEFUL AS IT
IS. A
“THEY (the democrats) GLORIED IN
SETTING THEMSELVES IN ARRAY A-
G A INST OUR PRESENT ADMIRABLE
FORM OF GOVERNMENT.”
This man, Buchanan, is now, called a Repub
lican. Associated with the Federalists all bis
life, he is yet a Van Buren Democrat—a leader
too, and one whose r.od of approbation is most
eagerly sought after by the chief of the party
himself, whilst bis frown carries terror along with
it. Are you Federalists, gentlemen, because you
are associated with this man to carry out the
policy of your-party; or to promote the election of
your Kinderhook candidate !
Who is Samuel Cuskman I A Van Buren
representative in Congress. An acknowl
edged leader One who,
during the late wry ijed to God that every
American marched to Canada
would leave hisK^^^Kere.”
Who is 1 One of the “De
mocracy”. Van Buren Senator from
New Hampshire, |ut who was one of the prime
movers in getting up the meeting at which dele
gates were chosen to the Hartford Convention.
Who is J. H. Prentiss! A ow a Loco Foco,
but who, duringtbe war, used such language as
this.
“It is with (real sensation of indescribable
pleasure that I And myself enabled to announce
the complete triudjph of the Federalists.” “If
my bumble labor* ki the cause of my native coun
try have produced,the change in favor of Federal
ism, in this county, then have I arrived at the
acme of my hope*, the summit of my wishes.”
“The frightful 4ydra of Democracy begins to
droop its head kAore the Heaven deiived spirit
of Federalism”— * Democracy 1” a monster wild
as that which roan* the Lybian wastes and joys
to drench bis tusk<in blood—a pestilence that
spreads contagion over the whole extent of our
country —a pernicious blast that withers every
thing it touches.”
Who is O. J.Jpgersoll! The Van Buren
candidate for Congress in Philadelphia—the man
who said, and who still says, that had he been ca
pable of reason and reflection during the revolu
tionary war, he should have been a TORY.”
Whojs fimilMfclU -The Van Buren
Senator from N%w Jersey, who in the Senate in
1838, said, “ here, sir, in the presence of the
American people, I avow that I was a Federalist,
and acted with that parly, zealously and actively
so long as their flag waved in New Jersey.
Who is Rucl Williams ! A Van Buren Sen
ator from Maine who helped to burn James
Madison in effigy in 1812—then, as ever, a most
notorious federalist.
Who elected Levi Woodbury, Governor of N.
Hampshire, in 1823! The Federalists.
Who are Roger B. Taney, J. C. Bradhcad,
Henry Vail, H. D. Gilpin, Richard Rush, Mr.
Bancroft, collector of the port ol Boston, and
others! All, all Federalists, in days that are
past— notorious federalists —ten times worse
than Daniel Webster—but now, these gentry
are clad in the garb of Van Buren Democracy,
and are Republicans forsooth. Will the “ De
mocracy ” in Georgia, deny now that they are
Federalists ! Have wp not made out our case,
according to their opn mode of discussing the
query of “ who sre !” If we have
not, we are try them again.
But before we we 1 desire to notice one
other coniplcuoum avocatc of Von Huron De
mocracy. We meail none W. C.
Bryant, the Editor. oythe. leading Van Buren
paper in JVew New York Evening
Post. This paper isThe organ of the party in
New York, and the views of its conductor are
followed by the party every where. Now, there
never was a more bitter, and venomous defamer
of the pure principles of democracy, as taught
by Jefferson and Madison, than was this Van
Buren Democrat. Thomas Jefferson he hated
bitterly, because of his advocacy of republican
principles, A federalist “ dyed in the -wool,”
.vith a malignant heart, and a slanderous tongue;
this William Cullen Bryant, this apostle and
chief priest now of Van Burenism, was not sat
isfied with his abuse of Jefferson in prose, but
must needs resort to verse to aid him in bis un
hallowed detraction of the great opponent of
federalism and federalists. Will our readers
hear this “ prince of poets." !!
THOMAS JEFFERSON.
BY WILLIAM CULLEE BRYANT.
“ And thou the every patriot name,
Thy country’s ruqHkd hos council’s shame !
Poor servile thihg of the brave !
Who erst from Tarlfcton fled to Carter’s cave;
Thou, who, when menaced by perfidious Gaul;
Didst prostrate to her whisker’d minions fall,
And when our cash her empty bags supplied,
Didst meanly strive the foul disgrace to hide;
Go, wretch; resign the presidential chair.
Disclose thy secret measures, foul or fair.
Go, search with curious eye for homed frogs.
Mid the wild wastes of Louisiana bogs;
Or, where the Ohio rolls his turbed stream.
Dig for huge bones, thy glory and thy theme;
Go, scan, Philosophist, thy. charms.
And sink supinely in her sable arms,
Hut quit to abler hands the helm of state.
Nor image ruin on thy country’s fate.”
What will the “Democracy” say in extenua
tion of this “ poetic effusion ” —an effusion re
flecting disgrace upon its author, and calling for
the unqualified condemnation of every honest
man. The reptile which crawls upon the ground,
and in whose fangs are lodged the most deadly
poison, should not be avoided with more care,
than the political demagogue who has the au
dacity to put forth such malignant stuff as is
contained in the above lines. Neither can he,
who seeks after political truth, be too careful to
avoid associating with those whose leaders are
such as we nave described, and who have as
their-" sentinels watch tower" such
men to conduct the press of their party.
We call upon our State Rights friends, the
friends of Harrison and Reform, to note the crowd
with which (omc of their old political associates
arc about to connect themselves; then let them
take into consideration who compose the “ De
mocracy ” in Georgia—what have been the poli
cy and politics of the falsely*styled democratic
party in our own State—who are the leaders,
&c., and if they do not pronounce condemnation
upon them, set us down as being no judges cf
their feelings.
A Loco Foco Historian. —The Louisville Jour
nal relates the following amusing anecdote:
“A lew days ago a loco foco, on board of one of
the steamboats coming down the river, made him
self very conspicuous by his foul abuse of General
Harrison. At length be exclaimed, “Gen. Harrison
was notin the battle of Fort Meigs at all; he was
not within two miles of it.” “You are mistaken,”
said a quiet old soldier, speaking for the first lime,
“I was at Fort Meigs myself, and I know that .
what you assert is not true.” “Well, may be so,”
stammered out the loco foco, somewhat abashed,
“but I have history for it.” “ What history
calmly asked the old soldier. ,: Ah, I’ve history
for it,” said the loco a second time “But I wish
you to tell me what hiifonr,” pxclaimed the vet
eran in a slightly elevated tone. “Why —why—
why— Rollin’s History,” faltered out the despair
ing locofoco.”
Massachusetts Militia. —Massachusettshas
disbanded her militia throughout, and repealed
the whole old system. Voluatoer companies are
hereafter to be relied on, stimulated by a small
annual stipend to each mar.
•
WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 8. c
■ ; h
The Constitutionalist and the Army Bill. *
In our notice of the attack made upon us, by v
“ the wise and worthy Editor" of the Constitu- 0
tionalist, in relation to our strictures on the Army ;
Bill, we asked why be had not published the j
Bill. He replies to us, and says he has, and re- ]
fers us to the dates of his paper.—We have ex- 1
amined bis file, and found that it was published
in April, acd that "the wise and worthy Editor" t
so far, endorses the plan of Mr. Van Buren and j
bis Secretary that he thinks the ‘■‘general outlines i
of the plan ought to be adopted.” 1
Will “ the wise and worthy Editor ,” inform i
his readers what particular features of the Bill
he thinks ought to be adopted ! Is it that which
requires the militia to arm themselves at tbeii
own expense ! Is it that which requires them
to be subject to the order of the President, to be
called out of the State twice a year to be train
ed ! Or is it that which subjects them to the
articles of war, by which they are prevented un
der severe penalty from speaking in disrespectful
terms of the President, and may be punished
with death for striking their superior officers!
Arc these the features which “ the wise nnd -wor
thy Editor ” believes ought to be adopted !
Van Bnren vs. Poor Men.
Under this head we some days ago copied tea
article from the Steubenville (Ohio) Herald, ia
which Mr. £an Buren was charged with having:
advocated the restriction of suffrage in the New
York "Convention of 1821, and as proof of the
charge, an extract from his speech was quoted, as
published in of Van Buren. The
succeeding day there appeared in the Constitulffli
alist, a writer, who sported the imposing signature
of “L. M.,” and in an article of some length,
which surpasses any in proportion to its length for
bold and daring recklessness, and utter disregard
of truth, we have Jet seen even in the columns of
that print.
Byway of attracting attention to his tissue of
“false ” statements, {“ we might use harsher
words "J the article was headed “ Beware or
Counterfeits.” “Base political forgery and
calumny.” This was imposing enough,and natu
rally enough astonished us, for we did not know
but that some wag had caught some of the writers,
leaders ia some shop, and by some optical
delusion, (produced by what cause we knew not,)
obtained their signatures to some instrument,
which under different lights could not have been
obtained. On examining his aiticlc, we however
discovered it was an attack upon us far having in
serted the article from the Steubenville
with an extract from Mr. Van Buren’s speech.
And, Ala Blair and Rives, a* he could not well de-'
fen 3 his master, he was driven to the necessity of
declaring that the Whigs had published a spurious
life of Mr. Van Buren, and charged that the whole
was false. This was one way of defending their
Loco Foco chief, and as the sequel will show, was
not a very fortunnte defence for the writer, if he
regards his reputation for truth, which we opine
is rather problematical.
As is our custom, generally, never to notice a
nonymous scribblers, we paid no attention to this
redoubtable night of the quill, until we had pro
cured a copy of Holland’s Life of Van Buren, an
swering precisely his description of the “ genuine.”
We then gave him notice through our columns on
Saturday, that we should show him up in his real
character, and lo and behold, on the next day, we
were handed a note, purporting to be from L. M.,
acknowledging that he had been in error. And
yesterday, he again gained admission into the col
umns of the Constitutionalist, to admit that he had
stated what was “ :i tterly and vnequivoaffeu false.”
“ We might use hariher words.” jo i“s ad
mission, he struggles desperately dej^
situation.
As the to the"
endorser of do now endoyb and
charge Mr. with having
restriction of the right of suffrage to per
sons who, “ paid taxes, performed militiy duty, la
bored on the highways, and were house holders.”
And we adduce as proof of the charge, the speech
quoted in Holland’s life of him, page 182.
Had “L. M.” extended his corrections to his
entire article, we should have spared him the
merited castigation which a sense of duty imposes
on us. But he has not seen fit to extend his cor
rections beyond Mr. Van Buren’s'advocacy of re
stricted suffrage. We must, therefore, take one
extract /rom his article, which demands a passing
notice. It is in these words :
“ In the convention of 1821, when the amend
ment was offered by the Democrats “ that all white
male citizens of 21 years should be allowed a
vote,” without the freehold qualification, &c., the
Federalists as a matter of course, opposed it. When
they found that that amendment would be carried,
they, not the Democratic party, proposed that ne
groes also should be allowed to vote without a
freehold !! Then it was that Van Buren ami his
associate Democrats, came to the rescue, and by
union together retained the old condition—very
many, and among them Van Buren, wanted lo ex
clude negro votes altogether, but, finding they
could not gain all they wanted, they did not allow,
at any rate, the Federal negro supporters to gain
any thing.
“L. M.” says the Democrats proposed the
amendment abolishing the freehold qualification—
the Journal of Die convention says it was offered
by the committe. Again, he says the Federalists
were in favor of negroes voting—the Journal
shows that MARTIN VAN BUREN voted to strike
nut “ white,” so as to permit negroes to vote;
therefore, according to “L. M.,” Mr. Van Buren
is a Federalist. Again, “L. M.” says Mr. Van
Buren wanted to exclude negro votes altogether —
the Journal shows that he voted to permit ne
groes to vote. Who is to be believed, the Journal
or “L. M. ?”
It may be however, that L. M. may endeavor
to vindicate Mr. Van Buren against the charge he
has made against him of being a federalist, upon
that well known law of evidence, “ that when a
witness is proven to have made false statements in
one particular, he is not to be credited in another.”
Very well, if L. M. imagines that he is not to be
believed, certainly we will uot complain, hut in
all conscience let him never again assert, either
through the press or privately, that Mr. Van Buren
is no federalist. But, we are wearying the pa
tience of our readers, and bringing an unfortunate
individual into notice, who hut for our kicking,
would perhaps never have been again heard of.
Here is the extract from the Journal of the Con
vention.
Martin Van Bnren in tavor of Negro.
Voting.
Proved officially, by the Journal of the New York
State Convention, held in 1821, to amend the Con
stitution — which Journal can be seen at the office
of the “ KENT NEWS,” in Chestertown.
The fact is notorious, that when a member of
the New York State Convention, in 1821, Martin
» Van Buren voted in favor or negro suffrage.
Gn page 134 of the Journal, the report of the
committee on the elective franchi e is given. That
report contained the word “ white ” before the
word “ citizens,” as follows:
“ Every white male citizen of the age of twenty
one years, who shall have resided in tills State six
months next preceding any election, * * * *
shall be entitled to vote at such election, in the
town or ward, in which he shall reside, for Gover
nor, Lieut. Governor, Senators, members of the
Assembly, and all other officers who are or may
be elected by the people.”
The report of the committee, was warmly de
bated, in consequence of a motion to strike out the
word “ white” so as to read “ that every malt
—* m i n
citizen of the age of twenty-one years, who shall D ,
have resided Ike. It was distinctly announced that t ,
the word white ” was inserted in order to ex
clude the right of suffrage. T hose who wished the
word “ white ” stricken out, also avowed their 8
object in having it erased, was for the purpose of n
giving to the negroes the right of voting. The
issue was fairly made on this question, and that it n
was so understood by the Convention, we make j;
two extracts -, the first from the speech of Mr.
Ross, who wished the report to read white milt a
citizen, and thus exclude negroes. In giving his
reasons why negroes should be excluded, he says:
« But why, it will probably be asked, are blacks 11
to be excluded > I answer, because they are sel- t
dom if ever, required to share in the common bur- c
thens or defence of the State. There are also a1- a
ditional reasons ; they are a peculiar people, inca- ,
pahle in my judgment, of exercising that privilege |
with any sort of discretion, prudence, or indepen
dence. They have no just conceptions of civil
liberty. They know not how to appreciate it, and s
are consequently indifferent to its preservation. 1
Mr. Clarke, who like Mr. Van Buren, voted in
favor of striking out the “ while” which thus con- |
ferred the right of voting on negroes, remarked in j
a speech, ,
“ I am unwilling,” said he, “ to retain the word
* white ’ because its intention is repugnant to all
the principles and notions of lioerty. to which we
have heretofore professed to adhere, and to our
declaration of independence, which is a concise
and just expose of those principles. In that sacred
instrument we have recorded the follow ing incon
trovertible truths. ‘We hold these truths to be
self evident —that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain un
alienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.’ ”
The people of color, are capable of giving their
consent, and ever since the formation of your gov
ernment they have constituted a portion of the peo
ple, from whence your legislators have derived
“ their just powers,” and by retaining that word,
you deprive a large and respectable number of the
people of this State, of privileges and rights which
they have enjoyed jn common with us, ever since
the existence of our government, and to which
they are justly entitled.”
Mr. Jay, on page 190, moved that the word
“ while ” be stricken out. The vote was taken by
yeas and nays, (see page 202, of the Journal,) and
resulted as»follows :—.
Ayes—Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Barlow, Beck
with, Birdseye, Bnnkerholf, Brooks, Burroughs
Buel, Carver, R. Clarke, Collins, Cralner, Day,
Dodge, Ducr, Eastwood, Edwards, Eorris, Fish,
Hallock, Hees, Hogeboorn, Hunting, Huntingdon,
Jav, Jones, Kent, King, Modre, Munroe, Nelson,
Park, Paulding, Pilcher, Platt, Reeves, Rhinelan
der, Richards, Rogers, Roseburgh, Sanders, N.
Sandford, Seaman, Steele, D. Sutherland, Swift,
Sylvester, Tallmadge, Tuttle, VAN BUREN, Van
Ness, S. R. Van Renssclear, Van Vechten, Ward,
A. Webster, Wendover, Wheaton, E. Williams,
Woodward, Wooster, Yates —63,
Noes—Messrs. Bowman, Breese,Briggs, Carpen
ter, Case, Child, D. Clark, Clyde, Dubois, Kvck
man, Fairlie, Eaton, Frost, Home, Humphrey,
Hunt, Hunter, Hord, Knoles, Lancing, Lawrence,
Lefforts, A Livingston, P. R. Livingston, McCall,
Millißin, Pike, Porter, Price, Pumpelly, Radcliff,
Rockwell, Roof, Rose, Russel, Sage, R. Sanford,
Schenck, Seely, Sharpe, Sheldon, J. Sutherland,
Taylor, Ten Eyck. Townley, Townsend, Tripp,
Van Fleet, Van Horn, Verbrych, E. Webster,
Wheeler, Woods, Young —59.
The word white was accordingly stricken out.
In Senate,
Monday, June 29, 1840.
NORTHEASTERN BOUSJ«I.
The following message was received from the
President of the United States, by Mr. A. Van
Buren, his Secretary.
To the Senate .-
The importance of the subject to the tranquil
ity of our country makes it proper that I should
communicate to the Senate, in addition to the in
formation heretofore transmitted in reply to their
resolution of the 17th of January last, the copy
of a letter just received from Mr. Fox, announc
ing the determination of the British Government
to consent to the principles o. our proposition
for the settlement of the question of the North
eastern boundary with a copy of the answer
made to it by the Secretary of State. I cannot
doubt that, with the sincere disposition which ac
tuates both Governments to prevent any other
than an amicable termination of the conlrovcsry,
it will bo found practicable, so to arrange the de
tails of a conventional agreement on the princi- !
pies alluded to as to effect that object.
The British commissioners, in their report com
municated by Mr. Pox, exoAa an opinion that
the true line of the tre^jis materially
different from that for by Great
The esparto .
character, has wc are inform- 1
ed, been adopted GovcrnmnSn
It has, however, assumed lysurUsQUlcienlly
thentic and important to justify the-belief that it
is to be used hereafter by the British Govern
ment in the discussion of the question of boun
dary, and as it differs essentially from the lino
claimed by the United States, an immediate pre
paratory exploration .and survey on our part, by
commissioners appointed for that purpose, of the
portions of the territory therein more particulary
brought into view, would in my opinion,be prop
er. If Congress concur with me in this view of
the subject, a provision by them to enable the
Executive to carry it into effect will be necessa
ry. M. VAN BUREN.
Washington, 27th June, 1840.
Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth.
Washinoton, June 22, 1840.
The undersigned her Britannic Majesty’s En
voy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,
has the honor to transmit to the Secretary of
State of the United Slates, by order of his Gov
ernment, the accompanying printed copies of a
report and map which have been presented to her
Majesty's Government by Colonel Mudge and
Mr. Featherstonbaugb, the commissioners em
ployed during the last session to survey the dis
puted territory.
The undersigned is instructed to say, that it
will of course have become the duty of her Ma
jesty’s Government to lay the said report and
map before Parliament; but her Majesty’s Gov
ernment have been desirous, as a mark of courte
sy and consideration towards the Government of
the United States, that documents bearing upon
a question of so much interest and importance
to the two countries, should, in the first instance
be communicated to the President. The docu
ments had been officially placed in the hands of
her Majesty’s Government, only a few days previ
ously to the date of the instructions addressed to
the undersigned.
Her Majesty’s Government feel an unabated
desire to bring the long pending questions con
nected with the boundary between the United
States and the British possessions in North
America, to a final and satisfactory settlement;
being well aware, that questions of this nature
as long as they remain open between two coun
tries, must be the source of frequent irritation
on both sides, and are liable at any moment to
lead to events that may endanger the existence
of friendly relations.
The best clue to guide the two Governments
in their future proceedings, may perhaps be ob
tained by an examination of the causes of past
failure; and the most prominent amongst these
causes has certainly been a want of correct in
formantion as to the topographical features and
physical character of the district in dispute.
This want of adequate information may be
traced as one of the difficulties which erabairas
sed the Netherlands Government in its endeavors
to decide the points submitted to its arbitration,
in 1830—The same has been felt by the Govern
ment in England; it has been felt and admitted
by the Government of the United States, and
even by the local Government of the contiguous
State of Maine.
The British Government and the Government
of the United States agreed, therefore, two years
ago, that a survey of the disputed territoiy, by a
joint commission, would be the measure best cal
culated to elucidate, and solve the question at is
sue. The President proposed such a commission
and Jier Majesty’s Government consented to it :
and it was believed by her Majesty’s Government
that the general principles upon which the com
mission was to be guided, in its local operations,
had been settled by mutual agreement, arrived
at by means of correspondence which took place
between the two Governments in 1837 and
1838.
Her Majesty’s Government accordingly trans
mitted. In April of last year, for the considera
tion of the President, the draft of a convention
to regulate the proceedings of the proposed com
mission. The preamble of that recited textuady
the.agreement that had been come to by moans
of notes which had been exchanged belweemhe
two Governments ; and the articles of the Vast
were framed, as her Majesty’s Government Vn
sidered, in strict conformity with that agla
ment. 0 \
But the Government of the United Stales d\
not think proper to assent to the
proposed.
The United States Government did not indeed ,\
alledge that the proposed convention was at vari
ance with the result of the previous correspon
dence between the two Governments ; but is
thought that the convention would establish a
commission of “ mere exploration and survey,”
and the President was of opinion that the step
next to be taken by the two Governments, should
be to contract stipulations bearing upon the face
of them the promise of a final settlement, under
some form or other, and within a reasonable
time.
The United States Government accordingly
transmitted to the undersigned, for communido
lion to her Majesty’s Government, in the month
of June last, acounter draft of a convention, va,-
rying considerably in some parts, as the Secreta
ry of State of the United States admitted in his
letter to the undersigned of the 29th July last,
from the draft proposed by Great Britain. But
the Secretary of Slate added, that the United
States Government did not deem it necessary to
comment upon the alterations so made, as the
text itself of the counter draft would be found
sufficiently perspicuous.
Her Majesty’s Government might certainly well
have expected that some reasons would have been
given to explain why the United States Govern
ment declined to confirm an arrangement which
was founded upon propositions made by that Go
vernment its If, and.upon modifications to which
that Government had agreed; or that if the Amer
ican Government thought the draft of convention
thus proposed was not in conformity with the
previous agreement, it would have pointed out in
what respect the two were considered to differ.
Her Majesty’s Government, considering tlie<i
present state of the boundary qugiirion,—d-hicm/H
with the Government of the United States in
thinking that it is on every account expedient
that the next measure to be adopted by the two
Governments should contain arrangements which
will necessarily lead to a final settlement; and
they think that the convention which they propo
sed last year to the President, instead of being fra
med so as to constitute a mere commission of ex
ploration and survey, did, on the contrary, con
tain certain stipulations calculated to lead to the
final ascertainment of the boundary between the
two countries.
There was, however, undoubtedly, me essen
tial difference between the British draft and the
American counter draft. The British draft con
tained no provision embodying the principle of
arbitratioi; the American counter draft did con
tain such a provision.
The British draft contained no provision for ar
bitration, because the principle of arbitration had
not been proposed on cither side during the nego
tiations upon which that draft was founded; and
because, moreover, it was understood at that time
that the principle of arbitration would be decided
ly objected to by the United Slates.
But as the United Slates Government have
now expressed a wish to embody the principle of
arbitration in the proposed convention, her Ma
jesty’s Government are peifectly willing to ac
cede to that wish.
The undersigned is accordingly instructed to
state officially to Mr. Forsyth, that her Majesty’s
Government consent to the two principles which
form the main foundation of the American coun
terdraft; namely, first, that the commission to be
appointed shall be so constructed as necessarily to
lead to a final settlement of the questions ot boun
dary at issue between the two countries; and sec
ondly, that in order to secure such a icsult, the
convention by which the commission is to be
created shall contain a provision for arbitration
upon points as to which the British and Ameri
can commissioner may not be able to agree.
The undersigned is, however, instructed to add,
that there arc many matters of detail in the Amer
ican counter draft, which her Majesty’s Govcrn
i ment cannot adopt. The undersigned will be
I furnished from his Government, by an early op
portunity, with an amended draft, in conformity
tk-ith the principles above slated, to be siwmilted
to the consideration of the President. Aid the
undersigned expects to be at the
i nished with instructions to
| eminent of the I*ited Slates local and
ij temporary convention, fur the btltcr prevention
of incidental border collisions within the disputed
territory, during the lime that may be occupied
in carrying through the operations of survey and
arbitration.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion
to renew to the Secretary of Stale the assurance
of his distinguished consideration.
H. S. FOX.
The Hon. John Fobsttii, &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox.
Department of State.
Wasuinoton, 26th June, 1840.
The undersigned, Secretary of Slate of the Uni
ted States, has had the honor to receive a note
addressed to him on the 22d instant by Mr. Fox,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten
tiary of Great Britain, enclosing printed copies of
the report and map laid before the British Gov
ernment by the commissioners employed during
the last season to survey the territory in dispute
between the two countries, and communicating
the consent of her, Britannic Majesty’s Govern
ment to the two principles which form the main
foundation of the counter proposition of the Uni
ted States for the adjustment of the questions.
The undersigned, having laid Mr. Fox’s note
before the President, is instructed to say, in an
swer, that the President duly appreciates the mo
tives of courtesy which prompted the British Go
vernment to communicate to that of the United
States the documents referred to; and that he de
rives great satisfaction from the announcement
that her Majesty’s Government do not relinquish
the hope that the sincere desire which is felt by
both parties to arrive at an amicable settlement,
will at length be attended with success; and from
the prospect held out by Mr. Fox, of bis being
accordingly furnished, by an early opportunity,
with the draft of a proposition amended in con
formity with the principles to which her Majes
ty’s Government has acceded, to be submitted to
the consideration of this Government.
Mr. Fox states that his Government might havo
expected that, when the American counter draft
was communicated to him, some reasons would
have been given to explain why the United Stales
Government declined accepting the British draft
of convention, or that, if it thought the draft wr—
not in conformity with previous agreement, it
would have pointed out in what respect the two
were considered to differ.
In the note which the undersigned addressed to
Mr. Fox on tho 29th of July of the last year,
transmitting the American counter draft, he sta
ted that in consequence of the then recent events
on the frontier, and the danger of collision be
tween tho citizens and subjects ot the two Gov
ernments, a mere commission of exploration and
suivey would be inadequate to the exigencies of
the occasion, and fall behind the just expectations
of the people of both countries, and referred to the
importance of having the measure next adopted
boar upon its face stipulations which must result
in a final settlement, under some form, and in rea
sonable time. These were the reasons which in
duced the President to introduce in the new pro
ject, the provisions which be thought calculated
for the attainment of so desirable an object; and
which, in his opinion, rendered obviously unne
cessary any allusions to the previous agreements
referred to by Mr. Fox. The President is grati
fied to find that a concurrence in those views has
brought the niinds of her Majesty’s Government
to a similar conclusion; and from ibis fresh indi
cation of harmony in the wishes of the two cabi
nets, he permits himself to anticipate the m st
satis r aclory rcsul. from the measure under consid
eration.
Toe undersigned avails himself of the opportu
nity to offer to Mr. Fox renewed assurance of his
distinguished consideration. •
JOHN FORSYTH.
H. S. Fox, esq. &c. &c.
On motion by Mr. Buchanan, the message was
referred to tho Committee on Foreign Relations,
and ordered to be printed.
• A \