Newspaper Page Text
ATIOMS.
. OF GEORGIA.
\
(Jen- rison is charged with bein';
an aboiitio...st. I donv the allegation—l
offer argument, facts and truth, to meet the
misconceptions of his opinions, or the errors
into which those have fallen on this subject
who pialce the charge. Fain would 1 hope
that then: are none so base, as to seek to in-
jure this long-tried, faithful, and honest old j
patriot, soldier and statesman, by assertions j
wantonly false and libellous. Trusting
that I am addressing none but those who are
honest in the opinions which they utter, and
the assaults which they make, I shall con
cede to others purity of motive and integrity
of purpose, as I would have the same con
ceded to myself; I shall attack Imldly, but
fairly—l shall defend firmly, but honestly.
I shall affect no undue sensibility in the use
of the knife, while probing attacks malic
iously made upon personal character, or,
wounds treacherously indicted upon the
constitution of the country and the prosperi
ty ofthe people. It is notiny purpose to re
sort extensively to documentary testimony
in this communication, hut rather to state
facts as they have taken place, holding my
self ready to prove them ifdenied.or retract
them if shown to be erroneous. I shall pass
over the charge made against Gen. Harri
son of being a member of an Abolition Soci
ety in Richmond Virginia, (such a Society
as is now constituted at, the North) while
yet a boy, as being too preposterous to he
worthy of notice, and proceed to contrast
his acts and opinions with those of Mr. Van
Buren’s on the subject of Slavery, in every
important particular, in which they have
been made known, or, arc known to the
writer.
First, then, we find Gen. Harrison as a
member of the House of Representatives of
the United States, in 1819, voting to admit
Missouri into the Union as a Slaveholding
State. There are thousands now living all
over the country, who recollect the excite
ment produced by this Missouri question.
It shook the Union to its foundations—•disun
ion, civil war, servile insurrection stared
the country in the face. Missouri was re
solved to come in with slavery or not at all.
All the Slave States were ready to sustain
her. This was a time and occasion, to try
the spirits, the principles and patriotism of
men and parties. Gen. jdarrison was told
that if he acted with the South and sustained
Missouri, he would be sacrificed at home
in Ohio. His noble, patriotic and magnan
imous reply was, in substance, “ That it
would he far better that he should be sacri
ficed than that the constitution and his coun
try should he .sacrificed.” He gave his
vote bravely and generously for Southern
rights, and he was defeated, (as had been
predicted) at the next election. What at
this same time was the position of Mr. Van
Buren, the “Northern man with Southern
Principles.” He had voted for Rufus King
the great Federal leader, and-Missouri re
strictionist, as United Slates Senator for
New York, and in tins same year, 1819,
voted for and was instrumental in carrying
resolutions, instructing the New York Sena
tors to oppose the admission of Missouri.,
unless Slavery was prohibited by her consti
tution. He did this in the face of the dark
est and most, appalling dangers to which the
Republic had ever been exposed! The dis
solution ofthe Union was nothing ; civil war
with all its horror-s was nothing—servile in
surrections were nothing—Southern peace
and security were nothing in comparison
with the execution of his purposes, arid tire
infliction upon Slavery of the deadly blows
which frorwhis heart’ he wished to: make
upon it. The foul monster was to he
crushed even if the Union had ter” he dissolv
ed,—the compromises of the Union were to’
be violated even if the blood shed by ottr
patriot fathers was tobe rendered unavail
ing by the overthrow ofthe constitution* and
the destruction of that liberty and'fraternal
compact which was the great object of all
their toils and sacrifices and expenditure
of blood and treasure. Here is high, chiv
alrous, generous devotion, to Southern
rights and Institutions ! In this same year
1819 we find Gen. Harrison voting against
a resolution prohibiting Shivery in the ter
ritory of Arkansas. Mr. Van Buren voted’
for resolutions to prohibit, it in this same
tenritory, and subsequently in the Senate
®fthe United States, voted to restrict the
introduction of slaves into the territory of
Florida, that extreme portion ofthe Soutfc,
surrounded‘ by slave Islands and slave
States on every hand. In the very year
1822 when.Mr. Van Buren was voting as
above against Florida, Gen. Harrison was
a candidate for Congress in Ohio, making
speeches during the canvass in favor of his
votes for Missouri and Arkansas, and suf
fered defeat because ofhis devotion to south
ern rights. Following fife course of Gen.
Harrison, we find’ him in a speech deliver
ed on the 4th of July at Cheviot, Ohio, ma
king use of the following language :
“ There is, however, a subject now beginning
to alarm them, in relation to which, if their alarm
has anv foundation, the relative situation in
which they may stand to some of the States, will
bo the very reverse to what it now is. I allude to
a supposed disposition in some individuals in the
non-slavclioldiug States, to interfere with the
slave population of the other States, for the pur
pose of lorcing their emancipation.”
* s, * * * * *
“ If there is any principle of the Constitution
of the tinned Slates less disputable than any
oilier, it is, that the slave population is under the
! exclusive control of the Staton which possess
them.”
* * * * * * *
“ What must lie the consequence of an ac
j know .edged violation of these rights, (for every
i man ol sense must admit it to ha so,) conjoined
with an insulting intorforence with their domestic
concerns I”
* * * * * * *
“ Is there a man vain enough tu go to the land
ofMatlmoii, of Macon, and of Crawford, and toll
them that they sillier do not understand tiio
principles <rf the moral and political rights of man;
or that, understanding, they disregard thorn f
Cau they address an argument, to the interest nr
fears oi tha enlightened population of the slave
States, that has not occurred to themselves a
thousand and a thous md times ! To whom, thou,
are they to address themselves but to the slaves !
And what can he said to them, that Will not lead
to an indiscriminate slaughter of every age and
sex, and ultimately to ineir own destruction I
Should there be an incarnate devil Who has ima
gined with approbation, such a catastrophe to li s
tellow-citizens as I have described, let. him look
to thuse for whose benefit lie would produce it-”
St * * * * * St
“ I will not stop to inquire into the motives of
those who are engaged in this fatal and unconsti
tutional project. There may be some who have
embarked in it without projierly considering its
consequences, and who are actuated oy benevol
ent and virtuous principles. But, if such there
are, I am very certain that, should they continue
their present course, their fellow-citizens will,
ere long, ‘ curse the virtues which have undone
their country.’ ”
% * •* * ** * *
“ If I am correct in the principles here ad
vanced, I support my assertion, that the discus
sion on the subject of emancipation in the noil*
slaveholdiiig Stale.', is equally injur.ous to the
slaves and their masters, and that-it has no sanc
tion in the principles ofthe Constitution.”
These arc ext racts from a speech of Gen.
Harrison in 1839, which is an eloquent de
fence of our rights, and a powerful invec
tive against abolitionists. In this speech
we find the following sentences which have
been so often separately quoted to prove
the General to be an abolitionist of the
worst Stamp. “Should Ibe asked if there
is no way by which the General Govern
ment can aid flic cause of emancipation ; I
answer, that it has long been an object,
near my heart, to sec the whole of its sur
plus revenue appropriated to that object.
With the sanction of the States holding the
Slaves, there appears to me to be no con
stitutional objection to its being thus appli
ed ; embracing not only the colonization
of those that may be otherwise freed, hut
the purchase of the freedom of others. By
a zealous prosecution of a plan formed up
on that basis, we might look forward to a
day, not very distant, when a North A
merican sun would not look down upon a
slave.”
Whatever may he thought of the plan
put forth in this extract ; however prepos
terous we may esteem it to lie, it will he
perceived that the consent of the Slave
States is essentially necessary to make it
constitutional, or to carry it into effect.—
Well, Gen. Harrison will have long been
gathered to his fathers, and all of us now
living will rest in our graves before such
consent can possibly he given. So that no
danger need lie apprehended from this
source. But if Gen. Harrison is proven
to be an abolitionist by the above, I will
prove Mr. Jefferson to have been one for
having entertained views almost if not en
tirely the same. Our surplus revenue al
luded to by Gen. Harrison, is derivublo
mainly from duties, on foreign importations
and the sales of the public lands. Mr.
, Jefferson was in favor of appropriating the
proceeds of the sales of the public lands’ to
purposes of emancipation. 1 make the as
sertion. The proof is at hand should it lie
denied. The writer looks upon any such
plan to be 1 not only unconstitutional, but
weak and preposterous. But with what
face can the opponents of Gen. Harrison
hold up this plan as so heinous and mon
strous, so’ abominable and incendiary in
him, when at the same time, they will point
you to Mr. Jefferson as the great apostle of
liberty, the exemplar of all that is:constitu
tionally pure and political lyjusl and ortho
dox. The stark-naked hatefulness and
enormity and injustice of this course, n>ust
be seen'by’ every one, not benighted by
ignorance, or bewildered by sophistry, or
maddened by partizan fury. Coming to
the year 1835, when Gen. Harrison was a
candidate for the Presidency, we find him
putting forth the following sentiments in a
speech delivered at Vincennes, Indiana :
“ 1 have now, fellow-citizens, a few words
more to say on another subject, and which is, in
ruy opinion, of more importance than any other
that is now in the course of discussion in any
part of the Union. I allude to the societies
which lwve been formed, and the"movements of
certain individuals, in some of die States, in rela
tion to a jiortion of the population in others. The
conduct of these persons is the: most dangerous,
because their object is masked under the garb of
disinterestedness and beflevolence; and their
course vindicated by arguments and propositions
which in'tlie abstract no oner can afiny. But, j
however liscinoting may bo the dress with which |
their schemes are presented to the if follow
citizens, with whatever purity of intention they
may have been formed and sustained, they will
be found to carry in their train mischief to the
whole Union, and horrors to a large portion of it
which it is probable some ol the projectors, and
many of their supporters, have never thought of;
the latter, the first in the series of evils which are
to spring from this source, are sucli as you have
read of to have been perpetrated on the fair plains
of Italy and Gaul by the Scythian hordes ot
Atilla and Alaric ; and such as most of you ap
prehended upon that memorable night, when the
tomahawks and war-clubs of the followers of Te
cuinseii were rattling in your suburbs. J regard
not the disavowals of any such intentions upon
the part ofthe authors of these schemes, since,
upon the examination of the publications which
have been made, they will be found to contain
every fact and every argument which would iiave
been used if muc.li had been tiieir objects. lam
certain that there is not in this assembly one of
these deluded men, and there are few within the
bounds of the .State. If there are any, 1 w ould
earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause in their
career, and deliberately consider the conse
quences of their conduct to the whole Union*—to
tiio States more immediately interested, and to
those for whose benefit they proiess to act. That
tiio latter will be the victims ofthe weak, injudi
cious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional etforts
to servo them, a thorough examination ofthe sub
ject must convince them. The struggle (and
struggle there must he) may commence with
horrors.such as I iiave described, but it will end
witli more firmly riveting the chains, or in the
utter extirpation of those whose cause they ad
vocate. Am 1 wrong, fallow-citizens, in apply
ing tlie terms weak, presumptuous, and uncon
stitutional, to the measures ol the emancipators !
A slight examination vvil', I think, show that lam
not.”
This is only ft small portion ofthe re
marks made hv him on that occasion, in
all of which he w-as equally serere. pointed
and explicit. This certainly Would not be
called non-committal : here is lio dodnin'’
’D C 8
the question—-no tampering with abolition
ism, hut to lush it with indignant patriot
ism—no intercourse with abolitionists, hut
to tell them of their Carthagcnian faith of
the guile upon their lips—ofthe fascination
of their dress with deceit, hate, and venge
ance rankling in their hearts, and horrors
which no language can describe, hanging
about their purposes. There is not a par
ticle of evidence to show that Gen. Harrison
has changed his opinions in reference to
the abolitionists and their designs ; on the
other hand, lie has declared in this year,
1 840, that they are the same as they were
formerly. 1 had intended to notice one or
two other charges against the General in
this communication, hut hs it is already
protracted longer than I had intended, I
will conclude with a Summary view of the
opinions ofthe two candidates upon slavery,
including the vote of Mr. Van Buren in
favor of free Negroes in New York, the
Ilooe case, and the district of Columbia.
Ist. Mr. Van Buren voted to prevent the
admission of Missouri into the Union, with
slavery.
Gen. Harrison voted in favor of Missou
ri on that question.
2d. Mr. Van Buren voted against the
introduction of slavery into Arkansas and
Florida.
Gen. Harrison voted in favor of Arkan
sas with slavery, not having the opportu
rfltv to vote in reference to Florida.
3d. Mr. Van Buren voted in favor of
free negro suffrage in the New York Con
vention.
4th. Mr. Van Buren sanctioned the ad
mission of negro testimony against Lieut.
Hooe ofthe Navy, by stating that lie saw
nothing in the case requiring his interfer
ence, when he was appealed to by said
Hooe as the last, resort to save himself and
the country from the disgrace of the trans
action.
sth. The uniform tenor of Gen. Harri
son’s public life,shows him to have been ard
ently and actively engaged by votes, letters,
and speeches in defence of the rights and
peculiar institutions ofthe South, not only
when in office, hut out of office, not only
while a candidate for Congress or the Pre
sidency, but while in retired and private
life.
The uniform tenor ol Mr. Van Buren’s
public life, shows him to have boon deeply
hostile, to our rights and institutions, as
evinced by his votes referred to above. It
is however true, that since his first dreams
for the Presidency, he has made some pro
mises and pledges (in mercy not for us,
but himself,) to which I will presently re
fer.
6th. Mr. Van Buren concedes to Congress
the right to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia, and the territories of the U.
States ; but says that it would he inexpedi
ent to'do so, and has pledged himself that
he would veto any bill passed by Congress
for such an object.
Gen. Harrison says that Congress has
no constitutional power to abolish slavery in
the District or territories as above.
Os what value to the South are the pled
ges ofM. Van Buren? They are of such
a character as he coaid safely make. He
knew well that no redemption of them could
he called for during his term of office.—
Judging however from the inconsistency of
his political life, we might reasonably doubt
the stability olh\& adherence to them; should
a changefso extraordinary take place with
in a time so limited'as to call for his offi
[cial action on the subject. But admitting
that there can he no danger of any interfe
rence of this character for the next four
years, do we not sacrifice too much by sus
taining for the highest office in the gift of
the people, a man who gives to Congress
the power of legislation on this subject in
the District of Columbia, though he thinks
it inexpedient to use it. With what con
sistency can a Southerner object to the re
ception of abolition petitions by Congress,
with the explicit declaration of all but a few
bigotted fanatics, that the prayer ofthe pe
titioners shall be rejected, and yet support
a’man for the Presidency who believes that
Congress has the right to grant their prayer,
hut thinks it inexpedient to do so.
Those petitions are objected to, upon the
ground that Congress lias no power over the
subject; and yet with the most inconceiv
able infatuatioh, with an inconsistency
strange and unaccountable, these very men
give their support to him who avers that
Congress possesses the power. Which of
the two, then, is most worthy, most deser
ving of Southern Votes ? Let Southern free
men and voters answer in their consciences
and at the jiolls. Will you take the man
who has been uniformly against you, and Is
against you upon constitutional grounds in
reference to the tenderest questions of inte
rest to the South, merely because he lias
made a promise to veto a law which he s&vs
Congress has a right to pass, or, will you
take the old veteran warrior and statesman
who is With us upon constitutional grounds
and expediency, who has been wounded and
scarred in defence of your rights, in his
young manhood, in the maturity Os middle
age, and who now with silver locks flowing
around his venerable temples, still points
to flic Constitution as the palladium, of your
rights, and the guardian of your peculiar
institutions. MADISON.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS.
Sir :—You have doubtless remarked
how labored, and yet how vain have
been the efforts ofthe self-styled Democrats
to shelter Mr. Van Buren from the storms of
indignation which li is conduct, in the case of
Lieutenant Hooe, has excited in the South
against him. Every scribbler, from the ly
ing Editor of “the filthy sheet,” down to the
humblest understrapper of this corrupt and
corrupting Administration, has been “pres
sed into the service” of extenuating his con
duct in the case referred to. But all this
would not do. Mr. Van Buren anxiously
watches the progress of events in the South,
and finds her wrath is still unappeased.—
He takes the field himself and endeavors to
bolster up his waning fortunes by intrigue
and falsehood. It is strange as humiliating
that the President of the United States
cannot pen a short letter without embo
dying in it false assertions. The letter I
here allude Jo, is his last production, ad
dressed to a citizen of Martin county, North
Carolina. Before reviewing the letter, it
will he best to state fully the part Mr. Van
Buren lias acted in this case, in order that
we may he better able to judge whether or
not this letter is a sufficient excuse for his
conduct. During the trial of Lieutenant
Hooe, two negroes, servants ofthe Comman
der, were introduced as witnesses. Lieut.
Hooe protested against their being admitted,
his protestation was over-ruled, and they
were allowed to testify. He was found guil
ty and the proceedings were approved by
the Secretary ofthe Navy. Then Lieut.
Hooe in a respectful address submitted the
whole matter to the President, which I
copy verbatim :
“ There is another point in the pro
ceedings of the Court ( touching their le
gality) to which I invite the particular atten
tion of your Excellency. It respects a mat
ter to which all Southern men arc deeply sen
sitive, and if not overruled by your Excellen
cy, will assuredly drive many valuable men
from the Navy. In the progress of the pro
ceedings of the Court, two negroes, one the
cook, the other the private steward of Com
mander Levy, were introduced as witnesses
against me,l protested against their legal com
petency to be witnesses in the territory of Flo
rida,on the ground that they were negroes.The
Court disregarded my exceptions, and as the
record shows, they were allowed to be exam
ined and to testis yon my trial. This I charge
as a proceeding illegal and erroneous on the
part ofthe Court, and if so, according to es
tablished law and precedent, must vitiate and
set aside their whole proceedings. All which
is most respectfully submitted to your consid
eration and final decision, by your obedient
servant, “george mann hooe.”
Here then is the appeal of Lieut. Hooe to
Mr. Van Buren, in which he respectfully
calls his “particular attention” to the fact
that two negroes were permitted to testify
against him, and prays his decision as to
their legal competency. Mr. Van Buren
after having reviewed the whole proceed
ings of the Court, writes the following en
dorsement :
. “ The President finds nothing in the
proceedings, in the case of Lieutenant
Hooe, which'requires his interference.
(Signed) “ m-aßtix van buren.”
Let every Southerner mark the language,
and ponder over this monstrous declaration.
“The President finds nothing in- the proeee
dings in die case of Lieut. Hooe, which re
quires his interference.” Lieutenant Hooe
cites his attention particularly to this fact,
and lie sees Ho impropriety in it. No:
there is nothing wrong in the estimation of
this “ Northern man with Southern princi
ples,” in a negroe’s testifying against a
white man ; nothing in all this to call for
his interference, and he therefore declines
to disturb the decision of the Court. Hav
ing set forth the charge alleged against him
by the South, we will now proceed to ex
amine his letter already referred to, and’
see if it contains any satisfactory plea in his
behalf. After detailing the proceedings in
the case, he says, “The simple q uestion pre
sented by these proceedings, was whether
the admission of illegal evidence (assum
ing it to be so) to substantiate parts only of
the charges, ought to be allowed to invali
date the finding of the Court in regard to
those charges, which were established to
the satisfaction of the Court by other and
unquestioned evidence, &e.” Mr. Van Bu
ren hits wide of the mark, if he supposes
this to he the main point at issue between
him and the South. The Southern public
has troubled itself very little as to the guilt
or innocence of Lieut. Hooe, or the amount
of evidence adduced against him. Mr. Van
Buren is arraigned by the South to answer
for his having ratified the principle of negro
testimony against a white man. It is be
cause lie declined to interfere when he could
have crushed this odious and intolerable
doctrine. It is this that has excited the an
imadversion and aensure of the South. It
is the principle involved and not the indi
vidual tried and condemned, which has
done a violence to the feelings and arofised
the indignation of every Southerner. Why
did not Mr. Vaii Buren interpose his autho
rity as he undoubtedly had the right to do,
ami pronounce his disapprobation of such
proceedings ? No, in this instance as in
every other where the question of etjualitv
between the negro and white has cottte up
before him, he has invariably proved liiri'i
seifthe friend and advocate of that equality.
He is now just what he was when in the
New York Convention, he eSerted himself
to procure for the African race, the enjoy
ment of tile highest privilege of a freeman,
the elective franchise. He is now what he
was When in the New York Legislature, he
co-operated with Rufus King to promote the
Missouri restrictions. In short, Mr. Van
Buren is in feeling, as all his acts have pro
ven him, an Abolitionist. His conduct in
this instance is in strict accordance with the
whole of his past life. But hear Mr. Van
Buren again : He says lie was not willing
to set aside the proceedings of the Court in
consequence of negroes being permitted to
testify, because there was other evidence
admitted to be legal, sufficient to convict.
How did his “ Illustrious Predecessor act
in a similar case?” During the Adminis
tration of Gen. Jackson; a Cadet at West
Point was dismissed, at whose trial a negro
was allowed to testify. The case was car
ried to Gen. Jackson, and when reference
was made to the ‘testimony of the negro,
Jackson exclaimed to “say no more, that is
enough. The fact of a negro’s ‘ deposing
against a white man, is of itself in my esti
mation sufficient to vitiate the whole procee
ding. The decision is reversed and the
Cadet reinstated.” Now place Mr. Van
Buren’s endorsement of the proceedings in
the case of Lieutenant Hooe, by the side of
this decision of General Jackson, and how
does it appear ? “The President finds no
thing in the proceedings in the case of Lieu
tenant Hooe which requires his interfer
ence.” Does Mr. Van Buren’s conduct
need any other commentary ? Again, lie
says in the same letter, “It is believed that
the practice of permitting them (negroes)
to testify, has been uniform, and I have
not found that the question has ever been
’ brought up before for decision.” How
happens it Mr. Van Buren, that this has
been the uniform practice of the Courts ?—■
It must either be by some statutory provi
sion, or by the operation ofthe precedents,
lie admits there is no act of Congress on the
subject, consequently they must be recog
nized as competent witnesses (if at all) by
the common law. Now the question
is, what is common law ? It is “ immemo
rial universal usage, usage whereof the
memory of man runeth not to the contrary.”
Then to constitute it common law, it must
have precedent for its basis. Now where is
the precedent ? We challenge Mr, Van Bu
ren or any” of his friends, to show us one sin
gle precedent in which it has been decided
to he the law of this land. We have had
a Navy for sixty years, during which time
Court Martials iiave frequently been con
vened ; now point us to a solitary case where
it has been adjudged that a negro is a com
petent and legal witness against a white
man. It can It be found, it is not the law
of this land, never was, nor can it ever be,
so lona as the South shall have a voice in
the councils of the country. Mr. Vanßu
ren begs the question whew he says it is
the uniform practice in this country, and
thus absolves himself from ghiTt; lie knew
it was false when he uttered it; he knew
we were governed by no such law.
Mr. Van Buren again states what is
false, when ho says this question was ne
ver before brought up for decision. Was
not the identical question decided by Gen.
Jackson in the case of the 5 Cadet at West
Point ? But it has been decided by Judge
Taney, in the Supreme Court ofthe United
States, after he had reviewed the whole
common law, that a negro was a legal
witness against a negro, hut could not tes
tify against a white man. And yet after
tlie principle has been decided over and
agaip, Mr. Van Buren says in the
face otj it, that to admit negroes to testify
against white men is the “ uniform prac
tice” of Shis country, that “ the question
was never before brought up for decision.”
Shame upon Such a man! He the Chief
Executive of tltfe Republic ! After this,’
let us hear no mote of that electioneering,
profession, a “ Northern man with South-’
ern principles!” T\p South cannot be
longer duped or humbugged into a belief’
of any such professions. She will look at’
facts and acts and will not governed!
any longer by empty promises. Mr. Van
Buren has proven himself unworthy of her
confidence or support. Ilis conduct in the
case of Lieut. Hooe is abhorrent to the
feelings and degrading to the character of
the American people, and will in Novem
ber next meet with its merited rebuke.
JUNIUS. *
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS.
Sir : —Permit me to inquire, through the
columns of your journal, if all President
Van Buren’s affidavit makers are dead ; or
are they only sleeping till the eve of the
elections ?
I am a subscriber to the Southerner, edited
by the Frenchman, Guieu ; and have, of
course, seen all the affidavits which were
probably paid for with the people’s money—
and charged in Van’s hill of “sundries,”
which bus been exhibited to the American
people, as the document showing how their
money went.
Now that Mr. Van Burch has found men
enough to perjure themselves, by swearing
abolitioftism find federalism upori “ Old
Tip,” I would suggest to him the necessity
of buying up some other scamp, who will
swear, “ that Martin Van Buren mver did
recommend the standing army project of
two hundred thousand he never
did sanction negro testimony against a white
man—that he never did vote for the right
of free negroes to vote—that he never did
sanction the calling of a court martial to try
an officer -of the army, for buying provisions
of a Whig, to the detriment of the Democra
tic party —that, under his Administration, 1 ’
$40,000,000 of the people’s money, with
the revenue that has accrued, and
$5,000,000 borrowed, have not been squan
dered.
It does seem to me that Van has fort fife
tact, or he would have hired some patent
Democrat to swear him not guilty of the’
above charges. Would it not be- a good’
idea, sir, to address the paper that contains
this, to cither Van or Amos, that they may
profit by the suggestion ?
It is true, the old farmers are not fond of
lying, particularly when the lie is sent out
under the imposing form of an affidavit.-
But what cares Van for them ! The De
mocratic newspapers always relish one if it
is well told I —and they will puff Va'h, and’
puff the affidavit maker in the same
■ column'; and do it so much, that they
finally persuade the fellow that he swore to’
the truth—and lie at once imagines himself
almost equal to Van. Thus conscience is
calmed, and lying applauded.
1840)
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDE
PENDENT PRESS,
i Sir , —Probably an apology is due you 1
for the unguarded course pursued by my--
seif in asking your opinions relative to a 1
few plain questions propounded by me to’
you through the medium ofthe “News.”—
As you had placed yourself before the pub
lic as a professed expounder of correct prin
ciples, or otherwise, in the attitude of a pub--
lie lecturer, I felt that I should not be arro
gating too much to ask from your hands an*
exposition of your views upon the seVer’al’
subjects embraced in the at
hove alluded to. And although you attWi
buteto me a share of -forwardness” (forget)
ing a similar act of yours as connected'Witif*
the Crawfordville Committee) which I shall!
not be very “ prompt ” in admitting, I will!’
endeavor to inform you that I was onfee pla
ced in the not very enviable station of etiifor
of a country Journal; and did hot, notwith
standing the dignity of my office, consider
myself so far exalted above my fellow-dti
zens, as to pronounce any one of them'/or
ward, if they should feel disposed, in a po
lite way, to-ask me a question, or even'ques
tions. But, if you have takeii such'a view
of the stationof an editor, I stand corrected,
and most humbly solicit forgiveness forth Us
