Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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