The Arkansas advocate., 1836-10-14

resoutionsa he Senate of New Yofk ins,ruetino inc Representatives in Congress from that Stae 10 vote against the admission of Missouri into the Union, un
 Hess the people oi that State emancpaed their slaves first. Here he declares his abolition principles and at q time too, when those principles frst became danger- oas to the people of the South. Ihs was the pefiod when that alarming doctrine, as now exists in the U States, fifs took it's fse aud we there find Mr. Van buren iastrGmenta n exciting it. Is he sill what he then certainly masfrorn his vote, an bodoiisfls Is not hs d9efne directly against the peace and pfospe ] lily of Arkansasl
 Again, by ths vote he wished to make the rights of the people of Missouri, regards their private proper ty, dependent the will of Congress- and wished Con- gfess o deprive them of the right ofholdng or Iibera. ting their slaves t pleasure which the ,eotsle of every other State had enjoyed He then desifed 10 take from tie people of Missouri common rioh 8joyed by all. Vas this liberal and repubhcanl No. t was 1osthgh toned federal doetfae to allow Coh-
 fess of the Hedefl 6 ttist cont tae priyaterights Inc people ofa siae This is pre- eisey the doctrine Jeferson Madison aud Monroe ops posed, aad which the elder Adams and the other Fed l era!sts favored and supported
 MT. Van Buren again shows his abolition and ftte- fi doctrines, by voting in the Senate o he U States, n 1922, against the admission of slaves into Tlarida Again. last winter, he says that he .swoud not feel safe n saying that Congress had the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia7 Here irany meaning can be drawn from his language, he apaif le- i ADIdttS fl9l Ot Uf tue Iederal dOySru- ment over the private rights of inc people without re- gard to their wishes. The very same doctrine be held m relation to Missour more than fifteen years ago. ihis does not show afavorabe change in bis opinions The saue reasoangs which afe used in support of the alien and seddea laws under the administration ofibe elder Adams, arc nsed and necessary to support those { opinions of Edr. Van Buren.
 x further evidence of bsopposton to hodiag slaves. $, that in the New York Convention, in 1921, he yo- ted for free aegro suffrage Gould such vote De ei. ven unless he desired the emancipation of slaves?- And what estimate can he have of the vote of white linen, he wishes the negroesto vote ando have equal power with them?
 each those years, the latter of which led 10 the ex- elements between sonih Carolina and ihe General Government These bills had for their object The ia- lposloao burthens upon the agricultural interests of the Union for the protection and support of the anu- factWing lnerestan odods discrimination in. free counry. he labor apdinieres of all should beseana- 1 Y protected This measure was particularly iniInca to the South
 Mir Van .Buren, in lS2S as the Journals of the Se- nate show, voted four times none session against the blf reducing and graduating the price ofthe public lands@for making donations to actual setlers--and for granting the refuse lands o the States in bchthey lie This bill was calculated 10 relieve the burthens of the early settlers in all the western States, and especially n ArkaDsas, by securing to them their lands at low Epnces2or giving the land 10 them without price, in considefation of the hadshps they encounter in re- moving 10 and settling wilderness country Ii was a ljustand generous measure, and would have blessed every cabin in Arkansas with joy and abundance. 1 But Mir. Van Buren was unwilling 10 repder this act justice to the hardy setershe cares notfor thelr happiness and prospery--be votes aoanst aer inter- ests Will they vote for himg Can the husband who has taken the last dollar from his wife and children o Ilay for his aud, vote for Mir Van Burenl Inlthe same year. influenced by the same ukind feelings fo- aha t,,., donations to the settlers in Lovely county. Inbishe was not so successful as in the forFerthe grant was obtanc4- Is not the man who gave these votes an enemy to the interests ofthe people of Arkansasl
 In Senate, February 10th, 1923, Mr. Van Isurenyo- ted against bill approprapg money for the payment ofthe Georgia niia whohad served in he years 1892 '93 and '94. See Senate Journal, page I93 Docs this showa friendly and just feeling towards soldier ofbis country! { On 25ih February, same year, HJr Van Buren voted against bill 10 enable the hoderof French and Spa nsh titles in Louisiana, to try be validity of the same Senate Joufnals page l89.
 He did not wish land tiles in the South seied.-- Why not! Because t would aid in the prosperity of the country.
 h Senate. January 2slh, 1874, MT Van Burenyo- ted against .sau act for the final adistnen of andf claims in he State of Missouri and Territory of Arb- ansas derived from France and Spain.''
 Wherefore this yotel Surely it was not kind to- uo VI es and dto depfive our citizens of the certain enjey- fnent of their equitable and legal rights
 On the 18th of May, of the same year, Mrs Van Bnren voted against An act to improve the navigation ! of the Ohio and Mississippfyers.''
 On the 24th February, 1895, hHii Van Buren aiso' voted against net for the continuation of the Gum beiland road Yes, voted to stop the road long before 1t reached Arkansas
 On 20th March, ls26, Mr Tan Buren voted against appropriation of Sl00,0oofor continuing the Cuns- berland roadand again in the same day voted against an. appropriation of 55o,ooo for the same object.