State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-04-12

dlSCnHrgeu an QWCtW guy; ana ulu IL no
doubt, with desire that the guilty should
not go unpublished. But need | stop to
ask, what evidence this furnishes of his
opposition to the institution of (reemdSouy?
If this act made Mr. Van Buren, an anti
mason, what shall we shy OF De Witt Gin
ton, who had previously offered, as Cover
nor Of New York, reward of two thou-
sand dollars for the apprehension and con
viction of one of the principal agents in
the Morgan outrage? Was De Witt Gin
ton an anti-mason And were those
other adhcring mdsOnS in the Legislature
of New York, who ddrocdtcd the prosccu-
tons in question, thereby converted into
anti-masons?
But | cannot, out of respect for the
intelligence of the public, press these
inquiries farther. / will only express my
astonishment, that you should have so far
moderated that intelligence, as to have
paraded before that public your pretended
discovery Of the early anti-masonry of Mr.
Van Buren,. That, after the lapse of sew
Ell years, during which time she party" in
New York have been constantly arrayed
against the cause of anti-masonry, and
assaulted it with the bitrercst invcctive;
during which time, MIR Van Buren, has
been in full communion with that party
in fact, its leader; during which time, he
has not suffered word 10 escape him of
approval of anti-masonry; and during the
whole of which time, the anti-masons of
New York have never thought of claiming
him as favorable to their cause, but have
regarded him as among its most subtle and
decided enemies; that, after the lapse, | say,
Of these seven years, and almost at the
moment when he has refused to commit
himself publicly against the institution Of
.jiocmdS0my, you should profess to have
made discovery of his anti masonry, SUI
perior, in your opinion, even to that of Mr.
Writ, and really ask the anti-masons of the
United States TO sustain him upon That
ground, presents an example of gross at
tempt at political deception, which seems
to me TO fnd scarcely a parallel, even in
this day of political wonders. If anti-ma-
sous can be deceived in this, then is there
nothing with which bold and impudent
pretcnder may not deceive and nialcad
them
1t thus appears, that if we cannot select
Mr.. Van Buren, as candidate on account
of the "principles and policy which he has
introduced into the administration of the
Government, and promised 20 "carry out"
if elected, we shall find it equally difficult
to select and sustain him as known oppo-
nent Of the institution of frecmasonry. 1t
must indeed, be quite new sort Of anti
masonry, which can induce us to take MP
Mr. Van Buren,, while General Harrison
is before the public, who, as have shown
stands upon the ground which anti. masons
have occupied from the beginning, or while
DANIEL WEBSTER, the noble defender of
The Constitution, and the decided, and long
avowed opponent of frecmasonry is in u
position to receive our support.
There is one other view in which this
question Of the Presidency is presented, to
which | will devote a moments attention.
Great alarm is, sometimes, expressed at
the probability that a rally upon a third
candidate may prevent choice by the
people and carry the election into thcllouse
of Representatives. Now, / am not dis
posed on the one hand, unnecessarily, to
court this contingency, nor, on the other,
to sacrifice the rights of the Ieople, and
stiGe the fair expression of their will, for
the sake of avoiding it. The contingency
is one for which the constitution has pro-
vidcd, and which the trainers of that in
strument must have forsecn would, in the
diversity of views and interests in this great
republic, he one of not unfrequcnt occur
renee. And is it an evil which is to be so
dreaded as to produce practical oXpunglng
Of that provision from the constitution: Is
it not rather contingency which results
from one the most cherished principles
of our free systems-thc freedom Of sur.
rage? What becomes of the Gecdom of
suffrage. for example, of the people of
Pennsylvania, if when two candidates for
the Presidency have got possession of the
field, they are compelled to vote for one
of them, though they are utterly opposed
to the "princples and policy" of both !?
Why should they not be permitted to bring
forward a candidate who shall be fair
representative of their own principles, and
urge him upon the support ofthe country !?
Who has right to say to them that they
shall stand exclusively responsible for
carrying the election into the House of
Representatives Who has the power of
deciding, indeed, that their candidate shall
not finally distance all his competitors {?
There is, something, had almost said,
inSuflerably arrogant in the ground taken
by certain new friends of one of the can
didates for the Presidency, on this subject
1t amounts to this that the whole of the
opposition, north of "Alason and DiXons
lino"- much as they detest the principles
and policy of the Executive candidate, and
deeply as they are convinced that their ten
dency is fatal to the purity and freedom OF
our institutions; must, nevertheless, sup
port that candidate on pain Of being de-
nounced MS friends of slavery and nulIf.
cation as traitors, in fact, TO free princi-
pies, in the very efforts they make to sus-
tain and perpetuate them
There is hardly any thing moro obvious
to an intelligent observer of the indications
of public sentiment, than that Mr. Van Blu
rem with all The Fictitious aid derived from
the patronage ofthe government, and the
( personal influences of the President, is not
! tho oh ,no 60 r., Al.