Columbus Democrat. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1840-07-25

in the case. lie, afterwards appealed rom The :
decision Of The court 10 The President, who after
due elimination Of he case, and taking the
opinion Of the proper law officers, determined on.
y not to iHtsrtsrs,wbsn be ascer,aiued from them
that - fhs testimony irhieh H0os oJjsei,d 10 may
Be entirely rgeeisd 'rithoui afsctng "a, ssnisae.
o. The Cont" Hooe, in fact, was condemned
by white testimony the evidence Of the negroes
was lmrlulerial and unnecessary.
This Is a plain aHd true statement Of the case.
Two facts are deducble from il, which should in.
crease the confidence Of all true hearted South.
ern men IN Dir Van Buren,. lst. board Of
Southern Wing officers, sitting in iudemen, on
their brother officer oflhe Navy decided to ad.
init NEGRO testimony" against him. End. Mr..
Van Buren, when appealed to refused to interfere
only when he asceralned tina, the negro testimony
was mma,erlal, and that the white evidence alone
was sufficient TO convict Hooc. and establish the
correctness Of the Courts decision. Had he in.
teflered under such circumstances and ar
rested the decision Of the board Of officers be
would have been faithless to his trust, and Justly
deserving tho apprehension Of hi. counlrymen
From the statement which we have mado-and
we challenge the Editor of the Argus, and Is
men behind the curtain, TO dlsproye 1t in a single
particular, the reader, whether wing or democrat
will perceive how shallow, how futile, bow per-
fectly contemplate is this IIooe Humbug. The
assertion Of the Argus that Lieutenant Hooe was
convicted and dismissed from the Navy by the
testimony Of negro Witnesses is false absolutely
and unqualfedy FALSE, and the Editor must
have known i,--if indeed he knew any thing of
the case-when he penned it,
When the Argus man has properly dgested
this dose Of "locolocolsm," we have another TO
administer to him-no wond er that our medicine
is sickening to him, as its chief ingredient is
TRUTH, the most nauseous stuff in the world to
a hard cider wing Editor.
Il writer in tho last Argus rropounds to US
three questions, and wishes US TO let the people
know the truth and the whole truth" respecting
them.-We cheerfuIy comply with his request,
and the more readily as he is evidently in need of
information himself upon the subject of his quer-
ries.
First; he asks us, did not Mr. Van Buren,
say, in one Of his messages, that Congress has the
right to abolish slavery in the District Of colum-
ba." Mr. Van Buren, never IN any of "his mes
sages" alluded to the abolition of slavery in the
District VIVA, he did say upon the subject was
in letter dated 9th of March 1886 to Junius
AIMS and others of North Carolina. The follow
ing are his words in that letter, :" would not
from the lights now before me feel myself safe in
pronouncmg that Congress does not possess the
right of interfering with or abollshng slavery in
the District Of Columbia but do not hesitate
to give it TO you as my deliberate and well con-
sIdcred opinion tha, there are objections to The
exercise oflhis power against the wishes Of the
sIayo.holding States. as imperative in their ma.
nurs and Obligations. IN regulating the conduc, Of
public men: AS THE MOST PALPABLE WANT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER WOULD Be" In his
inaugural address Mr. Van Buren, gave pledge
to put his veto upon any bill passed by Congress
interfering with slavery IN the District or in the
Stotc--a pledge which Gen. Harrison has repea.
teddy refused TO give.
I'd, add not Mr. Van Buren,whih IN the New
York Legislature vote for bill nslruciing Rufus
King, Senator from that State to vote against
the admission Of Missouri into the Union unless
she come in as non.slaveholding State" We
acknowledge Z" tie corn,n Mr. Van Buren, did
give a slen, vote Tor such rstructions--he voted
what he knew TO be the wishes of his constituents.
Gen. Harrison voted, in Congress, in 1919 a.
gainst the Missouri restriction; but yielded the
Constitutional principle by proposing to fix Ger.
tain line North of which slavery should not be
permitted to exist. In 1920, before the Missouri
question was settled, he became member Of the
Ohio Senate and in that body assisted in maturing
and voted for the following preamble and resolu.
ton
"Whereashe existence Of slavery in our coun
/ Try has ever been deemed great moral and po-
iihedl eri, and its tendency directly calculated to
impdir our national character, and materially at.
feet our national happiness; and inasmuch as the
extension Of slave population in the United
States is fIaught with the most fearful consequen.
. ces to the permanency and durability of our Re.
, publican institutions: And whereas, The subject
Of the admission Of slavery in the new State Of
Missouri is at this time before the Congress Of
the United States therefore,
, Resoirsd, That our Senators and Representa-.
tives be requested to use their utmost exertons,
and take every means to prevent the extension of
slavery within the territory of the United States
| r. Il Il -.