Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1840-08-27

the electOr to call in good faith on the
candidate for his favor, for an unrserved
avowal Of his opinions in regard to all mat
ters Of public concern that il may become
his official duty to act upon, is not only
of inestimable value to the success of
political Institutions like ours, but may, ]
think, without exaggeratiOn be regarded
as indispensable TO the maintenance of
Republican Government. Viewing the
subject in this light, and having satisfied
myself that in prOpouRding questions to
me you have, as you assure me, been ac-
tuated by an unfeigned desire 10 be able
to bestow your suffrages understandingly
and to possess yourselves of information
which you deem material to that end, |
cheerfully comply with your request.
You ask me, first "whether if elected ]
will veto any bill having for its object,
the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia: or whether will sanction any
bill granting appropriations Of the pub
lie money to any State, soliciting aid for
the emancipation of their slaves?" My at
tention has been frequently heretofore
allied to the first branch of your inquiry;
and my views in respect 10 it given. The
substance of them was repeated, with ad-
dtional explanations, in letter recently
addressed by me to a committee compos-
ed of citizens Of Louisville, Kentucky,
in reply to question, embracing among
other things, the particular point now re-
feyred TO. AS my reply to your several
questions will, unavoidably, be Of consd.
erable length, ] have not deemed it advi.
sable to repeat that answer here-but will
cause each of you to be supplied with
copy thereof, and cannot doubt your being
satisfied that | have at least fairly met
the subject. The second branch of your
inquiry, though scarcely of less impor-
tanc c, was not brought into view on that
occasion. Nearly all now agree that the
Federal Government possesses no more
power to interfere with the institution Of
slavery in the States; and the general and
undoubtedly the correct principle is, that
the Federal Government cannot apply
the national funds to objects, upon which
they are either expressly prohibited from
acting. or in respect TO winch there is an
acknowledged absence of delegated au-
thority. Usage, supposed necessity and ap-
parenlly uncomfortable considerations of
expediency have, from time TO time, led
tolimited expenditures for which it was
not easy to find warrant in the Const.
tuition. But these have always been re-
garded by the sincere friends ofastrictcon-
sttuction Of that instrument as matters TO
be regretted, and as far as possible to be
prevented. The form of your question
presents for consideration the points
whether the consent of the slave States
could confer on the Federal Government
the constitutional power to apply the pub
lie funds to the emancipation Of their
slaves. unhesitatingIy say it could not,
and that Inever could give my sanction
to such a measure. If State consent
could confer power where the want of il
would otherwise be so manifest, find il
difficult 10 conceive of any case in which
the same result could not, with at least
equal proprety, be claimed TO follow from
the same cause. The establishment oI
such principle must, in my best Judge,
ment, inevitably lead to the prostration
of that Partition of powers between the
General and State Governments, which
the trainers of the Constitution intended
10 erect, and might we'll be dreaded as an
opening wedge to an early and more eX
tended action by Congress upon the par
iicuIar subject under consideration. We
have seen too much Of the progressive
character of constitutional cncroachmenl'
in the early stages Of the Government, tt
; feel assured that continued practice o
contribn'ing to the emancipation of slaves
by the Appropriation o money, might not
in course Of time, cad to attempts by tht
Federal Government TO accomplish th'
fsame object, without eitherthe cOnSant o
the sayehoIuer or indemnity f'r his loss
You next ask me, gentlemen. whethe
! think that, at this time, the safety OF IN
: public money requires rr-charlerlng q
, The United States Brnk, or whether
tuton. My opinions upon the subject
United States Bank we're asked whe
was first candidate for the PresideI
cy in 1886, and were so fully given as
, meet not only your question, but alst
: think. every aspect which the subleC
can he made to assume. They will
s. found 10 my letter TO the Hon. Sherro
Williams of Kentucky, which has bee
extensively published, and are theret
thus expressed:
"You next ask whether will sign ar
70 approve (ifit becomes necessary to secu'
" aud save from depreciation, the revenu
10 and finances Of the nation, and to atfo
We n sound uniform currency to the peoP
a Of the United States,) a bill, with prop
notifications and Fesirictions) charterll
Sc Bank Of the United States.
ne sin the published letter Of Mr.. BI
,r. Ter TO Mr.. Garland, which has alrea