Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1840-09-12
MANY DEMOCRATS.
MR.. VAN BUREN's LETTER.


Several citizens Of Virginia recently
addressed letter to Mr.. Vaa Buren, ask,
ing the following questions:
!. Will on, il reelected President, We.
TO any bill having for lis oject, the abo'l,
ton Of slavery in the District Of Col I'm.
bia or would you sanction any bin iran.
lung appropriations Of the public ,.noney,
70 any State, soliciting oil for re emon
Iciplton Of their slaves
2. Do you think that, n This lime. The
safety ol the public mor.ey reanirss re-
Ichanering Of the United States Bank or
would You sign bill chartenng such an
institution
. are yop m favor Of preserving en-
tire The Taft Compromise ?
q. We aid you sanction any bill grant
ing appropriations Of the public money,
Tor TIE purposes Of Internal Enforcement,
BY means Of canals, rail roads, &c. ?
! 5. Do you approve Of Mr.. Poinset''s
Ischeme for The organization Of the militia?
1 The preceding questions have been pro
posed to Mr.. Harrison.
TO these questions the President has
gwen frank and full reply. We should
be glad to publish the whole letter, but liz
length obligrs us to exclude his answer Il
al those questions, which he has so fre.
qaenty and explicitly answered hereto
fore.
The first branch Of the first question
was answered in hia inaugural, when hi
pledged himself to reto aay bill haring fol
its object the abolition Of slavery IN III
District of Columbia.
Upon the second branch of The frs
question Mr.. Van Buren's sentiments ar
set forth as follows:
Nearly all agree that the Federal GOV
crnment possesses no power 70 inlerfer
{ with the institution ofslayery in the States
I and the general and undoubtedly the col
rect principle il, that The Federal Govern
ment cannot apply The national funds
objects, upon which they are expressl
J, Iprohibited from acting, or in respect
\ which there is ali acknowledged absenc
! of delegated authority. Usage, suppose
7 necessity and apparently uncontrollab
considerations Of expediency have, fro
4 time to time, led 10 limited expenditure
r for which il WINS not easy u find a wa
Il rant IN the Constitution. But these ha,
u always been regarded by the sincere frient
! of strict construction Of that insirumc
as matters 10 DO regretted, and az far
y possible to be prevented. The form
I" your question presents for considerable
ar the points whether the consent of 4
y Slave States could confer on the FEEDER
rlGoycrnment The constitutional power
\ apply the public funds to the emancipati
e. of their slaves. unhesitatingly say
rs could not, and that never could give r
~ sanction 10 such measure. IL State co
\. sent could confer power where the want
= il would otherwise be so manifest, | Il
80 II difficult to conceive Of any case 10 viii
he the same result could not, with at lei
III equal propriety, be claimed 70 follow ir'
", The same cause. The establishment
!. such principle, must, in my judgme
= Inevitably lead TO the prcsIraiion Of u
'cs partition Of powers between the Gene
lis and State Governments, which the fran
are Of the Constitution intended 70 erect, I
III might well be dreaded as an open
=, wedge 10 an early and more extended
Ky ton by Congress upon the particular
APP iect under consideration. We have 81
mi 100 much Of Tie progressive character