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

candidate tor MS taVoT, Tor an unTSerVed
aVowal of bis opinions in regard to all mat
ters of public concern that it 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 propounding questions to
me you have, as you assure me, been ac-
tuated by an unfeigned desire to be able
to bestow your sufrages 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 oftheir slavesg" My at
tention has been frequently heretofore
called to the first branch of your inquiry;
and my views in respect to it given. The
substance of them was repeated, with ad-
dtional explanations, in letter recently
addressed by me to committee compos-
ed of citizens Of Louisville, Kentucky,
in reply to question, embracing among
other things, the particular point now re-
ferred to. AS my reply to your several
questions will, unavoidably, be of consid-
cradle length, ! have not deemed it advi.
sable to repeat that answer here-but will
cause each of you to be supplied with a
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 e, 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 = lnds to objects, upon which
they are eftner expressly prohibited from
acting, or in respect to which there is an
acknowledged absence of delegated au-
thorlty. Usage, supposed necessity and ap-
parentIy uncomfortable considerations Of
expediency have, from time to time, led
TO limited expenditures for which it was
not easy to find warrant in the Copsti-
tuition. But these have always been re-
garded by the sincere friends ofa astrCtcon-
struction 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 10 apply the pub
lie funds to the emancipation of their
slaves. unhesitatingly 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 it
difficult to conceive of any case in which
the same result could not, with at least
equal propriety, be claimed to follow from
the same cause. The establishment Of
such a 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
to erect, and might we'll be dreaded as an
opening wedge to an early and more ex.
tended action by Congress upon the par.
ticular subject under consideration. We
have seen too much of the progressive
| character of constitutional encr9achmeRts
in the early stages Of the Goverpment, to
feel assured that contiDued practice oI
contributing TO the emancipation Of slaves
by the appropriation Of money, might not
in course of time, lead to attempts by the
Federal Government to accomplish the
same object, without either the consent OF
the STAKEHOLDER or indemnity for his loss
You next ask me, gentlemen, whether
| think that, at this time, the safety Of the
public money requires re-chartering O
The United States Bank, or whether
would sign a bill chartering such an insti
tuition. My opinions upon the subject o
United States Bank were asked wher
| was first candidate for the Presiden
cy in 1885, and were so fully given as t.
meet not only your question, but also
| think, every aspect which the subjec
can be made to assume. They will b
= found 10 my letter to the Hon. Sherrot
Williams of Kentucky, which has beeI
extensively published, and are therein
thus expressed:
"You next ask whether Twill sign ant
Q approve (ifit becomes necessary to secure
v and save from depreciation, the revenue
Q and finances ofthe nation, and to aftor
q sound uniform currency to the PeOpl
a of the United States )'a bill, with prope
notifications and restrictions} charterln
Ie Bank Of the United States.
le "In the published letter Of Mr., Blu
r Ter to Mr.. Garland, which has alread
n- been referred to, he thus states my opiI
o. ions upon the subject Of the bank: IN
Of Van Buren's oMpions lp regard to y