The pilot and transcript. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1840-1841, 1840-08-18
M. Van Buren,.

M. Van Buren,
Let the reader examine somewhat in detail
the preceding extracts from the pen of Mr.. Van
Buren,. In the first, he indirectly denies that he
expressed his 'sapprobation" of the plan, and as
Scrts that it had never been submitted TO him.
If HE object is to create distinction between
thc word appreciation" in the first, and his
*strong Recommendation of the plan" in the sec
column, the q,ti5Gte, or subte1uge is highly
Tiscreditable to him as the Chief Magistrate OF
the nation. Could he, in reality, ''strongly re-
commend" measure to the representatives of
the people for their action, as ''claiming their
early and serious attention" and yet allege that
it did not receive ''his aPprobatioz" The con
clusion is too absurd to be entertained for sin
gle moment, and settles that point against Mr..
Van Buren, without any argument. 1t is plain
and palpable, unless we charge him with gross
derilection of public and sworn duty.
In his message ne ttcannot too strongly re-
commend the PLAN submitted" by the Seereta-
ny Of war. ''Submittedn to whom. we would
ask. Not to Congress; for he says it ''was not
even matured until more than three months af-
ter his message sent to that body;" conse-
quentiy it could not have been submitted him
at the time; still it was submitted" to some
person, or to some body. For this we have the
positive authority of Mr.. Van Buren, himself,
beyond the possibility of doubt or denial-ther,
tits before you.
'Ihe plan," in the gross,-not matured,-
without its entire details,-it cannot be doubted
was at least 'Fsubmitted" to the President in
some shape, and received his "approbation," so
dation" to ''the early and serious consideration
of Congress- and by this species Of evasive
language, MIr. Van Buren, designs to escape, most
disreputabiv, from all responsibility and censure
Sc much for the bubble apparent on the face
OF Mr.. Van Buren's own message. 1t is inpos-
sibe to reconcile Mr.. Van Buren's assertion with
his message. But what are we to say to the
following letter from Senator in the Congress
of the, United States. Mr. Phelps of Connect
cut tells Us that very early in the session bill
similar in Its provisions was before the militi;
committee i the Senate These denials do Mr.
Van Buren, more prejudice than his silence cou
have done; because his present statement is no
only at variance with his own message, but direct
ly in conflict with the Acknowledgement of MI
Phelps:
IIARPER'S FERRY, June 20, 1910.
DrAs SIR: In answer to your inquiry, hav
.cnly time TO say that, very early in the prcsen
session OF Congress, bill in form, cmanating
asI understood, from the Secretary of War
was laid before the Committee Of the Senat
on the Militia, of which committee am mem
ber. The bill, which | suppose, accompanie
tie annual communication of the Secreta
ry Of War to Congress, was, in all its i'm
reftant features, identical with the plan commu
neated ny the secretary to the committee Of the
-. oil Representatives, under date of 10th Marcel
last. ihs bill to which / allude was, for som,
time, the sa5lect OF inquiry by the commit ee
W hat has become Of it, or why it has not beer
printed, know not, out that such bill was re-
ported and submitted with the annual report i
not TO be questioned.
would explain further, but having alfead,
made written statement, which is now in til
hands of the publisher, and which will probabl
be published, refer you to that when 1t shal
appear. In haste, yours,
SAMUEL S. PHELPS.