Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-03-03
RICH MO ID:
MORNING. MARCH ..
Diseorerv Of a .lNa,,.s .N,,t.n


| Our venerable contemporary thinks he has foun
the identical manuscript" referred to the other da,
by Mr. Cuthbert in the Senate. Mr. Cuthbert h
says has mistaken the time Of its production.
1T was presented 60 Congress, and on the l2,l
January, 1890, it was referred to the Committee o
the Whole on the Missouri Bill. The Memora
nils more than 80 pages Of Ms. Il is a very elabo
rate ingenious and able State Psper-and in al
PROBABILITY, was prepared by the pen of Mr.. ID
Webster. IL il signed by III names-,he Io2c
lawful circumstance y being that OF Daniel Web
steri"
Aiter this flourish OF circumstance, we arc treated
with garbled extracts from the memorial, III,
amount OF all which is, that the memoralists, 81
years ago, were in favor Of the Missouri Restric.
tons and leaned to the opinion that under the powe
TO regulate commerce between the States, Congress,
might prohibit the transfer Of slaves from one State
TO another.
ihese are surely heresies, but we wish TO
know If MIR. Webster is to he debarred of the
privilege of changing his opinions as he grows
older and wiserl We wish to know if the poIi.
teal statute Of limitations is to be confined exelu
sIyeiy TO the benefit OF Loco Focos1 MIR webs,er
within few months, has solemnly, deliberately.
repeatedly, IN the face Of the whole American
People, IN Massachusetts, and in the Capitol of Vir
gIna, denied to Congress the rightful power to in.
'eriere with slavery in any manner form, or shane,
Whatever Should not this suffee1 Should not
the venerable agitator have his nerves auieted hv
declaration so broad, comprehensive, unqualified
and from source distinguishsd7
Let us look a, the matter in another aspeet
This hoary fdctionist, whose life has been devoted
to the lowest and vest arts Of party. has lust com.
out OF long Presidential canvass in which he sun.
ported for the Presidency Itself, (mark il, for the
Presidency y Martin Van Burer, who. in 1870 n,
the date OF this same memorial held the very iden-
teal opinions here alledged against Mr. Webster A,
high msdemeanorsl The Editor of the Enou;,sr
kns'' that he he'd them He knew that he acted
upon them! lie knew that he was the prineipal
lnsugator OF Rufus King, to take his course in The
Senate against the admission of Missouri He
knew that he had voted for free nesro sufF,.se,
de knew that he still avowed the doctrine tina,
congress could abolish slavery in the District
VI AL 'hese iaeis' he has and has had for years, in
'he recorus oil the country, the ampest and most r
refragabe evidence.
is u possible then 10 conceive Of a grosser denar.
ture from candor or of more unqualified bvnoc,;
sy than is exhibited in the instance under r.visx7
that of man who Indignantly assaiIs MIR. Web
s'er Tor opinions, which being also held bv Mr..
van nuren, did not prevent him from supporting
MIR. Van Buren, for the Presidency itself! Ye,
Will this invetera'e party hack not fail entirely in
his purpose. BE will succeed in humbugsing his
last generation readers, who having voted in No.
vem9er for Van, will be Mortified at finding that
Mr. Webster possibly thought as Van did 20 years
ago.
WHAT Mr.. Van Buren's opinions were as to the
power OF Congress to prevent the transfer of slaves
from State to State, we have no means Of knowing.
but We do not entertain the least doub, thu, 6e
'hen thought as The Missouri Resrictionists gene
ra''y thought Of whom he was among the most &C.
tive.