New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-09-21
yIod. rs,aud and MR.. VAN Burcn.

The ADany Areus, after commencing upon Us
in regard to the Rhode Island question, now skuks
from, its discussion. 1t silently coniesses that
il dare not answer the questions which tprovoked,
nor maintain the positions which it assumed. 1t
dare not apply to New-York the principles which
!, asserted as inaisputably sound in regard to
Rhode Island We have asked it three Plain,
simple and directly pertinent questions, which may
be answered in many paragraphs, in l!iustra-
ton of the grounds of difference which it has che
sen to make between US, and after waiting three
DAYS. we are compelled to abandon the expectation
OF an answer. Such is the tortuous and unmany
coa,se of the central organ of a great party
And now, since the Argus shirks the general
question we will say word respecting its article
OF last Saturday on Z" Mr.. Van Buren, and the
Right of Suffrage" in which it says that we pro-
fess to see an Inconsistency" between his course
in the State Convention Of 1921 which formed our
own Constitution and his late letter to the See
konk Clam Bake. Inconsistency No, there is
direct and glazing contrariety, but we did not
charge inconsistency on this post. We do not
consider it extraordinary or culPable III Mr. Van
Buren, to hold different views ROW FROM those he
avowed twenty years ago. We did not, as the
Argus asserts, attempt TO conceal the change IN
Sir. Van Buren's views-on the contrary, we ex-
hibited and commented on it; remarking that he
who had SO radically changed bis own opinion was
not the man to accuse others, who merely ask that
the extension shall be made legally, and offer to
make it, of hostility to Free Suffrage. We OBJ
jscted mainly his gross misrepresentation OF the
position of the Anti-Derrites, and his falsely &C
cusing theIa, 10y the clearcst implication, Ell hos
fifty to new Constitution and Liberal Suffrage
in Rhode Island This he did falsely, disngenu-
ously, and in disregard Of the most notorious facts
1t was this gross misrepresentation alone that IN
duced us to alude to Mr.. Van Buren, or his opin-
ions.
But the Argus attempts to mystify Mr. Van Blu
ren's opinions in 1921, in opposition TO the public
record. 1t quotes from a letter of his in 1893,
stating that his hostility to Universal Suffrage III
1921 was based on fear Of the dangerous infu-
cree of Wealth over the Poor voters. Uncompi
nentary as this opinion was to the Poor, the Jour
nal of the Debates in the Convention abundantly
shows that it was not the principal ground of Mr.
Van Buren's opposition to Universal Suffrage
Let any one turn to those Debates, or to his long
est Speech therein, which we quoted last week,
and be will see its futility Mr.. Van Buren, thought
Universal Suffrage would "render their elections
a curse rather than blessing" would surrender
the additional representation "to the cery Torst
poDulatior of the old countries and cities, would
:. drive from the Polls all sodcr-mtnded people"
sc. &c. If Mr. Van Buren, has recantca these
opinions, very well will not question his right
10 do so, but the Argus must not miSrepresent his
recorded reasons, or we shall be strongly impelled
TO doubt the honesty and sincerity of BOTH