The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-06-30
upon the Missouri COMPROMISE, he was uniusy suspect

upon the Missouri Compromise, he was unusiy suspect
ed as we then thought of being unsound upon the sub
ect of slavery; and he loosely inerrogated upon
the subject His answers and the tone OF the address
of the convention which nominated him, such as
quoted the public mind.
We have already republished his letter to Mr. Amis
of North Carolina but cannot refrain from inserting
again short extract from it, and begging the close at
tention of every reader 10 it
81 recognise the fullest extent the proPrey OF this de
sire your part and although there is nothing in your let
but all the people OF the United States, shs now under
stand that If The desire OF that portion OF them winch = la
grsted go into the presidential chair the nexble
and opponent OF any aemp, On Ine par
aganst the wishes of the savehodng States and also
with the equally ~ s 70 resist ors she
exists
do therefore believe that the abolition of slavery in
the District Columbia against The ,oishes Of The sape
holding States (assminp that Congress has the power
It,, uond volae he snirit of hat compromise of in
which lies at the basis OF social compact and
imminent peril if certain destruction 10 the Union
of the States Viewing the matter in this light II Is my
clear and settled opinion that the federal ought
70 abstain from doing So and that it is HE sac red duty
those whom the people of the United States nrus with
the control of its action, the constitutional power
with which they invested as to prevent IT,
In his admirable inaugural address, he dwe very much
in generalties The principles which would govern his
administration very clearly stated but only In one
case did he descend to particulars In case he did
His avowas upon the subject of slavery most ex
plic; and he pledged HIMSELF in advance, to veto any bill
passed against the wishes of the savehoding States
aboshng slavery in the District of Columbia He re-
peated his belief, that although Congress had the power
to do it, it would be in violation of the spirit of the
stitton for to exercise that power And expressing
the subject he expressed the belief that he acting
(" in accordance with the spirit that actuaed the vene
rated fathers of the republic"
Here il will be that Mr. Van Buren, set his face
most decidedly against all attempts to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia against the wishes OF the slave
holding States-no against the wishes OF Virginia and
Maryland, the two States which made the cesson of the
territory, and which are contguous-but against the
wishes of the slavehoding States" generally.
Now, we know of no reason restraining Congress
from aboshng very in the District of Columbia, which
does operate against prohibiting in the Territories
particularly such as contiguous to slave States
In the first place, the constitutional power to say the
least is as questionable The constitution confers upon
Congress the power of exclusive legislation in all
whatever" over the District of Columba while in re-
spect to the Territorie the language is:
"The Congress shall have power dispose OF, and make
all needul rules and regulations respecting, The territory
other property belonging to the United States"
In the first case, words used appropriate to convey
the power of legislation in the second words very diff
ferent, and at all The first is found in the clause
enumeratng the powers of Congress- the second in the
clause imposing restraints upon the States But let this
pass.
Even Mr.. Van Buren, does not contend that the power
in Congress is reer from doubt in the case of the Terri
tories than in that of the District of Columbia He says
''the question of power certainly clear respect to
the Territories as it is in regard to that District" But
he does not maintain more This is sufficient for
our purpose; for the power in Congress being the same
in both cases, there is quite great, if greater
propety in refraning from exercising it in the case Of
the Territories as in that of the District In the Terri
tories, there is large public domain for sale at low
prices there is no land in the District which is the COM
property of the people of all the States that
already appropriated for public citizen might
wish to remove to the former, purchase lands at the
low prices of them, and cultivate them with his slaves
He could indulge such wish in reference to this
District. And yet, Mr. Van Buren,, in so little
dissimar, takes dramatically opposite when
he is candidate for the presidency in 1886 and 1s4s
With these facts staring him in the face with what pro-
priety or consistency he insist at this time that it is
expedient well constitutional to prohibit slavery in
the Territories of the United Staes'
But Mr. Van Buren's letter to Ams was not the only
document containing similar pledges on his part The
convention of 1885, which nominated him for the pres
dency, issued an address to the public Before in
troduce the extracts from it, to which we beg in ad
vance the closest attention of every reader presen
the account given of it by the Albany Argus which
was at that time MIR Van Burens trusted organ and t.
the striking condolences therein referred to- ask also
the attention of our readers. The Argus of June 7th il
republishing portion of the address of 1885, says
At the convention of 1885 Mr. Stevenson presided, he
presided He selected with the same anmity
at time, he by the convention. In that
1885 Silas Wright bore conspicuous part and Mr. Var
Buren, nominated for the presidency with great
amity.
From the other southern States he received
dial support in the convention and in the Mr.
Stevenson his DEVOTED friend The convention
adopted resolutions but committee appointed t
draught address the American democracy 1t consisted
Of five delegates of which Mr. Wright named tn,
chairman but, his notion Mr.. Stevenson added
and placed the head of the committee The address
penned by the latter gentleman the request Of Mr.
Wright, to Mr. w. and only signed by him,
published with their signatures, but Mr. Van Buren,
Mr. Wright, in letters Mr. Stevenson, expressed, in th
strongest terms, their entire approval oft We well
member the very cordial manner in which both these gen
production 1t is also worthy Of remark that the Hon. Rob