Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1848-08-11

Philadelphia Convention, and he has published
a pamphlet in vindcation of his conduct, adj
dressed to the Wings of Vermont"
II would be scarcely courteous in us TO pass
by, without some notice, so distinguished pro
duction from so distinguished source. II is
addressed to the Wings, of whom we claim to be
one, and therefore requires at our hands some
consideration.
There are certain matters about which the let
ter does not satisfy us, and on behalf Of the
Wings, aud MS one of them, VIC propose dis
missing the cold Formally OF third person-to
address some remarks to him directly.
Honorable Sir: As one Of the six delegates to
the Wing National Convention, you refused TO
acquiesce in the nomination Of Gen. Taylor.
Since that nomination, all the Congressional dis
tricts of the State, all the Wing members Of Con-
grcss from this State, every Wing paper in it,
and, last Of all, numcrously attended Mass
Wing State Convention, have cordially aud
unanimously approved and ratified the nomina-
ton Of Gen. Taylor.
After all this you publish IN address 10 us
wherein YOU make known the interesting recent
discovery, that the Wing press with which you
have acted for many years, have not "an over
stock Of either candor or TRUTH" and are in the
daily habit Of repeating an "untry false user
ZION !" that the Wing members of Congress from
this State have made Prcsident-makng e1ciu-
sirely their business !" that the State Convention
adopted Gen. Taylor, "going it blind" and
"knowing that he refuses to be the candidate Of
the Wing party" and, finally, You make com
meniary, aud very appropriate one, upon your
own address, by disclaming persondIiy in poll
tics, and pronouncing it mot only unjust, but
iow and mean in the extreme"
From person Of less extensive acquaint-
anee," the supercilious aud dctatorial tone which
you assume towards the whole Wing party Of the
State, would inspire ridicule ii not contempt;
Lut NC excuse it in you the more readily, from
the fhct, stnie by you, ,ha, until the appearance
of your solitary pamphlet" which was unior-
tuna,ely delayed by your lines, we, the Wings,
have heard only one side" We will therefore
hear you now.
You say; "The single ground upon which
shall rest my refusal to give in my adhesion to
the nomination, Us a sufficient justification, is
this, that ] had no eridenee that Gen. Taylor
trouid oppose The further acquisition cf MericGn
territory or that be roud not reio a bill contain
ing Ike principle Of he HiAmoi ProrisO." This,
sir, is your own language, and contains the
ground you have selected for your justification
You further state, that it WIS your purpose 10
"e6tr Mr Clay as a compromise candidate" at
sh.aN al - IL 4.
putting for the present the accuracy of the opin.
ions imputed TO Gen. Taylor, let us sec wherein
the opinions Of Gen. Taylo and Mr. Clay on
these subjects differ.
The opinion Of Mr. Clay was expressed in hi.
Lexington resolutions, last November, and the
one in relation to the annexation Of Mexican
territory is as follows;
"ResOlred, That we arc up,riy opposed 10 any
purPose tte The Gnne1ation al Msriean feTriior.
10 The tnHed Sdics, u, any mode, dnd especially
by conquest" &c.
Gen. Taylor says, in bis Allison letter;
"Thc PRINCIPLES 90 ,ur Government, as vel
rs its true Policy are opposed 10 The stbjngafior
Of other nations, and he dismembeimeJI Of oihe,
countries BY conquest. In the language Of the
great Washington, 'WnY SHOULD We GUN
In the Mexican war, our national honor hal
been vindicaied, and in debating terms of peace
we can well afford to be JoT5earirg, aud even
adgHdnimOus"
This is in 4 letter written by Gen. Taylor Il
make known bis opinions; and in order TO make
his own sentiments more clear, he adopts th,
very language Of the Father Of his Country.
Now, sir, please 10 tell Us where is the evi
dence that Mr. Clay, more than Gen. Taylor
"would oppose the further acquisition Of Mexi
can territory" 1t is true, you point us TO the
fact that Gen. Taylor is opposed, not to the &C.
QUESTION, but "to the acquisition of territory b,
conquest only" but do you not remember thai
MIR Clay, in the speech from which you quote
expressly advises the acquisition Of the Bay o.
San Francisco in Upper California? Hear what
he says of it: "lfw We can obtain 1t by fair pur
chase, for just equivalent, sHorLp BE- HAPPY
10 see il so acquired"
You see, sir, that if Gen. Taylor's opposition
is confined 10 the acquisition of territory by
"conquesi only" so is Mr. Clay's DO they not
stand, therefore, in precisely the same position
II not, tell us wherein they differ.
We must not forget tliat, in order to prove
that this declaration of Gen. Taylor, written and
| published by himself, does not express his true
sentiments, you quote an extract from m cleo
pioneering letter Of Mr. Bolts, relating what 1
member of Congress told him, member of tho
Mississippi Legislature had told him, Gen. Tay
Tor had said to him in conversation on this sub
Ject. And it may be remarked, that YOU seen
TO prefer the hearsay evidence of third persons
to the written evidence Of Gen. TAYLOR himself
But, sir, do you really think it Jus, or reason
able, when complaining of Gen. TAYLOR for no
making a public avowal of his opinions, to dis
card the ayowsls he has made, and hold up il
their place the loose reports of conversations
with him by interested partzans? We will no
suspect you of such injustice, and we call upor
you to show us, looking to their e.rn tu3is6ee
opinions, wherein Mr. Clay is "more ouposed I,
i he acquisition Of Merican territory" han Gen
Taylor. If you cannot do this, will YOU pleas,
10 inform us why you made it an objection I,
Gen. Taylor, and not to Mr. Clay2
l. One other ground Of your refusal IN s,nno,