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

T'ory Whs MOI 10 pFOpnguie HdreFyi Jul W V"'""'
indemnify. The question is, not for what pur-
pose they acquired It, but what will they do with
it 9tienrards Suppose the territory to be ac-
quircd, not to introduce slavery, but for indeH-
nifty, Is MIR Clay in that case opposed 10 The err
tension Of siarery orer ~ That is the question,
and we call upon you, Mr. Everett, to answer It.
Where is the evidence that Mr. Clay will not
veto any bill containing the principle Of tho
Wilmot Proyiso? Point US TO the speech, the
declaration, or the pledge.
You remcmber--perhaps you may have been
in Congress at the time-Mr Clay proposed and
carried though the Missouri Compromise, which
iegaiised slavery in part Of the territories. lie
was in (aror Of the extension Of slavery over
portion Of the territories then; have you any
evidence, and if so rhdt is Il, that be does not
entertain the same opinion notog
Again we ask you, Mr. Everett, TO inform US
what eridence you had that Mr. Clay, more than
Gen Taylor 'rould oppose The further ocqiisi-
ton Of Merican territory" or uouM mol reto a
bin containing The principles Of The IVil'noi Pro
ri,o." We want the eridenee-not conjecture,
not hcarsay, but reliable, authentic proof
There is some evidence Of Gen. Taylor's views
and you are constrained TO ndmit that bis appro-
val Of the Signal" article contains direct APP
proya of the sentiment, that the veto power
should not be applied to the ordinance Of 1887,
If passed by Congress.
Here also We have the explicit declaration Of
Gen. Taylor himself and how is il met? You
inform us that his Allison letter coniradicts his
Signal letter; but with all due Difference to you,
SIR We sec nothing but direct confirmation Of
it. The Signal article, which he endorses calls
upon the President 40 JOp 10 he rR Of the
people as promulgated in Legislative forms, and
restrain he Egscuiire action 10 is appropriate
channels" and "to let he Legisiafire iriR Of he
people find uferdnce and enactment"
What were the appropriate channels" for
Executive action were not specified in the Sig
nal article; but in his Allison letter, Gen. lay
lor defines them, and says the Executive veto
should never be interpreted "ercept in cases Of
clear riolaiion Of The Constitution, or manifest
haste and rant Of consideration BY Congress"
and never "'chere questions Of Constitutional
posrcr hare been settled by he rdrious departments
Of Gorernmsnf and acquieseed in BY The people"
Whether this is a pledge not to veto the VII
mot ProViso principle, depends upon the fac,
whether the power OF Congress TO regulate slave
ry in the territories, has been settled by the
various departments Of the Government, and
acquiesced in by the people"
Upon this question, we call on you, Mr. Ever.
EFT, as witness Has not that power been cx.
erciscd by Congress during the whole existence
Of the Republic? Was il not exercised in the
ordinance Of 1857, and in every law regulating
the territories since that timer And under the
above pledge, could Gen. Taylor veto the re-
enactment Of the ordinance of 1872
When you have answered these questions, we
demand Of you to justify the Inconsistency Of
approving in Mr. Clay, that which you condemn
in Gen. Taylor. You reject this evidence Of
Gen. Taylor's sentiments. though deliberately
published by himself, and hun, up some wild AS
sertions Of Southern fanatics, 10 convict him Of
insincerity or fnscbood--but furnish ms rs strong
evidence of the sentiments Of Mr. Clay on that
subject
At the very worst, does not Gen. Taylor
stand Is fairly before the country on these points
as Mr. Clay2 If not, show us wherein. And
now, sir, il you were sincere in refusing your
adhesion to the nomination of Gen. Taylor fol
the reasons you have stated, why did not thosC
reasons prevent you from urging the nomination
Of Mr. Clay, who was quite as strongly obnoxious
TO the same objeetionsp
You say that nothing short of an "e1pres.
declaration from Gen. 1oylOr, under his sign
manual, ought 10 satisfy any WilmOt Prorist
man" Was there not equal necessity of having
such an express declaration from Mr. Clay? YET
you were willing TO support him without it.
You ask us triumphantly- Do you believe
if be (Gen. Taylor) should publish under hi.
sign-manual, this declaration, Il will not veto
any bill containing the principle Of the Wilmo
Proviso, that he would have single Southern
?" Let us ask you, in turn, Do You believe
that after such declaration, Mr. Clay would
have one Southern vote? Yet he did receive
in the National Convention, rs you are AWARE
rs votes from Slave States, and do you pretend
to say he was publicly or fairly committed moi
to veto the Wilmot Proviso? II he was not
how could you support him, without an expires
declaration under his sign-manual, and not alsS
support Gen. Taylor under the same circum
stances?
If this evidence Of hostility to the acquisition
Of Mexican territory, and to the extension o
slavery, WIS 30 important that without it, yor
were constrained 10 refuse your support TO Gen
Taylor, though nominated by the whole WhiS
party, how could you urge the nomination Of Nj
Clay, who WINS also without it?
These are questions affecting your integrity
and the sincerity and good faith of your whole
conduct rs our delegate, and we trust you ma,
be able to give satisfactory answers.
You will remember that we are not discussing
now the reasons which induce you to prefer Gen
Cas-, and to oppose Gen. Taylor-these we ma,
notice hereafter-but we are considering smpl,
and only The single ground upon ThicL you res
your refusal TO gice in your adhesion to the nomi
nation to wit, that you "had no eridence ha
Gen. Taylor trouid oppose the further acquisition
Of Merican territory or that he could not reto a
bill containing The Wamot Proriso principle