The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-11-22
THE REPU BLIC.

Judge DOUGLAS has admittedit, Mr.. BURKE
) denies and bubbles about it. Indeed,
this same Mr.. BURKE, in his editorial ca
pacity, cites it to convict Mr.. WINTHROP
OF being an Abolitionist. By the same
token, it convicts Judge DOUGLAS of being
an Abolitionist, and Mr.. BURKE of being
an Abolitionist; and the latter gentleman
1t not only convicts of being an Abolition
list, but it marks him as political hypo-
critic and trickster. Day after day he has
labored and wrought to inhame the people
of the South against President TAYLOR,
because he would not take sides; because
he would not "act like Southern man."
and because he would not promise the
Southern people to veto the Wilmot pro-
viso, at all hazards, and under any cir
cumstances.
By his own showing, then, Mr.. BURKE
is an Abolitionist. But we have better
proof Of this fact than his own showing.
During the late Congressional campaign in
North Carolina, the Hon. EDWARD STANLY,
in circular addressed to the freemen Of
his district, states that he had formerly
charged to his face, in the House of Rep
resentatives, EDMUND BURKE, co-editor
of the Union, with being an Abolitionist.
This was denied by Mr.. BURKE. The re-
ported debate shows not only that Mr..
STANLY made the charge, but produced
the proof. We quote the report of the
debate, which occurred in the House of
Representatives on the 10Th of January,
1910:
"Mr. STANLv remarked that he remembered in
quiring at the last session Of Congress, if there
9 were any Abolitionsts in New Hampshire who
support the present Administration. was uni
formly answered no; they all belong to the Wings.
1t was a long time before could procure informa-
ton from that benighted region, but at last did
| gather facts which will give.
although / was told that there were no Van Blu
| rem Aboitionists in New Hampshire, had acct
| dentally seen paper from there, ed, ed by Ed
IUSD BURKE, the same gentleman now member
from this State. This paper, to my surprise, con-
tanned an appeal to Democratic Abolitionists,'
| beseeching them not to be entrapped in the tolls
| OF Federalism. This paper is called the argus
and Spectator If am wrong i'll supposing the
gentleman from New Hampshire to be the person
to whom have alluded, hope he will say SO. Does
he deny it?
"[Mr. BURKE, of New Hampshire, observed that
| the gentleman from North Carolina had read an
extract only; he wished him to read the whole Of
the article
"Mr. STANLY. Read the whole! might read
| until midnight, if read the whole of the articles
to which have referred. ! ask the gentleman if
he denies it?
"[Mr. BURKE requested Mr. SrASLy to repeat the
question:
"Mr. STANLY asked if there were not many Abo-
| itionists in New Hampshire who supported the
Van Buren, party, and if he was not the editor of
the paper from which he had just read an extract?
Does the gentleman deny it? (No answer) Yes,
sir was told frequently that all the Abolitionists
in New Hampshire Wings. But here is the
editor the drgS and Spectator, the ticket
with the gentleman who introduced the humbug
resolutions, addressing the Democratic Abolition.
lists Of New Hampshire!'
In the Union of the 29th of September,
Mr.. BURKE admits that he was the editor
OF the .drgus and Spectator, and that he
wrote the article in question. This is a
fair implication from his admission that he
did not deny it; though after his recent
denial that he voted for the Wilmot pro-
| viso, we must confess that we are aston
ished that he admits any thing. In the
same paper Mr.. BURKE wrote: "We
shall in few weeks receive the old files
of the .Argus and Spectator, and we will
then oyerwhelm this Mr.. STANLY for
his shameless attempt to inculpate us
with Aboltionism. We shall copy into
the Union the very article, headed TO
Democratic Abolitonists, to show how
grossly he has misrepresented us, and
how recreant he is to the interests of the
South. And whenever he tells us TO
oar face that we are or ever have been
the ally or friend of Abolitionists, we
: shall tell him to his that the statement is
{ utterly untrue"
We understand that the junior editor has
visited New Hampshire since this article
was written, and we presume that he has
brought back with him the old files of the
.ArguS and Spectator, with the view of ami
hilating Mr.. STANLY. We are impatient TO
see the annihilating begin. Produce the
documents. 1t is only nine years since
the charge was originally made, and we
have not yet heard of any public inspec-
ton Of the cold files" Nearly two
months have elapsed since we were told
that the sold files" were expected, and
they have not yet made their public APP
pearance. Whatever else they may
show, will they prove that Mr.. BURKE
did not vote for the Wilmot proviso before
Mr.. WrLMoT was in Congress
APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
JAMES w. Power, of Pennsylvania, to
| he Choroe ~ Hoiros 10 Nonlos vica