Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-08-25

| 1870 upcn this subject was, live mistake not,
| whe&her he believed Congrcss had the power to =
bolish slavery In the District Of Columbis, and ife-
lected to the Presidency, would he sanction such .
bill. Mr.. Van Buren's answer was that, with the
| lights before him. he was not prepared 20 say
whether Congress had the power or ct,but regurd-
ing the question a. 4 dangerous one, and supposing
| the people Of the district to be opposed to the cxer-
else Of such power. he was adverse to Congress
interfering with the subject, and pledged himself
to VETO any law having for its ohjectthe aboli-
| ton Of slavery therein This was Mr. Van Buren's
| position we think, and we we'll remember that it
was his unqualified pledge TO VETO any bill inter
| Ecring with the subject Of slavery, that reconciled
the democratic party TO his support. His subse-
quent apostacy and degradation. are certainly not
chargcablc to his former supporters.
The Republican does kno,c. lReader OBJ
serve how emphatic,) that Mr.. Philip A..
Boiling. Wing candidate for Congress inthis
district, (descyiptio persone rera-there is
no escaping it; Mr.. Boiling. you are tie
man. assuredly.) did vote for thatgentleman
Martin Van Burcn) against Henry Clay.
Now viii the Republican be kind enough.
to inform us. when Van Buren, and Clay
were opposing candidates for the Presiden-
cy.or any other Office, in which "Mr. Philip
A. Boiling, Wing candidate for Congress"
had an opportunity Of voting for either
Van Buren, was first a candidate for the
Presidency in 1886, at which time he
was opposed by Hugh Lawson White
and William Henry Harrison ("the double
headed ticket.") Mr.. Clay was not in the
field. Van Buren, was again a candidate
in 1910 when he was defeated, as the Re-
publican may remember. by Harrison
Mr.. Clay was not then a candidate. In
IS4S, Van Buren, was run a third time, by
the Free Sellers. and Mr.. Clay was again
not a candidate. Now will the Republican
oblige us. by telling us, when it was and for
what, these distinguished men were compet-
itors, and Mr.. P. A. Boiling. Wing can
didate for Congress, voted for Van Buren,,
and thus almost did do, what, it says, he a.
vowed himself willing to. "vote for the ID
as soon as Clay" The Republican must
pardon US, if we are a little pressing upon
this subject. We desire exceedingly to
have the information, and we reallydo not
know where else we can get it. When did
Van Buren, and Clay oppose each o,herl
The Republican replies further to our
question. by saying,tha unless it is mista-
ken) "Mr. Van Buren, never asserted the
power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
District while, he was a candidate of the
democratic party" Now if the Republi-
can were not mistaken,it would be right in
this ins~tance,as we admit with pleasure; but
being mistaken, it is wrong, as we are sor-
ry to state. "Mr. Van Buren's answer
was" continues the Republican" that with
the lights before him, he was not prepared
to say whether Congress had tie porer or
not, but regarding the question a dangerous
one" &c. In the first place, this is not the
language, used by Mr.. Van. Buren, sin
lo40" and in the second, it is not the lam
guage, used by him at any other time
What Mr.: Van Buren, did say, on the 9th
day of March 1886. in reply to certain cit
liens of North Carolina, was as follows:
81 owe it, however to candor, to saw to
you, that | nave not been able to satisfy
myself, that the grant to Congress, in the
constitution, of the power of "erclusire
Legislation in all cases vAatsoercr' over the
Federal District, does not confer on that
body the same authority over the subject,
that would otherwise have been possessed
by the States Of Maryland and Virginia,
or that Congress might not, in virtue there
of, take such steps upon the subject in this
District, as those States might themselves
take within their own limits, and consis-
tenfly with their rights of sovereignty
Thus viewing the matter, would not, from
the lights now before me, feel myself safe
in ~pronouncing that Congress does not pos
sess the power of interfering with or abol-
ishing darcryin the Districtof Columbia"
This is what he said in 1886, when he was
"a candidate of the Democratic party
What he said sin 1910" when he was again
a candidate of that party,in a letter address
ed to Mr.. WalterF Leake of North Carroll
ma, was 81 have received your letter of the
21st inst, and can have no objcction to say,
in reply, that the sentiments expressed in
my letter to Junius Amis, and others, (the
same from which the above extract is TAX
en) and substantially repeated in my inau-
gural address, are not only still enter
tanned by me, but have been greatly
strengthened by subsequent experience and
reflection" Widely different, su oh Ian
guage and its import, from the Republicans
account of it. But if that paper has any
lingering doubt about Mr.. Van Buren's
views upon this subject we refer it to his
letter of 1S4S, conserving to become the
candidate of the Free Sellers, for the Pre-
sidency.
In reply to our second question, as to
whether Mr.. Bocockdi not votefor James
Mcdowell as Governor, who concurred
with, or went beyond, Mr.. Boiling in 1882,
in Directing to slavery, the Republican
says"
owe should like to know in what particular the
"Slave holding interests of Virginia' are entrusted
to the Governor Of the State7 What power has he
to interfere with Slavery About as much as he
has to interfere with the civil polity Of the Ho,ten-
tots. Not so with a Congressman at this time,
rho has frequent and direct connection mFh Me most
rlai infereas Of that tnattution in all lis bearings"
Indeed! This is new doctrine to US. We
had thought, if there was one position, up
on which the whole South was agreed -
concerning which, there was no difference
Of opinion among men, of all parties and