The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-03-12

however, once more
"WAsHIxaroH, Jan. Is, 1851.
"My DEAN Sra: have just received your letter,
and hasten to reply to It, think the appropria-
ton bill for the improvement Of rivers and bar
bors will pass and If it does. the appropriation for
our friends the Holanders, will certainly succeed;
there 10 no doubt of that. or course Il will re-
ceive my vote and support heartily. my Chicago
letter. to the contrary notwithstanding. know of
no improvement more just and necessary, and
you may depend upon it that it will receive the
entire support of our delegation. am. dear sir.
truly yours, LEWIS CASS.
"JoHN X. KHLLodo, esq"
Now this letter shows General CAss in
very amiable light to the Hollanders. If the
bill should pass, he promises dead success to
the Black river improvement. 'sOf course, J" it
would receive his "vote and support heartily"
his :" Chicago letter to the contrary notwith-
standing" The General complains that we
published the last phrase in italics. We hope
that it makes better appearance in Roman, but
to us it conveys the same impression as on the
first reading.
The General, it may be seen, makes no ex-
ception in his promise. He tells the Holland
ers that, "of course, J" he will vote for their APP
preparation any how; and this, we submit, he
could not do Effectively and in good faith Nth
out voting for the BILL But the General :" ut
terly" denies that he. was pledged to support
the original bill. g Utterly' denies What
bill, then, did he design to pledge himself to
The Black river improvement was not in a
separate bill. 1t is expressly referred to as in
this very appropriation bill. How, then, in
the name of truth, could the General pledge
himself &c of course" and cordially" to vote
for that Improvement, if he contemplated any
contingency in which he could vote against the
bill?
We wish the Hollanders to understand that
General CAss does not consider that there was
the 'sslightest pledge" in his letter to vote for
the bill. What he said was, that he would
g vote for the improvement Of Black river, and
: that the delegation from Michigan would do
the same" At the same time there was a
mental reservation that left the General at lib
erty to vote against the bill, including the i'm
provement General CAss ought to have been
more guarded. In the frankness Of private and
domestic correspondence he should not seek to
shine with such profuse liberality of assurances.
He should qualify the generality Of his express
sions; or adhere to his promises in the absolute
and peremptory directness in which they are
made
AS to the Chicago letter, and the Generals
allusion to it, it is clear enough the General
supposed that an inference had been drawn from
that letter that he was not friendly to the sys-
tenn of river and harbor improvements. We do
not think it very violent inference; but that
we may not do injustice to the General, we
copy tho letter at length, and commend it to the
attentive perusal Of all who have not hitherto
found time to study it as it deserves:
Letter from Lepis Ouss.
"DsrRorr, May IT,
"DEAR SIR: I am much obliged to you for your
kind attention in transmitting mo an invitation to
attend the Convention on internal improvements,
which will meet in Chicago in July. Circumstan-
ces, however, will put il out Of my power to be
present at that time.
81 am, dear sir, respectfully yours,
800 ~ "LEWIS Glass;"
1t will be perceived that the General himself
says in his speech that ssthis letter never said
a word on the subject Of internal improve
ments." We apprehend that this is the very
reason that leads malicious people to infer that
this omission was Designed, and not accidental.
1t was odd enough that, on an occasion of the
magnitude and interest of the Chicago conven-
ton, the General should neither have attended
the convention, nor said ga word on the sub
ject of internal improvements" when all his
people were known to be 80 deeply interested
in them, and when the occasion seemed to de-
mand some sort ofan expression Of his sentiments.
1t was natural enough, therefore, that the Gen
eral should have sought to repel the inference
which the Hollanders might have drawn from
his expressive silence on this occasion.
AS to the ssnoise and confusion" at Cleve-
land, no one, it seems, is to be at liberty to
joke about it but the General himself. He
says he can't alluds to it without laughing, and
we don't wonder.rr Why should not he give
every one else the same privilege? How he
could give solemn contradiction" to words
that he cannot even allude to without laughing,
we do not understand. We are quite as much
in the dark as to what he solemnly contra
dicted. Nobody denies that there were 'snoise
and confusion7 at Cleveland on the occasion to
which we referred. This is an historical fact,
as well settled as the surrender of Hull, and
its attendant circumstances. General CAss
spoke Of it. All the papers report him as so
speaking. Governor WooD SO reports him.
On that occasion the General, as on that of the
Chicago convention, "never said ,oord on the
subject Of Internal Improvement" The only
question at issue is whether the General was
from expressing himself on that sub
ject, at that time, by the ''nose and confusion"
or by something else. We admit frankly that
we think it was something else, and that it was
the very same something which induced the
General to write the letter to Chicago, and
"never say word on the subject Of Internal I'm
provements."
With regard to the movement of General