The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-07-07

The veto ought TO be employed not as an ordl-
nary power, but, as General SCOTT expresses
it, "most cautiously" and under the "sIrlctest
restraints and necessities"
VIII. This resolution was the 'consdera-
ton" for which the Southern Rights men bar
gained off their contemplated opposition to the
Compromise in the convention. Mr. Souls de-
vised mode ofreconciing matters, by oftsettlng
| an endorsement ofthe Compromise by an endorse
ment of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of
| '9S-'99, which the Southern rights men appeal
to as authority for the Disunion hefeses of
MULTIPLICATION and SECESSION. Thus was
| this resolution, which does not appear in the
platform of lS48, incorporated in the platform Of
1852. Therefore it was that the Southern Rights
men, having procured the endorsement ofSEoEs-
SION AND NULLIrIcATIoN Gas they claim) by The
| endorsement of the resolutions of '9S-'99, and
having also secured Presidential candidate ''of
| their own creation and CHOICE" acquiesced in
the ratification of the Compromise. That the
State Rights men went into the convention
with the determination " to prevent the
ratification of the PLATFORM" we learn from
the positive averment of Mr.. FISHER, ed
itor of the Southern Press, in his jour
nal of the Sd instant. That MIR. Pierce
| was the "cREArloN and CHOICE" of the
Southern Rights men we know not only from
the auspices under which he was openly
brought forward, and the enthusiastic eulogies
| of Mr.. ORR, of South Carolina, but from the
positive comments which we quote of Mr..
l IT, Sc oil ,f ba
Georgia Times, and one of the most able and
ardent advocates of the extreme remedies sup
posed to reside in the resolutions Of '9S-'99.
Mr.. Forsyth says in letter to the editor of
the Southern Press under date eff the ed
| instant:
| "Mr. SouLE and those ,cho act ,ciM him do not
toish to 'rie,' much less to ruin They earnestly
desire the success Of the PIERCE tcket-As THE,
| SHOULD, FOR THEY ARE THE AUTHORS OF lT-dnd all
they ask Is a Uoice IN the paper that is TO be made the
'organ; and they ask this, if for other reason, to
test the sincerity Of that truce and treaty ,rhich ras
made at Baltimore, and is ruthessy assai!sd
| '6yGen. CAss in a caucus Of friends.
| eds for us-and speak for Southern Rights De-
moerats-,ce shall not be easily driren from the sup
port of the ticket OF OUR CREATION AND
CHOICE"
TX. If the war with Mexico was just and
necessary, then the country owes the more to
the great soldier who brought it to so honor
able conclusion-and who, in the conduct Of
it, won for himself the title of the greatest
captain of his age. The Southern Press, (ior-
merly,) the organ of the State Rights wing of
the Democracy, joins issue with the Democratic
| Convention on this subject, in the following
| terms:
"But cannot delay our protest against the
affirmation of the justice and policy ofthe Mexican
| war by the Democratic [Convention.1 We concur
red fully ,cih Mr. Calhoun in all his opposition to
that evil Undertaking. and its consequences are be
fore the country, worse even than he foretod."
X. If you rejoice in our peace with Mexico,
then you may well join in rendering honor to
him who conquered that peace.
XII. If there turks in this resolution the
germ of Mr.. poUGLAs's notion of taking pos
session of all the contiguous islands on both
sides of the continent to the !d-channel
of the two oceans, and Of making the Gull
of Mexico and the Caribbean seas closed
waters to the rest of the world, then we
should object to it on that account. As il
is, the idea of claiming that the followers OF
Mr.. VAN buren, at the North, and the Sc
sessionists of the South, mixed up with a
sprinking of conservative Democrats, is the
party that is alone capable of maintaining
the union of the States, is simply an alb
surdity.
One word on the subject of letters from the
candidates. 1t has been objected to General
ScorT, and is still objected to him, that he de-
clined to write any letter in regard to the Com
1 promise prior to the nomination; claiming that
his sentiments were perfectly well known,
that he expressed them openly on all occasions,
and that he would not repeat them in writing
until he received the nomination of the Con-
vention.
And where is Mr. PIERcE's letter to Mr..
SCOTT, of Richmond? Did lie too refuse to an
swer when specifically Intercepted, or is his
reply withheld! This silence of Mr.. PIERCE
is not accidental. The New York Post an
nounced as one of the reasons for its ready &C
quiescence in the nomination that Mr.. PIERCE
HAD WRITTEN NO SUCH LETTER. Was it to
please the Freesoilers that the letter is
| suppressed, or, what is quite as likely,
is it to crafty Mr.. SoULE, Mr.. JOHN
FORSYTH, Mr.. Oar, and the Fire eaters and
| Secessionists "wHosE CREATION AND CHoIcE,'
on MIR. FoRsrTH's showing, Mr.. PIERCE is
claimed to be? IF Mr.. PIERCE declined to
write the letter in question, he stands in the
same position in this regard as General Scorr.
If he wrote it, and has since found it prudent or
necessary to suppress it, he stands in much
worse position. AS far as any topic of COM
plant or suspicion arises from the omission Of
General ScoTr to write before the Convention
it is equally involved in the refusal of Mr.
PIERCE to reply to Mr.. ScorT, or in the sup
| preston of his actual answer.
AS to the letters in reply to the communica-
ton of their respective nominations, the letter
Of General ScoTT does not abound So much in
nice phrases and pretinesses as that of Mr..
PIERCE; but in plain, blunt way it says not
only all that could could be demanded, but all