The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-07-31
..That Letter, again.

"That Letter. again.
We perceive, from the report of speech
made by the Hon. Mr.. BELL, Of Ohio, in the
House of Representatives on the Goth instant,
that the following oolloquy took place in the
House: ...
"Mr. BELL. wish to PROFOUND single ques-
ton to my honorable friend from Tenness (Mr.
PoLK.) since he has propounded one on his part.
1t is this: Whether he is apprzed Of the reasons
why General Pierce did not answer the letter of
Mr.. Scott, Of Richmond; or whether, if he did
answer it, can the gentleman tell US what the
answer wasi
"Mr. PoLK. Mr.. Pierce has, in his letter &C.
cepting the nomination of the Baltimore Conven-
ton, answered the questions contained in that
letter,
"Mr BELL. That does not answer my ques-
ton. l desire to know whether he answered Mr..
Scott's letter directlyf
"Mr Polk. He did not answer it directly, be-
cause General Pierce had previously announced
that he not candidate for the nomination to
the Presidency, and. therefore, felt himself under
no obligation to answer IT,
"Mr. BELL. Then he did not answer 1t, did
he?
"Mr. Polk. i have never seen any answer.
d" Mr.. BELL. Well, it is fair to presume, If he
did answer the letter, the gentleman would have
seen it. '..
"Mr. MEADE. wish to give the gentleman all
the information upon that subject that possess,
and it s to this efect that when the letter of Mr.
Scott arrived at Concord, New Hampshire, Gene
! raj Pierce was absent, practising in some OF his
courts, and in his absence his partner undertook
to reply and in that reply. understand, he said
that General Pierce was from home, and therefore
could not answer the letter personally, and that If
he were at home, General Pierce, not being can
didate for the Presidency, would hardly feel him
self under any obligation to answer questions OF
that sort. That just before the convention
met The convention, when it did meet nomi-
mated General Pierce, contrary to his expectation,
and in his letter of acceptance sufficiently commit
| ted himself to all the questions which bad been
propounded to the other candidates for the Presi-
dency." ......
Here.is piece of as artful lodging on the
| part of General PIERCE's friends as we have
ever seen in public man. Mr.. Polk evaded
the question by saying that Mr.. PIERcE's let
ter accepting the nomination was an answer!
But in that letter MIR. PIERCE says nothing OF
the veto, or the pledge to use it, if necessary,
to sustain the Fugitive Slave law. Mr. PoLK's
embarrassment led Mr.. MEADE to advance to
the rescue, with what success the reader can
Judge. General PIERcE-Mr. MEADE AYERS
was absent, and his partner undertook to re-
ply! Well, where is the reply of the ''under-
taker2" If it cannot be produced, perhaps
MIR. MEADE will inform US of the contents. 1t
is evident, however, that General PIERCE Is
not always from home practising in some of
the COURTS" and we want to know why, on
coming home. he did not answer question
which must certainly be regarded as Of
more than gosspng value. But, forsooth, Mr..
PIERCE was not candidate! Was he not as
much candidate as some Of the others
whom Captain SCOTT catechised? Were they
all candidates, all assuming men, and was
PIERCE, the modest general, the only man
catechised that was not presumptous!
At any rate, it was the duty of General
PIERCE to answer his friends after he was
nominated. He has, however, deemed it more
prudent to dodge the question, and in SO doing
he has doubtless acted on the advice of his
friends of the Evening Post. together with
RANrouL, CLEVELAND, Norris, HlBBARD,
PEAsLEE, FLOYD, and PREsroN KING.
On the 9th of April, more than six weeks
before the meeting of the Democratic Conven-
ton, Mr.. Polk made speech in the House
of Representatives, in which, in rather boast
full and confident manner, he said:
sIn reference to the doctrine that no President
should veto any bill on grounds of expediency
which the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Campbel)
says is Uhig doctrine, have to say that such ia not
nor never has been, Democratic doctrine nor was
it the doctrine practice of Washington; and even
Mr.. Van Buren,, it will be we'll remembered,
| pledged himself to veto any act OF Congress abol
ishing slavery in this District, though he acknow
lodged the constitutional power to do So, also
feel authorized to pledge any nominee of the
next Democratic Convention for the Presidency
to give a like pledge as to repeal or modification
of the Fugitive law, unless, indeed, such modifca
ton (not at oil likely to happen) should prove
necessary to its more tffectual execution, and b
| generally demanded by the South itself. In short
| any Democratic nominee will unhesiatngly
| pledge himself to discountenance, and If necessa
ry veto, any attempt to modify the Fugitive Slave
| law, in accordance with the views and demands o.
those who are aiming to effect that end"
| Mr. Polk was then authorized to pledge
any nominee of the next Democratic Conv zen
ton for the Presidency to give like PLEDGE
Well, where is the pledge? Mr.. Polk owes
it to himself to produce it, or to admit that hi
is no prophet.
1t is said that a shrewd Freesoier remarked
to General PIERCE, Crank, don't you be sucf
fool as to answer that letter." and the result
would seem to show that the General was no
unwilling to profit by the hint,
The Pierce Developments I'm the south.
The marked impression that has been pro
duced throughout the South by the develop
ment of General PIERCE's home views on sla