Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-03-02
The Van Buren and Clemens Correspon-
dence.

To the Editor of the New Yo.li Herald:
Certain articles in the New York Her
aid, and other papers Of less Importance,
render it necessary for me to address you
this note. A private correspondence be-
tween Mr.. Van Buren, and myself has been
ade the subject Of newspaper comment, in
violation, as | conceive, Of all the rules of
propriety. We are neither Of us public Of
ficers-nether of us seeking ofice-ncither
as believe, would accept office if rendered
Our private letters, therefore, are not prop
er subjects for public comment. 1t seemed
right to us, in view of our friendly personal
relations, to exchange opinions upon ques-
tion Of great public interest; and although
those opinions were not intended for the
public, yet, after what has occurred, I have
no alternative but to send you that part Of
/ the correspondence which have a right to
control for publication.
Very respectfully.
JERE CLEMENS.
In addition to the above correspondence
from Mr.. Clemens. we have procured a copy
of Mr.. John Van Durcn's letter, which we
give below, omittinga few passages, merely
of personal character:
Mn. VAN DUREY's LETTER.
Ny DEAR CLrNENs-* The
position I took on the Baltimore platform
lost me the respect and esteem Of some Of
my truest and best friends, but 50 long as l
knew it TO be wise and just [ submitted TO
this loss without murmur, or even an ex-
planation, which would have saved me but
Injured our cause. The covenant of peace
on the slavery question entered into at Balti-
more, Thought wise for the country, and
INDISPENSABLE for the Democratic party
Northern and Southern Democrats differ
utterly differ, on the whole subject of slave.
ry. What then, can be done? Why dror
the subject: it is the only way to avoid {
: quarrel. This was agreed TO be done al
Baltimore; and now, in open and palpabl,
= violation ofth agreement, it is proposed t.
repeal or supersede the prohibition of slave
: ry in the Missouri territory, and 10 repea
it, on the ground that it is either already re
e pealcd, or never existed that it was super.
e oeded by the compromise Of 1850. or is un
o constitutional. If either of The reasons b
truc, the act is a fragrant breach of part,
d faith. for tie assured reason that the act it
o self is entirely unnecessary. Could any
o thing but desire 10 buy the South at III
c Presidential shambles dictate such an out
/ rage? Now there are but two men VIII
d can do any good in this crisis-ono is Gen
e eral Cass, the other yourself. If you wi
agree 10 the Nebraska bill of last year
20 will be promptly and triumphantly passed
= ] know Gen. Cass is committed 10 the the
r ry of non-intervention; | am sorry for it
/ think the theory unsound. 1t is an idea
self-government and in expressing the iGe
you overthrow the whole theory b. inpoSir
le a government on the territory. States have
le right of self government. Territories ha,
not; hut don't want 10 argue this. Cener
ID Cass can surely take this ground, i.e. I'll
the Baltimore platform forbids lie enac
n ment or repeal of any law upon the subje
of slavery; and the repeal of the Nilsson
prohibition is unnecessary, because Gener
Cass thinks it unconstitutional and W
vt leave it to the course SO to hold. The
,, views, and the fact that the people of n
J. braska want the old BILL and that Il
! House, by two TO one passed it last year, al
that .Atchison, of the Senate, went for
y would give Gen. Cass fair standing grouI
- in doing what am sure he sees TO be rigl
X You, as a Southern man, could advocate it
Il ensure peace and good will for the south
1t is vital to them to live up to their agre
'u mcnt; they would be worse off TO beat
IL than to be beat; the sting left behind wou
be fatal hereaiter-do you not think SO?
T. Yours, truly,
]. VAN BuREv.
&c There is one idea in my head which
ought to have put in my letter-thc theo
u of nOn-interventicn, as applied to the N
braska territory demands the repeal Of Il
on law prohibiting slavery in Nebraska. IT
'e same theory Of course requires the repc
of all laws of Congress establishing SLAYER
Now, slavery in the District of Columt
ms exists by the laws of Congress alone. T
IL Maryland and Virginia laws upholdng
Il are repealed. The non-interventon theOl
as now construed abohshes slavery in /
IL District of Columbia. Upon strict ST;
IL right doctrines, too, it would repeal the F
gitive Slave law.
Feb. 3, 1854. J. Y. b.
nd WAsHINGToN, Feb. 4, 1854.
My DEAR SIR-Your lettenof yest'
lie, day has just been received, and agl