Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-06-20

w e lrdCeu III our laSt nutllDtT tilc pdfttClpa-
ton of Mr. Buchanan in promoting the attempt
to engraft slavery rest, iction upon the consti-
tuition Of Missouri in lS19-'20. If any man
of that day was responsible for the agitation of
the country at that period, he is; for, surely,
no one prominent in any community, has left
a record more plain or direct than his, made
at Lancaster in November, 1919 He was
then conspicuous, aspiring to Congressional
honors which he attained by an election TO the
House of the 18th Congress of the United
States.
At this time the force Of this record is dis
puted by Hon. Clancy Jones of Pennsylvania,
who denies 1st, that Mr.. Buchanan was chair
man of the Lancaster committee on resolutions
in 1919. The answer to this is that no one
pretends he aoas chairman but it is asserted
that he was one of the three who composed
the committee. ID 1t is denied that he snrote
the resolutions Answer: it makes no differ
ence if he aorote them or not provided nc sane
toned by his authority and name what was
on has o,cn motion, that Mr., Buchanan ever
saw the resolutions until they were in print.
1t is now thirty-soven years since the date
of that transaction, and during that time the
published record has stood unimpeached, which
puts Mr.. Buchanan in the position of com
mittee-man on that occasion. Such lapse of
time would establish the verify of record in
a court ofjustice, without any proof from col
lateral sources. But, in this case, the Demo
cratic candidate for the Presidency finds that
record an inconyenicnt witness in 1855, and
he therefore challenges its correctness by his
friend on the floor Of Congress Should he
not speak to it himselfs He was challenged
by the editor of the Philadelphia News" to
deny it, or to stand sponsor in some authorize
tive manner for the denial, and that editor
pledges himself not only to prove that he was
at the meeting in 1919, but that he retired with
the committee to deliberate, and that the reso-
buttons are signed by him In has otcn genuine
and proper handwriting Was ever proof
for? Was ever nm issue of ceracity more di-
rectly rendered, or more authoritatiyely offered
than in this case ?
Now, it seems to us that Mr.. Jones's decla.
rations amount, at best, to a bubble. He does
not pretend that Mr.. Buchanan did not see the
proceedings after they were published. 1t
cannot be pretended that he did not see has
name published in Poulson'S Daily Advertiser
as one of the signers Of that report; and yet
he, an aspirant then to a seat in Congress, says
not in, tha IN q,
of his name, or to counteract the effect his in
1uence might exert Qui .facit per alum,
tdcit per sc, is maxim Of the law, and, under
this rule, Mr.. Buchanan may not have been in
the room Of the meeting when the final vote
was put, and may not have signed his name
TO the resolutions with his own hand, yet be
as perfectly responsible for the signature as il
he had with his own hand affixed il to the pa
per- Any other hypothesis than that he is so
responsible fails before the cumulative evidence
to the contrary. Consider the length Of time
that has elapsed without denial--the fact
that the sentiment Of the resolutions was then
the prevailing sentiment Of Mr.. Buchanan's
friends at Lancaster and in Pennsylvania, and
that the whole Of his public career has been
one continuous opportunity to deny his psrti-
cipation in that transaction, and that he never
by word or decd, said nay, until it has now
become las interest, in order TO obtain South
ern cotes, to wash his hands Of the alleged
participancy in that meeting. Consider that
his present denial disgraces the Chairman and
Secretary of that meeting, as having published
his name 10 those resolutions without his
knowledge or authority, and convicts his ASSOC
ciates on that committee with having, thirty
seven years since, signed his name to an inn
portant political document without his knowl-
edge or consent or authority.