Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1847-07-23


then in the Senate for thHr concurrence. The
Proviso was rejected by vote of 81 to l02-
MIR. Collamer, Mr.. Foote, Mr.. Marsh. and MIR.
Dillingham; again voting for it, of course.
But now comes the test vote Immediately
after the rejection of his Proviso, Mr.. Wilinot
moved TO LAY THE BILL Uros THE TABLE. 10
o'coH he action of The Senate on the House BILL
Our readers will perceive at once the proprety,
nay, the necessity, of this motion, for those who
upheld the doctrine of the Wilmot Proviso as
matter of inilexible principle and in sincerity,
and not as dodging and skulking expectancy
hunting politicians. The Senate could, at any
moment, concur with the House in passing the
Bill before them. or they could reject the Proviso
and send the Bill back The House had done
their duty in the premises. The majority had
said to the Shareholders of the South, on whose
| behalf and for whose benefit and at whose insti-
CATION the country had been wickedly precipi-
tated into an aggressive war: Gentlemen, we
will give you the $4,000 600 asked for by the
| President to expedite the work of making peace,
but we wish You to understand that no more
| already slave-riddcn Union" All who thus
reasoned and resolved in favor of Freedom and
Humanity voted of course in ftror of the motion
| to lay the Bill upon the table. The notion
however, was l0Si-ycas 81, nays lli-party
drill and party propensites being stronger than
principle and regard for consistency combined.
But where was Mr.. Paul Dingham's vote on
this question? Was he found true to the Will
mot Proviso and to the anti-sIavery sentiment of
his State? Beloved reader, don't imagine any
such thing Here was his opportunity to hit
the Wilmot Proviso friendly stab, and to lay
an anchor to windward' with that large section
of his party who are bitterly opposed to it. Mr.
Dillingham; is not the man to neglect his sop
portunites - lIcre was his chance to display
that small cunning on which a great many very
bright and calculating political tacticians pride
themselves, but which not unfrequenly "returns
to plague the inventor" On looking at the
yeas and nays, we find the names of Judge Coll
LAMER. Mr. Foor and Mr.. MARSH recorded in
perscvcring and consistent support of the rRlN-
CHILE of Freedom, and II FAVOR of the motion
to lay the bill on the table and Mr.. PAU Dill
| iiReham, IRIS name against the motion, and
consequently AGAINST THE WnNoT PRoylso.
Now, then, we ask: Why did Mr.. Dillingham;
vote against ayngthis bill upon the table As
consistent upright and intelligent legislator he
voted with meaning. lie refused to lay the
bill upon the table either because he wished it 10
PASS or TO be IEJEcTED-one or the other. He
aided by his vote to bring the question precisely
to this issue and he did it openly, and, we are
bound to assume, incgently. And haring
aided TO present this final issue, it was his duty
to meet it like a man, and like New England
man. Did he do so? We leave the answer to
our readers. Immediately after the vote refu-
sing 10 lay upon tho table, the bill was read the
third time, the previous question was moved and
seconded, and the main question ordered 10 be
put, viz: "SHALL THE BILL PASS ?" 1t was de-
cdcd in the Acknowledgements ll5. nays 81.
Again do we find Messrs. CoLLAMER, Foor and
| MARSH true to themselves and their constitu-
cnts, voting in the nesaiire, with Wilmot, Brin.
kcrhoil' King, Wentworth and other unnincling
Wilmot proyiso democrats" Of the North and
West But where on this " MAIN QUESTION" dc
we discover the vote of PaM DWRgkaia. .yr
of VERMONT? Gentle reader, NOWHERE!
Sitting in his dishonored place in the House Of
Representatives, and having cast his vote MOI
fire minutes Preriously in manner to dcteat the
Wilmot Proyso, he permits his name to be call
ed and closes his mouth in ienominious silence
For the first, and we trust the last time, YER.
MONT has a Representative in the National
Councils who DARE.S not face his response
btics-a man who ShirhS, sKULKs, DODG ES-
n man who quais before the arrogant demand.
of the pro-slayery faction Of his party, ant
proves false to the principles and the sentiment:
of his constituents and his State.
Now it is the fashion among the LocofocC
papers in this State to cry out against wha
they call the "abuse" of Mr.. Dillingham; in the
columns Of the Free Press We have neye
abused the gentleman, nor have we any desire
! purpose or occasion to. We have nothing to Dc
with him excepting SO far as his public course
= as a Representative in Congress or other public
bodies is concerned We are not conscious o
the slightest conceivable ll-will towards hin
personally, but for bis political course-ior hi
. housing schemes and stratagems--for his part,
tactics and manuuvres, we have the profoundes
y contempt and dctestaion, and so long as he i
placed before the people of Vermont as a candi
date for the highest State office in their gift, w
shall endeavor, SO far ~ we can, TO make suc|
an exposition of his claims upon their suffrage
{ as shall enable them TO vote for and elect him
u if they do vote for and elect him, understand
> ingly. The public will probably be informed i
, the next Montpelier Patriot that the Free Pres
" has furiously attacked Mr. D., but that that gen
:, tleman is in the enjoyment nevertheless, OF hi
= customary health and spirits. This is the usna
= style of argument with which that adroit pape
; meets grave charges--convenent, doubtless
= and colnpendious, but in our poor judgmei
:, neither rcry witty nor very complimentary to II
- candidates.
But we have not done with Mr. Dillingham;
/ lie voted for the admission of the State OF IeXa
to this Union, with a Constitution absolutely an
forever PROHIBITING her Legislature iroI
- abolishing Slarery within her limits; he vote
for CESStrRTNG General ~ AYIOR for the terms ,