The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-11-23

The - R1cayuns" Organ ano Ourueavss.
We have before alluded 10 the prodgious immensely Of
talent and tact which preside over the columns OF the
minor organ OF the cabinet, published in this city In the
mere pefoggery of politics il is unrivalled and peer
less Lacking the power to meet its antagonist in fair
argument, it adroy flies to the usual petty and dsin
genuous shifts Of such minds, namely, Misrepresentation
and perverson Of the positions Of its opponents II strue
an able and skilful polemic would disdan such paly
resorts; but there minds that only dis
unguish themselves by their skill in clubbing, petit
fogging and prevarication Such to be the dis
tnguishng trait Of the genius that coruscaes through
the columns Of the Republic.
few days SINCE we referred to the election of Speak
err, and stated the fact that Mr. Winthrop the federal
candidate, was "freesoer" and abolitonist. and that
he had voted for every anti-savey proposition which
Mr. Giddings has voted for, when he not relieved
from the duty Of voting by his position Speaker.
WELL how does the "Picayune" organ meet this charge
Not by denying that Mr. Winthrop has given all these
voes-hat he has voted for the Wilmot Provso and the
abolition Of slavery in the District Of Coumba-bu by
denying that he 10 -soiler and abolitionis The
amount Of the defence Of Mr. Winthrop put forth in the
Republic is not that he has not voted for every PROPOSE
ton which Mr. Gddngs has voted for, but those votes
of Mr. Winthrop do not make him freesoiler and abo-
tions although they convict poor Mr. Giddings Of be-.
ing such, without the possibility OF escape Such in
ance is the absurd and ridiculous defence put forth
for Mr. Winthrop by Of the astute and profound in
tellects whose Examinations daily dazzle the reader In
the columns OF the Republic.
Another ground Of defence IT, that the junior editor Of
this paper Is wilmot Provsoist This 6 mere false
hood which the writer Of the article in the Republic
knew when he penned il.
He bases his charge on the vote which we gave for the
exclusion Of slavery In the Oregon Territory. all Of which
lies above the Missouri compromise line. That provs
ion embraced only the Territory Of oegon whereas the
wimot Proviso embraces all territories then belonging
to- or which might any future time be acquired BY. the
United States, The wimot Proviso and the proviso
Tor which we voted therefore essentially different In
principle and in application We might rest reply TO
the mendscious charge Of the Republic heres but will
90 further, and show that the writer Of the article TO
which we alule fals6es our position and msepre sents
our course with his eyes wide open, and with malice
prspsnss.
AT the very session during which voted for the pro-
viso 10 the Oregon BILL for whioh many Members from ne
savshoding States aio votsd including the former fed
erAl Speaker. John White, OF Kentucky. we not only
voted for the Missouri Compromise In lis application 70
Texas, but zoe infroducsd a bill containing that r0y
compromise, and potsd for IL. We sEvER voted for the
exclusion Of slavery from territory lying south Of the
Missouri Compromise line; but, on the contrary. W.
constantly voted to leave the question OF slavery the
decision Of the people who might inhabt such territory.
Some weeks ago we made, from the journals Of Con.
gess, full exposition Of these facts, showing that
had always adhered to the Missouri Compromise. The
writer Of the article in the Republic doubtless thai
exposition, and yet. ,1'h full knowisdgs Of
upon that subject, he has the and mendacity "a
charge us with being in favor Of the Wilmot Provso
piece with the base trick played upon by the Rich
mond Times, and the forgery of the PtsbuH Journal
and we suppose we may regard il as a specimen o.
legitimate Taylor tactics
In the same article to which allude, the writer, at
ter referring TO q circular Of Mr. Stanley Of North Caro-
Ina issued during the late congressional campaign u
that State in which he Stanley alleged that he once
The House Of Representative, charged Us TO oar FACT
with being an abolitionis goes on 10 state, that h
reported debate shows not only that Mr. Stanley mad
the charge, bat produced The proof" This is anothe
mere falsehocd, which the proof cited in the Republic Il
self exposes Stanley did not on the occasion REFEREES