The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-28


Executive business.
The House Of Representatives. passed the
Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation bill, by a
vote of--yeas 1871, nays 62.
The Union publishes as ''good sign" and
one which authorizes it to hope that sit will
not be long before the Democratic party will
be again united in support of its ancient princi-
pies, the following resolution which, II says,
was recently adopted by the Democratic party
of Vermont, assembled in State convention:
"Resolved, That we stand upon the platform of the
national Democratic party, drawn up by the
hand of SiLAs WRIGHT, adopted by the Baltimore
convention in ls40, and approved by every national
convention since that time; that we believe that
platform broad enough, and narrow enough, and
good enough for all true patriot republicans tand
upon, and that to compromise any one Of its prn-
cpes for entangling alliances with other parties is
to hazard the safety of our national organization,
and the veal of the republican institutions of the
country"
Such is the position" which, the Union
tells US, has been "taken up" by ..the Demo
cratic party of Vermont" A minority of that
party, the Union means. We learn from the
New York Tribune that ''most of the Cass and
Butler party, [of Vermont, despairing of sue
cess under their own banner, and not sharing
: the honor Of change Of name professed by
their brethren elsewhere, have joined the Alb
oltionists and Van Buren, men, under the
banner of Free Democracy but a minority
spurn the arrangement, call themselves the
odd Line Democracy and still rally around
the banner of Non-Intewention.
So small is this minority of the Democratic
party of ' ermont, whose re-adoption of the old
Baltimore platform, of 1910, the Union halls as
ga good sgn," that it has not been able, OF
thought it worth while, to bring out but two
candidates for Congress at the election next
month-judging from the following list of can
didates published by the Ii-ibune
Gouanor.-Charles X. Williams, Wing; Luther
b. Peck, Free Democracy; Jonas, Clark, Old Line.
Members Of Congrsss.-lst district-A. L. Miner
A. p. Lyman, Wings; David. Roberts, Free De-
William Hebard, Wing; Jefferson p Kidder, Free
Democracy. Sd district-James Meacham Wing;
Hermon r. Beardsley, Free Democracy Giles Har-
rington, Old Line. Attn district-Bliss n Davis
Wing; Thomas Bartlett, jr., Free Democracy.
Upon the strength of this re-adoption, by a
minority of the Democratic party, in a single
State, Of the old Baltimore platform of 1910,
the Union has thought proper to give utter
ance to half column of slang in regard to the
course pursued by the Wings of the South and
the North on the subject of slavery. ''The
Democracy of the North" it says, "was di-
vided and weakened by the treachery and
detection of Mr.. VAN buren, and his follow
ers, and it has experienced, for some years,
heavy pressure from the auti-slavery agita-
tors acting in alliance with the Wings of the
North, countenanced and encouraged by the
sympathy and support of the Wings of the
South"
This is vague, and not easily understood.
Does the Union mean to be understood as as
serting that the Wings of the South ever
"countenanced and encouraged by their sym
pathy and support" the "anti-slavery agita-
torsW If it does, it utters a gross calumny.
Or, is it the alleged alliance between the anti
slavery agitators and the Wings OF the North
that the Union desires 10 be understood as
charging the Wings of the South with coun-
tenancing and encouraging by their sympathy
and suppor} Ii that be its meaning, the Union
is still guilty of eliminating the Wings of the
South. Who ,cere the anti-slavery agitators
between whom and the Wings of the North
this pretended alliance was formed We
should like to know.
The Union proceeds: "In lS4S, the ALI
ance between the Wing party and the anti
slavery party was open and notorious" Now,
the anti slavery party Of 1913 is the antisa-
very party Of 1880. Who, then, composed the
anti-slavery party in 1913, with which the
Wing party was in open and notorious ALI
ance! Did that party consist Of all of every
party who were opposed, and who avowcd
their opposition TO the introduction of slavery
into the territories acquired from Mexico? No
that is not what the Union means. For. North
crn Democrats, equally with Northern Wings.
were opposed, and ayowed their opposition to the
extension Of slavery TO those territories. Was
the anti-slavery party to which the Union al
ludcs, and with which it charges the Whig
party with being in open and notorious alliance.
composed Of the Wlmot provisoists2 No. the
Union does not mean that. For it knows. and
dare not deny, that the great mass Of the North
em Democrats were then, and still are, in favor
Of the proviso; and it could not mean to
charge the Wing party with being in open
and notorious alliance with an anti slave
ry party composed in great part of Demo
Gratis whom it regards as good and true What
party was it, then, we repeat.
with which the Union means to he understood
as asserting that the Wing party was in open
and notorious alliancel Was it that Contempt
bic band Of anti-slavery fanatics who would
have Congress interfere with slavery in the
States2 The Union dare not ayow that such
was its meaning. What, then, did it mean7
Can the editor, for the life Of him, say ,ohai il
was he MEANT We doubt it, except to say
that he meant TO calumniate the Wing party
in some way or other in regard to the slavery
question, and he Did not care much how.
In compliance with the EXPRESSED wish of