New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-09-10
What Mishr Have Been.


The Tribune, ofths morning, attributes the mis-
conduct Of Congress, in passing the Texas Boun
Diary bill, to the bad management OF the tflends OF
Free Soil. Blu, for their zeal in claiming TOO MUCH
says The Tribune "a better result might have
born obtained"
This is precisely what we might have expected
Of such friend of Free Soil as The IYf6uae-Rn
ATTEMPT to shift the blame from the real authors Of
this nquity to the shoulders OF those who did their
best TO resist it. The success OF the Ten Million
bill was not in any measure owing to the manage
ment of the friends OF Free Soil, for they were not
permitted to have anything to DO Whit. 1t was
owing, in part, to the efforts OF the Compromise
party, who concooted the bill and carried it
through 1t was owing, in part, to the influence OF
the Administration, and the alarms expressed IN
MIR. FiImore's cowardly Mesaage, In which he de-
ciared that Texas had good title to New Mexico,
and recommended that money should be given Tor
It, 1t was owing, in part, to the shameful deser-
ton of w ebster from the cause OF Freedom in tho
Territories carrying with bin set Of subaltern
politicians like AshInun, Eliot, and the rest 1t
VISA owing to the diligence of the holders of Texas
scrip, who approached every Member with such
meeps Of persuasion as were most likely to be Of
fectuai who bad strong force of lobby agents, en-
Gagged in perpetual solicitation of the Members
body 40 numerous, that when the bill was at last
passed by the House of Representatives they and
their creatures in the gallery appauded the dociity
Of the Members with deefening shout.
Ry- Tile Post neither states our position
fairly nor responds to it candidly. Wesaid
nothing of the misconduct Of Congress in
passing the Texas Boundary bill" What
we did say referred to the whole series of
measures just enacted, and embodied eur
conviction that more of the territory claimed
by Texas might have been saved from her
grasp and oonsecrated to Free instead of
Slave Labor, if all those who profess to be
Free Sellers in Congress, had looked to the
bearing of pending questions on this great
issue, instead of considering too anxiously
che effect on their own popularity and for
tunes. To be more specific
l. We maintain that the Texas Boundary
of the Compromise bill gave $4,000 square
miles more to New. Mexico and less TO Tex
as than the Boundary bill actually passed
giyes.-Does The Post deny this9
Q. We maintain that the friends Of Free
Soil in Congress Tor one-half of them) might
have passed the Compromise bill, and thus
secured this additional $4,000 square miles
TO Free Soil.-Does The Post deny this 2
s. We believe land not without warranty
that if the friends of Free Soil had chosen
in July to say to the leading supporters of
the Compromise, eve will aequiesce in
your measure if you viii make the paral
slel of 500 North the boundary between
'New-Mexico and Texas" they might have
obtained that concession and in this shape
have passed the bill, securing a still larger
area to FREQ Soil,-Does The Post deem this
improbablef
If we are righs en- the above points, or
a majority of them, is not The Posts ar
raignment groundless and unjust?
1t is o fact which The Post cannot con,
ceal that The Tribune labored alone for
mouths to awaken attention 10 che import
ancs Of This Texas Boundary question as
involving the issue Of Extension or Lmisa-
ton of Slavery. Less than year ago, after
we had laborud msnths on this point we
were grayely told by journals which made
more noiss for Free Soil than we did, and
we're esteemed more deyoted TO the cause,
that unless the Wilmos Proviso were first
enacted it made no odds whether the Terri
tory in dispute were accorded to Texas or
New.Mexioo. Not until very recently has
even The Post done anything to expose che
baselessness of the pretensions of Texas and