The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1850-08-20

The editorial columns of the last Brandon
Post are mainly filed with articles writ
ten by E. ID. Barber, Esq,-not over cour-
teous in tone or unusually amiable in tenn
per-relaiing to what has appeared in this
paper. So far as the gentleman speaks of us
personally, we can account for the spirit be
marifcs,s, on very satisfactory grounds. We
have always taken the slightest notice Of his
articles, which courtesy would allow. Those
articles show on the face Of them, almost
invariably, a very unusual lack of candor,
and an inclination for perversion and c.
quivocation. With such opponents, We shall
always have the least POSSIBLE controversy.
We have exposed the gross unfairness of
Mr.. BARRIERS attempt to make Judge PnELrs
responsible for the remarks Of Mr.. CLAYTON
as to the action of the Committee that repor.
led the bill known as Clayion's Compton,
Use, when Mr.. c. expressly declared that he
spoke foi himself alone, and when no less
than three membeisof the Committee (inclu-
ding Judge PnELrs) disclaimed, on the spot,
any responsibility for those remarks. (See
Ap. Cong. GloJe, S0M Cong, LIST .SeSS. p.
ll40.) In his speech in the Senate, less than
a week after, Judge PHELPS fully explain
cd his views Of the bip-advocating it cx-
prcssly as amounting to the Wamot Proriso,
and supporting it with no other understands
ing of its'provisions. lie did the same in re-
peated speeches in this State, the same
year, Zone of which, at least, we know that
MIR. Barber heard and in an address to his
constituents. Such is the view taken of the
matter in the Review article to which the
/" corresponding editor" refers, Such is the
Wow this paper has always taken. And yet,
in the face Of these fac's, Mr. Barber, in hi.
last paper, after repeating part of the re-
marks Of Mr.. Clayton before spoken Of, says
Judge Phelps was in the Senate wlcr
" Mr.. Clayton made this speech, and he da
" not then contradict these Statements, he ha,
=" mt since, nor has any one for him, erer con
4" tr0dicied hem!'
The italics and exclamation point arc lis
not ours.
With such an opponent. what motive car
there be for controversy?
One word as 10 the transparent and no
very ingenious sophistry about the change
in the Wig party. Opposition TO the Clay
ton bill was founded mainly on II distrust o
the honesty If the judicial branch OF the Fed
eral Government. and on ignorance of thu
principles of law on which Judge PHELPi
based his support of it. 1t was supported b,
Judge PHELPS as amounting to the Wilmo
Proviso. 1t was opposed at the South by tl
ultras, Stephens & Co on the same ground
AT The North it was misrepreseated aud mis-
understood. 1t required no " change" t
assent to its main principles, on understand
ing them-nor does assent to those princi
Piles imply an assent 10 the bill, for the rea
, son above stated, viz: there might still be
distrust that it would be faithfully carrie
out by the Supreme Court. Now, If merel
acquiring knowledge on any suljct, nececsss
rily implies a change Of principle, Mr.. Ba
Der makes out his charge otherwise nc
and all his talk on that head goes for nothiu
Very charaeteristically, however, IL