The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1850-08-13

inelns ana announcer person ana ADDS IN q
note, " think these personally preferred
that The Bill should pass. but they pretty
steadily voted against it,"
So says the Brandon Posi-lhe editor Of
which is personally hostile TO Judge
PHELPS, and seizes every opportunity 10
misrepreseul him. The statement Of the
Tribune. we take occasion to say explic-
lilly, was not only made entirely at bap-haz.
ard, on mere %conjec' ure, but is, IN point Of
fact, grossly untrue and unjust. From the
first, Judge PHEiPs has been heartily and
actively opposed 10 Clay's Compromise.
and at one particular juncture-when the
danger Of its passage was most imminent
he dill, by a successful stroke Of policy.
succeed in making sure its defeat.
When the Committee OF Thirteen was
appointed, and Judge PHELPS was placed
on it, he asked, and earnestly desired, TO be
excused. The Senate insisted, and he
consented, with an explicit iniimalion thai
he 1rouh not compromise or yield his own
views, and those OF his cons %ituen's, andihai
he had no hope of the Committees accom-.
plishing the object for which il was raised.
When the report was drawn up he dis
scented from it-anG actually prepared a
minority report, which his own judgment
led him to withhold, solely from the belief
that, by SO doing. the contest on the pas
sage OF The Compromise would be confined
10 the different parties South, and that by
Hriding the Southern phalanx, the North
might conquer. The wisdom oflhis course.
the event has fully shown. The South
'cerc divided, and the North lriumphcd, in
The defeat Of the Compromise, as the Scn.
ator had hoped.
Every VOTE Of Judge PHELPS was civ.
en- with a view to the defeat Of ;he Com.
promise-not, ms The Tribune maliciousi,
asserts, pretty steadily Aud but for his
influence and efforts, at a particular juno
ture, as already stated. the bill would, in
all human probability, have passed. TIL?
occasion TO which we allude is sufficiently
explained in the following note of Judge
PHELPS, in the Tribune of Wednesday
las:
WAsHlSGToN, Aug. 3.
To the Editor Of The Tribune:
notice in your paper q think orThurs-
day last) thai your correspondent, in ad
veriing 10 The proceedings in the Senate
on Tuesday, expresses soma surprise n
my votes. As your paper circulaies exien-
slveiy among my constituency, it is per-
haps important 10 correct the error into
which he seems to have fallen.
lie represents me as voting against Mr..
Walkers proposition 10 lay the Omnibus
bill as il is called, IN the table. This is
Il mistake. voted for the proposition, rs
The recollection Of all present, as well rs
the journals, prove. The mistake on his
part probably arose from hearing the re
Spouse of Mr.. Fe'ch ofMich., who voted in
The negative, and whose name, when call
ed in the Chamber, sounds so much like
my " that we cannot ourselves distin.
gulsh them by the sound, hut we are o .
bliged to guide ourselves by the ~alphahci-
zeal Arrangement.
lie also seems to understand that | sun
ported the proposition OF Mr.. Dawson of
Geo. This is also, 10 a certain extent, a
mistake. did not vote 10 enerait .hai
proposition on the bill. or TO make i, the
law OF the land; but did vote 10 engraii it
npon the proposed amendment of Mr.
bradoury.-When il was So engrafied,
voted against the whole amendment.
10 those who are aware that was on
posed To the hill, and to the purpose of MIR.
b~rhdbury's amendment, my course can re-
qulre no explanation. That purpose was
10 secure the support Ct certain Senators
who would not vote for the bill ms it stood
nor could they 60 for Mr.. Dawson's propo>
Si'lnn. The Incorporation of The latter in
TO B~radbury's amendment tended either Ia
deleat the amendment. or. if that were a.
dopled, 10 defeat the bill |. did both. In
the hrsl instance, il defeated the amend
menL-Upon the return Of a Senator, &C.
~cldentally absent, The amendment, with
some slight and unimporlanl modification
was pressed ag lin and succeeded by a ma,
lorily OF one. This rendered the bill un.
acceptable 10 several Senators, who would
have sustained it had Bradhury's Original
proposition been adopted. and il was as
cerialned HAT in lie present shane il could
moi pass. The attempt Of Mr.. Pearce, the
next day 10 ret rid Of The incubus, prove
ih'nl to the bill. The only mode IN which
ne could approach his object. consistent,
WIN parliamentary rule, was 10 move tt
strike out all relating 10 New Mexico an,
insert the same. with the exception of MIR
Dawson's amendment. The question bein.
divided-i. e. first, upon striking out, ant
secondly, inserIing-it gave an opporiunil,
Tor those who were opposed TO combining
The various topics in the bill, 10 90 will
those Of lis friends who rejected Mr.. D.
proposition in the fret instance for sirikin,
OUT, and Then with the other eide in reCu.
ing TO insert. Thus The provision for Ne,
Mexico Was Topped of and could not be re
stored Alter several Intellectual efforts ia
that purpose, it became apparent that III
symmetry of the hill was DESTROYED, an
nothing remained hut 10 complete the ser
a%raiion. Texas and California were Tonne
oil IN succession, and Utah stood alone.
This explanation I deem due TO mysel
est those not acquainted with parliamer
tGry tactics should coniound an attempt |
emoarrass a proposition 10 which one
opposed, with the serious support Of a pro-
osilion 10 make il the law Of the land.
Very respectfully yours.