The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-07-31

We have at last got some light In regard to the
position OF this gentleman in letter addressed TO
from hch wac published la the Pennss Ivanian
yesterday. In order that the public may fully UNI
derstand the case in all its aspects we cite the fol-
lowing paragraph:
doubt about my position in reference to the great
question now agitating the country. II assumes
what is incorrect III reference TO the law of 1877.
did not vote for it +; took no part In the proceed
ings OF the Senate the subject, could Il, in
my opinion, have become law u It's full bearing
had been perceived at the time. But If had even
advocated its adoption, that fact would not intiu-
encs my present position in reference to 1t.
We assumed nothing but what the legislative
record justified and substantiates. II may be tech
nically true that Colonel Bigler did not yote-that
is did not record his vose-in favor OF the act OF
i547--denying the of our jails for fugitive
slaves, but that he morally and legally so Voted
that he voted in fact and according to every para
mentary usage and form--cannot be denied. He was
present in the State Senate az Is shown by his mo-
ton instantly following the passage of the bill, and
neither demanded division nor raised an oblec-
ton 10 law. which, for convenient purpose, he
how pronounces TO be unconstitutional and UNI
just in it's operation, thereby reproducing the me-
mory of Governor Skunk, who signed it after nine
days consideration. When the bill was called Up,
unanimous was the Senate in its favor that the
ordinary rules dispensed with, and the Sc
cond and third readings succeeded each other with
out delay or the appearance of an objection. Ia his
attempted explanation, at this late day. Colonel
Bgler convicts himself of Ignorance, or something
worse; or why-if his opinions then were what
they are professed TO be now, occupying seat
when the final forms of legislation were progress
ing to completion-did he aIoiv an e'unconstitu
tional and unjust law TO be consummated9
Tkis sorry explanation, even if il were well
founded, i5 worse than the offence originally charg
ed because Colonel Bigler neglected duty in
failing 10 oppose il, if are to believe the lame
apologies which are now made for his conduct. He
says. g. took no part in the proceedings" And
we ask, in reply, why he did not take part? He
was sent to the Senate for that purpose, and for no
other, and on refusing to interfere question of
such moment, he demonstrated his incompetency
to decide. his design to dodge responsibility.
This is the most literal construction of Colonel Big
lers position, defined by his own hand.
But we are by no means disposed to accept this
extenuation of such conduct. Colonel Bigler has
allowed whole month to eapse before daring to
confront the public on any OF the great Issues OF
the canvass. His immediate personal and party
organs over the State never venture to dispute the
fact that he had sustained the act OF lS47, until the
Pennsyuaaian, after first defending his admitted
vote, and the executive approval Of Governor
Shuns, Subsequently resorted to the despcable ex-
pedient of denying the same vote, because 1t had
the technical excuse that the yeas and nays were
not called on the final passage Upon that hint
Colonel Bigler has now spoken, and thus made
himself party TO most paltry continuance and
miserable deception.
Heretofore we have treated Colonel Bigler with
the respect and consideration due to an opponent
of the people; unwilling TO believe, although an ed
ucated adept in Locoioco tactics, that he could lend
himself to disreputabe fraud for the sole purpose
Of promoting his election. Cur confidence was
greatly shaken by his coalition with Mr. Wilmo
and the abotionsts, and by his silent passiveness
under the professions made by the Pennsyluanian
and other presses, in direct conflict with his votes
in favor Of the Wimot proviso and other subjects
of public interest. But all these things appear
trivial and of subordinate concern to the position
which he has just assumed, and to the responsible
ty which he has SO recklessly encountered. Colo
mel Bigler was one of the Senators through whose
s'aid and comfort the act of lS47 became law;
and to escape the penalty to which that support
now exposes him here he is guilty of denying any
active agency in the measure, because there hap
pens to be no record of the votes, since there was
necessity for division on the question, the Sen
ate being unanimous. If he did not vote for the
bill else voted for it, for every Senator pres
ent stood in the relation to the question; and
it may be asked, how then it became law of the
Slater
Suppose all the Senators should resort to the
same device that Colonel Bigler has discreditaby
adopted. Each one has as good right as he to
deny that he voted for the bill, because each voted
as Colonel Bigler did, not by yea or nay, but by
silent, solemn, formal assent. Where we to
fix the responsibility of law which everybody
voted for, and yet nobody voted for Every
Senator present who did not oppose this bill sane
toned it-sustaned it, uossd for ii, and par
ty to it's passage. There is fact in this connex-
ion, which is worthy Of notice, and which shuts
from COipnci igtcr the last nope ana opportunity Oh
escape. tie the custom of the Senate, at the end
Of each days proceedings. to record the names Of
the absentees part Of the regular journal. On
the 2sd of February, lS47, the day on which the
bill referred to was passed, Mr.. Wagenseer is the
only recorded absentee We have seen, moreover,
as we quoted yesterday from the Senate Journal,
that Immediately after the passage Of this memoir
able act, Colonel Bigler rose and moved the sus
pension Of the rules in the of two other bills
of local interest, which also passed, and
passed in the same way, by universal assent with
out call of the yeas and nays. Perhaps Colonel
Bigler will say he did not vote for these bills
either! Is equivocation like this worthy of can
didatefor the high office of Governor of Penn
syvaniai
Such quibbling is, in fact, in all its parts, mean
and dishonorabe; but it is such as might be
pected from set of party leaders who, detected in
one falsehood, never scrupe to fortify themselves
by inventing another. 1t is most unfortunate for
Colonel Bigler that division called when the
Wilmot proviso before the Senate, or we should
see him repudiating that vote he has denied the
other. But his name stands journalized, as the
leader of the Senate that occasion, at page 1919,
vol. of Senate Journal the 9th January, ls47.