The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-03-07

endangered by the postponement OF this great
public measure, for the qualification Of his per
sonal mslignily. We know that he has cause.
| lie and Mr.. Richie have said great many
hard things Of each other, and the harder be-
cause in the main they were substantially true.
Wedo not wish to interfere with any Of their
petty, personal feuds but when we say that
Mr.. WENTWORTH has. bestowed more time
upon Mr.. Richie, and less time upon the
River and Harbor bill, than the magnitude of the
respective subjects required at his hands, We
think thatwe are but discharging public duty.
If Mr.. WENTWORTH had applied himself assidu-
ously to this bill, and urged it seasonably upon
Congress, it would have been law. As it is,
Mr.. WENTWORTH must share the responsibility
of its defeat in common with General CAss,
Mr.. SouLE, Mr.. TURNEY, Mr.. CLEMENS, and
Mr.. JEFFERSON DAVIS.
AS to the opportunity Of amending the bill,
and the objections TO its details, the gentlemen
who killed it were opposed to any and every
bill of this nature. They entertain constitu-
tional scruples in regard to the po,cer. Mr..
CLEMENS stands upon the Veto message of Mr..
Polk, which he read the other night to the
Senate, not for the purpose Of informing the
Senate, not for the purpose Of illustrating his
own argument, not with the desire or intention
that the Senate should hear word that he was
reading, but avowedly for the purpose Of con-
Stunning time. Mr.. SoULE, we presume, stands
upon the same ground In calling upon the
Senate to listen to the reading Of Mr.. ELLEr's
report, Mr.. SoULE was acting upon his consti-
tutional objections to the lUhole bill. No amend
ment would have reconciled these gentlemen,
or Mr.. JEFFERSON DAVIS, or Mr.. RHETT, to
any River and Harbor bill. However it might
have been amended, it would never have secured
their votes. With any material amendment it
was certain to be lost, either in the Senate or in
the House-and for inconsiderable amendments
it was not worth while to risk the contingent
cies Of legislation. The Bounty Land bill was
lost by one of those contingencies, with large
majority in its favor in both Houses. It was
perfectly well understood that ony amendment
to the River and Harbor bill, adopted in the
Senate, would have been fatal to it; and vet
General CAss, who claims to be in favor Of
Harbor and River bill, and who did not mean
to be disrespectful to the Chicago convention
by his curt letter declining their invitation, and
who was prevented by other reasons than the
" noise and confusion" from speaking well Of
these Improvements at Cleveland, did vote for
Mr.. BRADBURY's extraordinary amendment,
and seized on it with alacrity and avidity
though he knew perfectly well that it would
destroy the beneficial character of the bill and
render it useless, whether it should or should
not pass.
We have reprinted the extract above given
from the Union, not for the purpose of replying
to the whole Of it in single article. THERE'S
matter enough in it for score Of articles. II
is obvious enough that large majority Of the
American people are in favor of harbor and river
improvements. It is equally obvious that the
party hitherto calling itself democratic" is
OPPOSED to these improvements. The article
which we have copied above from the Union
contains the doctrines Of the Democratic party
on this subject. We wish the people to read
them, in connection or in contrast with the views
of President FILLMORE on the same subject,
and to decide for themselves which view of the
subject they are willing to adopt.