The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-12-20
From the Neio York Commercial advertiser, Nop. "a
President Fillmore, Senator Fish, and tho
ssOmntbuss Bill.

From the NeD York Commercial Advertiser, Nov "a.
President Fillmore, senator Fish, and the
"Omnibus" Bill.
Recent publications have revived a'rumor, soma
time since current, 10 the effect that Mr.. Fillmore
while Vice President, had determined, in case o.
an equal division Of the Senate upon the bill known
as the Omnibus" to give his casting vote against
1t, and had prepared a paper embodying his rea
sons in justification of such vote.
An article upon this subject appeared in the Re
public Of the 18th instant, which we understand
contains several inaccuracies, and (unintention-
ally no doubO fails to present in proper light the
course of Senator Fish 1t says that ..previous to
the Baltimore Convention rumor reached MIR.
Fillmore's ears that a report had been pricatsIy
circulated among Senators in substance as above
stated; and that the President le,rned that this
report came from Senator Fish, and was said
to have been founded upon information received
by him from Mr.. Barnard"
During the tendency of the bill, Mr.. Fish adopt
ed the belief that if occasion required him to vote,
Mr. Fillmore would feel constrained 10 give the
casting vote against the bill. This opinion, we
learn, was formed from general rumors and from
antecedent well 3 coincident circumstances
and conversations, and among these conversation
with Mr.. Barnard.
Mr.. Fish entertained and frequently expressed
this opinion for period of nearly two years. He
never heard il questioned until May last, but on
the contrary found it sustained by the opinions of
other northern gentlemen who were in Washing
ton during the tendency of the bill. His allusion
to il was always frank and without privacy. He
made no attempt to sustain it upon the authority Of
MIR. Barnard or in any way whatever, but only ex-
pressed belief which he had to doubt.
In May last it was the subject of friendly
versaton between Mr.. Fillmore and Mr.. Fish, the
purport Of which was Immediately thereafter re-
duced to writing, in the form of letter from Mr..
Fillmore and reply by Mr. Fish, 10 which Mr..
Fish stated how he became possessed of and con-
| frmed in the belief he had entertained, the gen
eral purport OF the conversation with MIR, Bar
nard and the differences he had drawn from it.
MIR. Fillmore stated that Mr.. Fish's impressions
| to his intende ed vote, and the preparation OF
paper embodying his reasons therefor, were
neous, and that his course Of action had not been
determined Under this denial of it's accuracy,
Mr.. Fish Immediately yielded his own long and
strongly entertained belief, and assumed that he
must have been mistaken and must have msap-
pretended the Purport Of Mr. Barnard's converse.
| lion. His letter to Mr.. Fillmore distinctly
sumed this ground, and was written with the
derstandng that IL might be published. If MIR.
Fillmore thought proper at any time to do 60.
The statement in tho Republic that Mr.. Fish
thereupon applied to Mr.. Barnard for the purpose
Of ascertaining whether he correct in his re-.
collections on the subjects is erroneous. He was
panied that the name Of valued and confidential
friend, then absent from the country, had thus be-
| come implicated, and he therefore wrote to inform
him OF what had occurred, and to ask what further
he could do to relieve him from the EN- ba
of the connection of his name with the story, but
without any effort desire to sustain his own
collection, which he had already assumed to be
erroneous.
When Mr.. Fillmore denied the correctness of
MIR. Fishs belief, the latter ceased to express it,
and ceased to have any desire to sustain it.
The recent reference to the rumor, and the pub
licaon of an isolated sentence from Mr.. Barnard's
letter, have occurred without his agency
thOrity.