The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-02-13

strive to change their government, whether the
result of their efforts be revolution or rebellion
are not gully Of moral iurptsde IN tie eyes IF God
or man. That is my proposition, and that is the
prevalent opinion at the present day. Other wise
you make crimnality depend entirely upon the
fact Of resistance to the laws, and that would in
cludo Washington and bis CO. patriots, and thou
sands Of others who have resisted the laws of the
government under which they lived"
In other words, he tells the English govern
ment that its Irish subjects would be perfectly
justified in rebelling-that O'BRIEN and his
companions are heroes, and should not be ex-
lles-and that the government is chargeabe
with cruelty and injustice in holding them in
durance in Van Dieman's Land. Ii is possible
that no difference exists between Mr.. CAss and
the Republic on any of these points. as matters
of opinion but there is singular disregard Of
propriety in forcing them on government at
the moment when it is called upon to perform
an act Of clemency. To call government
harsh and tyrannical, and in the same breath
to ask it to release men who are alleged to be
victims of its harshness and tyranny is an alb
surdity which reflects unfavorably on the Sen
ator's sincerity or discernment. If the latter,
we ask the Senator to remember that govern
ment is guided by its own laws and opinions,
not by the opinions of other nations and that
judgment formed by republican people, enjoy
ing the blessings resulting from successful
revolution, is not the standard that monarchical
rulers are likely to accept as applicable to their
affairs. Russia would not submit to any at
tempt to obtrude English opinions in regard to
Russia's dealings with political offenders; and
England is not more likely to receive with
grace an application presented in a form that
implies direct censure on herself
The Union Of Wednesday, after copying
paragraph from our paper Of Monday, in which
we commended Mr.. SHIsLDs's speech because
Conceived in spirit Of friendliness towards
England" and therefore "directly at vari-
ance with the former speech" of Mr.. Cas-
declares "that these two distinguished Senators
are acting together with entire harmony Of
opinion and purpose in this matter" We
have shown, by evidence gathered from the
attempt to identify these Senators is not fair to
them or to the public. How can there be
centre harmony" between them, when Mr..
CAss pursues course which Mr. SHIELDS
pronounces in the highest degree impoltic?
Their action in the Senate is essentially differ
ent, for while one treats the subject in spirit of
friendlinsss and Cancellation, the other-perlaps
Observation-Disclosures it in manner much
more likely to rivst than to unloose the
letters of the exiles. The difference may
probably be explained by the dissimilarly
Of the positions and political objects Of the
two Senators. One thinks of nothing but
banished friends, and is ready to disregard his
own opinions on collateral issue, in order
that he may secure TO them substantial relief
The other sympathizes strongly with the OPP
pressed, and is willing TO labor for their release;
but he is not unmindful Of the material service
which the frequent exhibition of the sympathy
and the labor may render TO himself as cnndi-
date for high political honors. We may do
wrong to the Senator from Michigan, but really
we cannot help thinking that his solictude for
the advancement of certain Presidential pros
poets is apt to warp and unwittingly to preju-
dice his action in other matters.