Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-10-27

tricidal warfare upon the south on account Of
slavery. All we asked in lS48 was, that they
would not legislate on the subject of slavery in
the Territories, and that they would legislate
as the Constitution required as to fugitive
slaves.
Now, how stood Dickinson on the whole sub
ject as soon as the issue was made? He stood
up bravely to his national duty throughout.
That very speech made at Rome, rom which
these extracts were taken by John Van Buren,
was intended to show the authors position
against the Wilmot prooiso. He repudiated it,
and advocated leaving the question to the peo
pie Of the Territories when they came to form
State constitutions. He advocated the ground
OF the south, and denounced all assaults upon
the southern States. 1t is said that figures will
not lie; so neither will facts lie; but men can
lie awfully with facts and figures; and these
extracts from the Rome speech of Dickinson
are base libel as they are employed. They
grossly misrepresent him.
A similar effort was made by the wings to
garble speech made by Franklin Pierce him
self He made an address to sustain the CON-
promise and fugitive-save law; and an aboli-
ton reporter took out a few sentences, put
them in his own words, and they were sent
south during the canvass for President to prove
the author an abolitionist The effort is now
to make out by these extracts that Dickinson
was precisely what the very purpose and tenor
of the speech shows he was not.
Little better is the use made of an incidental
remark OF Senator Dickinson upon the three
million bill, at time when the bearings OF the
Wilmot proyiso had not been considered, and no
issue was made about it. All these attempts to
disparage the ex-senator are discreditable as
they are idle. We all remember Daniel S.
Dickinson The folks in Naw York apd alsa.
where may amuse themselves by the use of
such artillery, but it will not harm Dickinson
in the estimation Of the country. They can't
rob him of the good name he has earned. It
is deeply engraven upon the memory of the
country, and the attempts to rub it out are
futile. He can't be placed in the same category
with the Van Buren, men. They know it is
not honest to make the effort. There is nothing
in his example to excuse or PALATE their con-
duct Ii they intend to do better, very well;
but they had as well let Dickinson alone He
is above the reach Of their shafts.
We don't intend to decide between parties in
New York. 1t is no part of our business; but
justice to a man who stood by the south when
the tempest howled loudest is national duty.
He was at his post when his help was needed.
He risked his political existence for the cause
of the Constitution, and we cannot see him dis
paraged in the south without word in his
defence. The present contest in the Empire
State outsiders had better let alone It's merits
depend upon considerations which can be only
partially appreciated outside Of that State.
Time will show who is in the right. But the
position of Daniel S. Dickinson is different
affair. We know what is due to him. His
reputation belongs to the country. He has
earned name of which he cannot be deprived.