Washington sentinel., 1853-12-15

II
and assumption that we did not believe could
be taken by any journal. Has the Union de-
Iuded itself into the belief that it can command
Senators? Does it think that the support of
the proprietor of that paper is the great test of
democracy? Is it authorized to denounce as
factionists all who dared to cast their votes for
the democratic publisher of another democratic
journal Ifso, whence that authority? What
its source? The Union pretends to furnish us
with the names Of the senators who voted for
Mr.. Tucker. Among them is the honored
President of that body, Mr.. Atchison, at this
time the Vice President Of the United States
Is he factionist? Among them is the name
Of Jesse d. Bright, one of the staunchest
democrats in the country, and chairman of the
Committee on Roads and Canals. Is he fac
ZIONIST? Among them are the names of Sena
tors Hunter and Mason the first chairman of
the Committee on Finance, the last chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, are
they factionists? Senators Weller, James,
Evans, Wright and Broadhead, are also on the
list of those who voted for Mr.. Tucker. Are
they also factious democrats? We ask for a
reply.
We have felt, and still feel that it did not
and does not become us to violate the sanctity
of the ballot system which prevailed on that
occasion, and drag before the public the
This has been done by the Union. Nor shall
we be guilty of the outrage Of charging those
Senators with being factious democrats, who
chose, in the exercise of their unquestioned
strong.
One would suppose, from the tone and tenn
per of the Union, and from the course of re-
mark in which it indulges, that caucus had
been held by the democratic Senators-that
regular nomination of General Armstrong was
made, and that the nine Senators who voted
for Mr.. Tucker had factiously opposed the re-
gular nominee. 1t is proper for us to say that
lar nominee. Each Senator was master of his
own vote, and free from all trammels and obi
cations 1
The contest was between two democrats who
were the publishers Of two democratic journals
in this city. Senator'S had an indisputable right
to choose between them. According to the
statement of the Union sixteen voted for one,
nine for the other. BY what right, we ask,
does the Union insinuate or assert that those
nine Senator'S are less loyal to democratic prin-
ciples and to party organization than the other
sixteen?
Is the Union so vain as to make itself the
standard to which democratic Senators are to
conform. Does it claim that it is the great
test and touchstone Of democracy? Who
made it so? It's fit that this question should
be answered. Its frantic appeals--its spitefnl
animadversions- solemn communications
will fall powerless without some show of au-
thority.
When the publisher Of this paper was de-
feated in the House, where, it is alike due to our
friends and ourselves to say, there was no or
ganized effort in our behalf, tor the result
might have been different we did not tear
our hair, wiring our hands in frantic agony, and
denounce the majority or the individuals com
prising that majority for electing General Arm
strong. We summoned to our aid the appro-
pirate consultations Calm and uncomplain-
ing in defeat, we would also be tranquil and
discreet in victory. Beyond an expression
of thanks to the Senate for their kind and
Aatering vote, we would have said nothing,
but for the very remarkable course Of the
Union since that vote was given. It's threat
enings are as violent since that vote, as its
adulations were fulsome before. 1t seeks by
indirection to make itself the bearer of the inn
posing flag of true democracy, and us the
bearer of the black flag of faction and disor-
ganization. This has been its effort all along.
1t also endeavors to fix stigma-the same
those Senators who voted for Mr..
Tucker.
We defy the most malicious and the most
cunning enemy that we have, to name one sin
gle instance in which we have deviated from
the tenets Of the democratic faith. We defy
the most searching scrutiny to detect any-the
slightest disloyalty to the measures and tra-
Il
ditions of that party. We hold all the theo-
ries of that party. We do more. We hold
all public men to strict adherence in practice
to those theories. We regard ideas and prin-
ciples as valueless and inefficient without
practical compliance with them. We spurn
the men who take tithe of mint and rue, but
neglect the weightier matters of the law
If such course as this makes us factionists,
then we are factionists, and will be proud to be
so considered.
Surely the Washington Union does not fully
understand its own course Surely it does not
perceive that its efforts tend directly to infict
lasting injury on the democratic party and on
the administration it pretends to serve with
disintcrested fidelity. 1t would degrade the
principles which constitute the basis of demo-
cratic fellowship into mere piratical league
for Spots and plunder. In attempting to bind
its fate IN the Senate with the fate of the ad-