Washington sentinel., 1854-06-04
FAIR PLAY, GENTLEMEN,

Peckham, Wheeler, and Oliver, members OF
Congress from New Y ork, because of the course
which they pursued on the Nebraska bill, and
the address they have published since that bill
passed the House of Representatives. We do
not object to that, for we have censured those
gentlemen as pointedly as we could. But we
must say that the two journals we have men
toned have acted in the most uniusti6able
manner with regard to this matter, and that
both of them have manifested spirit which
cannot stand the test of fairness.
First, as regards the Washington Union
That journal has manifested the utmost eager
ness to assail those representatives of the
national democracy of New York who opposed
the Nebraska bill, whilst it does not bestow one
word of censure on the softshells and free.
soilers, who united with them and voted with
them. Does not this fact of itself expose the
unfair purpose of the Unions Does it not be,
tray tho desire of that journal to mislead the
public? Does it not prove that the Union
wishes to conceal the rottenness Of the freesoil
and softshell alliance? Yea, does it not prove
that fair, open, and manly dealing is not re-
garded by the Washington Union.
This would, however, be unimportant, but
for the position which the Washington Union
occupies, or is supposed to occupy, before the
country. 1t is understood to be the organ o!
the administration, and its tortuous policy must
affect the popularity of the administration.
Until q late day the Union succeeded in ere.
ating doubt as to whether the Executive
was really and truly the friend of the Nebras-
ka bill. Now.it pursues a line Of policy which
shows that, since the Nebraska bill is con.
cluded, it wishes to return to its old position,
and to hide, conceal, and harbour the soft shells
and freesoilers, who opposed the administration
on test measure, whilst it refuses to render
justice to the national democracy of New York
which has stood firm, even when smartine
under the feeling of personal grievance. But
nothing better than such trickery could have
been expected Of the Washington Union, for i,
would lose its identity if it was found pursuing
a straight forward and impartial course.
Now, as to the Richmond Enquirer. 1t is
duction, more of the former cause of that jour
nal than what is embodied in the announce
ment, that, in the beginning Of the New York
controversy, it advocated the cause of the ma
tional democracy with great zeal, whilst it sub
sequently gave active aid to the fr--son aud
softshell alliance. These facts-facts which
We deeply regretted us to expect that tht
Richmond Enquirer would, notwithstanding
the high position which the Nebraska question:
assumed, still cherish feeling of hostility to-
wards the national democracy of New York.
But we must, in all candour, confess that we
did not expect to see it manifest that feeling OF
hostility in the mode and manner of its article
of Friday last. 1t speaks in harsh terms OF
the signers Of the quintuple address. Oftha,
we do not complain, because we agree tina,
they deserve the severest censure; but it for
bears to mention that those signers did no.
constitute the whole of the representation Of
the New York national democrats. This we
think is most unfair.
But further. The candid reader Of the En-
q4irer's article, if he had no other means of in.
formation than that furnished by that article,
would come to the conclusion that none of the
representatives of the New York national de-
mocracy sustained the Nebraska bill, and that
the whole Of the national democracy of New
York had been proved to be false to their pro,
fessons On the other hand, the candid reader
would suppose that the freesoil and softshel
alliance had gone in solid phalanx for the bill
for the reason that the Enquirer does not men
ton that any portion of the representatives OF
the New York national democrats voted for
Nebraska and avoids, as if studiously, to men,
ton that any of the softshells and freesoilers
voted against it. These oversights may some
times take place without any disposition to do
wrong, yet the duty to correct them is not less
imperative on fair men who wish to do righ,
and not mislead the public even by omissions.
We therefore call upon the Union and En-.
q,tirer to repair the wrong they have done.
We call upon those journals to make the dis
examinations they have thus far avoided. We
call upon them to make the anaende honorable
to the national democracy of New York; and
we call upon them to comment on the conduct
of the freesoilers and softshells who voted with
Maurice, Peckham, Wheeler, & Co.. fthey mean
to play out the game fairly and truly, and do
not mean to bamboozle the public by one.sided
arguments, and prejudice the administration
by cunning and cranky statements. We have
never hesitated to oppose factionists. Even in
the present instance we did not hesitate in
reprobating the course of those who signed the
quintuple address. They are worthy of all
censure. But we insist that those who censure
them shall do justice. We insist that they put
the whole truth before the people. If the
Union and Enquirer will do that we have no
complaint to make Fair play is all we de-
mand.
Put the lash on the FIVE recreants and we
will not interfere; but do not undertake to
make them the exponents Of the national DEM
ocracy. Publish their names and hold them
up to the public gaze; but do not forget to
mention even, that other representatives of the