Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-07-06

The following letter, from Senator Chase to
Dr. Paul, of this place, has been handed US for
publication. Ii will DO eeen that testimony If
borne therein to the consistency Of Mr.. Edger-
toms cour,e upon the Nebraska BILL by one
whom we may safely presume writes knowing
Iy, and whose prejudces might from their rel
alive positions, be unfavorable to Mr.. Edger-
ton A yindication from censure for the par
ticular vote given, which has been the subject
OF much severe remark in certain Free Soil pa
pers is here offered voluntarily
WASHINGTON, June IL, 1854.
My DEAR SIR Your letter of the Ist Inst
only reached me within the last two or three
days. cannot hesitate to reply frankly to
your inquiries.
have noticed in several Of the Ohio papers
the structures TO which you refer, upon the
course OF Mcsers. Edgerton, Lindsey, and other
Representatives from our State, in relation TO
tho Nebraska bill
The point Of ccnsurc seems to be, that on the
18th Of May they voted for MIR. Richardson's
motion to suspend the rules, in order to enable
him 10 introduce q resolution to close debate
on the bill, and thus indirectly, contribute to
its passage
The grounds urged in justification of that
vote are, let: That the majority had deter
mined, in case the minority should persist in
availing themselves OF Parliamentary rules to
delay and defcnt the Bill, TO override the rules,
and force the House mt once to vote and,
I'd, That assurances we're given, on the part Of
the majority, that ample opportunity should he
given for discussion and amendment under the
i've minutes rule, after the close OF the debate at
large, if the minority would allow MIR. Rich
afdson's resolution to be- adopted
The subsequent course of the majority
plainly proves their readiness to override the
rules, and il seems probable that seven OF
eight days time for discussion was secured by
the arrangements. No opportunity, however,
was afforded for either discussion or amend
mont under the five minutes rule. The major
ity, by "a proceeding as harsh as II was unprc-
ccdented, forced the final vote, without regard
10 any assurances 10 tho contrary
In the light Of oil tho facts, ono may wish
that the risk &C immediate subvcrsion Of the
rules Of forced close Of the debate, and Of a
prccipitatcd final vote on tho bill, had been in
CURED on the 18th; but ii requires moro wis
dom than | possess to warrant confident
aycrmcnt that such course would have boon
unquestionabIy bost
am satisfied that tho gentlemen named
acted in good faith, and never, throughout the
ctitEkts EhNt - tVst 01ctRhNa W 1t1 viz ~
peal Of the prohibition Of 1920. Their action,
especially when il is considered that the whole
influence Of the Administration, which they
had largely contributed 70 place in power, was
exertcd in favor Of tho MEASURE deserves the
praise Of Independence as well AZ that Of fdel-
ity 70 their respective constituencies.
That have not concurred with thorn in po-
litical action ~ well known Ardently devoted
TO Democratic principles, and firmly believing
that the aggrcssions Of the slave power cannot
DO successfully combatcd except by real De-
mocracy, based upon the fundamental ideas Of
Liberty, Equality, and Justice, have not been
able 70 perceive the consistency or propriety
Of acquescence IN Anti Democratic Baltimore
Platforms or OF supporting candidates nomi
mated upon them.
But dfFercnccs in political sentiment OF 40
ton never should induce an act Of injustice
| Confident that tho charge Of secret favor e
the repeal of the Missouri prohibition is an ACT
| Of injustice to those gentlemen, discharge bu'
| simple duty whom 1 declare that such is my
| conviction.
What course they viii take hereafter, know
not. In my judgment, the repeal OF the Mis-