Washington sentinel., 1854-03-25

Of which party Mr.. Cutting is distinguished
leader, and the "softs' have for months past
waged against each other war of unexampled
acrimony and bitterness. They sundered all
the ties that bound them together. They re-
fused TO act in concert. They swore an oath of
deadly and enduring hostility against each
other. 1t has been enough for one party to
approve measure to drive the other party
into fierce opposition to it. But politics makes
strange bed-fellows, and extremes meet. BY
strange chance, or a stranger man9uvre,
these two fierce combatants and bitter enemies,
who vowed they could never mingle, met in
silence and shook hands in affection over Mr..
Cuttings proposition. Oil and water have mi
raculously mingled! All of both divisions
voted for Mr.. Cuttings motion, except Mr..
Walsh and half dozen absentees.
Mr.. Cuttings course and his speech have
been variously construed. We have already
stated some views that are taken in regard to
them. We will give another view. Some ex
press the belief that the known endorsement
by the administration of the Senate bill was
the motive that arrayed Mr.. Cutting and the
other members of the hard persuasion against
it. 1t is said that they would, under no cir
cumstances, cooperate with an administration
that has sedulously labored to crush them out.
What, then, becomes of the softs, for they
acted with Mr. Cutting and his associates? Are
they, too, opposed to the administration.
Others take another view. They say that
the hards determined not to act in concert
with the softs, took this tack in order to
separate themselves from them; and that the
softs, more astute, outgeneralled them, and
caught them in their own snare. The whole
thing is enveloped in thick fog. We do not
pretend to understand it. This, however, we
will venture to suggest, that if the hards OBJ.
ject to the Senate bill on account of the Bad
ger and Clayton amendments, and intend to
support the House bill because of its freedom
from those amendments, it is fair to suppose,
asthey voted together on Mr.. Cuttings propo-
sition, that the softs design taking the same
course. If so, the former are doomed to be
haunted by their terrible enemies. They will
stick to them like the shirt of Nessus Both
of the New York divisions, in their zeal to
outstrip each other, will then present the
strange spectacle Of claiming to be better pro-
slavery men than the southern people them
| selves.
| We do not hesitate to say that, no matter
what course may be hereafter taken By them,
We cannot cease to regret, to deplore the move
ment that has been made by Mr. Cutting and
those who act with him. We do not question
the right of any member of Congress to take
his own course on the great measure of public
policy, in relation to which he is called to act.
Nor will we be so ungenerous and unjust as to
call in question the motives Of any gentleman.
They are responsible to their consciences and
their constituents for their votes and public
acts. But yet, as the conductors of political
journal here, we would be derelict in duty,
false to the public, and false to ourselves, if
we did not speak, and speak frankly, of the
public acts Of public men.
We have therefore given all the speculations,
views, and solutions of the movement to which
we refer, entertained and expressed by differ
ent journals and individuals. We will now
candidly state our own. In doing so, we are
Influenced as well by the kindest personal feel
ings as by considerations of public good. We
have already said that we deplore this move.
ment. We do deeply deplore it. However
well meant it may be, however much the par
tic:pants in it may be in favor Of the great con-
sttutional doctrine Of congressional non-inter-
vention their hostility to the Senate bill which
passed that body by SO overwhelming vote,
and which is so acceptable to the south, cannot
have any other than an unhappy effect. We
cannot divest ourselves of the fear that the ORR
ginators of this movement were, perhaps un-
consciously to themselves, influenced by their
unfortunate relations to the administration.
That Mr.. Cutting is and from the first has
been in favor of the principle Of non-interven-
| ton, we know. We do not doubt his fidelity.
but he will pardon US for saying we do doubt
the policy of his movement. None can ques-
ton, the honesty and fidelity of Mr.. Cutting,
who will take the trouble to read the following
extract from his speech Mr.. Cutting says:
"No, Mr.. Speaker, let us meet this matter
manfully and tairly and when we come TO the
final passage Of the bill, when we call the yeas
and nays, and ascertain who is and who is not
in favor of the great principle of non-interven.
ton by Congress, and Of giving to the people Of
| every organized community the right to form,
and frame, and live under laws which they them
selves place upon the statute-book, then the
gentleman will see who is and who is not in
| favor of it. But mean that this bill shall con
tain those elements. There shall be, so far as
am concerned, nothing smothered up in it, or
nothing concealed"