Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-23
THE RESULT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

spatchos, newspaper accounts, ana nylng ru
mors, have all alike been contradictory. On
all sides regular game of brag has been
played. We have studiously avoided claiming
or conceding majority. We confess that we
cannot see either the justice or the policy Of
shouting victory, victory, at the top. of our
voice, until we have good reason to believe that
victory has been achieved Such cries are
simply ridiculous. Nor would we give up to
the adversary, because of his loud clamors
j Freesoilism has loud voice and brazen face
| We have no faith, not d particle, in the &C
counts that come from freesoil sources
The difficulty of precisely deciding as to the
complexion of affairs in New Hampshire grows
out of the fact that certain individuals elected
there are claimed by both parties, and thus
both lay claim to majority in the legislature
! Both cannot have the majority, and little
patience will relieve the whole subject of doubt
We devoudy hope, and really incline to think
that the democratic party has succeeded by q
small vote.
The frcesoil papers of New Hampshire thus
state the result. We quote from the Iidepead-
ent Democrat, of the goth, published at Con-
cord.
"Whole number elected 3o3, divided as fol,
lows: bunker democrats, l46; wings, 100; in
dependents, 81.
"Stradford, Berlin, Pittsburg, Shelburne, and
Errl &C., entitled to five representatives, to
be Leard from. If they all elect bunker demo.
Gratis the administration strength in the house,
| including the Burke men and antiNebraska
democrats, will be Isl against l57 wings and
independent democrats. This upon the sup
position that Lyndenborough has made no
/ choice"
The very fact that this comes from free.
soil source is enough to discredit it. They al.
ways claim more than they arc entitled to-.
They always fall short Of their demands.
| This result (Which we believe will turn out
braska victory; and, secondly, as victory over
| the general course Of the administration. Is it,
if it be true, an nti-Nebraska victory? In our
judgment very far from it. If support of the
Nebraska bill was plainly, openly, and ortho-
itatively, made the test OF democratic orthodoxy
in New Hampshire, where is the evidence Of
it? We have seen none. 1t was not made so
by or through the Washington Urion. In.
deed, just the contrary was done; for at the
very pinch, at the needful and trying moment,
that journal came out with an article, as was
predicted it would do, which we then believed
and now believe exercised most unfortunate,
most pernicious influence 1t shocked the
friends and encouraged the enemies of that
measure. Now, that the election is over, the
Union itself, in its issue of yesterday, declares
that il was no test:
1T is evident that coalition was formed
between the wings and abulitionists for the
purpose OF securing the ascendency in the le-
gislature. The Tribune boldly and unbush-
ingly admits it. But against such coalition
the united democracy had the strength to sue.
coed. If they have partially failed, it has been
because they were not united. A portion Of
the democracy must have acted with the Goa
| ltionists, and we presume it can hardly be
doubted shat they were influenced by their OPP.
| posi- ion to the Nebraska bill. On the other
hand the democratic candidates were known
| to be in favor of the bill; but its support had
| not been Incorporated as On article in the de-
| mocratic creed, and therefore the democrats
did not present it as test Of party fidelity.
The administration were known to advocate
| the passage of the measure, but it was not un
derstood that the President had determined to
| regard, opposition to it as incompatible with
friendship Tor his administration. Those dem
ocrats, therefore, who were opposed to the Ne
braska bill found themselves cooperating with
the wings and abolitionists, and yet could
A.
cious association, that they were neither violat
ing their party tealty nor manitesting opposl.
ton to the administration.
"But whilst it is clear that the democrats
did not make the Nebraska bill the issue in the
election, Notwithstanding the party press was
almost unanimous in its support it is equally
clear that the wings and abolitionists and anti.
Nebraska democrats concurred and united in
making the seaport Of that measure a ground
Of opposition to the democratic candidates. In
the estimation Of the coalitionists and anti
| Nebraska democrats, those who were in favor
| of the bill were unit to be voted for. They
| made the support Of the measure test against
! those democrats who advocated it. This was
| done alike by wings; abolitionists, and anti
| Nebraska democrats. Whether or not it was
an error in the democratic party in New Hamp-
! shire to decline to regard opposition to the
| Nebraska bill rs test Of democracy, we have
no disposition to discuss. We are looking at the
! facts with an eye to the future and not for the
| purpose of criticising or censuring the past"
| The Union continues -
aWe know that the course Of the admins
| traton has been dictated by that spirit Of mod.
Grafton, and liberation, and Cancellation, which
has been found essential at all times for the
| settlement of great sectional questions But
there is point beyond which federation, con-
citation, and forbearance cease to be virtues.
| When they cease to contribute to the establish.
ment of principles, they become vices. Our
object in these remarks is to present the in
quiry whether or not the facts connected with
the New Hampshire election show that the adj.
ministration can, with any safety, allow the abb
olitionists aud wings to make the support Of the
Nebraska bill test against the democratic
/ party. without meeting that issue, and making
opposition to that measure q test of fidelity to
the administration"
Thus, after the mischief is done. it casts