Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-01-22
THE NEBRASKA BILL--aIR. DIxON's
AMENDMENT.

by repeating that clause of the Missouri com.
promise, which in spirit and intent is hostile and
antagonistic to the compromise Of 1850. The
freesoilers and soft-shells of New York wish
that such course should be adopted; and, as a
natural consequence, it is adopted BY their
Washington friend.
But the Washington Union, according to our
humble judgment, adopts most disingenuous
method to PREJUDICE the public mind in favor Of
the freesoil construction of the two great slavery
compromises. In the first place it states t,lat
the proposition to repeal the anti.slasery clause
OF the Missouri compromise comes from Ken
lucky whig. Then it states that the proposition
to re-affirm and re-enact the anti-slayery clause
of the Missouri compromise, comes from Mas
sachusetts abolitionist. Having made these
statements, it undertakes to draw the inference
that there is wicked coalition against the ad-
ministration.
Are we to see no end to this stuff? Must
we be compelled, day after day, and week after
week, and month after month, to repeat the
words of Cicero, when he exclaimed in the
Roman Senate: "Qlonsqae tandem abatere,
Catilina, nostru patientia." Is there no ques-
ton which Congress can considers there no
question which the public press can discuss,
which is not an administration question? Does
the Executive mean to enter the dusty arena
of party strife, and require that personal sub
serviency shall be made the test of party
fidelity? But the other day we read an able
speech delivered by one of the ablest and
truest democratic members of the House Of
Representatives in which he stated that, even
before he could register his name at his hotel,
he was told that the administration was deeply
interested in the election of particular persons
for speaker, and for clerk, and for doorkeeper,
and for printer, and for various other officers;
and that opposition to those gentlemen would
be considered unfriendly to the Executive. In
the name of God, we ask, how far is this thing to
be carried? How far must democratic princi-
Piles succumb to the corrupt exigencies Of the
hour?
We cannot answer these questions for others;
but we can answer them for ourselves. We
put our foot down, with the unalterable deter
mination not to take it up, against all such
ideas-for we mean to battle against them
to the bitter end, no matter what fate may
await us.
But we are wandering from our subject.
"We will return to our sheep" as the shepherd
esses of Provence we're wont to say. And re-
turning to our sheep, We could call attention
TO the ridiculous effort of the Washington
Union to create and collect and gather up pre-
JUDGE against the Baltimore platform, and
against those who would remove all obstacles
which stand in the way Of the principles sane
toned at Baltimore by the assembled wisdom
of the party by stating that wing from Ken
lucky and an abolitionist from Massachusetts
had made movements in the Senate touching
the Missouri compromise of 1920.
Perhaps that was keen, shrewd movement
in the estimation Of the Washington Union;
but does that sapient and discreet journal
remember to forget that il sustains, upholds,
and advocates according to its o,cn Showing,
the exact and identical cieacs Of The Massachusetts,
abolitionist. Can the "e61enata andacia -
the unbridled audacity-which Cicero ascribed
TO Cataline 90 further than this?
We arc not without some experience Of men
and things, and politicians and editors but
we can say, with the utmost candor, that we
have never seen more brazen and barefaced
attempt on public credulity than that exhibited
by the Washington Union, when it undertook
to array public prejudice against any move
ment against the Missouri compromise, by
quoting Mr.. Sumner, whilst that journal, ac-
cording to its own showing. is sustaining M-.
Summers position!
But we do not wish to be misunderstood,
whilst we agree, thoroughly and entirely, that
the Nebraska bill should give no room for doubt,
mistake, or ncertainty-whilst we think that
the Missouri compromise should be definitely,
and distinctly repealed in order TO carry out the
principles Of the Baltimore platform, and ex-
pose the time-serying and corrupt policy Of I'M
principled tricksters we cannot approve of Mr..
Dixons amendment if we give it the correct
reading. We most heartily concur in that
portion Of It which proposes the definite repeal
Of the Missouri restriction SO far as Nebraska
is concerned, and so far IS any unorganized
territories that may be acquired BY the United
States may be concerned in the future. We
wish to bring them all 10 the full and final test
Of the Baltimore platform. But the Oregon
Territory was organized before the Compromise
Of 1850 was adopted; and it has been since
divided by the bill organizing the Territory of
Was hington under the same limitations and re,
strictions with regard to slavery.
1t seems to us that the latter clause Of
Mr.. Dixon's amendment might include those
territories. If so, il asks too much of the
northern democracy sound, true, relia-
bic northern democracy. Wecannot ask such
men TO iegislate slavery into territory; not
only because the power to legislate slavery