Washington sentinel., 1854-02-08

gan, were U6Dateu dl
The House of Representatives had the def
cheney bill under consideration.
THE WASHINGTON UNION-THE NEW
YORK DIvISIONs-THE NEBRASKA
BILL.
We have already stated that the Washington
Union had declared that it considered the sup
port of the Nebraska bill test Of democratic
orthodoxy. We must now express our regret
to see that journal endeavoring to protect the
freesoilers from the operation of the test it an
nounced as absolute and decisive. Our regret
in this behalf is increased by the improper
method by which the Washington Union would
accomplish its ends; for it induces us to fear
that that journal is determined to adhere to the
freesoilers, and to cast odium on the national
democrats, no matter what course the two par
ties may pursue. If the former sustained the
Nebraska bill, and the latter opposed ii, we
would dispense praise and censure as justice
required.
But the eagerness of the Washington Union
to relieve its New York friends from the
weight Of the Nebraska test has induced it,
unwittingly perhaps, to pervert the record.
Wewish to gain all the support possible for
the repeal of the restrictive clause of the Mis-
souri, compromise, and would drive off no one.
from a just and proper, measure. But we
know well enough that there is no means more
effective to procure the defeat of measure
than to represent its enemies as its friends; for
one enemy in the camp may be more danger
Gus than ten thousand out of it. Therefore it
is that we feel constrained to reply to the
Washington Union of yesterday, and to correct
its errors and misstatements. The Union says:
ssIt is well known that the interest which is
felt by the public mind on the question in
volved in the territorial bills has derived some
degree of intenseness and solicitude from the
fact that it seemed to present practical test of
the positions occupied by the two sections of
the democratic party in New York. The com
mittees of the two organizations of the city of
New York have felt the importance of prompt
and decided action on the subject, and we are
now enabled to announce the gratifying fact
that the two sections through their respective
committees, have declared their adherence to
the great principle of congressional non-inter-
braska and Kansas Territories"
With all due Difference, we must say that this
is not an accurate statement of the case; and
we must be permitted to say, further, that the
evidence which the Union adduces is not the
whole evidence bearing on the point. That
journal was willing enough to rebuke and cen
sure the national democratic committee, (al-
though they came square up in favor of the
Nebraska bill, because of the declarations they
made touching different, distinct, and irTele-
rant matter. That journal, on the other hand,
gives unmerited praise to the freesoil and soft
shell committee, and fails to place on record
that portion Of their proceedings which showed
that John Van Buren, and his followers op
posed the resolutions which were adopted al
Tammany, and that the resolutions reallymean
nothing.
The national democratic committee did come
up to the test, and declared "their adherence
to the great principle of congressional non
intervention as proposed to be applied to tn,
Nebraska and Kansas Territories" But tn,
Tammany committee did not come up to th'
test. They adopted preamble and two reso
lutions touching the doctrine of non-interven
ton in vague manner, while they distinct,
and positively refused to sanction the applica
ton of that principle "as proposed to be ap
piled to the Nebraska and Kansas Territories
The Washington Union remembers to forget
to state these facts, the statement of which
,,,n ntbaY OF ~ r,,fb I'd N he
Tammany committee, to the four winds.
The preamble to the three resolutions, by
which the Union seeks to justify its averment,
ioas opposed By John Van Buren, and serer'
Others.
The first resolution of the series pas opposed
by John Vdn Buren and nine others.
The second resolution aras opposed By John
Van Buren, and thirteen Others
The third resolution had no reference what.
ever to the Nebraska bill, and was unanimous
ly adopted.
Up to this point, it will be perceived tha
nothing was done looking to an adherence t,
the principle of non-intervention as proposed
to be applied to the Nebraska and Kansas Ter
ritories." But at this point an amendment t
the second resolution was reproduced which eS
pressed an adherence to all the compromise
heretofore made by Congress on the subject @
slavery, and opposition to any repeal of then
This amendment was lost John Vdn Bure
and Twenty-Five others roting against it,
In the next place, the real question at issu
before the country was brought up by anothe
proposal to amend the second resolution b
adding these words:
"And that ace are IN taror Of the repeal B
Congress Of the act commonly called The Mi,
souri, compromise act"
This amendment ras roted down pittou
dirision. These facts are given more in detai
by the report Of the proceedings of the Tam
many committee, which we publish this morn
ing in another column Of our paper. The,
show that John Van Buren, and his follower,
opposed the preamble and tho two raool,,.;o, :, !.