Washington sentinel., 1854-05-04
THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATS AND
THE NEBRASKA BILL.

THE NEBRASKA BILL.
aIt is well known that the National Demo
crat was among the first papers in the country
to sustain the Nebraska bill as it was reported
by Judge Douglas, aud, while the Presidents
organ, the Washington Union, has wavered and
doubted in its course, we have firmly stood by
the great essential principle contained in the
bill, and have boldly assumed the ground that
the democratic party can stand upon no other
platform. From the days of Thomas Jefferson
until now, the party has occupied this ground
of non-interference with the rights Of the peo-
pie Of the States to frame their own domestic
institutions. This doctrine must, and ever will,
remain cardinal principle of the democratic
creed. So far as this principle is embraced in
the Nebraska bill, the democracy is bound to de-
fend it."-Neto York National Democrat.
The above paragraph is sufficiently plain.
It is a clear and distinct declaration that the
essential principle of the Nebraska bill is
cardinal principle Of the democratic creed.
The National Democrat declares that it was one
Of the first papers in the country to sustain the
bill reported by senator Douglas. If so much
its friend, if SO warmly its advocate, if that
bill embodies a cardinal principle of the demo-
cratic creed, then we cannot understand why the
Democrat, or any other friend of the bill should
throw difficulties in the way of its passage. 1t
becomes statesmen and patriots to look and
look only at the merits Of any great public
measure on which they are called to act.
1t certainly is not the part of wisdom to defeat
or to impede the passage of bill, acknow-
lodged to be wise, a proper, and a necessary
BILL in order to spite some of its friends
After expressing itself in the manner above
indicated, the National Democrat says:
s'But full and triumphant vindicaton Of
this great principle calls for no especial haste
in passing the Nebraska bill. It's a principle
that cannot suffer by time and discussion. On
the other hand the only danger arises from
disposition to force it through by trick and In
decent haste"
We would respectfully suggest to the Ma
tionaI Democrat, and the party with which it
acts, that if the essential principle of the bill is
an important element in the democratic creed,
and if the democratic party is bound to ac-
knowledge it and to give to it practical efficacy,
there is no reason, that we can see, why the
bill should be delayed. We do not desire it
passed with indecent haste. We want it tho
roughly discussed; for such discussion will
inevitably diminish its enemies and increase
its friends We have heard Of no disposition
to force it through by tricks and indecent
haste" We fear that the boot is on the other
leg. We fear that there is a disposition to de-
feat it by "trick." We fear that there is a dis
position to delay, hinder, and obstruct its pas
sage, by raising frivolous objections, by ques.
tioning the honest intentions Of its trainers, and
by disposition to spite and punish some of its
friends.
The National Democrat seems to favor de-
lay. It seems to desire to hang up the bill, to
kill it by slow process of suffocation.
AS that journal is one of the organs Of the
national democracy, its views and opinions
merit more than passing notice. Whilst it
does not clearly and definitely unfold its pur-
poses-whilst it does not distinctly indicate the
course to be pursued whilst, indeed, it seems
to be rather in a fog in reference to the Ne
braska bill, it yet quotes, and seems to quote
approvingy, the following article from the New
Hampshire Reporter, which is, we regret to
say, but too plain and unequivocal:
"We will state frankly what, in our opinion,
are those contingencies, and what we deem to
be the duty Of the national democracy in the
present aspect of public affairs They evidently
have it in their power to pass the bill, or not to
pass it. as duty to themselves, and to that por.
ton of the democracy whom they represent,
shall dictate. The bill should not be allowed
to pass, until the President openly and forever
repudates and repels from his confidence and
favor the freesoil section of the party who now
oppose the bill. If he will not do that, then it
should not be permitted to pass, until the south
ern democracy cut loose from the President and
his freesoil associates, and ally themselves with
the national democracy, the only friends which
the bill has in the north. If neither Of these
contingencies occur, then we frankly say that
it is the duty of the national democrats of the
House Of Representatives. to at once kill the
BILL 1t is their duty to withdraw from all
southern associations or connexions, and leave
the south to take care of itself Then the south
will find itself without party in the north, or
support Of any kind"
The New Hampshire Reporter takes the bull
by the horns. 1t cuts the Gordian knot 1t
throws off all embarrassing and perplexing re-
straints. The article we quote from its columns
sustains the views we expressed some weeks
since in an article on the formation of a bal
ance of power party. 1t is melancholy to wit
ness the contradictions in which the Reporter
involves itself.
1t confesses that the bill has merit; that it
asserts the principles embodied in the demo-
cratic creed, and that it oughtto pass. II next
asserts that the national democrats have the
power in their own hands, either to pass or to
defeat it, and it urges them to exercise that
power and defeat the bill, unless the President
repudiates the freesoil section who oppose the
bill. Should the President refuse to do so, it
still urges it on the national democrats to de-
feat the bill, unless the southern democracy cut
loose from the President, and ally themselves
with the national democrats.
Now, we feel it to be our duty to denounce
| tLo oo,rsa recommended by the ReD0rter, as