Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-12-28

III WhaL the tate board stated 10 CouBTesS III
their memorial be true, they could not have
had dollar in hand when the result Of the
election on the 22d day of February last termi-
mated their trust BE this as it may, the late
Board did not pay over one dollar, nor epe'l
deliver up the empty iron safe belonging to the
Monumenty in which We suppose they may
have kept "that fund"
We doubt not that Messrs Seddon and Bur-
well have received erroneous impressions touch
ing the action Of the American party Of WASH
ington, in relation to the Monument, or they
would not have INDUCED in any censures upon
it. The report Of a select committee, appoint
cd by the present managers Of the Monuments
and which report was prepared by Joseph II.
Bradley, Esq, and published last summer in
the Organ, annihilated every charge ofimpro-
pricty made against the present managers Of
the Monument and against the American party
in reference to the election Of said managers,
and this report remains 10 this day unanswered,
and will ever remain unanswerable If any
body thinks otherwise, let them answer Mr..
Bradley's report s
Messrs. Toombs aud stephens the Political
| DOublet.
These two names have always been associat.
cd together. They have worked in the same
harness, and operated together in the various
plans and manGuvres to agitatc the country,
and to dissolve the. Union of these States
Bold and daring in their political intrigues, and
shrewd and cunning in their manosuvres, they
have managed to escape the political punish
| ment which their more frank and candid CO.
temporaries have suffered
We have exposed tho inconsistency Of one,
and shown to the country that he solemnly de-
| clarod that he would agree to no compromise
upon the slavery question, unless "clear and
| distinct line was drawn either by the extern
sion ofsthe Missouri Compromise line, or the
| adoption of one Of the mountain ranges"
| which should secure to the North one side and
to the South the other; and we have shown that
he disregarded this solemn declaration, at the
same time asserting that the South was willing
to abide by the Missouri Compromise line 'tfor
all time to come" Should such man be
trusted? We leave it to the people Of the
South to answer.
But this is not all. Near the close of the
| 30th Congress, when California was in state
Of anarchy, without laws and without govern
ment, Senator Walker introduced in the Senate
an amendment to the civil and diplomatic APP
preparation bill, appropriating the sum of two
| hundred thousand dollars to enable the incom-
ing President (Taylor) to govern California
and to defray the expenses of the salaries Of
tthe officers necessary to be appointed To this
Mr.. Webster introduced an amendment proyi-
| ding that the Mexican laws Of freedom should
remain in full force, until Congress should le-
gislate otherwise. Mr. Walkers amendment
passed the Senate In the House Of Rcpresen-
tativcs Mr.. Webster's proyiso was added. The
Senate refused to agree to the House amend.
ment and the House insisted upon its amend
ment finally the whole matter was stricken
from the bill, and California was left without
a government This circumstance was well
known to these two gentlemen. They knew
the effect and object of Mr.. webster's amend
ment; they knew that the Object of the Web.
ster amendment was to prevent the carrying of
slaves into California, for the Mexican laws Of
freedom prohibited the institution.
Both these gentlemen were in Congress, and
voted upon both these propositions, and at the
opening of the next Congress, we find them
on the floor Of the House Of Representatives
denouncing, in bitter language, all Northern
men who would not subscribe to their views.
They refused TO support Mr.. Winthrop because
he had, on the last night Of the previous Con.
gress, given the casting vote for Mr.. Webster's
Mexican prohibition. They, by their action,
threw the organization Of the House Of Repre-
sentatives into the hands of the party to which
they professed to be opposed, when the party
which they had professed TO love was in
clear majority. They thus bridled an admins.
tration which they protested to support and
which was pledged to carry out the principles
which they had proclaimed to be the true tho
only true principles upon which the govern
ment should be administered. Yet, in 1852,
we find these two gentlemen at the head of
party in Georgia, with Daniel Webster as its
standard-bearer. They refused TO support Win
throp Tor his vote upon proposition Of which
Mr.. Webster was the author, and afterwards
nominated and sustained Mr.. Webster for the
highest Office in the gift Of the people. What
principle was there involved in such conducts
Mr.. Webster was the author of the proposition
for which Mr.. Winthrop gave the casting vote,
the latter received their bittercst hostility, the
former their most fattering commentator.
This Is but one point in the history Of this
Doublet The record is replete with many
other gross inconsistencies, enough to stamp
them as unfit and unsafe Legislators, as politi-
clans mere politicians, who are ever bidding
at the auction Of pnlitical nosition and Exaer,