New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-07-28

r. Co,c-e.s and declared thsi had the hour OF
three in the morning been appointed 10Y tsAhg VIC
vote on the Nebraska bill | should not nave ooon
present.
The passage Of the private letter above re-
ferred to was "a follows:
&" Suppose our House had appointed o'clock IN tne
morring as the hour for taking the maj vo'e Oh eue
Nebraska bill | should no 10 that case nave gIveu
nv ,o for shoud have felt it to be my duty 10 De ia
"a n, ,6st hour. On whom would rest the responsl.
bilitv of nv absence and my missing vote some OF
nv friends would say upon myself but would say on
the House"
Now. we submit that in view Of these decla-
rations il is rather difficult TO understand the
warmth of excitement with which Mr. smith
now repels the idea that he was absent from
that memorable struggle because he wanted to
90 TO bed. He here admits that while on prin-
cpe he was opposed to joining in the battle
waRed in the House, he was also opposed to 1t
because it interfered with his bed time, and
not only so, but that he would also have been
absent even from the final vote on the bill for
the same reason. He would have done this had
the opportunity occurred; it was in his heart,
but accidentally not in his act, to fail to vote
against the bill. And as for bis failing TO take
part in the great parliamentary contest which
preceded the passage of the bill, while ohJec-
tons of principle formed one reason, objections
of sleepiness formed another; aud because we
mention one in correcting the misstatement OF
correspondent, without mentioning the whole,
we are sssailed by Mr.. Smith in style of rhet-
ORIG which we do not care to characterize.
Mr.. Smith will perhaps pardon the suggestion
that when readisg US so violent lecture, he
would have done we'll to be careful as to the
correctness of his own statements, many OF
which very broadly sin against the truth. For
instance, he charges that we have till now con-
cealed the fact that he voted against the Ne
brasks bill, when the truth is that it was pub
Hshed most prominently at the time, and that,
so far as we are aware, nothing has ever been
said or insinuated to the contrary in our col
umns until this unlucky letter from Syracuse.
And of all the explanations on this subject
that Mr. SIN tn has ever given TO the world, we
do not recolect one that we have not freely
copied. He says that we have continued to
wrong him in this matter; indeed, he seems to
imagine with an exaggt ration which, if it did
not proceed from excessive passion, would be
melau cboly evidence of monOmania, that THE
TRIBUNE makes it business to do him in-
Jury, and that maligning his Congressional ca
reer is one of our standard employments. The
truth il that we have never spoken of him but
with a sense of XII dness and desire to be per-
fectly Just. Indeed, we tbiLk nothing so unfa-
vorabe to his reputation as his own letter of
this morning, could ever have been admitted to
our columns, except under peculiar crcum-
stances and with his signature. Aud, finally,
we assure him that we forgive both the virulent
vtuperation with which he assails us, and the
Pharassic complacency with which he lauds
himself, and that we sincerely hope he may live
long for the worlds improvement and his own