The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-03-18

oli and lie prominent eaturesqnatter soverrgnare
ded and advocated In New Hampshire only as "a measure
for Freedom ?"
Stripped Of its circumlocuton and its affectarion Of
ing extract break the force of the facts stated by in
connexon with the result in New Hampshire by charging
that Notwithstanding the democrats made gain Of eight
thousand votes and the largest vote given ~
the State yet that national men have no cause rejoice
the result evidence Of the triumphant progress
of sound principles II is not the first time that the
tegsnetr has volunteered its false suggestions and in
naeRdOss for the purpose of throwing suspicion upon the
soundness of northern democrats when they have triumph
ed aboitionsm This seems to be the part assigned
to that journal in the contest between nationasm and
secouaism Its antecedens and its present pledged
position in sustaining politicians aVowedy opposed to the
extension OF slavery to any territory ought have
suggested TO its editors the ndelcacy of setting themselves
Judges of soundess national issues or as exemprs
of frankness stating facts But their in this
stance only shows the in which parsans like them
portray things to suit their views and thus instead
of frankly stating facts their readers constantly mis-
leading them"
The facts stated by were, that the democracy had
gained in year eight thousand votes, and had cast
three thousand votes than they for Gen Pierce
in 1852, and that they had given Mr. Wells the largest
vote given by them in any election. The IHgener
admits the facts but disputes the correctness of
We had said that by these facts the power OF
sound principles sustained by intelligent intrepid
compromising democracy, has been sgnally illustrated"
The "sound principles" referred to by stated
to be those involved ain the direct national issues
presented in the Presidents messages to Congress"
If the LnteHigencer had attempted with real, instead
of affected candor eucdate the national issues pre-
sented in the Presidents it would have been
able so to portray things misead their readers Hence
with of adroness than of honesty the task of eu
cidang those Issues declined We will exercise the
peculiar prerogatives conceded to by the Ltegenee
of calculating the national issues presented in the Pres
dents messages and then proceed to exercise the further
prerogative of exposing the injustice done to the New
Hampshire democracy.
TIE national issues presented in the Presidents
sages" involved in the following distinct propositions
That the repeal of the Missouri restriction
necessary to the citizens of all the States equal
right emgrate and settle upon the territory
and the settlers in Kansas and Nebraska the
unrestricted right under the constitution regulate their
domestic institutions in their way The democratic
convention which nominated Mr. Wells for governor dis
tncty endorsed propositions and he accepted the
nation with express approval of the resolutions which
announced them the platform of the New Hampshire
democracy The abolitonists and know-nothngs made
cause and accepted the issues involved in these
propositions. No national will controvert the sound
Of the nples which thus put in issue by the
democrats and no truthful man will deny that the
conducted faithfully by Mr. Wells in open fearless
and consistent support of the propositions laid down by
| mad hp thn Nauy
Hampshire democracy in State convention In view of
these facts position is that the result showing gain of
eight thousand votes and the largest aggregate democratic
vote given in the State sgnay illustrated the power Of
sound principles The Igencer insists that in making
this Statement, portray ing the facts to suit
views and 'hus misleading readers aud that
"the Kansas bin and lis rronioen turcsquarer
esnryare regarded aud vocted 10 New Hampshire only
a Of freedom" 1t Is denied by the Latsi
grncsr that the contest in New Hampshire turned upon the
principle Of the Kansas bil which that journal in lis
dor desgnnes sqnattcr sovereignty but 1t nrms that
the democrats supported ii "ony Of freedom
The evident impression sought bs made by this
ton h that II the democrats had regarded the Kansas
bill iusuring the exclusion of slavery from Kansas
STATE they would have supported IT, Such sssump
ton h only rebutted by the facts already stated but it
is wholly unsustaned by the extracts from the three New
Hampshire papers on which The allegation is based
No fact is better known and better known than
the editors Of the LEteigence that the abotonists
throughout the free States have constantly assaed the
peal Of the Missouri restriction and the principle Of the
Kansas bill designed TO extend slavery into
Kanras and in their appeals to the known anti-slavey
sentiments of northern men, they have persistently in
sisted that the practical result under the policy Of the adj
ministration woud be the establishment Of slavery in
Kansas None know better than the editors OF the Le
geHc that the first Of these assertions wholly lsehey
know and have referred the fact than once that
leading southern statesmen in both houses not only dis
claimed any such design but frankly expressed the opinion
that slavery would be established in the Territory
They know, moreover that the bill its face
phcuy disclaims the object Of either establishing
prohibiting slavery in Kansas In the face Of the truth
however the aboonis persisted in deuouncng the Kan
bill the work Of prosavery men, and intended to
extend slavery the Territory With all its preens,ns
TO fairness and candor The E1eHcer has not deemed 1t
necessary these facts II surely indication
of unsouudnes of northern democrats to expose
aud refute this Misrepresentation The truth required
northern democrats il did southern democrats TO de-
clare at all times and 10 all places that the Kansas bill
neither pro-slavery ant4savery measure but
right under the constitution regulate the subject 10
their own way This what the New Hampshire demo-
Gratis did in the late canvass and doing and in poll