New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-21

-, U..b;ry<on correspondent Is cautiously and
.,eaIthiy feeling lis way toward Dsunion movement
In . Int Ieter which we publish in another colanr,
hat p.per takes the ground that the question OF sep
,r,on Ia An emisentiy proper one 10 Dc eoHsidercd
that the question comes home 70 U.s. III on, Union ns
become such q ore IS the istners Would not hsve
made /, 4 snck a one as the sons Should perpefsafe'
.nS ,bst The nroper way to treat the question Of
Slavery il 10 give our lower stltldes 10 the oiaoks
and thOse who desire TO go with tnem-'R ~ N
fe,t7fxg limb ca! out the cdneergVs 70 inc ueno
cratic principle underlying our .Su ,bu
work But beyond The TRIBuSE ne senuinenI mus
erable portion of the Republican party
Now. we beg The n. Y. Times 10 remember that
if it wishes to please people of sense and integrity
it must begin by cultyating degree of respect Tor
fairness such as is not found in this extract II Is
perhsps somewhat natural that, in the dePIorable
position in which that journal has placed itself by
its charges against Congress, and the inability oil It's
editor and correspondent 10 sustain them before the
Investigating Committee, il should be willing to
make diversion by assalliDg others, without regard
to the scrupuous line of justice; but We spPrehend
that this cannot excuse the Otfense.
Nothing can well strike the public as more absurd
than the allegation that THE TRIBUNE " is eau
tiou,y and stealthiy feeling its way toward any
movement whatever. Stealth is quality which is
not usually laid to our charge, whatever may be the
case with others 1t is, we believe, generally sup
posed to be our practice to utter, even too bluntly
our convictions, and without carefully enough seek
ing to bring them gradually to the understanding Of
the public 1t is also known to be our prstice to
admit in our columns latitude of discussion which
the timidland time-serving mag not always under
stand. We pubishth the contributions of correspond
ents quite a, often when they oppose as when they
sQree with our own views On this principle We gave
place to the letters in question, written, not as
The Times afirms, by our principal correspondent
at Washington but by gentleman who contributes
to our pages as he has done for some years, when
ever he sees it, upon his own responsibility ana
over his own signature He has lately become
Dsunionist: and as he wrote ably and clearly on
that side of the question we did not deem proper TO
suppress his argument. At the same time, we
took care emphatically to let the public know that
We had no sympathy with that line of opinions
In leading article published on the Sd inst, on
this very question, used the following language;
"True. the ruling cas. a. the South generally own
slaves while that at the North does not; but how Ter
is this difference of principle Suppose each adult
male citizen of the Free Ststes tomorrow to re-
ceive Southern letter, saying i beg leave to sp-
'prise you that by the death of your bachelor uncle
So.apd-So you ale left heir to dozen fat healthy
negroes worth thousand dollars per head how
many would repudiate the bequesl In our Judgment,
not nearly all the Republic ans not half the Americans
and not one in twenty of the Democrats. Yet 1t were
absurdly mistaken to affirm radical and fundamental
difference between who hold slaves and men who
roud hold them if they could only get them. We are
quite sure that of the who voted for buchanan 10
this city, forty nine ftieths believe in Slavery, and
would not abolish If they could. How such peo
pie be expected to break up the Union, merely or
mainly because certain parties to it are Shareholders
As the case strikes u.s. the love Of Freedom hatred of
Oppression and tenderness of conscience which could
alone mpt the Free States TO seek separation from
the Slave States, would more than suffice to abolish
Slavery or reduce it's power the Union TO insig
nifcance. Before the Northern people can have been
brought earnestly TO say, We prefer Disunon with
Freedom to the Union with Slavery there will be no
Slavery TO secede from
Now when The ~ Y. Times was pretending to
convict US of DisuniOn aspirations by citations from
our columns, how did il happen to pass over these
declaatiOns of our own, to impute ts us the con-
trary declarations of correspondent writing over
his own signature Does such course OF dis
rus.ion accord with the "moral convictions" of
our contemporary For our part if il had come
from any other quarter We frankly avow that we
should have thought it rather petty and dishonest.
Tho old division of this CITY into Wards requires