The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-10-02

ures Of 1880 who at Roivar Miss took up the gaunt-
let or Douglas beiore an intelligent audience and adj
soted altt the entire theory Of the anti Lecompton
denocsecy OF the North. But perhaps tho two most
STRIKING Instances are those Of Kentucky and Missouri
IN The inst, the democratic press deanty array them
selves upon the side of Douglas m his struggle in l
nos while In the second 10th the senators In Congress
zone OF whom il wiz be remembered, Mr.. j. s. Green
led the debate u advocacy of the Lecompton and the
EngissA bills in the United States Senate and with
ased ability and power contended against Judge Doug
as and all the representatives in Congress- with all the
national papers to support them have not only pro-
claimed their earnest sympathy with the great header Of
Illinois but have in terms denounced tho ytuperative
and scandalous course Of tire Washington Union"
And what is the groundwork of all this Boosting
in regard TO Messs. Orr, Stephens, Toombs, Brown,
and Green? Why, not that they side with Douglas
against the administration, but that they pay him
the poor compliment Of thinking him better man
than Linootn,
Senator Green made his great reputation in the
Senate last winter in the advocacy of the Lecomp-
ton bill, which Judge Douglas brands as ''fraud,
swinde, and cheat I; and yet told that Sen
ator Green is partisan of the man who thus brands
himself and his measure, against the President the
democratic party, and even against himself!
Mr.. Toombs, Mr.. Stephens, and Mr.. Brown were
active supporters of the fraud swindle aud cheat
and because they are supposed to sympahze with
the caumniator of their measure and themselves as
against Lincoln, they here claimed as also sym
pathizing with him as against an administration
which threw its whole influence in behalf of that
measure.
Mr.. Stephens an author of the English bill, and
Mr.. English is its reputed father in Congress. Yet
they are now alleged to sympathize with the man
who illuminated it in Chicago as prescribing one
rule Of admission for slave States and another for
free States taking his side against the admnistra-
ton who stands pledged to support the provisions
Of their own bill through thick and thin. Could
there be anything more brazen than such pre-
tence?
We have faithfully defended these measures in
their integrity; and, because the authors of them
are supposed to think Judge Douglas a better man
taan Lincoln it is asserted that are rebuked by
them for our fidelity to their measures! But it
is useless to refute in detail the greatness and folly
Of so reckless, weak and wisf-wash production
The personal features of it are more preposterous
than its general political ones Its author has crazy
conceit that he is in sort the rival in position
and importance of the President of the United States
His document has the style Of a pronuneiamento.
IL rivals in its windy and ludicrous display of per-
sonal vanity the documents which giddy Mexican
chiefs have been in the habit of putting forth against
each other on the eve of pending revolutions. Its
author evidently fancies himself the Zuloaga Of a
lettering administration, whose downfall the ftes
have decreed under the trcnchant blows Of his own
rhetoric. In his exhilarated Imagination and vani-
ty, the issue is Comonfort Zuoaga and he expects
soon to hear cry from the people, down with Bu-
chanan up with Forney.' Is there no way of curing
the unfortunate man of his melancholy haucinalion?
We have seen julius Caesars, George Washingtons,
and Queen Elizabeths, Gagged within the walls of mad
houses, Boosting of their measures and issuing their
orders right and left; but we have never before
known such characters to be permitted to go at
large and to publish their feats at Presdent-making
and Cabinetforming, and their solemn conferences
with the rulers of the land, in grave and serious
earnest, in the newspapers