Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-03-03
ORR sFNATnRs

We eopy below the report by the Washington
Uai0H, Of the conclusion Of the debsts between our
Senators in Congress on the Instructng Resolutions
1t occurred the oath ult in the Senate. We must
again say, that Mr. BELL msnifests the strongest
psrvsrsity Of judgment we have ever known IN q
public man Of his prominence, when he denies that
The Nebraska bill was prncipa Tissue in the canvass
oflS55. We grant that KnoW-Nothingism was the
leading subject Of controversy in that canvass. But
no man can have forgotten that Mr. BELL refused
to oin that organization; and that, far as he was
concerned the issue was direct upon his course on
the Nebraska bin. He was not forgotten nor over
looked And he should remember that some Of the
leaders Of tde KnOw-NO hing party attributed thei
defeat in 1855 to his course on the Nebraska bill
maintaining that 60 called Americanism was ruined
BY having to bear the sins Of anti-Nebraskaism Mr.
Bell played with that organization the game o.
''hes5s win, tails you lose" But, unluckily fol
him, he is not to be permitted to play that game witt
the Democratic party aud with the people Of Ten
nessee. He himself proposed the stake. he prom
sed his seat ii the people did not sustain his views
He can make no protension that they have sustained
him; and he now retains his seat at the expense Of
3 solemn and voluntary pledge to resign it.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Dir. BELL rose TO resume the remarks which he
commenced yesterday in reply to his colleague He
thoughts must be evident 10 every member Of the
Senate that the attack upon him yesterday by his
colleague was entirely uuoalled for.
Mr.. JOHNSON, Of Tennessee, desired, by the per
MISSED on his colleague, 10 say few words in
explanation.
Mr.. BELL gave way.
AIr. JOHNSON said that from the remarks which
his colleague submitted last evening, and from the
opening Of his speech this morning 1t seemed that
he must be lab0Iiug under a misrepresentation az u
the purport Of his mir. j. 81 remarks yesterday In
what he had said. he had intended TO make nc
reference all 90 the motives private character
Of his colleague, but had only referred TO him as
senator and O public man, intending nothing per
sousL II be would look over the report Of that
speech, he would ind nothing there which made any
assault upon his integrity He held that he had a
right under parliamentary law, 20 Criricise the
public acts and speeches of his colleague and cited
case which occurred in the British Parliament where
Col Barry denounced the conduct Of Lord North
as Indecent and sc8udal0us." He was called to
order and repr0ved in severe terms for using such
language. but 10 was decided that he had a right "a
urraiEn him as q minister. and could use this Ian.
Elage without any ImPu.ali0n on Lord North
private character as a man. Mr.. j. trusted that
This explanation would satisfy his colleague that be
did not intend TO impugn his motives.
Dir BELL Was surprised 10 hear ms colleague make
this declaration, for it seemed II he did net
understand the tenor Of his own language
aud his own argument II be did not intend
10 sssaI his motives and character as d public
man, who was Influenced bg want OF prIn.
Ciple would be withdraw that part Of his speech il
which he Air u was represented as looking 10 the
North-h0ldlng 90 90 the South with one hand. BDd
endeavoTnE To- grasp the North with the other Mr.
b. considered thar as the most offensive and insult