No Anti-slavery Standard In Congress

Our readers will doubtless be surprised (o learn that everv momber of tlie WhiV party, ín the House of RepresenlaÜve?, (MèËér. Giddingg and Tilden included,) votrdjor slave kolders for Speaker and Clerk of tlie House and ihat too, when no party end was to be accomplished, when Uiere was not a ray of hope that their candidates could be elected. Yes, itisso. After all the parade, previous to theelection.about the univertal Anti-slovery in that party, not one of them had enongh of it to erect a standard of Antielavery principie on the floor of Congres?, and to say to the ehve power, Let it suffice tliat you have had the control of the House from time inmemorial - we g-o for the offices in our gift, for men whose hands are free from "the disgrace and the guilt of slavery."Hero then is an end to all the boasled antislavery of the whig party - certainly so far as it relates to their membcrs of Congrees. - The rc-adoption of the g-ag rule followed tliis increascd Biibservicncy to the slave power, as aaturally ns ever an effect followed from a cause. They may have reasoned tlnis - Heretpfore some wcre found who would not bend the knee to the slave power but voted for a freeman tbr Speaker. But they are all whipped in - not a Gates or a Slade to vote for an independent candidate; why then ehould we suffer the excitingf ond unplensant topic to disturb us,since they haveturned dough faces? And so the gag was adopted as a inaüer of courss, on a vote only 6urprising for lts approximation to equalitiy. The correspondent of the Chroniclejwriting from Washington, in referenco to the continuaece of the 21st rule by a majority of four, says, "Without questioning the motives of the Liberty party, I ara constrained to say that thcy are responsible for this vote- and then he goés on to say that Prinkerhoff and Duncan, who were there in consequence of the Liberty men voting for their own candidatos, dodged the question".&c. Now we are constrained to say, that if the writer of that letterend the other men of the whig party who profess to be as much opposed to slavery as the Liberty men, had taken a stand on slavery independent of party, and refused to vote for slaveholders for' Speaker and Clerk. the rule never could have been adopted. They may try, as much as they please, to hideunder the smoke they raise about the Liberty men - but they cannot escape from the fact which sticks out clear as the sun in a cloudless day, they liad not antislavery principie enough to show their hands for Liberty, when no partizan interest impelled to a different coürse. Again, says the correspondent of the Chronicle, "I hope you will make these facts prominent in your county." They shall be made prominent. They shall be rung in the ears of our elcctors, until they fully understand what kind of antislavery men are in the habit of approaching thera at election time, with their professions of "As much Antislavery as you are." In the división on the 21st rule, there is no difference that reflects any credit upon either party or shows that either cari be relied on in an emergency. On one side they are as nearly equally divided as they can be and not be tied. On the otber, the whig minority is represented strong enough to put a blush upon any honest man who prctends to claim an Anti-slavery character for it. It has heretofore been the interest, and therefore the policy, of the whig party to appear favorable to abolition. The appearance is sadly defaced by dough, in the vote on the gag rule. These facts will be made