f perfect impartiality
might appear too sublime a virtue for our fallen and frail human nature.
In the mutations of opinion, moreover, many persons are apt to forget
that the faith, which they zealously defended but two years ago is at
war with their present creed. The surest guaranty of exact and
satisfactory statements, accordingly, is to fall back on the primitive
authentic platform.

The subject of compromises, under the Federal Constitution, between the
conflicting interests of the country, occupies, of course, a prominent
place in these pages, and is treated by Mr. Greeley, as we think, with
signal discretion and ability. His views on this point are marked by
candor and moderation, though he is firm and uncompromising in his
hostility to concession for the purpose of conciliating the Slave-Power.
Political compromises, he maintains, though liable to abuse, are the
necessary incidents of all governments, excepting pure and simple
despotisms. Liberty cannot exist without diversity of opinions. Unless
one will is permitted the supremacy over all others, a medium must be
sought between widely differing convictions. If a legislature composed
of two distinct bodies differs with regard to a special appropriation, a
partial concession on each side is often the only practicable mode of
adjustment. When the object is unprecedented, or not essential to the
general efficiency of the public service, such as the construction of a
new railroad, canal, or other public work, the opposition of either
house should suffice for its defeat, or, at least, for its postponement.
Neither branch has a right to demand from the other conformity with its
views on a disputed point as the price of its own concurrence in
measures essential to the existence of the government. Hence the
movement of the United States Senate in 1849, dictating to the House a
certain organization of the Territories, under penalty of defeating the
Civil Appropriation Bill, was totally unjustifiable. But the fact should
never be lost sight of, that differences of opinion often occur on
momentous questions where the rights of each party are equal, and where
an ultimate concurrence in one common line of action is essential.
Without some mutual concession to adverse views, the union of the States
would have been impossible. In cases, moreover, where the Executive is
permitted a veto on legislative measures, a certain deference to his
views is necessary to the practical wor