Southern planter., 1832-12-15

pears, as you state, thai had my vote stood rs
gave il in the FIRST instance, the motion TO postpone
the bill wosld have been lost, and repeat that It
was lost even after The change Of my vote, and
would have continued 50, il tie Other nco gentle
men, who you say "were friendly Ia the hill, and
changed with view Of moving reconsideration"
had not also changed their U0tcs; but u dues not
follow as necessary conseqnoncethat"by the same
vote The bill would have become a law" as you
strangely suppose. Admitting the Hon. Speaker
had been in the chalr and WIS hostile 10 the bill
and admitting had noi changed NY vote; aud in
fact admitting every thing you state, and all the
positions you assume, il appears that with the mem
bers then present, the bill could not have become
law One* of the members who voted against
the motion 10 postpone the bill was hostile 10 the
provisions of the second, third and fourth sections
Of the bill. Tie voted for tho immediate consider
alton af the bill, or rather against the motion TO
postpone its consideration until the next session,
under the hope Of geiti,g il so amended as TO meet
his views; but would not have voted for it in lis
then present shape on the question for a third
reading, nor on its passage. IL you wish record
evidence of this fact, il can be found on examina-
tion Of the journal, and by comparing The vote on
the motion to postpone, with the vote of the next
day on the question of reconsideration The name
Of every member friendly to the general features Of
the bill, may be found recorded among The 80 who
voted in favor Of the motion to reconsider The
vote then on the question for the third reading Of
the bill, without the absent members, (who could
have been sent for il the vote had been taken)
would have stood including my vote for the bill,
ayes 80, noes 90 The question, therefore, would
have been negatived and the bill lost, without even
the vote Of the Speaker, who, according 10 your
statement "was known 10 be hostile to the meas
ure. You know, however, that according to the
rules Of the House, the Bill could not have been
put on IFS passage on the day that the vote was Ia
ken on the motion 10 postpone, and in the absence
of the other members. On little farther exami-
nation into the record, and an inspection of the
Journal, il appears that the bill could not possibly
have become law under any circumstances
On the motion TO reconsider the next day,
"when the absent members were in their seats, !"
the votes stood, Ayes SO, Noes 100 Here was |
majority Of l2 votes against the bill. This vote
was trial Of the strength of parties The forces
on both sides we're rallied TO a man. The SO
members, who voted for reconsideration, were,
with the loss of two votes, besides my own, the
same 8 members who voted against the
according as you have stated the
vote, before any changes took place. Admitting
then that the 88 who voted for reconsideration
fSiN W al uulouS ltdluibS OF llle bill
which is not true) this would have been the ex |
act state of the vote on the final passage of In. J
bill. If ! had voted for the bill with lis friends |
,n the final passage, the vote would have stood
Ayes SO Noes 99-a clear majority of ten votes |
exclusive Of my own against the bill. | will also
emark that 90 was majority Of the whole mum |
Der Of members then in attendance on the House.
My object IN declaring my determination 10
'ote against the motion 10 postpone, was TO a.
arm the friends of the bill and thereby drive
hem from the apparently settled determination
% force It down upon us at that time without an
opportunity to investigate the subject in the usu
! way and Of discussing the merits of the ques-
ion changed my vote from the negative to the
for sundry reasons First: beanse
On reflection, did not like TO see my name recor.
led in company with those who are IN favor o(
continuing that odious system of taxation. cal. |
ed the tariff, calculated 10 oppress the Southern
Planter and benefit the Northern Capitalists. and
who were "ulterly opposed to extending any ben. |
ehts whatever to the New States" Secondly.
because on reflection concluded that if the h;ll
was retained in the House, there would be lltle rr
no prospect of succeeding in striking out ,hose
sections which proposed TO sell out our lands and
divide the proceeds among the old states 70 ha
applied TO purposes Of Internal Improvement, |
Education and COlOnizng The free negroes on ,be
Western coast ol Africa, and of retaining those Soc
lions giving to our State 70 10 per cent m ,bo
nett proceeds OF the sales and the grant of Lard \
Thirdly because on reflection concluded ,ba,
ild not like TO see my name recorded in onpoe;,ion
10 those who were M favor of reducing and oradna.
ling The price Of the public lands, and who bad
stood by me on every question ofimportanco to my
constituents during the session. Fourtblv bc.
cause on reflection | was willing TO Weld n ,bo
urgent solicitations of my friends and conIribn,o
50 fat as my vote would go towards changing the
-esult IN the hope of inducing some other membcr
% follow my example, and thereby pnl an end G,r
he time being to the subject.
Your nformants were mistaken in savin, ,bo,
notion was made by "Mr. Wilde of Ga IN nos,'
zone the bill indefinitely. The motion was to post.
zone the farther consideration Of the bill 10 tbe frat
Monday Of December next. They were mistaken
n surprising the vote stood for poslponement 90
galnsl l." at the time ofthe change Of nv vote
Is before stated it stood Ayes 90 Noes 80. Tbey
we're mistaken ln supposing the Speaker to have {
een IN The chair at the time. Il NAV be due 10
hese gentlemen to state that he was In the Csptal
nd, although sick, could probably have reached I
he chair in time to have voted if his vote had been
eeded on either side. They were also mistaken in
]