Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-05-17

votes stood, yeas 0S, nays iA>' ~
yeas, 40 were for Mr.. Van Buren,, and 90
Of them from New York. The subject was
further debated, but no decisioh MS afr'veu
at. Now, sir, upon q view ofal these eHs
cunlstances, can there remain feo shadow
ofa doubt that this question was wilfnlly.
designediy eyaded at the last session, by the
very party which snow professssato bold
an election by the House IN sueh utter ab-s
horence. The neglected. Congress to
act upon this subject, pro- . Bthe lazy sss-
sion, might admit Of some apology. There
were so many exciting ndtmpQsant ques-
tons of another kind, continually arising
to absorb the chief attentiop Of Congress;
and besides, there had beenSn6 prospect
of an election by the House until the coh.-
mencement oflast session. But there 's-
justification for the course of the party at
the last session upon this subject. y Is
but too clear that the party in fayoe Of Mr.ts
Van Buren, for the succession, deteraains
ed to have the full benefit Of the Tears !
which existed in the country Of an elestIou
by the House, in compelling submissioni,
to the DEGREES of the Baltimore Convens
ton. Else why was it, that not the slight !
est notice was taken by that vigilant guar I
dian of every thing that concerns the Pnr-
ty, the Globe, of the question presented I
by Mr.. GiImer's resolution when i was :
under discussion. Not one paragraph
was penned during the sitting of Congress
upon the importance Of ameuolng The |.
! Constitution so as to prevent an elec- !
ton of the President by the House of
Representatives. Why sir, was not
the Committee which had charge OF
this subject, rated for their negligence
and omission in not reporting S0poa !
the subject submitted to them Why.
were not the usual denunciations uttered
through that organ againstthose members
of the party who voted in every instance
TO prevent the consideration, and 70 defeat
altogether the resolution Of Mr.. Gilmcr!
Sir, large portion Of the party upon that
question showed that they were opposed /.
TO a measure which Gen. Jackson had
earnestly urged upon Congress- in every
annual message since he came into oiice. :
Why were they not pointed out and de- :
nounced as anti-Jackson2 There can
be but one answer to this question: II !
was no offence 10 any one TO oppose that
proposition at the last session. That this :
question was designed to be blinked, Was
manifest to me, from the course OF partic-
ular members-a course which ! could
accoua, for upon no other ground. When;
MIR. Gilmer's resolution was under dis
cussion, at one time, there appeared TO be
serious determination on the part OF the,
House to carry it. My colleague (Mf.
Polk), who is now the presiding officer Of
this House, and who canaot.sbescharGed
with disposition to thwart ahs. views Of
those in power, made a speech which was
evidently iniendedto put an end to the
further consideration of the SUBJECT at that
session.. He complained that thetime was
too shart to give the subject that exam
ina,ion which its Importance demanded.ss
He thought he had, with the slight. .atlen-
ton he had given the resolution, detectedans
error; and there might be many Ha0re.
He dwcit euPhatically unQn the impor-S
.tance of not permitting the Iesolation to
90 from the House in an improper: shape,
" for then it would be gone in fasos"a
When he concluded, a gentlemanswhe sas,
by him rose to move that the resolution,
be laid on the table, but the Chair gsve
| the floor to another member. Now sir.
farther delay and further time 10 examiOa.
into the details of the resolution could ON
| ly be had by dropping the question until
another Congress. That was evident TO
all. But, Mr.. Chairman. the party arc
not only answerable for the failure Of the
proposition at the last session, but they
are responsible for its failure at the only
time which has arisen within the last ten
years, or which will probably arise within
| the next ten, when a fair prospect existed
of succeeding in it. Such was the ankle.
ty of the members ofthe opposition that
this plea of the danger ofan election by
the House should be taken away from
the party knownio bein favor Of Mr.. Van,
Buren, in sustaining the contemplated
nomination Of that gentleman by a. Con-
yention Mt Baltimore, that many Of them
who had always before that time been -op-
posed to such an amendment ofthe Consti-
tuition as was proposed, were willing then
to see il adopted. It will be- found that
| more than fifty members Of the opposition
voted to sustain Mr.. Gilmer's Resolution
and there cannot be doubt, that if the
party in power had not deserted their
own principles upon 4his OCCASION, tho,
proposi,ion would have been carried by
the requisite majority. We have seen
The same question treated With tho same
neglect, so far, at the present session.