Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1848-03-17
THE ENQUIRER.
men MOND, VA
....s.s., so,m,as. March Is. 'seS.

u-.A.s.a., wo,n,as. March H. 'SsA'
rur WINTHROP. wlLHor AM TUT
NAM RESOLUTION.
ns Ia, .h. morning before our 'ea"er' a"'
.,,.,,r proceedings, which took place y" NC
uo,,e Of Representatives on the ss'a Oh fe0ru'
-, the day upon which our Democratic eon'e"
~....mbIcd, and the anticipation Of which pre-
ia a. W. learn, some Of our Democratic
-. of Congress, who were delegates 10
:. c,c1.n,ion, from attending upon It's deli0e'
%rs,ions:
..ur Putnam submitted the following pre-,
-" IA ,..olu,ions, upon which he demanded
The previous question, VIZ
.wh.r.os. in the settlement Of the difficulties
IHh.,wsen hi. country and Mexico, ter
P."n., be- ACQUIRED in which slavery docs
f"', s,;st. and, whereas, Congress, IN the
no'.,;on of a territorial government, az an
ofsa"l";I of our political history, established
. n%r;nciple worthy OF im''a'on III al t.ae
,,me. forbidding the existence u '
territory; therefore,. ~,o-v which NAV
hes.os f,om Mexico, over which shall DO
Established territorial government $3.50,
involuntary servi,ude, axceP' h.sn All.
for crime, whereoflhe party sna,i h..d. ga ,h.,
convicted, should be forever Pl.,.'L;aS .noh 90
n ,ny act or resolution e''aun:us ~, - ~
garments. a fundamental provision ous"' %
inserted TO that effect .,..,,,;on hs
I'M ~Brodhead moved tnat the re'olu.lon 70
,o;a unon the table. upon when ques0on ae
ao md NAYS were demanded; and being TAKEN
.",,ed-yea lO5, nays 80, as follows VIZ:
ny,.s-Mes,rs. Green Adams, Atkinson, Bay
.,r,r Borro,o, Bayly, Bedinger, Birdsail'
p,ast Rocock, Bowdon, Bowlin, Boyd, Boyden,
p..dhsad Charles Brown, Albert G. Brown,
p,-, Tobsl, Ca,hcart, Chase, Clapp, Frank,
N Clark. B. l.. Clark, CHngman, Howe
rahh Williamson X. w. Cobb, Cooke, Cr1s-
s.J c-o.isr. Daniel, Dickinson, DonntH, Gar
a,n Duncan, Featherstou, Ficklin, French
rnl,on. Gaines, Gayle, Gentry, Goggin, Green
willard P. Hall. HARRISON, Harris, HasSel9'
Henley Hill. Hilliard, Issac E. Holmes, George
: Ho,ston. Inge, ~Iyerson, Jackson, Jameson,
Andrew Johnson, Robe,, w. Johnson, George
W ZONES. John ". Jones, Kaufman, hen7on,
Tso,as Butler King, La Sere, LEVIN, Lyon,
Lord. L.umpkin, Maclay, McClernand, Mckay,
McI Lane. Mann, Miller, Morehsad, Morse, Out
Ian. Pendleton, Petit, Peyton, Phelps, Pills
bury. Preston, Richardson, Richley, Robinson,
Roman. sawyer, Sheppsrd, Simpson. Sims, Ro-
her, Smith, Stanton, Stephens, Ihtbodeaur,
Thomas. Tompkins, John B. Thompson, Robert
1. THOMPSON. Toombs. Turner, Venable, Wick,
Williams, Wiley and Woodward-lo5.
"NAys-Messrs. Abbot, Ashmun, Bingham,
Bradu, Butler, Candy, Colfaner, Conger'
crsa,ton. Collins, Crowell. Cummins, Dtckey,
D;ron. Duer, Daniel, Duncan, Dunn, Eckerf.
Fd,rnra,. kmbree. Nathan Evans, Faran, Far
-,lu. Fisher, Freddy, Fries, Giddings, Goft,
GREGORY. Grianeli, Hale, Nathan X. HaiI. Ham
mons. James G.. Hampton, Moses Hampton,
Y.nyy. Elias B.. Holmes, John ". Houston,
Hubbard, Hudson, Hunt. Errin, jenkins, James
II. Johnson, Kellogg, Daniel P. King, Lahm,
W,lliam T. Laurence, Sidney Lawrence, Lef-
fer. Lincoln, McClelland, a:cIlra,ne, Marsh,
Narr;n. Morris, N1ullin, Nelson, Mes, Neisoit,
po,f,.y' Pe.slee, Peck, Pollock, Putnam, Reg.
,oM< 'I,f;us Rockwell, John A. Roektcelt, Root,
Ran,.u. 81. .y,ha Sehsnek, Sheriff., Sylvester,
Sutherland. Caleb B. Smith. Truman Smith,
S,arkwea,her. Andreu Stswart, Charles +.
Stuart, Strolm, 7'allmadse, Taylor, Richard
w.. 1hompso William Thompson, Ihurston,
Yan Dvke. Vinson, Warren, Wentworth, White,
Wilmot and HIlson-9s
$50 the resolution was laid on the taole.
"Mr. C. J.. I~ngeroll, who reached his seat a
moment loo late to record his vote, stalled that
il he had had the opportunity, he would have
voted in the Affirmative"
Those whose names are printed in 'faf'e' ar'
Wings; the one, (Mr. Lerin,) whose name Is In
capitals, is Native American from Philadeipnia
and the rest are Democrats.
friend has carefully analysed the vote ior
US; and the result is as follows:
or the los who voted to lay the resolutions
on the table, which was equivalent to its reJec'
ton, 81 are Wings from the Sla'ehold'ns
States; | a Native American; &c Democrats from
non-slaveholding States; and ~ Democrats from
Slaveholding States. If MIR. Ingersoll had beer
in his seat, there would have been ~ Demo
cats from the non-slaveholding States. MT.
Thompson Of Pennsylvania, had he been pre-
sent, would have voted in the same way; thu
making % Democrats from FREQ States.
OF ,he 90 votes against laying on the table; q
are Wings from the non-sla veholding States; ]!
Democrats, also, from non-slaveholding States
of whom, however, Messrs. Wilmot, Went
worth, &C.. hang loosely on the Democratic
party, and one Wing, (Mr. Houston of Della
ware,) from a Slave State.
Thus it will appear, that Of the AZ Democrats
from the non.slaveholding States, who expressed
their opinion, % were in favor of laying on th'
table, and 10 against it; being a major ity of
ofthe Northern and Western Democracy in favo
Of laying on the table, and against the resolu
tons; and that every solitary Hhig from tn
Northern and Western States, and one from
slaveholding State, voted against laying on tn
table; and, consequently, in favor of the discus
sion and agitation Of this subject in Congress
These facts require no comment; but We bel
leave 10 remind our reader, of kindred votes.
will be recollected, in all votes in Congress 10
the las, fifteen years, similar results have beef
presented in the votes upon the 2lst Rule
and the motions relative TO the subject Of Slave
ry in the District of Columbia; to say nothing
about the vote in favor Of Mr.. Winthrop fol-
Speaker. In addition 10 this, all of our leading
Democrats at the North and West, Messrs
Woodbury., Cass, Buchanan, Dallas, &c, have
come out decisively against the principles o.
these resolutions; whereas, as yet, not a solitary
Wing, leading or otherwise, from the non
slaveholding States, has refused to give in hi
adhesion TO them.
How is this Is it accidental? Is il becaus,
the Democrats from the non-slayeholding State
have not as strong a repugnance to Slavery il
the abstract as the Wings? We have not con
tended for this, nor do they claim it. But i
grows out Of the fundamental difference in IN.
principles of the Wing and Democratic parties
The former scarcely admit any Limitations upol
The powers Of Congress; they are latitudinarians
and claim jurisdiction for Congress over thi
subject, as they do over almost every other; and
consequently, they vote as they do. While the