Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-12-18

interference there be who desire keep
this question Of Congress- and have always understood
nv colleague TO be them His district and mine join
each other and throughout his canvass understood he
took the non-interierence gronndwas against the Wmot
Proyso but still against the extension of slavery also
Gentlemen in the South distinguished Senators and
Others have expressed themselves against the further
sion OF slavery yet they opposed any action of Con
gress as understand my colleague is TO prevent it, So
much them for the allegation as TO his Provisoism
sentence is torn from his letter 10 the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, mr.. WLMor,] which, isolated and
ncctcd with anything else gives color to the idea that he has
given strong pledge 10 the sellers; but taken and
nlained in connection with the previous verbal comunca.
tons which passed between them the subject and
which il directly referred, and what is il What does it
10? Ny colleague in his letter, "hc commit
tees shall be organized in such 10 be satisfactory
10 YOU and Your friends Well let refer the
versaons which had previously passed between these gen.
emen what would be satisfactory. He Mr. WlMoT
81 don't ask TO be placed in any particular position
any particular committee; do friends All we ask is
that in making up your committees touching this slavery
question: oil sections shall fairly represented We want
the OF section party sed smothered by pack
ing the committees. Mr.. BRowS answers Certainly all
have right 10 be heard" Now, suppose a committee was
constituted majority for instance of nonntereence
you pease-and then minority of Proviso men, mixed up
with extreme Southern address man two, and
idea ee-soier from the North would such committee
be which would represent all parties Or You might
change it's order and arrangement but still combine the
elements Now this is all that my colleague is pledged
in this letter. pledge be- And is there gentleman here
who vii! say that such general and il me- uni
yersaly acceptable sentiment, is improper onel
But it seems that this thing Of writing letters when
didate s ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS dishonornhc. under
stood gentleman from South Carolina Mr. BrRT say
that honorable would ask pledges of candidate
give them. Now, the gentleman differ in his notions
of honorable conduct from many of his southern friends for
have understood that several letters have been written by
southern gentlemen 10 northern men, whose be-
ing used in connexion with the Speakeyshp propoundng
certain nteogatorcs in reference The slave question: and
distinctly making 4 satisfactory to them a sine qua
their This has been done repeatedly since we
attempted 10 organize this House
This is quite new idea me- thatit is improper for man
when candidate TO answer questions it may be inpolic
but certainly dshonorable; and though this the first
heard of this letter. and though think my colleague
acted mprldeny in writing it, still there is must insist
and repeat nothing in it, taken in connexion with the pre-
vious conversation to which alluded and 10 which both he
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania MR. WlIMor testify
TO- that Justies the impuation of dupcy Deceit or dis
honor.
Mr.: WOODWARD was understood to remark that he OBJ
ected to the of the gentleman from Indiana Mr.
BRowS not because he chose keep his political views
himself but on the ground that he had given pledges
tam gentlemen of which he kept those agreeing with
those parties in ignorance.
Mr. HUBBARD stated that he had addressed letter
10 the gentleman from Indiana which he had received no
reply he only desired that the member for whom he voted
would De In favor of nonnteerence upon the subject Of
savery and he preferred for northern man who could
be depended on 10 justice TO his section of the Union
to one from the South He dssred in Speaker nan who