Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-01-01
INTERESTING DEBATE.
JOSHUA r. GIDpINGs AGAINST MR.. WINTHROP AND THE
WIG PARTY


The House dec 9th having under consideration
the following resolution, offered by Mr. Burt, viz:
Resolred, That the Speaker do now appoint the
standing committees of the House.
And an amendment proposed thercto by Mr. Sackett,
that the committees be appointed by the House under
the provisions of the seventh rule OF order
Mr.. Roof made some remarks, and was followed
by
Mr.. G1DDINGs, who said, he saw that through the
Taylor papers OF the North, the Free SoIlers were
charged with eecng the present Speaker. He desired
say the House and to the country that the Speaker
held his resulting consequence OF the plurality
rule, which forced upon the House by most OF the
Wing party aided by small portion of those belonging
to the other side of the House. Every rejecting
must have oreseen that resu-at least appeared so to
him. All were conscious that ll6 members held Their
seats by aid OF Democratic votes There were ia only
elected by aid of Wing votes OF these two were absent
tMr. King Of Georgia and Mr. Genty0 leaving but liz
who had been elected by aid of Wing votes. Those,
therefore, who voted for the plurality rule must have
clearly foreseen the result He had himself pointed
many of the Wing party to it.
Mr.. WHITE inquired if the genteman's sagacity could
point any other mode of organizing the House than
by the plurality vote!
Mr. G1DDINGs replied that the Wing party had it in
their power at any time to elect the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, on the opposite side OF the House, (Mr.
Strong any other Democrat known to be in favor OF
the provso they could have elected any Northern
Wing who openly committed to that measure. He
had himself and other Free Sellers had, voted for the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens0 and had
the w mig party unlteQ upon MIN he would nave Deeu
elected on almost any ballot.
Mr.. ScHENcK desired the floor to ask question. He
wished to inquire of his colleague whether he had not
opportunity to vote for Northern Wing who was
committed to the provisol
MIR. GIDDINGs said, certainly; he did so when he voted
for the gentleman to whom he had alluded.
Mr. ScHENcK desired to inquire whether ne had not an
opportunity OF choosing between the Wing nominee
and the gentleman who elected!
Mr.. GIDDINGs said he regretted that his colleague
tMr Sehencky had pressed this question upon him. He
had not intended to make personal auson to the hon
orabe gentleman from Massachusetts, lMr. Winthrop)
who had formerly occupied the chair But his colleague
had pressed him into position which compelled him
to refer to na gentleman, which ne intended to do with
perfect respect.
Il was known to the House and to the country that
on the assembling of Congress in lS47 he and other
gentlemen, who, with himself had previously acted with
the Wing party, refused to vote Tor the gentleman at
honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Palfreyn
with his appreciation had propounded to the candidate
interrogatories concerning the policy which he would
pursue in relation to certain committees OF this body it
elected. The gentleman refused the nterro
gatoes but referred to his past acts and votes proof
of his future These not satisfactory to
him, to his friends, and they declined voting for
him He was, however, elected, and presided in this
body for two sessions of Congress He said his col
league now asks if he did not know that that gentle
man was in favor of the Wmot Proviso! Let his Off
The Committee on Territories arranged by that Speaker
had refused to report bill containing the provso until
peremporly ordered to do so by vote OF the House.
Mr.. RocKwELL asked if the gentleman from Ohio in
tended to say that the Committee Territories refused
1871 -
Mr.. G1DDINes said perhaps his language was too
strong; he should have said they neglected to report
such bill The gentleman from Massachusetts, then
occupying the Speakers chair had also refused to say
what he would do in regard to so arranging the Com
mtee the District of Columbia, as give express
sion to the sentiment of the entire North against the
slave trade.
Mr.. ScHENcK said his colleague had inferred from the
arrangement of certain committees that the gentleman
from Massachusetts was opposed to the proviso. He
wished to inquire whether his colleague did not know
that that gentleman had moved the provso to the Ore
gon BILLY
Mr. GIDDINGs called the House to witness that he had
not sought this personal controversy. But his col
league had pressed him into this matter, he
PEELED to enter upon defence; and in making that de-
fence he would be constrained refer to the gentleman
from Massachusetts more freely than he had felt any in
cinaton to do. 1t true that the gentleman from
Massachusetts, had moved the provso some years since
to the Oregon bill; but, said he, men change their
opinions and acts when raised to exalted stations. Be-
fore he should close his remarks his colleagues question
would be answered
He referring, when last interrupted, to the
rangement of the Committee on this District That
committee during the last Congress, appeared have
been sudiousy arranged to protect the infamous
commerce in human flesh carried in this city This
committee had before them the petitions OF the North.
fhey had witnessed the heart-rending scenes which
transpred the Avenue in the month OF May, l94S,
when that mournfu procession of ifty-two slaves had
been marched along that Court street of Washington
by the great slave dealer Hope H. Slater. He could
not say that they personally present. and actually
witnessed that revolving spectacle but they soon knew
all the disgusting facts, and did the then Speaker
But not all these scenes aided by the sentiment of the
North and by the voice of humanity could extort from
that committee-arranged as they were by the late
Wing candidate for Speakera report against the slave
trade even word otreprooi against that traffic. tor
pursuing which, the Eastern Shore of the Atlantic
we hang men unsElied to human association.
But this was not ALL The gentleman at the next SEES
sion sefa formed the committee Of nearly the same
members Indeed he said, he did not recoect as there
was any change. And the slave trade was again pro-
tected by that committee
Now, said he, this same gentleman is again brought
forward as the Wing candidate tor Speaker and gentle
men again called on to choose between him and the
gentleman now occupying the chair He said, God for
bid that he should attempt to make selection between
them. He spoke with perfect respect for both those
candidates but he did not believe that member that
floor, or man in the whole country had for moment
believed that he could be driven sustain either of them
Yet one thing quite certain, the present Speaker
could do worse than the former and there was
chance, q hope that he might do better.
Mr.. WINTHROP desired, he said, only TO say few
words He did not propose to 60 into any elaborate
reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr
Giddngs.l He rather preferred to remind the House
that reply had already come from an honorable
Der the other side-the gentleman from Tennessee,
(Mr. Johnson) The notes of that gentlemans speech
had not etded away and he quite sure the Aouse
and the country would bear in mind that he (Mr. W9
had been assailed upon the side by the gentleman
from Ohio, as having been most ultra in opposition to
every thing like tree-soism, in opposition to Northern
sentiment upon the subject of slavery while, on the
other hand he had been held up by the gentleman from
Tennessee as having IN every respect gone against
Southern views and used the power and patronage of
this House against them. Now he quite willing to
allow these statements these counter speeches.
to go to the country to reply the one to the other
Mr.. w. went on to deny with much warmth the state
ment of Mr.. GDpINGs, that he advocated the with
Mexico, and had urged his colleagues in Wing caucus
to sustain it with him.
The gentleman from Ohio had made that charge in
his first letter which he (Mr W. had denied and which
had been proved to be without foundation in fact The
gentleman, he tMr. W. believed, had repeated that
charge in second letter after it had been denied He
Mr. W. denied it STILL and he commended that the hon.
orable member, having twice stated what untrue,
and not having Withdrawn it when it had been proved
to be untrue, was no longer entitled to respect
Mr.. w. then replied to the charge of Mr.. GIDDNes,
that he (Mr, W. had arranged committee which had