Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1856-01-25

OF the probable absorption OF Tue one OF
| Mr.. BANKS. | have not spoken OF the probable
absorption of the one the other
Mr. LETCHER. Then, the gentleman has given
this thing stud and attention. Tor 1t so appears
in the extract have read.
Mr.. BANKS. The gentleman misrepresents my
language do not assert that have given it study.
| Mr.. LETCHER. | will read it to the House, and
then let them judge from the gentlemans own words
Reading:
$50 far as have studied the subject Tgreat laugh
ter it 10 me to be the universal law that the
weaker is always absorbed and disappears in the
stronger race Whether the black race of this
nent any other part of the world is equal 10 the
white only be determined by the absorption
and disappearance of the Iother; and ! pro-
pose to wait for what sir = until the respective
races can be properly sub ected to this philosophical
test before give decisive answer
Mr. GlDDlNGS desired in as quick manner as
possible 10 reply 10 the gentleman from Tennessee,
[Mr. JONES. He sought no advantage here
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Kentucky, with the permits
sion of the gentlemen from Ohio, would ask the gen.
tleman from Massachusetts MIR. BANKS whether his
speech as it appeared in the Globe was correctly re-
ported
Mr. BANKS did not hear the gentleman's ques-
ton.
Mr.. GIDDINGS had the floor, and could not yield
it. He would say TO the gentleman ffom Tennessee
that what he had read the remarks of Mr.. Stanton
was reported his remarks, and what he had read
as the record of the proceedings at the time was
made by the reporter and he read it as such. He
repeated that the democratic party in caucus speak
ing through lis committee, did agree the plurality
| resolution. He did not represent, the gentleman
from Georgia r Mr. COBB inmated, that the demo-
cratic party had voted for the resolution the Houses
he had only intended to say that that party had
stuted committee with power to enter into such an
agreement, and he asked the gentleman from
Georgia if such was not the case?
Mr. EDMUNDSON wanted to let the gentleman
from Ohio know that he telling what was not
true. He (Mr. E. would state the facts from his
own knowledge. committee appointed by the
democratic party to meet similar committee of the
whg party, and those committees, after conference
reported favor of the resolution and recommended
their respective parties to pass it. The democratic
party met in and voted down the resolution,
and refused to adopt it. Any gentleman who would
make statement in conflict with that would state
what was not true, and would know at the time he
was stating it that he saying what not true
Mr. GlDDINGS understood, in reply to quote
the lines of Shakspeare's Brutus-
eco show your slaves how choleric you are and
make your bondmen trembIe'-
but don't come here
Mr.. EDMUNDSON, advancing towards M GID
DINGs.) What does the gentleman say?
Mr.. GIDDlNGS was stating facts and wished to
enter into conflict with the gentleman. Let the
Mr.. EDMUNDSON wanted the gentleman to tell
the truth.
Mr.. GIDDTNGS did not want any misrepresenta-
tiuns either side. There had been a committee
confer with committee appointed by the Wing party
He had said nothing of what had been done outside
of sthe hall, except what appeared the record,
and it appeared from that that the two committees
did agree that the plurality rule should be adopted.
Each committee spoke for its party, and appeared,
and so far as the record concerned it Stood that
the Democratic party approved the rule.
MIR. COBB, of Georgia, remarked that when the
gentlemen from Ohio stated that the Democratic
party had adopted as party, the plurality rule, he
I'D l1l vo1 1hoC hen he pma n
read the language of Mr.. Stanton to show that that
gentleman made the statement OF that TACT to the
House and the country, he had stated it was mis-.
construction of the language OF Mr. Stanton, and
to the House that, if the gentleman from Ohio IN his
first remarks-and he trusted that they would stand
reported as they made--had confined himself to
what Mr. Stanton had said and not have put into the
mouth of that gentleman, he understood him, and
he was understood by the House, the language used
by the reporter there would not have been enc partl
Gle of evidence to sustain the charge he had made.
MIR. GIDDlNGS: If the gentleman will refer to
the remarks made by the reporter he will find that |
have read them they appear there.
: Voice. No doubt he will, and laughter.
! Mr.. COBB, of Georgia, said that if the gentleman
had mere y read the remarks OF Mr.. Stanton, COM
mencing with desire to present proposition to
the House, &C., and had stopped there every men,
Der of the House would have said that he had not
introduced one particle of evidence from the record
to sustain the charge made by him that Mr. stanton,
upon the floor of the House, had said that the pu-
ality rule the result of the action of the demo-
cratic caucus 1t was, therefore, necessary to read
the following language, and when II was read he
mr. CO. supposed, as did the House, that the gen.
tleman was reading the language of Mr.. Stanton.
The remarks he had made in reply was comment
upon it, and he stated then that such construction
intended by Mr. Stanton 10 be placed upon what
he then said because it wholly inconsistent with
J the truth and history Of the
Mr. C. here read the remarks of the reporter which
: we give above. He said that the gentleman from
T Ohio had laid great stress upon the language in re-
ference to the agreement between the two parties that
Speaker to be elected by the plurality rule
I here the strength Of this case, and that was
Il the point that he made. He Mr.. c. asked the
House-and he put it to the candor of every man
5 whether, at the time the declaration made by the
, gentleman, it not their understanding that the
= language he had just read the language of Mr.
u Stanton He asked whether the gentleman from
Ohio did not intend it TO be understood If he
did intend it, ii effort to fasify the record
upon which he was standing.
Mr.. c. continued at some length, showing that the
- plurality rule had then, be had stated, been
adopted by large ma ority of the whig party, who
adopted it in caucus, together with small portion oil
the democratic party, who had voted for 1t in caucus
but where ma ority voting against it, it had been
u rejected.
:, Mr.. GIDDlNGS replied, trying defend himself
from the charge of classifying the record.
= Mr.. ORR stated that he had had interview with
- Mr.. Stanton, who was inside the Hall of the House
a and he had authorized him TO say that when the pro-
~ position to adopt the plurality rule submitted tc
the democratic caucus ii was promptly re ected and
. repudiated by them, and that in offering it to the
House he did it upon his individual responsible
e ity.