The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1856-02-29
THE ELECTION OF SPEAKER.
(From thsRiehmond whig.)

We suppose nd man IN his senses Is dis
appointed at the h,wl sent up by the Demo-
cratic presses at tn South over the election
of Banks. Being lie guilty party themselves,
it is perfectly natur In them to make great
noise, and try TO fivthe responsibility upon
the shoulders of riose who are innocent
In determining TIC question of responsible
~, we hold that te final vote is by no means
the only thing to pc inquired into. But it is
necessary to ascertn through whose partcu-
lar agency the plurality rule was adopted
and adopted, too, With full consciousness
of the iact that Banks wouId almost una
vodably be chosen auder it. If, then, we
are not at fault in our recollection, not
more than one NaiionaD American voted for
the plurality rule, Ni'ile it was sustained by
t,oelre professed national Democmts-that is
by twelve of the immortal seventy four, who
uniformly supported Richardson! Not only
so, but it was presented by Southern Demo
Gratis, who warmly uged its adoption, know
ing, necessarily, thatil would resutn Banks
election! These being the facts of the case,
we inquire in all sincerity and candor. upoE
whom does the responsibility rest! And to
this question, there Can be tut one reply, il
any fait h is to be put IN figures. 1t rest up
on the DemOcrats--ald what is more and
worse it rests almost entirely upon Southern
Democrats Ir
We find, too, according to the published
proceedings, that Immediately after the adop-
ton of the plurality rule, several unsuccess-
ful attempts were made by Southern Ameri-
cans and Southern Democrats 10 have it re-
scnded. MI. Boyce, OF Sonh Carolina, one
of The seventy-four, wds the first to spring to
his feet, and "moved to rescind the plurality
resolution just passed by the House." But
so runs the record-"on motion of Mr..
Smith, of Tcnnessee"-a Richardson Dem
ocrat-"Mr Boyce's motion was laid on the
table,
Again: notwithstanding the defeat of Mr..
Boyce's motion, Mr. Walker, of Alabama
an American member--obtained the floor,
and "moved TO rescind the plurality rule."-
Well, what was The fate Of Mr. Walkers
motion! Why, Mt. CIingnan, of North Car
olina, another one of the immortal seventy
four, who had been in favor of the plurality
rule from the beginning, sprang to his feet,
and said that Mr.. Walkers "moinn was not
in order, as the House had just refused to
rescnd the rule to elect by plurality vote"
in voting down the motion of Mr.. Boyce.-
And thus u second attempt to have the rule
rescipded wns ara.hied BY Southern DOM
ocrat With this revew of the facts of
the case before the fna vote was taken, we
again ask who is responsible for Banks
election?
But this is not all. After the final vote
had been announced, showing the election of
Banks, number Of Southern members, both
Democrats and Americans, obtained the floor,
and protested that they had been opposed to
the adoption of the plurality rule from the
outset, and that no circumstances could oc-
cur uEderwhich to sustain it. Mr.. Boyce, of
South Carolina, again stated that she had
not voted for the plurality rule, and could
not vote for the resolution of Cingman"-
offered subsequent to The announcement of
the FINAL vote-declaring that Banks had
been duly elected Speaker. Mr.. Harris, of
Al - r.,
also took occasion to aver that "no man had
been more opposed than himself to the adop.
ton of the plurality rule The House, how
ever, had seen fit to pass it, and, under it, the
gentleman from Massachusetts had received
plurality of the votes. He was, therefore,
by virtue of decision of the House, made
Speaker thereof" Mr. Smith, of Virginia,
another of the seventy.four, also declared
that "lhe result 50 much deplored by so ma
ny upon the floor of the House, ,cas The con.
sequence Of a Lungling management, such as
he should take occasion to follow no more
forever!" Now, the question arises, why
did so many Southern Democrats, after
Banks election, manifest so anxious wish
to clear their skirts of all responsibility for
the adoption Of the plurality rule? Was il
not the result Of deep and earnest convic.
ton that Banks could never have been elect
ed without the adoption of thatrule, which
was forced upon the House by the united
vote of all the Black Reputlcans-Ca Camp
bell, of Ohio, only exccpted-with tpelre
Democrats, and most of these Twelve from the
South? Such, it is evident, is the true and
only reason of the anxiety of these men
to acquit themselves before the public and
their constituents of nny agency in the adop-
ton of n rule, which, il was known to all,
would necessarily result in the election Of
Banks.
But take enc other view of the matter. If
the great bulk of the Democrats, who voted
against the plurality rule, did not know that
its adoption would be equivalent to Banks
election, what excuse have they for not voting
for itl We put this question because, in de-
fence Of those Democrats who did vote for
it, it is now urged in many quarters that
they were satisfied IL would secure the cleo
ton ,oi Aiken. But this Is clearly ruse,
for the reason that most Of these twelve
had voted for it from the start, and long
before Aiken or Orr had been dreamed Of
Al II. r.