Daily American organ., 1856-04-16

| This is but one of many examples. Now,
however, when we have platform which does
| not "pretermit" this question, and it is dis
/ closed that the most exalted and trusted
| Democrats openly assert the Federal poper to
| prohibit slaUe7y, / am assaied for pointing
out the danger Of such doctrine to the South
ern States.
My colleague attacks the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr.. FULLER for whom voted
for Speaker charging that in 1849 he was "a
Wilmot provisoist up to the hub, and "nomi-
mated on an Abolition platform" and that last
year he defeated Mr. Wright upon the ground
that he (Mr. Wright voted for the Nebraska
bill" The gentleman from Pennsylvania has
been absent from the Capitol for more than
month, and is not here to defend himself
have no means Of knowing anything of the
reliability of the grounds upon which my col
league makes these charges; but, when here,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania stated in his
place in the House that he had "never been
called upon to affirm or deny the constitutions
atty Of the Wilmot proviso," and had "never
taken any public position upon that subject
before" but was "willing, in all frankness and
candor to do SO now" and then proceeded to
say: ~ hold, in the absence of express auSho-
rity that Congress has no constitutional right
to legislate upol the subject of slavery" Again,
he said, II am opposed to any legislation on
those subjects" (alluding to the restoration of
the Missouri restriction, and to the prohibition
of slavery in the Territories) As to beating
Mr.. Wright, be said, I" it was not the anti-Ne-
braska issue which determined that election"
My colleague makes, therefore, dirsct. issue
with the declarations of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, and does not disclose upon what
authority he does so, or furnish any evidence
that it is genuine.
| My col'ea2 le defends the strange and impor-
tant part he took in the late election of Speak
ar, in moving and voting for the plurality rule,
and thereby securing the election of the pre-
sent incumbent Of the chair. / am not at all
surprised that he should do so, after what
have seen in the newspapers, and what have
read in my letters from home; and reco1lect-
ing that my colleague has recently been at
home, and heard the thunders of disapproba-
ton which are being visited on him for making
that movement--I say / am not at all sur
prised that he should seize the first opportu-
| nifty, without waiting for attack here to defend
himself as well as he can, in that particular
| action.
/ propose, Mr.. Chairman, to look at the po-
litical record connected with this action for a
moment. We had been engaged in long
struggle over the Speakership. My colleague
as early as the middle of December, seemed to
be somewhat restless, and, addressing the
House, said he was solictous that an election
should take place. He said that those op-
posed to the extension of slavery had large
majority, and asked them why they did not
elect their manp He surmised that the diff
Guilty probably grew out of unsettled questions
as to how the committees should be formed
He asked, il the majority cannot organize the
House, "who can do it, and how can it be
Il Ioxa L. - :. r. Al Il.
entertains the principles Of that party" but
he said, ~ want to see an organization, and
hope it will soon be effected"
Subsequently there were various PROPOSE
tons made to institute the plurality rule. They
failed, by dint of the united votes of National
| Americans and Democrats, with few Repub-
licans who were opposed to Mr. BANKs This
brought about a discussion among members as
to what would be the effect Of that rule The
question was also discussed in the newspapers
And what was the public opinion in the House
and out of the House? What was the opinion
Of Southern men, Northern men, Democrats,
Americans, and Republicans Why, that if
the plurality rule was adopted Mr.. BANKS
soouM be elected Speaker! Under these cir
cumstances, my colleague, on the ID Of Febru-
ary, renesoed the proposition to adopt the plu-
rality rule. He seems to have solved, in his
how can it be d0nes" His proposition was
carried by Republican votes, and those of a
few Democrats, to-wit Messrs. BARCLAY,
| CLNGMAN, HERBERT, HICKMAN, JEwETT, KELLY,
| s. A. SMITH, and WILLIAMS the National
| Americans and the great body of the Demo
Gratis voting against it.
| My colleague makes the argument that the
half dozen national Americans who, under his
| plurality rule, voted for Mr.. FULLER, are alone
responsible for Mr.. BANKss election, because
they had, the day before, voted voluntarily for
Mr.. AIKEN. 1t was well known that, while
they were very willing, if left to act for them
selves, to vote for q Democrat, they were not
uilling to do so under compulsion. They had
voted in body, at different times, for more
than one Democrat, and were willing to con-
tinue to do so; but they resisted the plurality
rule. After my colleague moved the plurality
rule, and before the vote was taken upon it
Mr.. CARLnE, national American, offered the
| following resolution as substitute for my
colleagues proposition
eResoiped, That the Hon. WILLIAM AIKEN, a
Representative from the State of South Carolina,
be, and he is hereby, declared the Speaker of the
Thirty-Fourth Congress"
| My colleague objected; and the previous
question demanded also by my colleague) hav-
ing been seconded, the resolution could not be
acted upon. He seemed resolved to force us
under rule which he knew was very obnox-
ious. Having succeeded in this, the candidate
| of the Democratic party [Mr. oRR] Immediately
WithdreW an taoor Of Mr.. AIKEN; apparently
with view, if not expressly to give to the
proposed testan air of Democratic pre-arrange-
ment, (which was, of course, distasteful to
Americans, who, in spirit of liberalty, al
ready yielded everything but principle,) at
least with view Of forcing direct test be-
tween AIKEN and BANKS, under the plurality
lr,,lo II AZ. xoo h.J