Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1856-02-08
MIR. Banks. Catechised.

The next day, they responded. RienAHDsoS
and FrLLrn replied greatly to the satisfaction
of the South. Mr.. Banks able and eloquent
reply, we copy in full from the Gibe:l
aIR. BANKS Mr.. Clerk, l voted for the
resolution presented by the honorable gen
tleman from Tennessee Mr.. Zollicofer,] ]
yesterday, with pleasure. 1t embodies a
principle which think sound. As under
stood by me, when reported at the Clerks
desk, it was nothing more nor less than
simply this: that any gentleman who votes
for any candidate for any office ought to
know the opinions Of that candidate. L
recognize the right Of every gentleman in
this House who has been voting for Spea-
ker during this protraeted contest, to as
certain the opinions of any man for whom
he casts his vote. Sir, should claim it
as my right to know the opinions Of my
candidate to such an extent as should be
satisfactory, to myself, at least.
/ But, Sir, as q member Of the House, |
have other rights. offer myself as can
didate for no Office; | solicit no man $
suffrage and | am not, therefore, called
upon as a candidate to solve such Difficult
ties as gentlemen supporting other persons
may find in the existing condition OF public
affairs. Those who have honored me by
their confidence and votes are themselves
responsible for the course they have cho-
sen, and, doubt not, they are able TO meet
that responsibility. 1t is no. for me to
provide for their defence. j can only say,
as Othello said of his wife, they " had
eyes, and chose ne"
I l have cOnvictIons-convictions of duty,
convictions Of principle-upon the great
matters in which the country is interested !;
and, as a member Of the House, represen-
ting District in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, l have no hesitation in
responding to any of the inquiries pro
pounded by the honorable gentleman from
Tennessee to the honorable gentleman from
Illinois l ask the Clerk to read the first
question.
The CLERK read as follows:
"Am right to suppose that the gentleman
fiOm Illinois regards the kansas-Ne ebraska bill
as promutve of the formation of Free States
IN the Territories OF Kansas and Nebraska ="
Mr.. BASKs-It will be understood, of
course, that the phraseOlogy of this inqui-
ry applies rather to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Richardson) than to myself
| answer, distinctly, that do rot regard
the Kansas Nebraska bill as promotive of
the formation of Free States, inasmuch as
it repeals the prohibition of the Institution
of Slavery over the sestion of country to
which that statute applies. | think it
does not tend to the formation of Free
States. That is my answer.
Am fright in supposing Re advocates the
ConstiiuiionalIty of the WI!mot Proviso; that
IN 1850 he opposed lis application 10 the Ter
ritorieS acquired iror, Mexico. Only upon the
ground that it was unnecessary, Inasmuch as
llle NtA4CdN luCtl laws III 9ho>c
already abolished Slavery-whlch ought TO be
sufficient for all Free-Soil men; and that he
committed himself TO the position. that if Ter
ritorial bills (silent upon the subject of Slave
~, and leaving the Mexican law TO operale)
were defeated, he would vote for bills with the
/ W,lmot Proviso IN them -
Mr.. BANKs--I could give general an
swer in the affirmative to that interrogato-
~. l believe in the constitutionality of
that act which is known and generally un-
derstood as the Wilmo; ProYiso. | believe
that it is within the power Of Congress to
prohibit the institution of Slavery in a
Territory belonging to the United States
Whether l would advocate the passage Of
such an act in regard to Territory where
it was clearly unnecessary, where by local,
pre-existing laws it had been prohibited !;
or, in other words, whether would advo-
cate double inhibition, have only to say,
that if a doubt existed as to its exclusion,
by valid municipal law, l should sustain
an act which embodied the prohibition
! known as the Wilmot or Jefferson Proviso.
In regard to the measures of 1850, l can
only say, that, being called upon here or
elsewhere, should have voted fer the pro-
hibiticu in the Territories covered by those
measures, if had entertained doubt as
to the exclusion of Slavery by existing
municipal law. That is my answer.
The Clerk read as follows;
"Am righ, in supposing that his theory is,
that the Constitution of the United States does
not carry Slavery to, and protect it in, the
Territories of the United SIatesi'
Mr. BANKs-I do not believe tha. the
Constitution of the United States carries
the institution of Slavery to the Terrific
ries of the United States. My understan-
ding is based on the declaration of Mr..
Webster that even the Constitution of the
United States itself does not 90 to the
Territories until it is carried there by au
act of Congress. Standing on the principle
of the English law governing the same
interest, do NOT believe the Constitution
of the United States carries to any Terri