Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-01-25
THIRTY.FUURTI CONGKEsS-First Sessio
SATURDAY, JANUARY -, 1866.
The Senate WIS not in session to-day.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

The Senate WIS not in session to-day.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
Mr.. CIiuy!nau offered II resolution That during Ihc
roll call in voting for Speaker, no debate or personal
ryulanation shall be in order; and the rule limiting
members To ten minutes III debate sfa.l moi ne Sas'
pended except by unanimous consent "l the li"u"e'
lie thought the HOUSE had dcgrncrated INTO IL
mere debating society. Voting would be more Ike
~ io result in al election ihnn discussion. because
the utter only served 10 intiame parties and factions,
thus increasi X the difficulty.
The resolution WAS adopted, and the House proceed
ed To vote.
The first vote s~tood-Bnnks 81, Richardson ca, Full
Ter 81, Pennington 3, Campbell Of Ohio, 8, Porter J,
Foster /. Necessary to a choice lG?.
Mr.. Ouitman defended the South, and replied To
the remarks OF Mr.. Grow recently delivered.
Mr.. Grow, in response, Justified the NORTH IN ls ei-
forts 10 prevent the spread Of slavery.
Mr.. ColiaX gave Il brief supplementary history OF
thu plurality rule, which was adopted III 1877, aih
which resulted in the election Of MIR. Cobb OF Gcor-
ria. To the speakcrship. lie referred To the record To
show thu at that time. Of the nine several PROPOSE
tons for the adoption Of the plurality rule, eight
were Offered by democrats, and one from To" wing
side. The democratic party in lSi9 claimed 10 hrvr
a majority in the House, but Il small portion refused
10 cooperate with the majority Of their brettren.-
Just 30 it now was with the republicans, and there
fore Mr.. Coliax cuntended that they should have Il
like benefit of a plurality rule.
Mr.. Bocock having been alluded to by the gentle.
man, said that he had merely voted against laying
lWt ItOtOSillDll " u Eihlhl'hI WV
BILE. Ii the sGuabb!e were now between the old na.ioi-
al democratic party and the old national "hiS party,
he might be induced 10 vote for such q mode of
elyctiug Speaker; but the whis party was clean, as
pure rs snow, compared with the crimson guilt, po-
ti,iculiy, of the Republican party. He could not now
vote for the plurality rule without indirectly cortrl-
butinu 10 the election of Il man who represents q par
ty which maintains that freedom is national aud sla-
very wholly sectional.
Mr.. Humphrey Marshall rcplic! to n portion Of
the remarks of Mr.. Grow, saying that Mr. t!ny, OF
Kentucky, not only opposed III" Missouri RESTRICTION,
but spoke oil il as an injustice 20 the South.
sir. llurris, of Illinois, remarked that the assertion
ot Mr.. Grow, tina: Mr.. Clay favored the restriction,
WIS not correct; aud, in addition 10 recorded evidence,
he referred TO n living wltnrss-tielera Jessup, who
WAS present when the subject was under disclssiOn,
aud took notes OF the debates of those times.
Mr.. Grow, responding, said that Mr. Clay voted
for the line of IS deg. 80 min., and referred to MIR.
C!ay's speech in the Senate, pending the compromise
measures OF 1850, AZ in proof of that fact.
Mr.. Suvag. made Il statement IN relation to the
reasons which have heretofore and do now control
his cogduct. In 1919 he voted for the plurality
rule because he thought the effect would be- 10 elect
Sir. Cobb, Of Georgia, Speaker, end in this he did
not mistake. But he would not vote iur the ruiz
now, because its adoption would elect Mr.. Banks,
whose political principles were dangerous To thu
Union, and because he would not do indirectly what
he would NOT do directly. +
After further debate "n the subject ot slavery and
on that Of the plurality rule
MI. Cliugman offered Il resolution tha: for one
week, unless Il Speaker shall sooner be elected, no
shall be in order, Unless by unanimous consrnt.
The resolution was ndoptcd-yeas llo, nays Il. The
House then adjourned.