Daily American organ., 1856-04-16
WHOLE NO. 448.

voluntarily; but they had not voted for him
under the circumstances which existed when
the election took place. They had, not voted
| for him when the candidate Of the Democratic
party had withdrawn. They had not voted fer
| him when the Democratic party had united
| with the Republicans in forcing on us the
plurality rule. And sir, this union took place
after the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.. TRIPrF,
member of the American party, had stated
that that party would not vote on compulsion.
'vMr. SMITH My colleague did not answer
as to whether if the same members of the
American party who voted for Mr. AIKEN the
day before had voted for him on the day of
election, he would not now have been the
Speaker Of this House2
Mr.. ZOLLICOFFER. Al, the whole body
Of Americans did vose for Governor AIKEN the
| day before and did not elect him, how does Il
| appear that they could have elected him? And
how is it that they did not elect him? What
were the Democrats doing thenp
Mr.. SMITH. If my colleague will allow me
to ask him one other question, will not take
up his time further. Did not the gentlemen
from New York, Messrs. WHITNEY, Walk ard
BAYARD CLARK, and the gentlemen from
Pennsylvania, Messrs Broom and FULLER
vote for Governor AIKEN; and if they had
voted for him on Saturday would he not have
DCCu clcCtoul - WHetHes lHey ulu not vote
against him on that day ?
Mr.. ZOLLICOFFER. The records show
how gentlemen vot.d-I cannot tell whether
the whole American vote would have elected
Mr. AIKEN, unless knew how Democratic
votes would have been cast in that event But
my colleague should not take up my time to
catechize me in this irregular manner.
Mr.. SMITH. Very well. have stated that
fact in my speech, and will not take up the
time of my colleague by further referring to II.
Mr.. WHITNEY. / will take pleasure in
explaining the remark of the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr.. SMITH, so far as l am person
ally concerned, if the committee will give me
an opportunity, when the gentleman has con-
cluded his remarks
M. Walk. If the gentleman from Ten
nessee will allow me for one single moment, /
desire to state what will be within the recol-
lection of many gentlemen here, that was not
in the House when the final vote on the cleo
ton Of Speaker was TAKEN and therefore the
statement of the gentleman from Tennessee
Mr.. SMITH, that voted against Governor Al
KEN cannot be correct
Mr. SMITH | should like to know where
the gentleman VAST He wes in the House i'm
mediately before the vote was taken
Mr.. Walk. was not
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. NY colleague has a
theory with regard to the Democratic party,
which wish to examine. In his speech the
other day, and in the one to which he then
alluded, made at the last Congress, he laid
down the positions that his party is one of
strict constructions of the constitution
its elementary principles have ever been the
same--that it is true and sound national
party, and should be relied upon to protect the
interests and rights Of the South In this con-
nexion remember that, having assumed that
| had attempted to throw discredit upon the
Democratic candidate for Speaker, Mr. RICH
ARDsoN, he asks if 1t is not time that these
assaults upon the sound Democrats of the
North should ceaseg l think it demonstrable
that these positions of my colleague are all
more or less fallacious.
But first, q word as to Mr.. RICHARDSON. Nv
so-called assault consisted merely in pro-
pounding questions which dreto from him his
oso,s real opinions. He disclosed that he was
still the. advocate of the constitutionality Of the
Wilmot Proviso, and that under certain circum-
stances he had, in 1850, pledged himself to
vote for it; but that he now repudiated the
pledge to vote for the Wilmot Proviso, which
| was really much gratified at, for have long
regarded the gentleman from Illinois as one Of
thesoundest of Northern Democrats Sol regard
other prominent Democrats of that State, at
the head of whom stand Senator'S Douglas and
Shields. But, while concede this, Is it not
my right, nay, my duty, to point out the yet
very great unsoundness of their actual, record
ed opinions If such exposures embarrass
them, or gentlemen who endorse and support
them, it is not my fault but the fault Of the
political records they have made for them
selves. For example, I have sketch Of
speech before me, which General Shields made
in defence Of the Nebraska bill, at Springfield,
Illinois, in the fall of 1854, which appeared in
the Washington Union Of October %, Of that
year Now, remembering that the Nebraska
bill is the present Democratic platform, this
what ground he defends that measures He
said:
Kansas and Nebraska were free nosc and the
people there would keep them free The establish
ment Of slavery in those Territories was not only
improbable, but impossi6ie and it was always wiser
and better to let people work out great good for
themselves, than have it forced upon them by
others and this was the way in which freemen
always do what is great and good, by their own
free and voluntary act. The principles of non-ir-
tervention would not only keep Kansas and Ne
braska what they are now-free-but would by its
full and fair operation, If we acquire the continent
to the Isthmus of Daren, pork cih such powerful
force and effect that wouid ever see another
SLAVE Territory on this continent"
The Washington Union, in the article copy
ing this extract expresses its qualification
that General Shields is in the canvass in
his State, giving posoerfal aid to his distin-
guisied colleague, Judge Douglas and re-
marks, that in this particular speech, "he sus-
tained the principles Of the Ne6raska bill With
great force and efsctr' He was giving power
ful aid to Judge Douglas. And what was
Judge Douglas doing, | have no copies of
fho choch he .,,T n
have an extract Of letter he addressed to the
o1, &C tbn ToroarI M III Dox~;~x I-AuI