The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-01-24

Necessary to choice l02
No person having received majority of the
whole number of votes given, there was no
election.
Mr.. Quitman, of Mississippi, replieis to the
remarks made yesterday by Mr.. Grow, IN which
that gentleman had charged that the Kansas
Nebraska bill had produced the present state
of feeling between the different sections of the
country. He held that the gentleman had not
gone far enough back, and that the cause of
the present difficulties dated back to 1919, when
the spirit of encroachment on the institutions
of the South was first exhibited.
Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, replied, that
whether the Missouri Compromise was consti-
tutional or not, whether it was in violation of
the constitutional rights of the South or not. it
was adopted by Southern votes, and was sus-
tanned by the vote of the immortal Clay him
self.
Mr.. Colfax, of Indiana, gave brief state
ment of the history of the adoption of the plu-
rality rule in lS49, stating that the proceedings
of the House at that time exhibited the fact
that eight of the nine propositions which were
then submitted for an election by plurality
vote came from the Democratic party.
Mr.. Bocock, of Virginia, declared that, if
this were contest between the old National
Wing and the old National Democratic parties,
he would not consider himself justified in re-
sisting the adoption of the plurality rule, and
thus keeping the House in its unorganized
state. But when for the first time in the histo
~ of this Government there was arrayed here a
purely sectional party, attempting to inaugurate
its rule in this country by the election Of one
of its own men by sectional votes, he would
stand until the crack of doom, resisting, by
every honorable means at his commsad, their
attempts to obtain the ascendency
Mr.. II. Marshall, of Kentucky, in reply to
Mr.. Grow, contended that the records showed
the fact, that when the question came up in
1918 and 1919, MIR. Clay not only opposed the
Missouri restriction but was the foremost
among the speakers in the House in declaring
it to be an act of injustice to the South. His
speech was not reported in the Journals of
Congress-" but in the speeches of Messrs. Tai
madge and Taylor, of New York, who advoca-
ted the restriction, constant reference was made
to Mr.. Clay's remarks.
Mr.. Harris, of Illinois, also denied Aat Mr..
Clay had favored the Missouri restriction. Gen.
eral Jesup, of the army, had informed him that
he was present when Mr.. Clay debated the res
olution of Mr.. Storrs, and when the question
was upon the restriction upon the State, and
that he had taken notes of Mr.. Claws speech,
which he now had as they were then written
and that distinguished officer had authorised
him to state that Mr.. Clay opposed all restric-
ton, either upon the State or Territory
Mr.. Grow trusted that efforts to clear up the
records of the country by citing the army or
navy or any living witness would nh be ad-
mitted, either here or in the country, against
the declaration of the living man, madslbimself
in the Senate of the United States. TFsre was
no doubt that MIR. Clay was opposed ssto any
Mr. Clay opposed the restriction by wbfS il ,xas
proposed exclude Slavery from the Sat- OF Missouri
restricted in the territory beyond the limits tn State