The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-01-05

th BODY upon the anti Nebraska PLATFORM haa IL ~ hei
power 10 help them out Of the entangement In WHICH, as
the gentleman said, they lie did not see The
propriety Of those few asking the great mass oil the
Nebraska strength upon this oor who had come from
different parts OF the Union 10 represent great principle
aud 10 act upon that principle 10 leave the man they had
selected as their candidate and support OF their choos
Mr. HOWARD was in favor OF adhering to their cand
date Mr. BANKs who supported by the ant-Nebraska
strength Of Michigan Indians Ohio Illinois Massachusetts
and other States with entire unaumi.y
Mr. DUNN asked the gentleman whether that unanimy
was not brought about by stress OF circumstances and
whether members did not go into the support OF their
candidate rather reluctantly
Mr.. HOWARD replied that he believed there were some
who would not recognise the honorable gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr BANKS their first choice but far
he knew there no unreasonable pressure brought 10
bear upon them 10 bring them 10 his support
Mr. H. then went show that the responsibility for
the delay in organizing rested with the two parties who
opposed TO the fusion These two parties agreed
with each other the slavery question: and agreed that
this the allmporant and predominant issue the vital
principle upon which the peace and prosperity and,
said the salvation Of the country, depended He
asked Them them why they did not uuite2 The record
shows ortyone votes for the honorable gentleman from
Pennsy lvania Mr. FULLER and seventysx votes for the
honorable gentleman from Illinois, Mr.. RionARpsoS in
ALL according TO his arithmetic hundred and seventeen
votes, which majority of the whole Then, why not
mite and organize the House in spite OF sectonasm and
the iact:onsts as they call them, The responsibility
clearly rested with them
Mr.. z0LLCoFFER moved that the tcn.mnute rule be
rescnded for to-day. Nj
Mr.. SAGE moved to lay the motion on the table.
The question was taken by telers and the motion was
agreed to--ayes l29 noes not counted
MIR. ORR did not understand exactly the arithmetic of
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.. HowARD.l He had
stated that an election might be effected by the combined
votes OF Mr. RICHARDSON and Mr. FULLER, ii the parties
could manage together 1t true that the gem
tenan from Pennsylvania Mr. FULLER had received forty
one votes but since that gentleman had defined his posi-
ton upon this floor the highest vote he had received
thiry-four There We're some members absent but the
combined votes of Mr. RICHARDSON aud Mr. FULLER this
morning united made but hundred and seyen and that
was not sufficient number to elect No single had
been taken since the gentleman from Pennsy defined
his position where the two parties united had majority of
the House. and FIVE six votes which had been cast
for that gentleman before that time were now thrown for
Mr. BANKS He did not however rise TO the time
OF the House in discussing that subject lie OF course
opposed to the resolution Of the gentleman from Indiana
Mr. DUNN but he was willing to give that gentleman the
opportunity of having direct and clear vote it without
amendment The House had been embarrassed yesterday
by having two amendments proposed resolution which
was introduced SO that il compelled as IL TO Sc
ect between certain gentlemen, when II would have found
no difficulty perhaps, in making selection if the sou-
ton had been presented without amendment by voting for
his colleague, mr. Boycx He thought the House was
competent TO elect Speaker by resolution The plurality
rule could not prevail by the adoption Of such resolution
because it would take majority Of the whole number of
votes cast to il and hence the principle just the
voting pva With view, therefore, Of giving
the gentleman from Indiana direct his resolution
without amendment he asked for the previous question on
MIR. JONES of Tennessee asked the gentleman to with
draw his call for the previous question: promising to
Dir. ORR withdrew it.
Mr.. JONES agreed with the gentleman that the House
could elect Speaker by resolution ii il thought proper
do but he denied the right Of the House. gentle
man in the House. 10 nominate candidate for Speaker by
resolution requiring him to vote either for against that
resolution The resolution OF the gentleman from Indiana
was nothing less than nomination Of the gentle
whose name be inserted in it, He had had the honor
the first day of the session to put in nomination the
candidate OF the democratic party the gentleman from l
nois, mr. RIcnARDsoSl That nomination had not been
Withdrawn and when The question put upon that
resolution under the operation OF the previous question
and be calledupon vote be would respond AVN A.
and would require his be recorded for
that gentleman and quoted in the result He had the right
to vote for gentleman upon the floor Of the House. and
because another gentleman fit TO put bis candidate in
nomination. he no, TO be excluded thereby from put
ting Others in nomination voting for them 1t was
nothing but nomination. and be held that those gentle
men whose names had been presented and still pend
ing much candidates and much 10 be voted for
by those who thought proper to vote for them when the
question was put on the resolution as though the gentle
man from Indiana bad merely put in nomination the gen
teman from Ohio, Mr. LxirrR] He renewed the demand
for the previous question
Mr. HOUSTON rose to point Of order. He agreed fu-
ly with the gentleman from Tennessee Mr. JoSEs that
the resolution was nomination OF the gentleman
from Ohio, and be submitted that IL competent TO
call the previous question upon the nomination OF oand
date for Speaker
The Clerk stated, in reply that there were numerous
presidents la the history OF the House in which OF lis
officers had been elected by resolution.
Mr. STEPHENS thought that the House could elect a
Dl RESOLUTION, III
fecty in order for the House TO entertain such esou
ton II IL fit and II election had In this way
was legitimate and proper He opposed the resolution
however not only upon the merits Of the individual pro-
posed Ia H. but the OF elecng under H. lie
preferred 10 proceed pooe the House had been
doing and he therefore moved to lay the resolution
the table.
Thr yeas and nays were demanded on The motion lay
the resolution the table, and being taken resulted
yeas le6, nays SOFAS follows;
YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Albright Allen, Allison Barbour,
Barclay, Barksdsle, Bell H. Bennett Benson, Bingburst
Bss, Bocock. Bowie, Boyce bradshaw Branch Brooks,
Buhngton, Burlngame, J. H. Campbell Caskie, Chaee, b.
CLARK, lara Clark, Cngman, Howell Cobb, W. X. w. /
Cobb Collar, Comns, Corode, Cor, Cragin Craige Crsw
ford, Cullen, Cumbaok Damrel Davidson Day Dean, De
Witt, Dick, Dickson Dodd, Dowde Durfee, Edmundson
Elliott, Bmre English, ktheridge Eusts, Faulkner Flag
ler Florence Foster, T. j. ID. Fuller Galloway Giddings
Robert b. Hail. Harlan, Sampson w. Harris, Thomas l.
Harris, Herbert, Hickman, Thomas X. Horton Valentine
Horton, Houston, Howard, Hughston Jewett George W
Jones, j. Clancy Jones' keitt, kdwell, King, Knapp
Lumpkin, Mace, Humphrey Marshall, ,muel r. Marshall
hsiteson, Maxwell hcCarty, McMuen, McQueen, Meaeham
kiilian Miller, Smith Miller, Nlson, Morgan Morrill,, Muir
ray, Nichols Norton. Mordecs Oliver, Packer, Parker
pesree Peck lelton, Petit Ph@lp Pike, Porter, POWELL
Pringie rurvspee, Ready, Richardson, Roberts Robson
Ruhn Sabn, Sage, Sandidge Sspp, sherman, Shorter,
simmons, samuel A. smith, William Smith, William X. |
Smith, Snecd, Spinner stanton stephens, Stewart, Srsns
han Talbot, 1appan Tsyl.r Thorngton Tburston Tra
ton, Trippc Tyson, Underwood, Wade, Wsksman, Wal
bridge Ws.dron, Walker, Warner, Cadwsader O. Wash
burne, Elihu H. wasbburne, lTsel Wsshburn, Watkins,
Watson welch wcl winsow, Wood, Woodruff, " ood- |
WORTH John v. Wright, and zollcoaer-l6e
NAYs-Messrs. Ball, Brenton, Broom, John p. Campbell
Lewis ID. Campbell, Clawson, N. W, Davis Dunn, Edie
Evans Henry NJ Fuller j. Morrison Harris Harrison,