Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1856-06-05

SCSCC ObooiifCo CohoCAot " ihohO.
statement relating to bis personal
position; and it is impossible for the
Chair to say that the discussions o.
these matters to which he alludes is
net necessary to determine his owr
position. n
Mr.. SNEED.. My colleague has not
been assailed at all
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Tennessee Mr.. Jones] has the floor
MI. JONES. ! submit to my coll
league whether it was personal ex-
planation when the gentleman from
Pennsylvania Mr. Fuller] was ma
king an assault on Mr.. Buchanan?
Mr.. SNEED. Certainly it was.
Mr. JONES. And / would ask him
why he did not them raise the question
Of order?
Mr.. SNEED. The allusion to Mr..
Buchanan was intimately connected
with his own position.
Mr.. JONES. I do not see how. I
do not suppose that the gentleman
pretended, or rretends now, to be a
supporter Of Mr. Buchanan. All
/ want in this case is to get at the
fact.
I shall be rejoiced-if the gentle
man from Pennsylvania did in 1S49
entertain the sentiments attributed
to him : if he has repudiated those
sentiments; and / would rejoice if
every other one throughout this coun-
try, who entertains such sentiments
would follow bis example, and if he
has repudiated them, do likewise.
Sir, I do not understand the gentle.
man from Pennsylvania to repudiate
the sentiments of anti-slavery, and of
opposition to the extension Of slavery
entertained by him in lS49. / do
not understand that at that time he
was an opponent of the Wilmot pro-
so. And, sir, / should be gratiied
to know whether the gentleman does
not occupy now the position with re-
gard to the slavery issues which he
has always occupied? That, sir. is a
question which | should be glad if
the gentleman would answer.
Mr.. FULLER. / stated, as I sup
posed very clearly and distinctly, that
I denied the utterance of my senti-
ments in favor of northern interfer-
ence to secure the abolition of slavery
/ stated this distinctly. | repeat it,
that on these occasions the question of
slavery was discussed in Pennsylva-
MIA in consequence Of the then recent
acquisition from Mexico and was
treated by me in the mannerI have
stated.
Mr.. JONES. That is what / under
stand even the gentleman from Ohio
MIR. Giddings will advocate to-day
that they will not interfere with
the institution in the States where it
exists; that if the South wish to re-
tain it they have a right to do SO.
But l would ask the gentleman from
Pennsylvania if he did not, in that
canvass, at that time, advocate the
adoption by Congress of the Wilmot
proviso, and if be was not at the time
acting with the Wilmot-proviso or
anti-slavery party of Pennsylvania.
J Mr.. FULLER. / will say to the gen.
tleman that during that contest, ]
had not the folly to argue a great
constitutional question like that Of the
Wilmot proviso. 1t had nothing to-
do with the discharge Of the duties
of the Office for which / was can-
didate, and there fore did not attempt
to argue it. Why, sir, as late as
1919, General Cass. here in the SEN
ate, declared that the Wilmot proyiso
Mr.. JoNEs. IF the gentleman is
going to make speech, he had better
take another hour.
Mr.. FULLER. Just a moment, by
way of illustration; / say, General
Cass declared in, Senate that he had,
not examined the question Of the con-
stitutionality Of the Wilmot proviso.
And, sir, certainly if General Cass,
who had been engaged all bis life in
the public service. as Governor of a
Territory, as Senator in Congress, and
as Minister abroad, with all his vast
opportunities, and his, acknowledged
intellect, had not had time, and was
not prepared, to pass upon the con-
stitutionality OF the unconstitutional
ity of the Wilmot proviso, how could
/, a young and humble candidate for
the Office Of canal commissioner, be