The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1856-02-29
THE ELECTION OF SPEAKER.


Of Banks. Being The g#istsy,party themselves,
It is perfectly natural in them to make a great
noise, and try TO fix the responsibility upon
the shoulders of those who are innocent t.
In determining the question of responsible.
~, we hold that the final vote is by no means
the only thing to be inquired into. But il il
necessary to ascertain through whose pariicu-
lar agency the plurality rule was adopted
and adopted, too, with full consciousness
Of the fact that Banks wss.,i almost una
voidably be chosen under It. If, then, we
are not at fault In onr recollection, not
more than one National American voted for
the plurality rule, while It was sustained by
toelre pro(essed national Democrats-that is
by twelve Of the immortal seventy ronr, who
uniformly supported Richardson Not only
10, but it was presented by Southern Demo.
Gratis, who warmly urged its adoption, know
ing, necessarily, that IL would result in Banks
election! These being the facts of the case,
we inquire in all sincerity and candor upoE
whom does the responsibility rest! And to
this question, there can be hut one reply, IL
any faitl is TO be put in figures. 1t rest up.
on the Democrats-and what is more and
worse II rests almost entirely upon Southern
Democrats! Il
We find, too, according to the published
proceedings, that Immediately after the adop-
tion of the plurality rule. several unsuccess-
ful attempts were made by Southern Ameri.
cans and Southern Democrats 10 have il re.
sclnded. Mt. Boyce, of South Carolina, one
of the seventy.four, was the first to spring to
his feet, and "moved to resrind the plurality
resolution just passed by the House." Bu,
so runs the record-"on motion of Mr..
Smith, of Trnnessee"-a Richardson Dem.
orrat-"Mr. Boyce's motion was laid on the
table"
Again: notwithstanding the defeat of Mr.
Boyce's motion, Mr.. Walker, of hlabama--
an American member-obtained the floor,
and showed to rescind the plurality rulc."-
Well. what was the fate of Mr. Walkers
motion! Why, Nj. Cling;nan, of North Car.
olinn, another one of the immortal seventy.
four, who had been in favor of the plurality
rule from the beginning, sprang to his feet,
and said that Mr.. Walkers "motinn was no,
in order, as the House had just refused to
rcscind the rule tosiect by plurality vote"
in voting down the motion of Mr.. Boyce.-
And thus second attempt to have the rule
rescinded was defeated by Southern Dem.
ocIatl With this review of the facts of
the case before the final vote was taken, NJ,
again ask who is responsible for Banks
election?
But this is not all. After the final vote
had been announced, showing the election of
Banks, a number of Southern members. both
Democrats and Americans, obtained the floor,
and protested that they had been opposed to
the adoption of the plurality rule from the
outset, and that no circumstances could oc.
cur under which to sustain it, Mr.. Buyce, Of
South Carolina, again stated that she had
not voted for the plurality rule, and could
not vote for the resolution of Clinnman"-
offered subsequent to the announcement of
the inal vote-declaring that Banks had
been duly elected Speaker. Mr. Harris, of
Alabama, another one of tho seycnty.tour.
also took occasion to aver that no man had
been more opposed than himself to the aiop.
tion of the plurality rule. The House, how. .
ever had seen fit to pass il, and, under il, the
gentleman from Massachusetts had received
plurality of the votes. lie was, therefore,
by virtue of decision of the House, made
Speaker thereof" Mr.. Smith, of Virginia,
another OF the seventy.four, also declared
That "lhe result, so much deplored by so ma
ny upon the floor of the House, ,pas The CON.
sequence Of a bungliag management, such MS
he should take occasion to follow no more
forever!" Now. the question arises, why
did so many Southern Democrats, after
Banks election, manifest so anxious II wish
to clear their skirts of all responsibility for
the adoption Of tile -pluraiity -ruie! Was il
not the result of deep and earnest conyie.
tl"n that Banks could never have been elect
I'd without the adoption of thatrule, which
was forced upon the House by the united
vote of all the Black Reputlicans-Camn.
bell, of Ohio, only exccpted-with tuelre
Democrats, and most of these twelve fom,hp
South? Such, it is evident, is the true and
only reason of the anxiety of these men
to aequit themselves before the public and
their constituents of any agency in the adop.
lion of rule, which, it was known 10 nil.
would necessarily result in the election of
Banks.
But take one other view of the matter. If
the great bulk of the Democrats, who voted
against the plurality rule, did not know that
its adoption would be equivalent to Banks'
eleciion,what excuse have they for not yotinp
for ii! We put this question because. in de.
fence Of those Democrats who did vote for
it, it is now urged in many quarters that
they were satisfied it would secure the cleo.
tion Of Aiken. But this is clearly ruse,
for the reason that most of these twelv.
had voted for it from the start, and long
before Aiken or Orr had been dreamed of.
But we drop the subject for to-day. We
observe, however, that the record is IN ugly
thing, and according to it, the Democrats are
responsible for Banks election.
Mrs. Sarah Vain recently obtained YER.
I...t e Al