The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1857-02-13
Reply of Nr. GiIdea, of Philadelphia,
To Wagonseller, Of Se4uyikW.

Mr.. Gildea, on leave given, stated in the pro-
ceedings Of the house published in the Leglsla-
tive Record of the 2Sth inst /, he found reported.
as part of the speech Of the gentleman from
Scuylkill, tMr. WagonsplIer,) half column OF
matter which had never been presented 10 the
House. While he conceded the right Of anv
member TO have full report of what was ac-
tuaIly said, he thought il indicated an effort to
advance the interest of one side of the House to
the discredit fihr other, and was an act OF un-
fairness which should not be tolerated. He
called attention to this circumstance in order
that there might be no cause of complaint here
after.
The gentleman from SchuyIkilI, (Wagonsel-
Ier.l in the course of his remarks, desired the
House teunderstand his position on the Sena-
toriaI question tbr way ia which he understood
It. but be (Nlr. GiIdpal vas strongly persuaded
that the reasons that satisfied him Mr.. Wagon
s,llprl would not have satisfied The conscience
any other man in the building. In his ef-
fort 20 exculpate bimSrlf, he had cast a$persons
on the members of the Democratic caucus,
using such terms in reference 10 them as the
..pimps of John w. Forney," by which he in
cud-d all who had voted for Mr.. Forney. He
did not feel himself included in this list, not
having voted for Mr.. Forney in caucus.
After be had received the nomination. how-
ever. he voted To make it unanimous; and III
this act he was influenced by sense of duty,
and not by anv eXtraneous Influences A. the
gentleman Gom SchuyIkill, lMr. Wazonsyl!rr,l J
had cast asprrsionS upon the supporters of Mir
Forupy, be would call attention 10 tbs dishon-
orahlr and disgracrf1 course pursued by that
r-utl-man in the Democratic caucus. H
would dstail the history Of HAT caucus. the
D-mucsatc members assembled At the appoui7
"a time and organized. The rol! was called.
anI Both members from Sch0yltiil answered
larrao. A resolution was submitted, plrdglng
every member to submit 20 thr vii Of the ina-
ori'y the gentlemen from SchuylkllI voted
aye.
Mr.. Lrbo, interrup'ing, stated that he did
not vote aye, on the resolution.
Mr. Gild-a replied that he stated what he
knew. and that be had the ability 70 prove that
both the gentlemen from Schnylklli voted aye..
He stated this deliberately and knowingly
The gentleman from York, (Mr. Menear,l also
voted for this resolution. Al this time these
gentlemen were, fully hooked mp as to the chan
cps Of the different candidates before the caucus.
Il Is not likely they were ignorant Of the posi-
:
man the opposition. that Fornev led the can
didalps. 1t was too late, then for these gratle-.
men 20 say that they were ignorant Of the cons
dtion Of affairs until they were in caucus The!
inducements to dy the track We're probably not.
strong enough at that time. \ BALLOT was taken.
in caucus, aud the gentlemen from Sthuvlktll
were found voting. and onp Of them for John
W. Foruev H. would like TO know if Mr..
Lejo vas compelled to vote by outside Induen-
cps llr Fornev The other gentleman from
SchuylhiI voted for Mr.. Robbins. Up to this
tune they acted apparently in good faith. No
suspicion was entertained that they We're tra
tors. They had not the caudoc or the courage
70 agow their purpoSr, while IN their hearts
they mus. have determined upon their course.
The gentleman from SchuvIkil Mr.. Wagon
sellrrJIaIES 10 his speech about the merits of
Alc. Broadhead being overlooked for John W.
Fornrv, vel he did not vote for MIR. Broaibrad
IN caucus H. vas therefore forced 10 thr
conclusion that his speech was patched up hy
other parties as an excuse for his course. The
gentleman tells the House that he felt il to be
bis Lutv to vote for Cameron when he found
that h. conid br elected He MIR WagousrI-
lrrl pretended 10 b. Democrat, and anxious
for thr success Of The Democratic nominee, un-
I'll the mou-nt he discovered that Cameron
could he elected II his only desire was TO
drt-at Forney, why did b. not votr for some
other Dpmocrat1 He was forced to the concIu-
sion that the nomination of Robbins, Foster, or
Broadhpad would not haze mrnded matters at
all. The statement Of the gentleman would not
bold together.
Bot the most remarkable part Of The speech
the gentleman from SchuylkiIl, tAlr. Wagon
s-il-r,) was where he cast aside ArsSrs. Bn-
clanan, Robbins. and Forney, and laudrd ST.
mon Cameron as a statesman, model for A..
merican youths. To sbow that there was
difference of opinion on this subject, he would
read protest against the nomination OF Simon
Cameron, the authors Of which Were about Us.
As the time approaches for the election of
United States Senator, everything relating 10.
the aspirants for that exalted position becomes.
interesting. The subjoined document was pres
pared by gentleman now in the senate, and
published during the contest for the SenatoFShIP
10 1855.
THE protest was published by us some time since.
He thought it was perfectly fair Tor the OPP
POSITION Sde of the House to defeat the Demo-
Cais, but the men who came here as Demo
c'aS WHO, from some unaccountablp cause,
sunk of to fetch up at the Buz2ard's feast, had
nojostiGcation.. Ii was idle Tor those men 10
expect gentlemen on either side Of the house TO
look upon them with respect They had viola
I'D bejr word of honor. They met in caucus,
and thea violated their promise to support the
1o"lnee. Among The ranks Of the opposition,
ar dld not believe that men could be found
man enough, low enough, and unmanIy e.
aoa.h 10 90 into Caucus, participate in It's pro-
'elogs, and thrn belray It's nominee. Hr
W.. tr.. ,n n, laat IL crnosiiinr MhiI.. theN