The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-12-23
THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT

to amend Fridays Journal, by inserting
that he had offered resolution to adopt
the plurality rule on vote for the Speaker
ship, Mr.. Sickles, of New York, spoke, say
ing he would not trespass on the time Of
the House, did be not deem it an impera.
tive duty to protest against much which had
been said on this floor in the course of the
discussion as to the sentiment of the North.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.
Hickman,) had avowed that the ire
pressible conflict is not in the future, but
is a fact and is presented in this Hall. Mr..
Sickles said the Northern sentiment is
otherwise. There beats in the North, mil.
lions of hearts devoted not only to the
Union but to the Constitution on which it
rests, and they would never relinquish their
allegiance to it, or be unmindful of their
duty in performing the obligations with
which that allegiance is inseparably con-
nected, and without which their love for the
Constitution and the Union would be
hypocrisy and delusion.
He said Mr.. Hickman's view of the
Northern sentiment is as unfounded in point
of fact as the charges he makes in the name
of the North. In the course of his reply to
MIR. Hickman's charge that the South has
violated covenants, compacts, and compro.
misses, he referred to the history of the
adoption of the Constitution, and kindred
subjects, to show that there had been no
violation ofgood faith by the South. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania could not
sustain himself in his first charge, that the
clause in the Constitution was concession
to freedom on the part of the South, when
he (Mr. Sickles) had proved that the clause
as originally reported by eleven of the
States, was enlarged and sustained on mo.
ton of gentlemen from the North. There
was no instance where Southern courts had
failed to take cognizance of, or punish those
engaged in the slave trade. Expeditions
with that view were fitted out, with vessels
sometimes built expressly for this purpose,
and the proceeds of the traffic distributed in
the North and East, and in all probability
at the South. The late District Attorney
of New York (Mr. McKeon) gave as his
opinion that more expeditions were fitted
out and sustained by Northern capital than
from any other part of the Uuion.
AS to the charge that the South had
broken the Missouri compromise, Mr.. Sickles
argued that it could not be called com.
promise. 1t was an experiment, and had
ceased to have vitality in the quarter where
alone it could be sustained. When the
violent, excited feeling produced by the
repeal of the Missouri restriction shall have
ceased, the North will as heretofore regard
the principles of the Kansas N ebraska bill
as congenial to their constitution, and on
which the best hopes OF the patriotic car
rest and as entirely fair to all portions Of
the confederacy. He maintained that there
had been no violation of the compromise o.
1850 and 1854.
He considered we were in the presence Of
the most serious danger that ever menaced
the confederacy, and, therefore, as faithful
sentinel, it was his duty to admonish the
North. He believed with a full knowledge
of the facts, they would give patriotic re
spouse. He alluded to the few demonstra
tions made in New York to sympathize
with the doctrines protested and practiced
by John Brown, and denied that the re
ligious sentiment of the people tolerated OF
countenanced them. He did not believe
there were any communities in the NORTH
which would permit assemblages within
their borders, with view to proclaim theil
purposes to carry invasion and death to the
firesides of any portions Of this country. A:
a citizen of New York, he would say that
State would be its past history-faithful tt
the period Of 1900, when it gave its decid.
ing vote to Jefferson for President, when il
laid the foundations deep as the mountains
Of the Democratic party.
At the conclusion of his remarks, Mr.
Sickles was applauded.
Mr. Adrian said, the recent article in thu
Constitution, in which his name was often
sively mentioned, was properly rebuked by
Haskins and Hickman. He asked thu
Democrats whether that paper is their organ
as we'll as of Mr.. Buchanan, whom he helt
responsible for its utterance. If it speaks
the sentiments of Democrats, and while ar
appeal was made to him to rally to th'
support of Mr.. Bocock, how could he, while
charged by that paper with bribery, assis
in the election of their candidate for Speak
er. 1t would be disgrace to which ht
never would submit. During the discussion
of the Lecompton question, he was ap
preached with show of corruption, an(
told if he would vote for the Lecompto1
bill he could get a foreign appointment. A
leading member of the House came to him
whispering in his ear that it was all settled
in the cabinet and he could receive thu
appointment for near friend. He declined
the profer, and continued to resist to ,ht
last, the attempt to force on the people O
Kansas constitution against their will.
Mr.. Clark, of New York, said he had
reason to believe it would have been accep
table to Jud &c Douglas if the latter's friends
such as himself and Adrian, had gone into
the Democratic caucus. Applause.
Mr.. Adrian said if he had gone into
caucus the result would have been the same
AS his friend, Mr.. Clark, knew that it would
have been acceptable to Mr.. Douglas if he
and others had gone into caucus, why die
not Clark 60 in himself. Laughter.
Mr.. Clark replied, at the proper time
he would give reason which would be
acceptable.
In conclusion, Mr.. Adrian expressed the
belief that none of his constituents ap-
proved of John Browns conduct, and every
northern man who goes into the southern
States to interfere with its rights, he hoped
they would serve him just as they did John
Brown, [applause] but the people of the