Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-01-28

are willing. as we have been, to vote without
debate upon the proposition now pending, or
which may he pending by being presented here
after by direct vote, "Yea" or "Nar," 50 that
the majority of the Representatives here shall
say what shall be the action of this body We
are ready to vote upon the points Of order
raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that
the previous question is not before the House.
and if the House decide that it is not, we will
submit, as it is our habit in the North to sub
init to the will of the majority. We shall not
adopt the example of gentlemen who say that
they will submit il they believe that the will of
the majority is right, and if not, they will dis
rupt every tie that binds them to the Union
After that, we are willing to vote whether the
plurality vote is or is not constitutional, and
then whether or not it shall be adopted, and
when it is adopted, il it shall be, to hazard the
result, knowing as you do that there are some
members that have not voted thus far with eth
cr of the great parties. Let me state this fact
10 SHOW why we stand here as we do. 1t is be-
CAUSE when the people assembled in their dis
tricts and elected men to come here and legis-
late for the the veal of the country there were
a majority Of members elected either as Re-
publican nominees, or by the direct aid and
votes of the Republican party 1t is true there
are few gentlemen thus elected who have not
otNh III " NOtS iOt tlIt NcIJu1ICdI
| do not presume to hold them responsible but
| tell you gentlemen of the democratic side,
that if a majority had beeu elected by the dem
ocratic party, or by the aid and comfort of that
party, you would stand here as faithfully and
persistently as we have done. Let me repeat
that we are ready to vote upon any and every
proposition now pending, or which may he pend
ing; and if the gentleman from North Carolina
tMr Winslow,) is willing to say that, upon TAX
ing up his proposition and voting .Aye" or
NO" upon it we can reach a vote upon the
plurality rule, we will consent to it.
Mr. Colfax-Qn reply to a remark made by
Mr. Cox.) do not acknowledge the gentleman's
right to interfere but will say simply that we
support Mr. Sherman because he receives the
largest number of votes that can be polled.
wish to say in conclusion, that the Constitution
of the United States authorizes the various
States of this Union to elect Representatives in
the American Congress, and, in compliance with
that Constitution, those Representatives sit here
to-day. Now, it is fact that every gentleman
who sits here is elected not by the majority
but by the plurality rule. Only Rhode Island
requires majority vote, and there on a second
vote a plurality is sufficient to elect. Now
when gentlemen come here and draw their sal
aries from the Treasury of tie United States
by virtue of an election under the plurality rule
say it is farfetched argument for them to
insist that that Constitution, which limits our
power in the election of Speaker in the same
way, will not permit us to elect by the pluralit,
rule. Nay, more, Mr. Cobb of Georgia, aud
Mr. Banks of Massachusetts, have both beer
elected Speakers under the plurality rule, and
although questions have arisen in regard 10 III,
consttutionality of laws passed under their ad
ministration, and signed by them, yet no man
no lawyer, has ever attempted before Court o
Justice to insist that those laws were invalid
because the Speaker was elected by plurality
We have, therefore, the precedents of two elec
tons of Speaker, one by each of the great par
ties, and the analogous fact of the election
Representatives by plurality, which has beer
provided for in order that the people in none u
the Districts might be unrepresented. The Law
said to the people, "You may scatter your vote
'if you please, hut the man who receives th
"hghest number shall be elected" 1t is a wis
provision, and we should do well to copy tina
example to put an end to this present dead lock
Adjourned.