Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1860-01-21
Congress.


bers would resist the taking Of a vote upon tho
plurality rule and thus keep the question from
ever coming before the House. This they Will do
because they ocli.va the plurality rule TO be un'
constitutional.
W,.tbsr the rule is constitutional or not, it is
obr;,us that this course will. in the prcsen.
temper Of the House, forever prevent The election
of a Speaker. Ifany member believes the plural
ity rule to be unconstitutional 1t Is his duty Ia
vote against It, II he even thinks the question n
doubtful one, it is hi. duty to vote against it-be-
cause doubtful constitutional powers ought never
to be exercised. But voting against the plurality
rule is a verv different thing from not permitting
a vote to be taken upon it at ali--anf We are not
nrerared to say that Democratic members are Al
ting wisely in pursuing this latter policy ltseems
to u. they would sufficiently discharge their da-
ties to themselves, their constituents, aud their
consciousness, by voting against the rule itself
when the question comes up. To prevent by par
liamentary cIpedients, the House from reaching
the question at all. looks very much ike putting
teo fne q point upon it,
We're We member ot the House. We would vote
against the plurality rule, from first to last and
through thick and thin. But ifthcrc were clear
majority Of the House in favor Of II, We would not
consider ourselves jus,i6abie in preventing
the question from being taken. The res
possibility Of the result would rest upon those
who voted for the rule. and for sssGeh result we
would hold them to strict accountability but
to Distract, by parliamentary devices, ali action
upon the question whatever, isaditer"nt thug,
and one which it seems to us difficult To defend.
1t was not thus four yesrsago, when the House
was in tho same condition as at present. Almost
every day the conservatives permitted the ques-
ton to be taken upon the plurality rule. II was
voted down again and ngaln-un,l, at last, six
Democrats. headed by Smith Of Tennessee. united
with the Republicans and passed the rule and
thus brought abost the election Of Banks rs en-
ker Of the House
Public sentiment has, very properly. condemn
ed those Democrats who rolcd for He ru'e--but We
have never heard syllable OF complaint against
the Democrats and Americans who. while voting
steadily against the adoption Of the rule itself,
never obstracted the taking of the question upon
it. 1t seems 10 US that firm resistance to the
rule itself is oil that could expect of our rep
resentativss aud il IL sufficient dschargo Of their
obligations to their constituents.
We would say the same, though it were certain
that tho plurality rule pouH lie adopted il II Nota
were .akc- aroL land though it were also Ger
tain that N,A's Republican would lie elected
Speaker under It's operation. But We d. not re-
gard either Of these results rs certain t. occur.
We feel confident that the plurality rule would DO
defeated If direct vote sere taken upon ii. Ths
Democrats therefore have nothing II lose by com
ing 10 n vote upon the question and the Republi
cans, seeing shat ,hoy could no; carry the rule.
would perhaps drep their present candidate. aud
take up some oae less obnoxious, and aot an en-
dorscr of tho vilA.nous publication If Helper.
Nor is it certain, or even probable, in opin-
iog, hat Sherman would be elected, cfrn If the
plurality role were adopted. We SAY tn, bccans"
every member who has intended u vote inr Ser
man has already done "a. He has. long a.o, pill
ed his full strength combination II HE BON
ocratic and American elements npan n6y other
man would elcot aim under tho plurality rule aud
have several votes ~ erarc. We woald not VETO
for tie plurality rule. of coorse--oren il II were
certain thu, thereby we would cleet lavorte -
because we have doubts Of its eeastiin,iounlity
Bet We say sgair that ~e Uonid net resist tn e
taking Of n vote upon it-and Il thc kcpuili-
cans thought proper to adopt it. aud take their
chances under it, We would give them the oppor
tunity We believe they mould be defeated II,
their own game,
We arc no advocates of radical Democratic doc
trines, our columns have often attcsted W,
disposed 10 believe that, under our form al
Government majorities ere far more apt to b,
wrong than to be right But ave ipss, that n,
long az our form of Governmcn, is os II IS, muo.
rites must s~tna-eAcopt in clear Of op
preston and tyranny. This is what tho Wings
OF Virginia have had TO do ever since the organ
Haasa ns the party. The Democracy. having
long enjoyed the benefits Of the dogma that mao-
rites must rule--and the party. in fact being or.
ganised mainly upon that doctrine should bc the
last to set up the new idea that M1ert,ss mus
control II this be allowed, our form Of Govern
ment becomes failure at onee--as, indeed, man,
begin to beliese that it is any way. No douot
many Of the members Of Congress we're them
selves elected under plurality rule. Where ther,
were three or more candidates in the field, thu
certificate Of election was given to him who has
the highest number Of votss--which, in man,
cases, was not q majority Of the whole.
Now, it is plain that there will be no election Of
Speaker at ALL and that the Union is virtual,
dissolved, If the Democracy in Congress adhere tt
their present position. They can elect Gilmer to
the Speakershp at any Moments Southern man
by birth, education and interest Bot as they
declare that they will, under no circumstances
vote for Gilmer, it becomes akem to offer some
mode Of escape from the present dilemma They
have no right to defeat praetse plans for the or
ganization Of the House. unless they have plan