The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-01-12

Plies.
Mr. Clark, of New York, denied that the LIE
compton issue was dead, as had been declared
The House again voted for Speaker. Tw,
hundred and twenty-three votes were cast; ne
cessary to choice, liz. Mr.. Sherman receiv
ed log, Mr.. McClernand II, Mr. Bocock 80
Mr.. Quarles l3, Mr.. Davis Of Indiana 9, Mr.
Gilmer 4, Mr.. Houston 8; scattering, l6.
MIR. Porter said, when his name was called
that Mr.. Vallandigham was somehow mixes
up with the John Brown affair; therefore b,
could not vote for him. He voted for Johr
sherman. Laughter on the Republican side.
The House then proceeded to another ballot
with no material alteration in the result, excep
that most of the Democratic members fell bacl
upon Mr.. Bocock.
Mr.. Miles resumed his remarks, on the posi-
ton OF parties in the House, with respect to the
organization. He would say, with all respect
that it seemed to him the Anti. Lecomptor
Democrats were the disorganizers.
MIR. Adrain, Of New Jersey, interrupting
said he was an Anti Lecompton Democrat, and
did not believe the five men of that faith were
disorganizers. They could not possibly organ
ize this House except by voting for MIR. Sher
man. If they voted for any one else, their
votes would not elect.
L were
organizers, if, whenever it should be shown
that their votes would elect conservative man,
they refused to do so. Until union could be
effected between Democrats and the Southern
Opposition, they stood on the same basis as
other members
Mr.. Miles did not care to go into any refined
augmentation on the subject. 1t was plain
that the three parties to which he had referred
were able unitediy to defeat the election of a
Republican; and the Southern Opposition said
to them again and again, that whenever they
could show the possibility of electing Demo
crat they should have their votes for that object
and the Anti Lecompton men had said the
same thing.
A voice. They have not said So
Mr.. Miles. Well, some of them say so.
Mr.. Clark. They will be disorganizers if they
do not.
Mr.. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, would like to
know why they should not be reckoned disor.
ganizers as well when they refused to elect a
Republican, which they might do at any time.
Mr.. Adrain said the Anti Lecompton men
were anxious to organize as speedily as posi-
BILE, but had seen no opportunity when their
votes would tell. When the South Americans
and Democrats should unite, the five Anti Lee
compton Democrats would be called upon to
act, and act definitely, and would vote as best
accorded with their own judgments.
Mr.. Hickman, of Pennsylvania, said the
gentleman from New Jersey had spoken of five
Anti.Lecompton Democrats. He would ask
him to name them. He wanted to know
whether his list included those who had been
elected by Republican votes, for there were
some who had been ready enough to receive
Republican votes, but were unwilling to vote
for Republican. He had to run against both
Republican and Administration nominees
He gave notice now, that whenever a motion
should be made to ballot, he intended to move
to amend by adding the plurality rule as
proviso. Then he would learn who were in
favor of an organization. This Administration
Democratic party ought to be seen by the
country. They were continually appealing te
the country, and he wished the country could
look in upon them, and see their condition
They were perfect type of the Administra
tion-disorganized, demoralized, without CO
herence, in pitiable discreditable condition
Mr.. Davis, of Indiana, said he had been here
about five weeks, and had carefully abstaned
from opening his mouth, but the remarks OF
the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr.. Hick
man had made it necessary to say few words
No man had right to oatechise him as to the
representative of 200 freemen, and would
act as became freeman. 1t was no mans
business in what manner he was elected, yet
lest his silence might be misunderstood, he
would tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania
the House, and the country, that he was elected
by majority of 1000 votes, and as Demo
crat. In each of seventy speeches he made
during the canvass, he avowed himself Dem
ocrat, and declared he had never crossed
or dotted an of his political faith. He ran
against Democrat as an independent man
and as an AntLecompton Democrat, de
nouncing one measure, and one alone, of this
Administration. He intended that his vote
should indicate his preference for Speaker tc
the last he would tell the gentleman that he
would never vote for Mr.. Sherman till those
walls fell down. Applause.] he Sid mol
mean to be sold into the embrases Of Reppbi
canism,
Mr.. Hickman asked if he did not, during his
canvass, denounce the Administrator Of MIR.
buchanan, and whether he did not receive all
the Republican votes in his districts
Mr.. Davis replied that he did not deuounee
the Administration, except upon the Lecn-.
ton question. He obtained . ne. Up
Democratic vote in his ~ district ali ,ha :. ue
can vote, and majority of the RepubI;cans .
and If the election had been two weeks Later
ne believed he would have got every man IN
his district. Laughter '' -
MI. Porter, of Indiana, asked if the gentle.
man did not deuounce the bred Scott decision
IN pubic meeting at indianapolis, in pres.
ence OF two thousand people, aud say that no
man Yho endarsed that decision could carry
ssipfgle county in the Statee
Mr.. Davis, Thank thee, Jew, for that word
That is the very point wanted to come at. |
ala no such thing, sir. Applause.l
Mr.. Porter referred his colleague to a report
In the Indiana State Sentinel the Democratic
organ, which he would ask the Clerk to read
de knew that report was correct, because he
heard the speech.
Mr. Davis claimed the 1oos, and eensidera.
Bile confusion ensuea. Mr.. Davis said he had
YIELDED 70 AAis colleague for question.
MT: Porter. QO understand that the gentle.
man man refuses to allow the passage to be read?
Mr, LAWS SAID that was his business, and he
would come to it directly. His colleague had
said be had denounced the bred Scott decision.
and the charge was totally, wilfully, and ma.
liciously false.
Mr.. Dunn, of Indiana, thought it was de TO
his colleague, thus rudely asssil,.ed 10 say that
he Mr.. Dunn heard thu. speech, and it was a
general rergss ;a,k among Republicans that they
ssvef heard better Republican speech in
their lives. The gentleman did denouuce the
bred Scott decision.
Mr.. Davis repeated that the charge was
and the utterer of it was q slandarsr
On that floor. He was responsible fsf what he
said, here or elsewhere. He vas not on speak
ing terms with trS sditor of the Sentinel, but
was T,Ss AFRAID to have that synopsis of his
speech read, although it was not correct
The report in the Indiana State Ssatinel
was read. Its purport was, that no Democrat
could or would maintain the doctrine given
out In high quarters, that the Constitution car
ries Slavery into the Territories, and that no
man, taking that goound, could carry single