Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-12-24

There are seventy straight-out Democrats |
in the House of Representatives, and ten
Conservative Border State men, making
eighty In all, against the Radicals. Yet
upon all the divisions which have occurred
Of political character the Democratic and
Conservative vote has ranged from fifty
eight to siXty-fve. Where are the other
fifteen or twenty men, who are always alb
sent when their votes are required? 1t is
highly important for its moral effect ppon
the country that the solid Democratic and
Conservative vote should be thrown to-
gether in n mass upon all occasions where a
test is made, Our friends made a great mis-
take, in our Judgment in the commence
ment of the session, in not nominating a
candidate for Speaker, and concentrating
upon him all their votes. BY breaking up
and dividing their preferences among a half
a dozen men, they exhibited q want Of unity
and determination that was greatly to be
regretted. Much can he accomplished in
the House of Representatives in arresting
the mad projects of the Radicals, if the
Democratic and Conservative members will
take care to be present and act in a solid
body. Thus far they have not done So.
and, owing to divisions and absence OF
members, the Democratic interest has eX-
hibited weakness in the House instead OF
great strength, which it really possesses, il
1t was united.--CIn Enquirer.
Welike the foregoing paragraph from the
Enquirer so well, that we print it again for
the purpose of re-indorsing it, and of ac-
companying it with more extended re-
marks than we devoted to it the other day.
1t was generally regretted by the Democ-
racy of Ohio, that after all their Represent-
atives in ongress-Messrs. LONG, PENDLE-
TON and Chiffon A. WHITE, alone except
ed Mr.. MORRIS being sick and absent
had expressed their preference for Hon.
SAMUEL S. Cox for Speaker, that the rest of
the Democratic and Conservative Members
did not join with the Northwest New Jer
sey, and New England Democrats, in
throwing all their votes for Mr.. Cox. No
doubt all would have united upon him, had
there been a chance of election; but the
vote should have been unanimous even
without such chance. Why it was not so,
the Enquirer will find out when it learns
that a few men-its own Representatives
included-yoted against and prevented a
caucus nomination, because the choice was
likely to fallupon Mr.. Cox. Itwas very well,
as some gentlemen regarded it, to have a
tsolid vote, so long as it would compliment
one Congressman, but not so well if the
compliment were to be paid to another.-
Mr.. Cox's friends, wel lknow, were willing
to unite with those Of any one that would
secure solid vote. 1t is generally regret
ted, that this result was not attained. 20
We trust that hereafter this unanimity
may prevail. The Enquirer says: sour
friends made mistake in not nominating a
candidate for Speaker" True; but dor
our friends" still mistake" when they
cause letters to be written and published in
the Enquirer, indirectly charging Mr.. Cox
and Mr.. HOLMAN with being allies with the
Republicans, because they happened to
favor caucus nomination for Speaker?
Such letters as Potomac" writes, attacking
Gen. MCCLELLAN and making filings at Mr..
Cox, are not likely to help secure unity and
harmony in the party.