Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1872-05-23
SPEECH OF MR.. VOORHEES,.

As a pretty general desire is entertain
cd in our community to read the remarks
Of Hon. Mr.. Voorhees,, Of indiana, de-
livered in Congress a few days ago on the
subject Of the Grant VS.. Greeley issue, VIC
reproduce synopsis cf the speech, pre-
missing. that however de!ec,able its dsnun-
Citations of Greeley. its palia,on of G rants
conduct is positively nausca,ing. xxi,
Voorhees,
Mr.. voorhees, rising to a personal ex-
phnation. sent to the clerk desk and he'd
rcas a newspaper paragraph from the
Washington RepGLican to the effect that
he wns haltng and hestntng us to the
position he should trke on the question of
snpportiag Mr.. Greeley, and that rs his
Democratic colleagues were all said TO be
~ favor ofMr. Greeley. he was likely to
lose the favn Of the district where his
voice had so ,Vng been potential.
He declared that he G.d not halt or hes.
itatc. lie had no, halted or hesita,ed when
he had not more ttan fourteen Democratic
colleagues in the house, nor did he now.
II he could ever be temnted to abandon
the principles Of his political life i. might
have been then. As to the nominee of
the Cincinnati Convention, whoever be-
lieved in The high protective tariff prioci-
pies OF its chief man might support him.
but be (Mr. Voorhees, would not. Was
he expected to support Mr.. Greeley be-
cause he had been the lifelong champion.
"s doctrines which he (Mr. Vuorhees) CD
posed ? Was he expected as Western
man. representing a Western labor:nc con-
stltucucy inat was ground down by high
protective tariff monopoly, to support the
great champion Of protection
Was he expected to support man who
had been the most clamorous advocate i,
NIL the land for that Ku.Klux legislation
which had desolated the homes of the
Southern people? IL Mr.. Grcelev's NOM
inatioh promised relief to that blasted ard
down-trodden section. there was not much
which he (Voorhecs) would not forcgo TO
subserve so holy and 90 benign purpose.
But Mr. Greeley had been the earncs, ad-
vocate Of the legislation which had para
Used the South, and was that the reason
why be should get his support
lie Was told that the present admins
tration had been cruel and unkind to the
South. but the administration had simply
executed a law which the Cincinnati nom
inec bad dictated to Congress. That was
all the difference between them. One was
the executive officer acting nndcr his oath
OF office TO execute tie law, ard the other
Wa nau who had no oath on bis con-
science in regard to the matter, but who
had urged the passage Of that legislation
Was he expected to support Mr. Gree
Iey because within recent date he desir-
ed = still further extension Of the Presi-
dents power TO suspend the hdbeas corpus
all over the South Was he expected to
support him because he was the earne..
and Urgent advocate Of the preseu. forced
bayonet election law that subjected every
voting precinct Of twenty thousand peo-
pie 10 the supervision aud in certain con-
tingencies TO the control Of the military ?
Was he expected to support him because
two months ago this very man had clam
. ored and RACED in his great organ in ia
vcr, Of e Law tn place the local elections in
the State of New York under Federal con-
troll. and also under certain contingencies
-tnder military control. Was such man
81 to receive his vote for the Presidency 2
Was such man ct 10 be in that high
place? Was that the voice Of statesman
ship which was called for at this hour 7
Was that the reform TO 20 before the
Union sentiment Of the country. and an.
pes. 70 IL in favor of q usan who stood on
The record for the .'inslienablc right" ofa
! State or Of q community 10 dissolve this
Gs:en Was he. as friend of the South
efn people, called upon TO vote for man
Who, during the entire Fall and Winter
Of 1850. wrote with all his acknowledged
rescr in favor Of the inalienablc right Of
any dissatisfied portion OF the country 70
bseak mp the Union and form another gov
evnmeui for themselvesf Mr.. Greeley
had not recsnted those opinions, but on
the contrary. in his book on. the ..Ameri-
can ConHict." published in 1854. he had
analysed them and defined them TO this
effect. that IL on consultation. convention
and the like. the South still desired. With
any considerable appeossh TO unanimity.
70 separate. il should Be allowed to dc
-. s
Mr.. Specr. Of Pennsylvaris. objected
that Mr.. Voorhees, remarks were not in
The nature Of . psrsonsl sxpiansticn. bu.
the Speaker ovsrrulcd the objection. and
Mr.. voorhees, proceeded with HE speech