s 
 .as 
 
REMARKS 
 
 or 
 
 MR. CADWALADER, OF PENN'A, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DELAY TO ORGANIZE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, 
 
 DELIVERED ON THE 20TH OF DECEMBER, 185^. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFF»'^^- 
 1855. 
 

REMARKS. 
 
 The House had been engaged fifteen days in 
 balloting, viva voce, for a Speaker; no member 
 having received a majority of the voles cast. A 
 motion to elect by the vote of a plurality, not 
 less than a majority of a quorum, had been 
 twice made; and, after discussion, had been 
 withdrawn each time by the mover. A motion 
 to compel a choice, by excluding candidates not 
 voted for on a certain ballot, and afterwards drop- 
 ping the candidate having the smallest vote on 
 each successive ballot, had been laid on the 
 (able by a decisive majority. 
 
 A motion to substitute the vote by ballot for 
 that viva voce, afterwards made, had been laid 
 on the table by a vote of 213 to 7. On the an- 
 nouncement of this vote, Mr. Cadwalader had 
 said: 
 
 " I congratulate the country upon this result, upon the 
 almost unanimous condemnation by this House of the prin- 
 ciple of secret voting — that principle upon which alone can 
 ilecret political organizations depend. I repeat, sir, that it 
 a a matter of especial congratulation to this Union, that 
 the House have voted thus unanimously upon this resolu- 
 tion." 
 
 On the sixty-seventh ballot the vote was: For 
 Mr. Banks, 104, Mr. Richardson, 73, Mr. 
 FcLLER, 34, scattering, 10. Whole number, 221 ; 
 necessary to a choice. 111. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Alabama, then offered a reso- 
 lution which, after certain modifications, was 
 reduced by him to form as follows: 
 
 '• Resohcd, (for the informal promotion of business,) That 
 this House proceed to the election of two standing com- 
 mittees^the Committee of Ways and Means and the Com- 
 mittee on Foreign AtTairs — upon the following plan : 
 
 "The Kepubiican party (votes one hundred and five) 
 <hall nominate four ; 
 
 •' The Administration party (votes seventy-four) shall 
 nominate three ; 
 
 " The National American party (votes forty) shall nom- 
 inate two ; 
 
 '■• That the said committees shall each elect its chairman 
 by a majority vote ; 
 
 "That the two chairmen, beginning with the chairman 
 flf the Committee of Ways and Means, shall preside, alter- 
 nately, o%'er the deliberations of the House until a Speaker 
 i^hall be elected ; 
 
 '• That the House devote one hour every day to the re- 
 ception and reference of bills and petitions, and the usual 
 le^slative business ; and 
 
 " That said committees shall be dissolved upon the e»e«- 
 tion of a Speaker, and their business shall piss into Vm 
 hands of the committees appointed by the Speaker." 
 
 Several members, and particularly Mr. Bo cock, 
 of Virginia, and Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, 
 suggested that this resolution, if passed, could 
 not take effect; referring to the second section 
 of the actof Congress of June 17, 1789, requiring 
 the Speaker of the House to be sworn, and all 
 the members present and the Clerk to be sworn 
 by the Speaker before entering on any other bus- 
 iness. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Alabama, proceeded to dis- 
 cuss the question; insisting, earnestly, that soma 
 informal organization was necessary in order to 
 prevent the public business of the country from 
 suffering through delay. 
 
 Mr. CADWALADER. I beg leave to dissent 
 from the conclusions of the eloquent gentleman 
 who has just taken his seat — that the House are 
 altogether wasting the public time in their efforta 
 to elect a Speaker, or that there has not been 
 profit from the developments attendant upon the 
 delays and apparent difficulties which have stood 
 in the way of its organization. We are here en- 
 gaged in the practical solution of the problem, 
 whether America can be governed by 5uc/t Amer- 
 icans as do not recognize the truth of two propo- 
 sitions presented to the House by the Democratic 
 minority, as constituting together the present 
 platform of their party. The first is perfect 
 equality of privileges, civil, religious, and politi- 
 cal, of every citizen of our country without ref- 
 erence to the place of his birth. The second i3 
 the unqualified right of the people of the alave- 
 holding States to protection of their propcrtv 
 in tlie States, in the Territories, and in the wil- 
 derness in which territorial governments are a« 
 yet unorganized. The Democratic platform ia 
 based on the recognition, not of one, but of both 
 of these principles; and when efforts are made by 
 honorable gentlemen to siparute these two ques- 
 tions, the Democratic party, rusting upon its plat- 
 form, says: " We cannot comjiromise either 
 proposition, but stand united upon both." 
 
 jNow, of what is the anti-Democratic party 
 
fomposod ? It is composed of three elements. 
 One portion deny both of the Democratic propo- 
 e-itions; another portion content themselves with 
 a denial of one proposition; the remaining por- 
 tion with a denial of the other. I might perhaps 
 mention a fourth class; but as I wish to speak 
 with perfect courtesy of those from whom I 
 differ, I will say nothing of the innominate or 
 nondescript portion. I do not stand here to dis- 
 (Mjss either of the two questions which I have 
 stated ; but I most respectfully desire to explain 
 (Kftain reasons why, m the present aspect of the 
 question of organization, Democratic members 
 cannot be expected to unite in any measure 
 which shall expedite organization otherwise than 
 through a majority of all the votes. It may be 
 that in this respect a different aspect of the ques- 
 tion may hereafter be presented; but the question 
 is not presented in any such aspect now. I will 
 state briefly what I understand to be the reasons 
 to which I have referred. We are taught to 
 believe by those persons outside of this House 
 who assume to know all the truths upon which 
 political affairs depend, that there are upon this 
 floor about eighty gentlemen who make the Abo- 
 lition or Free-Soil principle their governing rule; 
 about sixty who concur in opposing the Democ- 
 racy, but, in their estimate of the importance of 
 this Abolition principle, postpone it to the ques- 
 tion which involves the rights of our naturalized 
 fellow-citizens; and that there are some seventy- 
 five who stand upon the Democratic platform, 
 recognizing both the propositions which I at first 
 stated. The few remaining members of the House, 
 aa yet, occupy no defined or intelligible position. 
 Now, sir, a' remarkable occurrence has taken 
 place upon this floor — an occurrence as yet unex- 
 plained — casting a veil of mystery over our pres- 
 ent action, and exciting much more indignation 
 throughout this land than the mere negative 
 causes which have thus far prevented our organ- 
 ization. Every member of this House, I am 
 sure, at once recalls to mind the occurrence to 
 which I refer. When the honorable gentleman 
 from Ohio [Mr. Campbell] had received, as a 
 candidate for the speakership, a number of votes, 
 which is generally understood to have indicated 
 the true force of one of the elements to which I 
 have alluded, he withdrew his name from the 
 canvass; and, with a feeling which drew forth 
 approbation from every quarter, declared, mgen- 
 eral terms, that his honor, or the honor of the 
 House — we did not then, withabsolute certainty, 
 know which, though his own honor was under- 
 stood to be meant — would be involved in any 
 arrangement by which he could increase his vote. 
 In saying this, he referred expressly to the organ- 
 ization of the committees of this House as the 
 Bubject-matter of that suggested arrangement 
 which he repudiated with scorn, on what he 
 called a question of honor. Honor! that was 
 the word. Having referred to the organization 
 of the committees of this House as the touch- 
 Btone of this point of honor, every man's heart, 
 of course, rose to his mouth. A respectful a])- 
 plication was, however, afterwards made to that 
 honorable gentleman to develop the scope and 
 extent of his meaning, by making a specification 
 of the serious charge which he had thus advanced 
 in general language. That gentleman best knows 
 the rule of his own conduct. 
 
 I have hitherto been accustomed to believe thai 
 whenever a general charge is made, it is appro- 
 priate to require a specification. This is espe- 
 cially a regular inquiry when persons present are 
 to be involved in any investigation consequent 
 upon the charge. I believe that the gentleman 
 from Ohio would have recognized the soundness of 
 this rule of conduct, and would have given us th*:; 
 specification, if the request had proceeded from a 
 quarter from which he thought that it was rightly 
 addressed to him. But the request unfortunately 
 was made by a Democrat, the honorable gentle- 
 man from Tennessee, [Mr. Smith,] and as one 
 of us took the liberty thus to put the question to 
 the honorable gentleman from Ohio, he claimed 
 the right to make a specific response, or not, as 
 he might see proper. I agree reluctantly that> 
 until the question is asked by one of those 
 whose possible connection with the subject-matter 
 of the charge might be suggested, he has the right 
 thus to take the jiosition which he did assume, 
 and to say to us Democrats: "Gentlemen, I will 
 not submit myself to j/owr cross-examination." 
 Then our unfortunate condition is this: I have no 
 right to submit the gentleman to a cross-exam- 
 ination; neither had my friend from Tennessee 
 i [Mr. Smith] the right. But those who have the 
 I right — those anti-Democratic members whom the 
 I charge concerns — have not yet seen fit to ask for 
 I a specification. We therefore accepted thank- 
 j fully the brief, but not unimportant, response 
 which the distinguished member interrogated 
 I condescended to make. His remarkable reply 
 i was, in words or in eflect, that he refused to give 
 the required specification, because, by doing so., 
 he might obstruct the organization of the House. 
 This unquestionably implied, that he was appre- 
 hensive lest a premature disclosure of the whole 
 of the truths which now rest within his own secret 
 knowledge would impair the vote for Speaker of 
 the party whose success he desired. 
 
 But, sir, there have since been further develop- 
 ments — striking developments — rendering what is 
 known as important as any portion of that whichj 
 unfortunately, remains unknown. An honorable 
 j gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Banks,] 
 who stands on the same party platform as the 
 honorable gentleman from Ohio, afterwards re- 
 ceived an accession of a sufficient number of votes 
 to make every member whose mind recurred to 
 the imperfect disclosures of the gentleman from 
 Ohio, desirous to learn from what quarter that 
 accession came. Except for the sake of informa- 
 tion, this was no concern, perhaps, of those who 
 are not voters on that side of the question; bul 
 we, the Democratic minority, were at liberty to 
 regard it as a remarkable fact, that a gentleman 
 put forward by those who occupy the same polit- 
 ical platform, received this large accession of 
 votes. We were not, for any great length of 
 time, at a loss to know the cause. The honor- 
 able gentleman from Massachusetts, who received 
 this accession of votes, has told us — and no one 
 doubts his sincerity — that he has not, in person, 
 or, as I understood him to mean, through the 
 agency of others, been privy to any such arrange- 
 ment as the gentleman from Ohio had rejected as 
 dishonorable. The gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts telling us this, we fully confide in it. But we 
 are told, by his friends and partisans, that he had 
 been politically educated upon Democratic prin- 
 
ciples, and that he stood oricjinally on the plat- 
 form of these principles. However he may have 
 deserted them, he must, I suppose, while profess- 
 ing them, have acquired adcepiate knowledj^e of 
 the modes in which he would, if elected Spiakf-r, 
 be able to represent any constituency which might 
 happen to elect him. 
 
 Now, if it has been the ca.se that gentlemen 
 have forborne to pursue with him ilie policy 
 which was adopted with such a failure of success 
 with the gentleman from Ohio, we can say that, 
 profiting by experience, they have this time been 
 less imprudent. If it had rested there, we would 
 not, however, have been at fault in forming an 
 opinion as to their motives and purposes, if they 
 should by success become his constituents; nor 
 would we have been at a loss in forming a con- 
 ception of the charaetur and tendency of the rec- 
 ommendations which he would receive from those 
 who must become participants in his councils. We 
 might therefore have conjectured the character of 
 the proposed understanding as to the committees 
 which had been (londemned by the gentleman from 
 Ohio. But it did not rest there. Another gentle- 
 man fromOhiOjthe senior member of this House, 
 [Mr. GiDDixGs,] has since told us on this floor 
 what would be the precise expectations of this 
 constituency. I translate into plain English the 
 declarations of that gentleman thus: " Make the 
 honorable metnber from Massachusetts Speaker, 
 and he will constitute the Committee on Territo- 
 ries and the Committee of Elections, and certain 
 other committees, in such a manner as to suit the 
 views of those who stand upon the Abolition 
 platform, and he will compose the committees 
 expected to bring forward questionsarising under 
 the naturalization laws, and cognate questions 
 involving principles of civil and religious liberty, 
 in the mode which will best suit the views of the 
 party who desire to claim for themselves the de- 
 nomination of ' American.' " 
 
 The question thus arises: Are those few gen- 
 tlemen on this floor, who profess to disapprove 
 of the Democratic organization generally, but 
 concur with Democrats in desiring to sustain the 
 privileges of our brethren of the slaveholding 
 States — I say, are the gentlemen who compose 
 this portion of the anti-Democratic majority, to 
 be forced into the new organization which is 
 
 fledged explicitly by the gentleman from Ohio 
 Mr. GiDDiXGs] to sacrifice what these gentle- 
 men concur with the Democratic party in regard- 
 ing as constitutionally guaranteed rights of the 
 slaveholding States.? IJpon these gentlemen de- 
 pends the organization of this House. I now, in 
 a plain and an honest way, confiding in their sin- 
 cerity, address them thus: You have to choose 
 between evils that which you may deem the 
 least. An Abolitionist, or the Democratic candi- 
 date [Mr. Richardson] nmst, sooner or later, 
 be elected Speaker of this House by a majority 
 or by a plurality of its votes. If you deem the 
 choice of the Democratic candidate a less evil 
 than that of an Abolitionist, vote, if you see 
 proper, for the Democratic candidate. If you do 
 BO, you can expect nothing from him or from the 
 party which he will, in that case, represent. We 
 do not ask this of you. We can offer you noth- 
 ing in return for it. He will stand upon the Dem- 
 ocratic platform, supported on its two-fold base. 
 You desire to retain your honor; it is your con- 
 
 cern to judge whether this can be your mode of 
 doing it. But take the opposite course; allow an 
 organization through a plurality vote, or other- 
 wise, in s\ich a manner, that the choice will ulti- 
 mately fall upon thr gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts, and you \\ ill do indin'ctly that which yoti 
 disclaim the purpose- to do directly. You will 
 make an Abolition organization of this House. 
 This is undoubtedly the practical question pre- 
 sented. 
 
 Now, sir, those gentlemen stand, as I fully 
 believe, with perfect honor and sincerity, upon 
 the platform of not directly or indirectly pro- 
 moting an organization which shall subvert the 
 constitutional rights of the slaveholder. If that 
 be so, there cannot be an organization while they 
 maintain their present attitiide. Well, then, ha.i 
 time been lost in ascertaining this? I say no. 
 The questions we are testing in these ballots are 
 precisely those questions which, sooner or later, 
 are to be tested by votes on this floor. The 
 great, the interesting truth which the balloting 
 for these fifteen days has established is, that a 
 majority of this House are not in favor of a repeal 
 !i of the Nebraska bill; not in favor of a repeal of 
 l' the clause of that bill which repealed the so-called 
 it Missouri compromise; and perhaps not in favor 
 I of agitating, in any form, the slavery question 
 i; with a view to the sacrifice of the rights of prop- 
 i erty of the southern States, within or without 
 I their limits. Has this been loss of time ? No; 
 j; it has healed the wounded feelings of this nation, 
 I and has restored confidence in the stability of 
 ; the Constitution. 
 i I freely concede that, if the people of the United 
 
 I States were fairly represented on this floor, there 
 j' would be great force in the argument that for the 
 
 I I purpose oif' organization we must sacrifice ther*e 
 I ! important considerations, and some other im- 
 ji portant considerations of the pending canvass, to 
 
 j which I will not refer. But the Democrats on 
 this floor believe conscientiously that the people 
 j of the United States are not represented here. 
 1 1 They believe that through artifice and deception 
 'i the anti-Democratic ticket succeeded, as it would 
 ij not have succeeded if the Democrats had been 
 [\ opposed by any fair and open organization. 1, 
 jl sir, standing here as one of the Representatives 
 ' of the principles of the Democratic platform, was 
 elected last year by a bare majority, which, 
 jj judging from what has since occurred, wonld 
 |; have been increased more than a hundred fold if 
 r the election had been held last fall. The Senate 
 jiand the House of Reiiresentatives of the State 
 I of Pennsylvania, together, are composed of on« 
 hundred and thirty-three members. Last year, 
 i! of the members of both Houses assembled in 
 convention to choose a Senator of the United 
 States, thirty only were Democrats. All the 
 others were anti-Democratic. A practical ques- 
 tion of great utility was there taugnt — a question 
 like that which we are now investigating here. 
 At that time, with a majority of more than three 
 to one, those opposed to this small minority so 
 differed among themselves that they failed to 
 elect a Senator of the United States. 
 
 Now, sir, an election has intervened, and an over- 
 whelming majority of both branches of that Le- 
 gislature is Democratic. Last year, the minority 
 there stood as the minority here stands, firmly 
 together. The consequence was, an exposition of 
 
6 
 
 the incompetency of the anti-Democratic party 
 to unite the factions composing it in order to rule 
 the State of Pennsylvania. Their incapacity to 
 govern a part of America was thus practically 
 exemplified and tested. The result has been that 
 the present Legislature of Pennsylvania is Dem- 
 ocratic. The members of the present Congress 
 from Pennsylvania were elected when the anti- 
 Democrafic Legislature of last year was elected. 
 If the vole had been taken in the present year, 
 the result would have been reversed. The same 
 thing has occurred in other States. 
 
 We now know how the result of lastyear'.s elec- 
 tion was brought about. As early as the year 1851, 
 Henry Clay had put in writing his prediction 
 that the Democratic candidate for the Presidency 
 in 1852 would be elected. One of the last words 
 of Daniel Webster, uttered in October, 1852, 
 was, that if he should live, and be able to attend 
 the then approaching election, he would cast 
 his vote for the Democratic candidate, of whose 
 election he said that he entertained no doubt. 
 Thus both the distinguished loaders of the former 
 Whig party recognized its extinction, and proph- 
 esied the success of the Democratic ticket. This 
 had, for eighteen months before the election of 
 1852, been a subject of repeated and continued 
 prophecy. The consequence of that prophecy 
 was, that everywhere the Democratic party was 
 numerously reinforced by unsolicited accessions 
 of unfaithful allies. Corrupt, designing, calcu- 
 lating politicians, forced themselves into their 
 organization, and swelled their apparent numbers. 
 
 The Democratic party throughout the land had 
 been honest, and were unsuspicious. They had 
 been in the habit of confiding in the purity of 
 their local organizations. After the presiden- 
 tial election they did not suspect that wherever dis- 
 appointments had ensued upon the distribution of 
 offices, their ranks were filled with discontented 
 traitors. When those traitors united themselves 
 with Abolitionists, they did it secretly. So they 
 secretly united themselves with the party which 
 had for years been organized for the proscription 
 and disfranchisement of our naturalized fellow- 
 citizens. They formed in like maimer other un- 
 known alliances, professing all the time to con- 
 tinue in fellowship with the Democratic organi- 
 zation. It is now easy to recur to what was then 
 unknown and unsuspected. The Democratic 
 organization was dissolved without any suspicion 
 on the part of its honest members. The secret 
 conspirators had succeeded in uniting to them- 
 selves all who were discontented. The result in 
 the northern States was a temporary defeat of 
 the Democracy. The secret combination ex- 
 tended itself to the southern States. There, for- 
 tunately, the elections took place long subse- 
 quently. 
 
 Through the secrecy which had covered their 
 machinations at the North, the conspirators were 
 enabled for a time successfully to deceive many 
 Democrats, and not a few well-meaning Whigs 
 of the South. Our southern brethren were for 
 a brief season led artfully into the belief that 
 Abolition had not been, us it has always been, a 
 principal test of northern Know Jfotkingism, how- 
 
 ever it has of late been disclainied by a few. 
 The Democratic party stood their ground. They 
 knew, that when these anti-Democratic factions. 
 North and South, should attempt to form a plat* 
 form in order to resolve themselves into a party, 
 the delusion would vanish, the veil be stripped 
 from them, and the distinction between a party 
 and a casual aggregation of factions would b« 
 manifest. And was it not so ? When the dele- 
 gates of the so-called American party assembleij 
 in Philadelphia in June last, what was the result 
 of their deliberations.' It was this: The Know 
 Nothing or American party, so far as composed 
 of those who respect the constitutional rights of 
 our southern brethren, dwindled into a handful 
 of persons — a small remnant now represented on 
 this floor by some forty out of two hundred and 
 thirty-four members. Yes; a little more than one 
 sixth of this representation of the whole people 
 represents the so-called Americans who are true 
 to the constitutional rights of the slaveholding 
 States. 
 
 Now, sir, I am not going analytically into a 
 consideration of the late triumphant successes of 
 our party in various States. I do not even intend 
 to say what we expect from Kentucky a year 
 hence, or to refer to those occurrences on which 
 this expectation mainly depends. I do not wish 
 to get away from the question pending before the 
 House. I say to this handful of gentlemen, to 
 the Spartan band of "Americans," as they call 
 themselves, who represent that portion of their 
 party which is true to the rights of the South, 
 that it rests with them to elect, or to prevent the 
 election of, a Speaker favorable to Abolition senti- 
 ments. I use this word Aholition as a general 
 term. I do not understand specific differencea 
 between Abolitionism, Free-Soilism, non-inter- 
 ventionism, and non-agitationism. They carl 
 prevent the election of a Speaker who will organ- 
 ize the committees after the standard of the senior 
 member from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings.] They can 
 allow this result to take place, or can prevent it. 
 I am not sorry that they are able to throw into the 
 teeth of the Democratic party, as they do, that 
 we have not conciliated and will not conciliate 
 them. We do not conciliate them, and we will 
 not involve ourselves in any compromise with 
 them. We do not ask their votes; but leave them 
 perfectly free to cast these votes as their own 
 sense of honor and patriotism may dictate. 
 
 1 have not intended in these remarks to take n 
 controversial position; but have desired plainly 
 to state what 1 believe to be the views of the 
 Democratic minority at the present crisis. If 
 any one of my colleagues differs from me, I desire, 
 so far as he is concerned, to be corrected. I have 
 endeavored to show why it would at least be pre- 
 mature for the Democrats upon this floor to enter 
 into any question of a j)lurality vote, or other- 
 wise to complicate matters, in the present posi- 
 tion of the House. Should a time arrive when a 
 different state of things will be presented, the 
 party will be ready to define appropriately their 
 position. At present we do not perceive how 
 America can bo ruled upon any principles other 
 than those of the Democratic platform. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 897 854 7 1 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 897 854 7