SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. PERCY WALKER. OF ALABAMA, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 18, 1855, 
 
 IN REFERENCE TO 
 
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 
 
 7 
 
 \ 
 
 
 WASHINGTON J 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE.; 
 
 1855. 
 

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 
 
 The House being engaged with the question 
 of election of Speaker, 
 
 Mr. WALKER rose and said: I ask the gen- 
 tleman from Iowa to witlidraw his resokition to 
 enable me to make a personal explanation. 
 
 Mr. THORIiyGTON. I will withdraw it for 
 that purpose. 
 
 Mr. WALKER. In taking my scat upon this 
 floor I had determined, as a general rule for my 
 action here, not to notice newspaper comments 
 upon my course. But at this particular juncture, 
 sir, in the condition of parties in this House, in 
 view of the great popular anxiety caused by that 
 condition, by the failure of this House thus far 
 to effect an organization — knowing the fact, 
 every member upon this floor, however humble, 
 however unknown he may be, becomes the ob- 
 ject of sci'utiny, of examination; and I feel it 
 due to myself and to the party with which I have 
 acted here, to vindicate my own conduct, and, as 
 far as I can, attempt, at least, a vindication of 
 that party. 
 
 I hold in my hand a paper published in the 
 southern extreme of this Union, a leading paper 
 in my own district — a paper devoted to the advo- 
 cacy of the Democratic party of this country. 
 That paper, of the 13th of the present month, in 
 commenting upon an article to be found in another 
 paper published in the same city, but which 
 paper supports the great principles of the Amer- 
 ican party in that country — I say, in comment- 
 ing upon that article, the paper I hold in my 
 hand — the Mobile Register — uses the following 
 language; 
 
 " The Doinocratic party in Congress has taken its stand 
 upon its principles — principles not of to day or to-monow, 
 
 hut principles that wi!l stand the test of time, and remain 
 the sure foundation of a party tliat appeals to the patriotism 
 of the people to support it for their own and the couiitryV 
 good. Tliey have no bargains to otier. They do not choose 
 to buy southern Know Nothings to do their duty to their 
 constituents with the paltry pelf of an office, or a contempt- 
 ible advantage in the distribution of the powers of the 
 House. Tliey offer a creed and a candidate that ought to 
 command southern Know Nothing votes ; but the Adver- 
 tiser and its small party in Congress prefer trifling to duty, 
 prefer to waste their suffrages on impossible candidates to 
 planting them where they will tel! against the enemies of 
 the Soutli; and they salve their consciences under this 
 solemn mocitery by upbraiding a solid bodyof seventy-nim; 
 Democrats for not coming to tlieircorporal's guard of tliirly, 
 and electing Humphrey Marshall. Oh, but they are will- 
 ing to go to Richardson, but they have met with no en- 
 couragement from the Democrats ; they have been treated 
 with contempt. We fancy no Democrat would have thrown 
 an obstacle in their way if they had walked up to vote for 
 Richardson. If they have met witli a rebuff', then, it is on 
 account of the trade they brought in their hands as a con- 
 sideration for their voting for Richardson. They are ready 
 to do their duty, ready to make common cause with tlie 
 only party that is availal)le to condjat Abolitionism, pro- 
 vided they get a valuable consideration for it. Out upon 
 such transparent attempts to hoodwink the people of tliR 
 South in reference to the true state of this ease ! The fact 
 stands patent to the public eye, that the southern Know 
 Notliings are engaged in solemn trifling, wliile they liave 
 had itin tlieir power to have defeated the arch-conspirators, 
 Seward, Weed, and Greeley, who are plotting against the 
 safety of the South and tlie peace of tlic Union." 
 
 In the issue of the same paper of the day pre- 
 ceding this, in another article commenting upon 
 the state of affairs in this House, the editors re- 
 fer to mc by name, and charge me with having 
 trifled in the discharge of my duty: they say, 
 that upon a certain day I am recorded as having 
 voted for a Mr. Davis for Speaker, and that in 
 turn Mr. Davis voted for me. 
 
 Now, sir, as I remarked before, under ordinary 
 circumstances, I should ha'ye taken no heed to 
 such comments; but I think the time has come 
 
4 
 
 when every man's position upon this floor should 
 not only be known to his fellow-members, but 
 made known to the country. He should make 
 known where he stands, and where he intends to 
 stand. Why, sir, this small body of thirty men 
 have not only been the target for the press of the 
 country, but they have been used in this House 
 in the game of shuttle-cock and battle-door, by 
 the Republican.^ on the one side, and by the 
 Democracy on the other. What has tlic gentle- 
 man from Tennessee [Mr. Smith] said ? That the 
 Democratic party was the only one in this House 
 acting upon principle. Why, sir, it is the prin- 
 ciple of party arrogance, of party cxclusivencss. 
 They met in their preliminary caucus , and adopted 
 i\ resolution which many of the calmer members 
 of the party cannot but admit to be an insult to 
 members upon this floor who agreed with them 
 on the general principles of Government, and 
 only differed with them in reference to a mere 
 matter of legislative expediency. 
 
 Well, what is the condition of this small body 
 of thirty men? and where do they stand ? Have 
 they acted thus far in a spirit of captiousness, of 
 caprice ? What objects had they to gain .' What 
 had been the result of persistency in their eff'orts 
 upon this floor? Why, sir, is there a man here 
 who has not before this realized the fact that, if 
 these southern Know Nothings, on the opening 
 of the session, had rallied to the support of the 
 Democratic candidate, (and here permit me to say 
 that I am glad to have met that gentleman in this 
 Hall — I say it though not belonging to the party 
 of which he is the standard-bearer — the compli- 
 ment extended to him is justly his due;) the 
 fact, I say, must now be realized by all parties, 
 that, if the southern Know Nothings had, at the 
 opening of the contest, thrown themselves into 
 the ranks of that gentleman's supporters, there 
 could have been no result other than to have/ree- 
 s&iled the organization of the House. A union 
 of the southern Know Nothings with the Dem- 
 ocratic party could not have insured the election 
 of Mr. Richardson, for tlie simple reason, that 
 :the two forces united would not constitute a ma- 
 jority of this House, and such an efl!brt would 
 in all probability have placed the control of the 
 House in the hands of the Free-Soilers. Then, 
 so far as the southern Know Nothings of this 
 House are concerned, the effect of our action has 
 been to stave off" and prevent such an organiza- 
 tion as the one mentioned. 
 
 Rut, sir, that party claims to be a national one. 
 It was said on yesterday, that its claim to na- 
 tionality is predicated on — what? On a certain 
 number of southern gentlemen calling themselves 
 
 Democrats , who have united with fifteen gentlemen 
 from northern States, only one or two, I believe, 
 coming from a State further north than Pennsyl- 
 vania. This union of a portion of southern mem- 
 bers upon this floor with a small fragment of the 
 northern representation, constitutes, in their ap- 
 prehension, a full and complete title and ground 
 to the claim of nationality. Contrast their posi- 
 tion, so far as the claim to nationality is concerned , 
 with that of the National America or Know 
 Nothing party of this House. Some twenty-six 
 or twenty-seven southern gentlemen with fifteen 
 northern gentlemen, coming from some of the 
 largest States in the Union, uniting for a common 
 purpose, standing upon a basis known to this 
 country, and pledged by their acts here to do — 
 what? Why, to abide by existing laws on the 
 subject of slavery; to resist with all their efforts 
 a renewal of the agitation of the subject in and 
 out of this Hall; and to vote for the admission 
 of a State into the Union, whether its constitution 
 does or does not recognize slavery as one of it.'? 
 social institutions. This is the position of this 
 much-abused and vilified American party of this 
 House; and when I use the term "American 
 party," understand me as only making applica- 
 tion to those thirty or forty with whom I have 
 thus far acted. 
 
 But, say my Democratic friends, theirs is the 
 only national party. National! Why, sir, its 
 claims to nationality rest upon a sandy founda- 
 tion. 
 
 Now, I would ask them, and in no taunting 
 spirit, whether they have the power to unite in 
 harmonious action its members from different sec- 
 tions ? I ask them to point me to any great princi- 
 ple emblazoned upon their present banner, potent 
 enough to break down geographical and sectional 
 questions ? 
 
 It has no just claim to nationality. It main- 
 tains, it is true, here and there, its name and or- 
 ganization, but it has long since lost that integrity 
 of aim and purpose, that attaclmientto principle, 
 which , heretofore won the popular regard and 
 favor. 
 
 It lives l)ut under the shadow of its past renown. 
 It can only purchase a nationality by unmanly 
 and disgraceful compromises. But even at such 
 a cost its claim to nationality is an empty boast. 
 
 North of Mason and Dixon's line it has shared 
 the fate of its old adversary, and been absorbed 
 in the swelling tide of Free-Soilism. 
 
 At the South, it is divided between the sup- 
 porters and the opponents of the Administration; 
 and it is a fact known to the country, that its 
 successes in the late elections, achieved as they 
 
were by the cooperation of Whigs — who, with- 
 out any coincidence of opinion, save opposition 
 to the American party, united with thcni for the 
 time — have been rather the result of local and 
 State issues, and a misconception of the aims 
 and purposes of the new party, than any gen- 
 eral popular recognition of any great, living 
 principle of the Democratic party. I ask if this 
 is not a portraiture of the Democratic party ? 
 Yet this is their claim to nationality, and because 
 southern men, having an identity of feeling with 
 them, withho4d theii* cooperation, they are ac- 
 cused as leaguing against that party with Free- 
 Soilers. As long as that insulting resolution 
 stares them in the face, and is not retracted, it 
 places them in a humiliating position. I ask the 
 members of that party, in all candor and kind- 
 ness, whether they are just in putting us in that 
 position ? 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Pennsylvania. Will the gen- 
 tleman allow me to make a single remark ? 
 
 Mr. WALKER. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. JONES. As I had the honor of submit- 
 ting the resolution to which he refers, I wish to 
 stale exactly what was meant by it. I will 
 merely state that the nationality of Pennsylvania, 
 instead of being represented upon this floor this 
 day by six national votes, would poll seventeen 
 for Mr. Richardson, if it were not for Know 
 Nothingism, which is understood, in my coun- 
 try, to be synonymous with Free-Soilism. The 
 nationality of the Democratic party in this 
 House, in my opinion, consists in this fact: that 
 the ivhole body of the Democratic members from 
 the J^orlh, and the lohole body of the Democratic 
 members from the South, act together here as a 
 unit. No other party here presents that aspect. 
 Now the gentleman from Alabama certainly does 
 not impute to me, or those gentlemen who voted 
 for my resolution, an intention to insult any in- 
 dividual, or any class of individuals. I am sure 
 such was not the case. My friend will search 
 those resolutions in vain to find a word about 
 the American party. We speak of the Know 
 Nothing party, which, in my country — and I 
 presume it is the same elsewhere — means Free- 
 Soihsm concealed, in contradistinction to Free- 
 Soilism openly and publicly professed. 
 
 I merely wish my friend to understand, as an 
 allusion was made to the same thing yesterday, 
 that, as I understand the Democracy, they only 
 wished to place themselves on a national platform 
 before the whole country, so that neither gentle- 
 men from the North nor gentlemen from the 
 South should misunderstand theirposition. They 
 mean to stand upon that platform without com- 
 
 promise or concession; they do it from devotion 
 to what they believe to be a grfeat principle, and 
 as a duty which they owe to their country; but 
 they never did design to cast any imputation 
 upon any class or classes of men. 
 
 I hope, therefore, my friend from Alabama 
 will understand that, in speaking of the Know 
 Nothing party, as a Pennsylvania Democrat I 
 mean to say that, but for that party by that 
 name called and known — and the records of the 
 country sustain me in that position — I believe 
 that Pennsylvania this day would cast a voto 
 "that no man would question the nationality of. 
 
 Mr. ALLISON. Will the gentleman from 
 Alabama allow me to put an inquiry to my col- 
 league from the Berks district? 
 
 Mr. WALKER. I will yield for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Mr. ALLISON. I wish to know whether I 
 understood my colleague aright. I understood 
 him to say that the principles of the Know 
 Nothing party and of the Free-Soil or anti-Ne- 
 braska party were identical, and therefore that 
 there was not a majority of national Democrats 
 from Pennsylvania on this floor. Now, if I un- 
 derstood my colleague aright, I wish to say that 
 I indorse the idea expressed by him — that had it 
 not been for the fact that the people of Pennsyl- 
 vania condemned the Kansas and Nebraska act 
 of the last Congress, it might have been that sev- 
 enteen national Democrats would have been found 
 upon this floor; but having condemned that act, 
 the Know Nothings and the Free-Soil party 
 united, and Pennsylvania is represented here 
 by a majority of those who condemn that act. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. JONES. What was my colleague 's ques- 
 tion? I did not understand it. 
 
 Mr. ALLISON. The question I desired to put 
 to my colleague was this: Whether I understood 
 him aright to say that the sentiments of the Free- 
 Soil party and the Know Nothing party were 
 identical upon the question of the extension of 
 slavery ? 
 
 Mr. JONES. Yes; but I wish to explain my- 
 self in three words, so that I cannot be misun- 
 derstood. 
 
 Mr. ALLISON. Oh, I perfectly agree with my 
 
 colleague. 
 
 Mr. JONES. What I meant to say, Mr. 
 Clerk, was this, that the national Democratic 
 party of Pennsylvania are willing any day, and at 
 any hour, to meet the Free-Soil party, as known 
 by that name, and to risk everything upon that 
 issue before the people of Pennsylvania; but when 
 a society, calling itself Know Nothing, is also in 
 
6 
 
 the field, withasecretoi-ganization,andconccaling 
 those very same Free-Soil principles — an under- 
 ground organization with an above-ground opera- 
 tion — between the two, the Democratic party is 
 left with only six Representatives standing; but 
 we are proud of those six. 
 
 Mr. CAMPBELL, of Pennsylvania. Will 
 the gentleman from Alabama allow me to say a 
 word in reply to my colleague. 
 
 Mr. "WALKER. Not now; I prefer to go on. 
 We are all, Mr. Clerk, in the habit of hearing 
 much said about principle and party, but I think 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Jones,] 
 in the preparation of his resolution which was 
 adopted by the Democratic caucus, and the per- 
 sistence of that party in adhering to that resolu- 
 tion, only show what is by no means uncommon, 
 that there is a proncness in all men to confound 
 mere principle with party. They seem to forget, 
 sir, that the two things are essentially different; 
 that the principle had its birth long before party; 
 that the party is a mere instrumentality to carry 
 out an established fact which is an idea of the 
 mind — a principle which, though it in fact has 
 no substantiality, though it has no tangible shape 
 or form to the outward eye, though I cannot hold 
 it in my hand as I do this glass, yet, sir, that it 
 has within itself a power and a vitality of its own, 
 whilst, on the contrary, a party is a mere means 
 for the purpose of carrying out and putting life 
 into that principle. 
 
 The gentleman says that the Democratic party 
 stands upon principle. Now, what can you hear 
 from their own ranks, from the more frank among 
 them, upon this very subject of organizing this 
 House, and of the object they had in view in 
 placing themselves upon that platform ? Why, 
 that they had no hope of obtaining the organiza- 
 tion of this House; that many of them do not 
 desire it; that they look at it as a hazardous thing 
 for them in a party point of view; that the coun- 
 try may possibly hold them responsible for what- 
 ever legislation may take place in this Hall; and 
 that, therefore, as a mere party movement, it 
 may not be wise and politic for them to take the 
 organization. And yet, forsooth, their action is 
 based upon a naked, great conservative principle ! 
 Arc there not men upon this floor who occupy 
 the same ground with themselves upon this prin- 
 ciple.' — a principle going back, if you please, to 
 the great vital doctrine of State rights; an indi- 
 rect recognition of the sovereignty of these States; 
 that this Union, all glorious as it has been, se- 
 curing, as it has done heretofore, all imaginable 
 blessings, and serving as a means to carry out the 
 purposes of its founders; yet that, after all, it is 
 
 not the Union — the Union alone, upon which th 
 reflecting man of this country bases his hopes 
 and rests his affections. With him the Union is 
 secondary in importance to the principles it was 
 designed to perpetuate and establish, and is only 
 worthy of the just man's and the patriot's rever- 
 ence and support so long as it serves to carry out 
 and perpetuates those principles. 
 
 But I am wandering from my object. I spoke, 
 in the first place, of the condition of these parties 
 in the House. I will now, as I am upon the floor, 
 say something of the condition of parties in the 
 country, to account for the present aspect of polit- 
 ical affairs in this country. How happens it, sir, 
 that there is in fact no national party now ? How 
 happens it that one great party has disappeared 
 from the field of action, and that another party, 
 which so long held sway upon the popular heart 
 of this country, has lost its claim to nationality .' 
 How happens it that we are broken up into seg- 
 ments and fragments? How happens it that we 
 arc all becoming more or less sectionalized in our 
 professions ? Why, sn-, one of the reasons I will 
 give you: Your party leaders — the men who 
 molded the public thought, and directed the pop- 
 ular heart, the men who made parties and gov- 
 erned them by that power which is the result of 
 rare combinations of mental and moral qualities, 
 have left the stage of action. 
 
 We no longer have the firm-handed, granite- 
 willed Jackson, with his strongly-marked indi- 
 viduality, to head the columns of the Democracy 
 and lead them on to victory. 
 
 The name and memory of Clay still hold a 
 spell on our minds and hearts, but the strains of 
 his almost matchless eloquence, flowing out, as 
 they did, at times, with the swell and grandeur of 
 some mighty symphony, no longer fill the Senate 
 House, the field of his fame, the point from 
 which his words went out over the land, stirring 
 the hearts of his followers as with a clarion and 
 summoning them to his standard. 
 
 Web.ster, to use his own words, "still lives," 
 but it is in the record of his great thoughts and 
 grand eloquence which form a part of our na- 
 tional renown. But his firm-set figure, his pon- 
 derous brow, his cavernous and inward-looking 
 eye, are no longer beheld in that august Cham- 
 ber, the sceneof his great conflicts and triumphs. 
 His deep, sonorous voice, rolling and swelling 
 under the tide of that wondrous eloquence, which 
 by turns won the imagination, captured the rea- 
 son, and subdued the heart, is no longer heard 
 within those walls consecrated by his genius. 
 The master-mind, the controlling, ay, and the 
 restraining spirit of New England, no longer 
 
lives and labors to direct and guide her people, 
 and save her from aggressions and encroach- 
 ments upon her sisters and her equals. 
 
 And the pure patriot — the great statesman of 
 the South — the man in whose policy, seZ/had no 
 place, save as his personal fame was identified 
 with her glory and prosperity; he who never gave 
 up to party what was meant for mankind — whose 
 whole life was unsullied by a stain — whose noble 
 nature was never seduced by office or honors, or 
 intimidated by the fear of calumny or detraction 
 from the path of right; he who gave all his great 
 powers to the 'task of securing to the South the 
 full measure of her rights, and to the inculcation 
 of those true ideas of government upon which 
 rest the sovereignty of the States, and the con- 
 sequent perpetuity of the Union; the man who 
 never trimmed or changed his policy to suit party 
 demands or exigencies; the man whose larg vir- 
 tues made him the object of the hate and envy of 
 party hucksters and time-serving demagogues, — 
 the great Calhoun no longer lives to counsel and 
 to warn us. 
 
 The Ithuricl spear of his living intellect, with 
 which, in his indignant scorn, he pierced through 
 corrupt party designs, and probed to the quick, 
 purchasable party demagogues, no longer gleams 
 and flashes; it has been shivered and broken by 
 the scythe of Death. 
 
 The three great representative men of the na- 
 tion — the grand triumvirate, who, though never 
 holding the reins of Government in their hands, 
 though never winning the place and title of Pres- 
 ident, yet stood higher than those upon whom 
 popular favor cast the office, and who, by the 
 power of their intellects, molded and directed 
 popular thought and ruled the rulers, — have been 
 taken away. And who remain to head and lead 
 parties ? 
 
 Between those men of whom [ have spoken, 
 and those who now aspire to be party leaders in 
 this countiy, what a wide stretch of barren waste 
 there is! Some of them are still laboring in the 
 noise and confusion of past controversies. Some 
 have lost their usefulness, their dignity, and their 
 patriotism in the dark cess-pools of abolitionism. 
 There is now no man in this country who, so to 
 speak, has those large and grand national propor- 
 tions whiih attract to himself the common eye, 
 and center around him the common hopes of the 
 country. Tliis, then, is one of the chief reasons, 
 in my judgment, for the present condition of 
 things. The country has now no leader. There 
 is now no one great man, standing out — giant- 
 like — commanding and enforcing popular regard 
 and authority. It was natural, when these par- 
 
 ties had lost their old leaders, when their places 
 were filled by ambitious men of small stature, that 
 affairs should assume their present aspect; that, 
 in the absence of those controlling men, we should 
 be broken up into fragments and sections. 
 
 But, sir, I cannot indulge in this train of re- 
 marks further, as I should both consume too much 
 time and weary the patience of the House. But 
 the fact has manifested itself in this House, for 
 the first time in its history, that an attempt is 
 making to organize it upon a merely sectional 
 question. Why, sir, we yesterday heard a speech 
 from a prominent member of this House, [Mr. 
 Banks,] whose position is identified, as we are 
 informed by himself— at least such must be the 
 inference of his remarks — with a great sectional 
 movement, and places himself upon that move- 
 ment to claim the support of a great party in this 
 House. He rests his claim for support upon 
 the staunchness of his anti-slavery opinions, 
 boasting here, that from the State of Massachu- 
 setts, after his resistance to the Kansas-Nebraska 
 act, he had been i-eturned by an overwhelming 
 majority. Thus claiming, or at least allowuig us 
 to infer, that he predicated his success upon the 
 fact that he was identified with this great sectional 
 movement. The other day we had placed upon 
 our table a speech coming from one of those dan- 
 dies in belle-lettres scholarships — a speech written 
 for the purpose of inducing the northern mind to 
 believe that the slave power of the South had 
 been the great grasping power in this Confeder- 
 acy, — that, from the foundation of the Govern- 
 ment to the present time, the slave power had 
 appropriated all the offices and power of this 
 Government. Sir, what does all this mean ? 
 
 Members from the North seem to think that 
 the reason why the South has had so large a share 
 in our governmental operations lies in the insti- 
 tution of slavery. I tell them they are mistaken. 
 It lies behind that institution. It is to be found 
 in the administrative faculty belonging to the 
 early settlers of the South — the Cavaliers and 
 Huguenots — and which their descendants have 
 inherited. 
 
 Why, sir, I might ask, what great sentiment, 
 what great governmental principle, originated at 
 the North ? The idea of the separation of Cluu-ch 
 and State, a.s a foundation republican principle, is 
 to be found in Jefferson's bill. The right of uni- 
 versal suffrage had its birth in Maryland . The 
 parallelism of State rights and Federal power 
 originated in North Carolina and other southern 
 States. 
 
 These men of the North talk here about tho 
 aggressions of the South, and they cite the 
 
8 
 
 Kansas-Nebraska act of the last session. Well, 
 sir, see how history exposes their inconsistency. 
 After the adoption of the Missouri compromise, 
 in 1820, what took place in the North ? Why — 
 if I mistake not — the North slew, with a single 
 exception, every one of its members who voted 
 for that compromise. And again, sir, when the 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, which repealed that com- 
 promise, came before the people of the northern 
 States, what do we again see } Why, sir, with 
 only an exception here and there, they slew the 
 men from that section who voted on this floor to 
 strike out what in times past had been an offen- 
 sive measure — to wit, the Missouri compromise 
 line — thus showing a singular unsteadfastness. 
 And yet, Mr. Clerk, is it not apparent that what 
 was wrong in 1820 could not have well been 
 right in 1854? And if a northern man were cut 
 down at the one time on account of his favoring 
 the Missouri compromise, believed at that time 
 to be essential to the preservation of the national 
 peace and quiet — if he were cut down for his vote 
 in support of that measure, is it not passing 
 strange, when the followers of these men on this 
 floor in the year 1854 vote to repeal what the 
 North then regarded as an objectionable measure, 
 that they should, for that very act, meet with the 
 same fate which had befallen their predecessors? 
 Mr. Clerk, I have said far more than I dreamed 
 of saying when I first rose to address this House. 
 I have spoken discursively and wanderingly, and 
 I have now but a few words more to say. I am 
 nnxious to see this House organized. I am 
 anxious that this House shall not pass under the 
 control of the Republican party. I shall feel it 
 my duty to use every possible effort to prevent 
 such a consummation as that. And for the pur- 
 pose of indicating here, and elsewhere, my own 
 readiness to act with all men who are really con- 
 servative; to act with men who are opposed to 
 further disturbance on this exciting subject of 
 slavery; to act with men who still acknowledge 
 their obligations to the Federal Constitution; to 
 net with men who are prepared to abide by the 
 existing laws on the subject of slavery; I say 
 
 here— and, if I am not mistaken, I think that in 
 this I am speaking for almost the whole of the 
 men with whom I have thus far acted — I am will- 
 ing to go into a conference with all men who are 
 prepared to stand on that basis, to confer together, 
 and see if they cannot devise some plan by which 
 there may be a safe, healthful, and conservative 
 organization of this House. 
 
 Now, Mr. Clerk, it seems to me that the 
 struggle between the dominant parties in this 
 House is simply this: whether the great principle 
 of non-interference with the rights of any portion 
 of this Confederacy — States or Territories — save 
 by the parties interested in them, is the only true 
 Republican doctrine? And, sir, that, at least, is 
 my political creed on this subject. And, unless 
 I have misunderstood the gentlemen who have 
 thus far acted with me, they occupy the same 
 ground; and believing this, I am willing to confer 
 with those members of this House who stand 
 upon this general platform with me — to meet and 
 confer with them, not as parties struggling only 
 for personal or political ascendency, but as men 
 of any or all parties, actuated only by one com- 
 mon desire to serve the great interests of the 
 country, and to insure a true and conservative 
 organization of this House. I say, sir, that 
 unless I am greatly mistaken in the feelings and 
 the opinions of those with whom I have acted, I 
 am but expressing their own thoughts, and giving 
 utterance to their own wishes and their own 
 hopes. And I submit this in taking my seat — 
 and I beg that my words may be heard and 
 understood — that if no organization be effected 
 this day, those members of the House, coming 
 from what sections they may, who are willing to 
 abide by existing laws on the subject of slavery, 
 who feel it their duty to vote for the admission 
 of a State into this Union whether its constitu- 
 tion does or does not recognize slavery as a part 
 of its social system, meet in this Hall this even- 
 ing, at half past seven o'clock, for the purpose 
 of having a conference to devise some plan by 
 which a conservative organization may be ef- 
 fected here. 
 
UBB^B^°^^^S¥ 
 
 »»!'-; 897 896 _^