Mr. Fillmore for companions in misfortune. I propose to examine that platform only so far as to see whether it contains anything so important or so urgent as to require or justify the division of the South at this most fearful juncture. forts, and man your ships, and drive them from I know of but one law making grants of lands to foreigners. That was an act passed 27th of September, 1850, " to make donations to settlers on the public lands in Oregon." It was signed by Mr. Fillmore, as President, and without his approval could not have become a law. It is as follows: most formidable and vindictive enemy, because smarting under the sting of degradation and insult. Civil war, riots, bloodshed in every shape, revolution, and social disorder, would necessarily follow from such a policy. If they 1. The first object is, that "Americans shall are not to be made citizens of, and amalgamated rule America." No one objects to that. Amer-with us, keep them out of the country. Arm your icans have always ruled America, ever since our forefathers declared their independence of the British crown. The great body of the people rule America. They are Americans, (not Know Nothings,) having American principles, American ideas, and American interests. So long as the people rule, "Americans will rule America." If, however, it is meant to say, that a few foreignborn citizens holding office is incompatible with this great principle, I deny it. It is a great mistake for a few office-holders or office-seekers to suppose that office-holders rule this country. If that was the case, the Government would have ceased to be the popular Government our forefathers established, and it would be time for another revolution. I know that the little bustling politicians who are always after office, and who think that "thou shalt not hold office" is the direst punishment that can be denounced against a citizen, flatter themselves that when they get into office they will rule the country. But theirs is a great error. The first appointment ever made by General Washington to his Cabinet was of Alexander Hamilton, a foreigner by birth, to be Secretary of the Treasury. One of the first appointments he made to the bench of the Supreme Court was of James Wilson, a foreigner by birth. The first appointment made by Mr. Jefferson was of Albert Gallatin to be Secretary of the Treasury. Every Administration from that day to this has appointed foreigners, and nobody has ever found out, until Know Nothingism sprung up, that Americans were not ruling America. If, when we were only five millions strong, General Washington and Mr. Jefferson did not fear to appoint them to the highest places, we need not fear to give them a few small offices, now that we are twenty-five millions strong. "SEC. 4. That there shall be, and hereby is, granted to every white settler, or occupant of the public lands-American half-breed Indians included-above the age of eighteen years, being a citizen of the United States, or having made a declaration, according to law, of his intention to become a citizen, or who shall make such a declaration on or before the 1st day of December, 1851, now residing in said Territory, or who shall become a resident thereof on or before the 1st day of December, 1850, and who shall have resided upon, and cultivated the same, for four successive years, and shall otherwise conform to the provisions of this act, the quantity of one half-section, or three hundred and twenty acres, of land, if a single man; and if a married man, or shall become married within one year from December 1, 1850, one section, or six hundred and forty acres-half to himself, and half to his wife."-Statutes at Large, vol. 9, p. 497. That law ought to be repealed. It ought never to have been passed. I condemn Mr. Fillmore for approving it. But what is to be thought of a party that attributes to others as a crime the act of its own candidate? 4. The thirteenth article of the platform is a general indictment against the administration of General Pierce, containing many counts. The first count is for removing Know Nothings from office. Every Know Nothing is, or was, required, on initiation, to take an oath, as follows: "That you will not vote, nor give your influence, for any man for any office in the gift of the people, unless he be an American-born citizen, in favor of Americans ruling America;" that is, unless he is a Know Nothing, "nor if he be a Roman Catholic;" and "that you will support in all political matters, for all political offices, members of this order in preference to others. Having sworn to proscribe everybody differing from him in opinion, what right has the Know Nothing to complain if those differing from him proscribe him? 2. The denial to all foreigners of the right to be naturalized, as heretofore, in five years; or, what is a practical denial, the extension of the probation period from five to twenty-one years. They do not propose to exclude foreigners from the country, but to admit them, (the old platform promised them protection and a friendly welcome, and Mr. Fillmore, in one of his recent speeches, has repeated its languge;) and when they get here, to place them on a level, socially and politically, with free negroes. If foreigners are pouring into the country as rapidly as the Know Nothings represent, we would, under the operation of this rule, have among us, in a few years, several millions of white men, of the same color with ourselves, possessing equal intelligence, equal pride, and equal sensibility with ourselves, and yet degraded by the laws to the level of the free negro. Who would tolerate a proposition to admit among us such a number of free negroes? Not one. Yet it is proposed to make of all that number of foreigners the most bitter and implac-matters. able foes to us and our institutions. The free negro is not our enemy, because, conscious of the inferiority of his race, he aspires not to equality. But the unnaturalized foreigner would be a Again he swears: "That you will, in all political matters, so far as this Order is concerned, comply with the will of the majority, though it may conflict with your personal preferences;" that is, that he will submit himself implicitly to the will of "the Order,' "and vote as it directs him. If the Know Nothing is right in proscribing the Roman Catholic, because he owes obedience to the Pope in religious matters, the Democrats are certainly right to proscribe the Know Nothing who has yielded up his freedom of judgment, and owes obedience to "the council" in political Again he swears: "That if it may be done legally, you will, when elected or appointed to any official station, conferring on you the power to do so, remove all foreigners, aliens, or Roman Now, sir, I have never been a great admirer of the spoils system, as practiced by all parties to a certain extent, and by none to half the extent that the Know Nothings carry it-the practice of turning everybody differing from us out of office; but I do hold that no man who has taken this oath ought to be continued in office one moment, and allowed to turn out to starve, perhaps better men than himself, merely because they profess an unpopular religious faith, whilst perhaps he himself has no religion at all. sonal and political friends of Mr. Fillmore, spoke as follows:* If either gets into power, the Missouri restriction will, in my opinion, be restored. It cannot be otherwise; and I leave to others to penetrate the future, and tell us the consequences. Some of Mr. Fillmore's friends-the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNN,] for instance-say it shall be restored, and refuse to vote a dollar to carry on the Government until the refractory Senate and President yield their consent. Others of his friends desire its restoration, but seeing no possibility of bringing the Senate to terms, are opsouthern friends of Mr. Fillmore, who stand on this platform, admit that the Missouri compromise was unjust and unconstitutional, and ought never to have been enacted, but seem to object to the repeal, because it "reopened sectional agitaDoes it never occur to such, that the surest possible mode which they could adopt to keep up and perpetuate that sectional agitation is to denounce the Kansas and Nebraska bill as a great wrong, and yet refuse to aid in its repeal? Can they expect the agitation ever to cease so long as they continue to occupy that position? A bad law may inflict on the country less injury than a long and angry agitation for its repeal; and if the Kansas and Nebraska bill were as bad as they represent it, they can never be justified in contributing to keep alive the strife which prevails in the country. But it is not a bad law. It was a great measure of justice and right. It was but the long deferred payment of a great debt due to the Constitution of the eountry. tion." The second count is on "a truckling subserv-posed to agitating it during this Congress. The iency to the stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bravado towards the weaker powers. "" The language in which this count is couched must have been borrowed from Major Donelson's editorials against Mr. Fillmore, when the latter was making (no doubt honest) efforts to suppress fillibustering against the island of Cuba. "Truckling subserviency to Spanish despotism" was the sort of phrases in which he daily indulged. I may safely leave the brilliant conduct of our relations with England, the unanimous commendation bestowed on it by Senators, presses, and private individuals of all parties, and the successful and highly honorable settlement of our differences with that "stronger Power," to refute the first charge. And I challenge the production of one instance of "insolent and cowardly bravado towards the weaker Powers." It is not Never have our foreign relations been on a better footing than they are at this moment. The third count is on the "reckless and unwise policy of the Administration,' as shown in the repeal of the Missouri compromise. For the sake of comparison, I here present the preamble to the Black Republican platform, of June 17, 1856: true. 99 66 "Mr. Wilmot then submitted the following report: "The Platform.-This convention of delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri compromise, to the policy of the present Administration, to the extension of slavery into free Territory, in favor of the admission of Kansas as a free State, of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson, and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice President," &c. "Since the speech was delivered, the House of Representatives, on motion of Mr. DUNN, of Indiana, who is at the head of the Fillmore electoral ticket of the State, has passed a bill restoring the Missouri compromise-Mr. HAVEN, of New York, the law partner and friend of Mr. Fillmore, voting for it." What was the Kansas and Nebraska bill, that it should be thus denounced? The Missouri restrietion had always been regarded, by many able statesmen of both sections, as a violation of the "As regards the question of slavery, Fillmore will support the old compromises to which the faith of all sections of the country was pledged. If he had been in the pres idential chair when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed, he would have vetoed it. And, gentlemen, why do the Republicans oppose him? Simply because he is an honest man. [Cheers.] "Fillmore is censured because he signed the fugitive slave law; but he could not do otherwise, elected, as he was, by the Whigs, whose principles are opposed to the exercise of the veto power. He examined the law fully. been made; but it was his duty, as President and a Whig, to consider whether it was constitutional or not. He re ferred it to the Attorney General, John J. Crittenden, to see if it was constitutional, and he declared that it was What difference is there between the two? The Know Nothing platform says it ought not to have been repealed, but says nothing about the restoration of it. The Black Republican says it ought not to have been repealed, and says nothing| He may not have considered it the best law that could have about its restoration. This is the great and vital question which is agitating the country, and threatening to snap asunder the bonds of the Union. Lask again, wherein do the Know Noth-constitutional, and proved it in a very able and clear report. ings on this subject differ from the Black Republicans? Can the Know Nothings, if they get into power, any more refuse to restore it than the Black Republicans? Both say it ought not to have been repealed. It was then referred to the Cabinet, and they unanimously decided it to be constitutional. Now, I ask the Republican party what Millard Fillmore could have done but sign the bill-advised by his Cabinet to do so-its constitutionality having been proved? I say, if he had not signed it, he would have deserved impeachment. [Loud cheers.] This is the only objection the Republican party dare to bring forAt a ratification meeting of the friends of Fill-ward against Fillmore. The man who was born among us, more, just held in New York, at which several southern gentlemen, members of this House, were present, and addressed the people, Mr. Ketchum, one of the most influential of the per who is bone of our bone, and come from the very loins of free labor, shall we give him up for Frémont? Shall we make Frémont the standard bearer of freedom? [Voices. No, no,' Black Republicans.' Then groans were given for Frémont.]" Constitution. The South had felt it as an odious badge of her inferiority in the Union, and a stigma upon her domestic institutions. Those at the North, the whole of whose political principles consisted of a malignant warfare upon the southern section, had never regarded it in practice, had repudiated and spit upon it from the day of its adoption, down to 1850, and had never valued it except as a stinging reproach to the South, to be perpetuated in the statute-book, only for the gratification of sectional malignity. A large and patriotic party at the North, (the Democratic party,) though believing it to have been unconstitutional and unjust, yet, with the South, labored for its enforcement whilst it was on the statute-book, and with us voted for its extension to our acquisitions from Mexico. They (the whole South and the Democratic party of the North) failed in their efforts, and it was repeatedly rejected and repudiated on direct votes in Congress. Even the Nashville convention, which was denounced as a treasonable conspiracy against the Union, demanded nothing but the application of its principles to the new Territories. Thus stood the Missouri compromise at the commencement of the memorable session of Congress of 1850. The friends of the Union and the Constitution wished a settlement on the principles of that compromise; the enemies of the Constitution, and contemners of a constitutional union of equal States, refused to accede to such a settlement. During the session of 1850, the compromise measures were passed. Many in the South opposed that settlement on the allegation that their section was called on to yield everything, and to receive no substantial concession. The whole South, as we all remember, was agitated on the subject. The present leader of the Know Nothing party, standing now on a platform denouncing the repeal of the Missouri compromise, contended then that the compromise measures repealed the odious Missouri compromise, and that that was a substantial concession to our section. One of my predecessors on this floor, having opposed the compromise of 1850, was denounced for it at home on that ground, by leading members of the present Know Nothing party of the district. At the next presidential election, in 1852, both the great parties of the country agreed to make the compromise of 1850 "a finality." At that election, General Pierce was chosen President, and came into office with a distinct pledge to regard the compromise of 1850 as "a finality," and to carry out its provisions. During his term, in 1854, it became necessary to establish territorial governments in Kansas and Nebraska. In the bill providing those governments, it was declared, in section thirty-two, as follows: "That the Constitution, and all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void." It was not the Kansas and Nebraska bill that repealed the Missouri compromise; it was re pealed by the compromise of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill simply declared the fact that it had been repealed, and excepted it out of the clause of the bill extending the constitution and laws of the United States over the new Territories. Congress could not have extended the Missouri compromise over these Territories, consistently with the pledges all parties had given to abide by the compromise of 1850. The Kansas and Nebraska bill may have asserted a falsehood when it declared the Missouri compromise inconsistent with the legislation of 1850. But it is not competent for the present Know Nothing leaders to say so, for they told us the same thing in 1850, and in 1854 they advocated the bill which their present platform denounces. More than that; whilst the bill was pending in 1854, they taunted a certain portion of the Democratic party of the South, and took great credit to themselves for having driven those impracticable Democrats— "secessionists," they called them-to acknowledge that the compromise of 1850 did repeal the Missouri compromise. If time permitted, I could present some specimens of oratory of this sort: It is a singular fact, Mr. Chairman, that whilst the Black Republicans who denounce the repeal of the Missouri compromise are persons who had passed their whole lives in opposing, deriding, and spurning it, so almost all those who stand upon this Know Nothing platform now, denouncing the Kansas and Nebraska bill, are persons who advocated, and such of them as were in Congress voted for, that bill when it was pending in 1854, every southern member of the Senate but two, and every southern member of this House but nine, having voted for it. It found no more able or zealous defender in either House than the distinguished Senator from my own State, [Mr. BADGER,] who distinctly declared that it was demanded by the compromise of 1850. On the 26th of January, 1856, the honorable gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MEACHAM] Submitted to this House the following resolution: "Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the repeal of the Missouri compromise of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of latitude 36° 30', was an example of useless and factious agitation of the slavery question, unwise and unjust to the American people." This resolution was passed by a vote of 108 to 93, every Black Republican and every northern friend of Mr. Fillmore, except two, voting for it; and every Democrat in the House, with every southern friend of Mr. Fillmore, except one, voting against it. It seems from this vote that the southern Know Nothings then thought the repeal of the Missouri compromise neither "unwise,' ,"" unjust," nor injurious." Yet, in less than one month thereafter, the National Council denounces the Democratic Administration for the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, and these same southern Know Nothings are heard singing hosannas to the platform. The Kansas and Nebraska bill perpetrated no wrong. If the repeal of the Missouri compromise was a wrong, the wrong was perpetrated by the compromise of 1850, signed and approved by Mr. Fillmore, and constituting the main ground on which his friends claim for him the confidence and support of the South. It was no sectional measure; it was a tribute to the Constitution, a pledge of It is further objected to the Kansas and Nebraska bill, that it establishes over those Territories what is called "squatter sovereignty." That phrase, in connection with the politics of the country, originated from the admission of California into the Union. The people of that State, shortly after its acquisition from Mexico, in advance of the establishment of any government by Congress, and without its authority or consent, assumed to organize a government for themselves, formed a constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. This unauthorized assumption of sovereign power by the squatters on the public land was denominated squatter sovereignty. It is the only instance in our history in which such a thing has been done or attempted. The squatter sovereignty" was recognized, and the State thus formed was admitted into the Union by an act of Congress signed and approved by Mr. Fillmore. In the case of Kansas and Nebraska, no such thing has been done or attempted, and, as in most of the other counts of their indictment, they charge against us what their candidate has done. 669 issue might be presented between those who were in favor of sustaining the compromise of 1850, on the one side, and those who wished to deny to the South the most important boon granted to it by that compromise on the other, that the bill should be made strictly conformable to precedents in all its other details. Otherwise, the friends of the compromise of 1850 might be divided about details having no bearing on the main issue. The bill for establishing a territorial government for Washington Territory had then but recently passed, and had become a law BY THE APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF MR. FILLMORE. It was taken as the precedent on which to frame the measure. I place side by side, for comparison, the sections of the two bills, in regard to the qualifications of voters: Kansas and Nebraska bill. "That every free white tion to become such, and Washington bill. "That every white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Proviled, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years, and those above that age who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and the provisions of this act."Statutes at Large, vol. 10, p., 174. Comment is unnecessary. But it is said the bill allows the people resident there to prohibit the introduction of slavery before their admission into the Union. It contains no such feature. The thirty-second section declares its intent to be "to leave the people thereofclared, on oath, their intenperfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." If the Constitution allows them to prohibit slavery, then the bill permits it: if the Constitution does not allow them to prohibit slavery, then the bill does not permit it. The power of the people during the existence of their territorial government is a judicial question to be settled by the courts, if a case should ever arise involving the question; and whatever Congress might have said in the bill it could not have altered the Constitution, nor taken the question out of the hands of the courts. Whatever may be the decision of the courts, I will be content; for I regard the great main feature of the bill as infinitely transcending in importance any of the minor questions that can be raised under it. And I would rather trust the question to the people of the Territory than to such a Congress as we now have, and are liable to have at any time in the future. The next specification in the indictment is, that unnaturalized foreigners were allowed to vote at|| the first election in Kansas and Nebraska. But not content with letting unnaturalized foreigners vote, for which there was some excuse, as they had voluntarily come to our country, and formally declared their intention to cast their lots among us, Mr. Fillmore approved and signed the both of which contained the following: bills for the admission of Utah and New Mexico, * * * * * "SEC. 5. Every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory." "Provided, That the right of suffrage, and of holding office, shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, including those recognized as citizens by the treaty with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2, 1848."—Statutes at Large, vol. 9, p. 454, Utah bill; vol. 9, p. 449, New Mexico bill. Approved September 9, 1850. I do not approve such a provision, and would not vote for it, unless compelled to take it in order to get what I regarded a good provision of greater importance. I certainly would not have voted against the Kansas and Nebraska bill on account of it. When the Kansas and Nebraska bill was introduced, it encountered the most violent oppo-lating to the subject: sition from the Free-Soilers and Abolitionists-the enemies of the compromise of 1850-because it proposed to carry out the provisions of that compromise. It was important, in order that a fair To show that we were under no treaty obligation to permit them to vote, nor even allow them to become citizens, except when we thought proper, I give the article of the treaty with Mexico re "Mexicans * * * shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time, (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States,) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution."-Treaty with Mexico, Statutes at Large, vol. 9, p. 930. If it is so shocking to permit foreigners to vote who have voluntarily come to our country, and filed their intention to make it the home of themselves and their children, what is to be thought of Mr. Fillmore for permitting foreigners to vote who had not come in voluntarily, but had been whipped in, conquered by our arms, and forced into subjection to our laws? It may be as well to remark, that the first Legislature of Kansas, in prescribing the qualifications of voters, excluded all foreigners from voting who had not been naturalized. (Laws of Kansas, "Elections," section 11.) So that the ills so confidently predicted have not flowed from permitting them to vote at the first election. The next specification is on the "corruptions which pervade some of the departments of the Government." Shades of Gardiner and Galphin! Whither have you fled, that your deeds are so soon forgotten!! If any one thing above all others signalized the administration of Mr. Fillmore, and distinguished it from all its predecessors and successor, it was "the corruptions which pervaded some of the departments;" not confined to subordinates and contractors, but reaching to the very highest officers under him intrusted with the management of affairs. I wish I had the figures and the facts illustrating Galphinism and Gardinerism; but I have not, and must pass them by. If it had been known that Mr. Fillmore would be the candidate, this count would certainly never have been placed in the indictment. For integrity, industry, and fidelity to the public interests, I believe this Administration may safely challenge a comparison with any of its predecessors, and I shall remain of that opinion until something more than a vague and unsupported charge can be shown against it. Mr. Chairman, on a full examination, I find little in this platform to approve, and nothing that the warmest Know Nothing-the most ardent crusader against foreigners and the Pope-must not admit to be of less importance than the defeat of the Black Republican candidate. I appeal to no section of the country, but to the friends of the Constitution and the Union everywhere, to lay aside-or at least to postpone for a time-bickerings on minor questions, and come up to the great work of maintaining the Constitution and the Union of our fathers. Bad men are assailing them; laborious men are sapping their foundations; and able men are striving to destroy the fraternal feeling, without which the Union would be a curse. Can we not unite to drive out the vermin that are tearing out the cement which binds together the massive blocks of the edifice? If we cannot, then are we unworthy the legacy our fathers gave us. If foreignism and Catholicism are evils, they are northern, not southern evils. We of the South are not afflicted-if their presence is an afflictionwith any considerable quantity of either. The great body of the Know Nothings north have refused to let their southern allies rid them of their evils, unless they are permitted in turn to rid us of what they regard as our peculiar evilslavery. Failing to get the consent of their southern assoctates to any such reciprocity of kind offices, they have abandoned "the order," and joined with the Black Republicans in a war on the South. Let the southern Know Nothings in like manner cease their war upon the "peculiar institution" of the North, and uniting, for the time being at least, with the Democratic party, aid us to achieve a victory over sectionalism and fanaticism-aid us to maintain the Constitution and the Union-aid us to strike down the treasonable flag of Black Republicanism, with its sixteen stars, and bear aloft that old flag of thirtyone stars, whose increasing galaxy is emblematic of the increasing glories of the Republic., Let them conquer themselves, and all the old prejudices of party, and aid us to achieve the salvation of the Republic by the triumphant election of BUCHANAN and BRECKINRidge. APPENDIX. Extract from the speech of Hon. Samuel A. Smith, of Ten nessee, delivered in the House of Representatives, April 4, 1856. "Now, who, I ask, were those who elected that gentleman, [Mr. BANKS?] I have before me the names of seventyfive members, elected as Know Nothings, who voted for the gentleman from Massachusetts for Speaker. On the final ballot it will thus be seen that, of those elected to this House by the Know Nothings, or Americans, seventy-five for Speaker; and that gentlemen may examine the classifi voted for the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] cation I have made and correct any error that may be in it. I give the names as follows: "Know Nothings, or Americans, voting for Banks on the final ballot: "Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Bennett of New York, Bingham, Bishop, Bradshaw, Buffinton, Burlin game, Campbell of Pennsylvania, Campbell of Ohio, Chaf fee, Clark of Connecticut, Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Covode, Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, Davis of Massachusetts, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Flagler, Gallo way, Grow, Hall, Harlan, Holloway, Howard, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Miller of New York, Morrill, Norton, Pearce, bins, Roberts, Robison, Sage, Sapp, Sherman, Stanton, Pelton, Pennington, Perry, Pike, Purviance, Ritchie, RobStranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Todd, Trafton, Tyson, Walbridge, Waldron, Watson, Welch, Wood, and Woodruff. "To the first list must be added the name of Mr. Speaker BANKS, who, it is well known, was the champion of the Order in this House during the Thirty-Third Congress. The Speaker of this House, at his election, received the votes Nothings, and twenty-eight who were elected by the Aboliof seventy-five members who were elected by the Knowtionists, or Republicans, and did not receive the vote of a single member of the Democratic party." |