Untitled

CLEVELAND NEWSPAPER DIGEST JAN. 1 TO DEC. 31, 1856
Abstracts 2818 - 2821
POLITICS & GOVERNMENT - United States (Cont'd)
told the South that all sympathies were on the side of slavery, and if
necessary should have support of the federal government. "The conduct of
such a man is an argument in favor of future punishment." (2)
2818 - L Jan. 24; ed:2/l - Mr. Richardson of Illinois got into a controversy
with John A. Bingham of district 21 of this state, and Richardson
was badly beaten up. Mr. Bingham can "use up" any "Loco-Foco" in the
House. (1)
2819 - L Jan. 24; ed: 2/1 - Mr. Haven of Buffalo, law partner of ex-president
Fillmore, is among the most obstinate and uncompromising opponents
of Mr. Banks.
Elected as anti -Nebraska candidate, yet he is found voting for Mr.
Fuller, who declares "himself" in favor of the schemes of slavery extensionists.
"He is to Mr. Fillmore as Friday was to Robinson Crusoe." (2)
2820 - L Jan. 24; ed:2/2 - No blame is attached to the conduct of the
southern "Know-Nothings" who voted for Mr. Fuller for speaker of the House.
We do blame the northern members who voted for him or for Mr. Scattering,
who is a mean and cowardly hypocrite. Scattering dares not openly take
sides with slavery but secretly prefers Fuller before Banks.
Banks has come within three votes of election on several occasions. Mr.
Moore of Ohio proposed to Harrison of the Hami lton district, and Dunn and
Scott of Indiana to change the votes and decide the contest at once. They
refused although they had declared their willingness to vote for Mr. Banks
whenever their vote would elect him.
"Is this fair and manly deal ing? It is just such fairness and maul iness
as we should expect from men who joined the Republican movement as a
means to help them to power while at heart they were 'Egypt ians.' Let them
receive no quarter." (4)
2821 - L Jan. 31; ed:2/3 - Lewis D. Campbell attempts to justify himself
for voting against the plurality rule, saying that he does not think it
constitutional. He gives two reasons: First, he fears that it would not
promote the principles which he advocates; secondly, that its adoption at
this time would result in giving the organization of the House to the
friends of the Nebraska act.
"His constitutional objections are not worthy of consideration. His
fear that it would not promote his favorite principles, betrays sentiments
which we did not expect from him. The rule would elect either Mr. Orr or
Mr. Banks. It would not elect Mr. Orr, unless the scattering votes united
on him. This they would not dare do. It "ould certainly elect Mr. Banks,
unless such men as Mr. Campbell should defeat him; in Jther words it would
compel half a dozen sulking members to come out from their hiding places,
and show themselves. Would this be an abandonment of the principles which
Mr. Campbell advocates?" (6)
363