solved, That we will support no man for Speaker who is not pledged to carry out the parliamentary law, by giving to each proposed measure ordered by the House to be committed, a majority of such special committee; and to organize the standing committees of the House by placing on each a majority of the friends of freedom who are favorable to making reports on all petitions committed to them." 66 During the proceedings in the House the controlling influence of the Speaker over legislation through the appointment of the committees was affirmed again and again. Conscientious individuals urged in vain that members give up all hope of advantage to their views or personal ambitions by the construction of the committees, and unite on some one, in order that the House might organize and business proceed. Let us persevere and elect a Democratic Speaker," said one member;" a Speaker elected by a partisan majority, however small, must necessarily give a partisan complexion to the committees. Said another: I am unwilling to surrender the great power of the Speaker's chair without security for the future." Mr. Cadwalader said: It 66 is a subject of the gravest practical importance. There are no fewer than six, perhaps seven or eight, standing committees of this House, whose permanent organization by any Speaker who may be selected will determine whether or not the slavery question, in all its various phases, is to be a subject of continual and repeated agitation against the views of a majority of the House." It was proposed, as in 1839, that the House overcome the difficulties of organization by appointing particular committees itself, but this suggestion met with little approval. The committees were arranged and rearranged, plan after plan proposed, compromise after compromise made, much time and labor expended on individuals susceptible to offers of committee places, and yet it was impossible to elect a Speaker. Each of the two great parties stood firm and immovable on the one main issue of the contest: the Democrats were determined that no bills should be introduced abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia or in the Territories; the Free-Soil party was now equally determined that a Speaker should be elected who would organize the committees in a manner hostile to slavery. The struggle lasted two months. As in 1849, the hope of obtaining a majority vote had finally to be abandoned. A hundred and twenty-nine ballots were taken and the House still remained unorganized: three months of the brief life of a Congress had gone and not one step had been made toward transacting the business of the country: the whole government was stopped by the question which only four years later was to prove incapable of compromise. It was decided that after three more roll-calls the highest number should suffice to elect. On the one hundred and thirty-third vote, therefore, Nathaniel P. Banks was declared Speaker of the House by a vote of 133 to 100 for Aiken and 100 scattering. Other political considerations besides slavery were concerned in his election. Mr. Banks was a skilful par liamentarian, and had, moreover, much firmness and resolution; it was felt, therefore, that he would be able to oppose successfully the able tacticians who led the Nebraska men on the floor, in their attempts to prevent the admission of Governor Reeder as delegate from Kansas. The fact that Mr. Banks had been a prominent Democrat until the Nebraska issue was an additional reason for desiring his election, for this would prove that the Anti-Nebraska movement was not a trick to put the Whigs into power. He would, moreover, sympathize with the views of the American party on the questions arising under the naturalization laws. Still Mr. Banks was elected above all because it was expected that he would constitute the committees in favor of the Free-Soilers. He justified this expectation by putting a majority of anti-slavery men on the Kansas Investigation committee, which act practically delayed the settlement of the Kansas episode until after 1857, and thus gave time for the anti-slavery forces to organize. There can be no better proof of the importance attached to the Speakership in 1855 than the prominence given during this struggle to the fact that the election of Banks might mean the dissolution of the Union. The contest was preeminently a political one. As usual, nothing was heard of the necessary qualifications of a presiding officer, but candidates. were subjected to the most minute examination of their political views. A resolution even was introduced that it was the duty of all candidates frankly and fully to state their opinions upon the important political questions involved in their election. It 67 was still difficult, however, for all the members to grasp the Speaker's position: thus, after a speech dealing entirely with political questions, a member arose and demanded with surprise and indignant incredulity," Do the great principles and interests of our country depend upon the man who may be elected Speaker of this House?" The National Intelligencer also said: "The political power of the Speaker is exaggerated. The Speaker is always under the control of the House. We have the ludicrous spectacle of candidates being questioned one after another through the Chair as to their political opinions." Still in 1855 it was clearly and openly stated in the House that the Speakership was a political position. of 1859. 68 Four years later, on the eve of the Civil War, the House of Representatives went through a similar 38. Impending struggle. The public mind was in a Crisis contest state of intense agitation. Whether that agitation was to be increased or diminished depended to a great extent upon the choice of Speaker. The House was composed of 109 Republicans, 88 administration Democrats, 13 anti-Lecompton Democrats, and 27 Americans." Thus no one party had a majority. On the first ballot Sherman received 66 Republican votes and Grow 43; but Grow at once withdrew his name, 67 Cong. Globe, 34 Cong. I Sess., 318. appointed for the examination of candidates. 68 Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. I Sess., 2-655. A particular day was 69 Rhodes, History of the United States, II, 418; corrected from Cong. Globe and Tribune Almanac. and the Republicans united on Sherman. The great advantage of the Speakership was now fully realized. There was no need for members to remind one another of the political power which the Speaker possessed. It was clearly recognized by all, and the struggle on each side to gain that power was a desperate one. On the first day of the session a resolution was proposed that any one who endorsed the sentiments of Helper's Impending Crisis, a book hostile to slavery, was not fit to be Speaker of the House." The next day a second resolution stated that "it is the duty of every good citizen of this Union to resist all attempts at renewing in Congress or out of it the slavery agitation, under whatever shape and color the attempt may be made. And that no member shall be elected Speaker of this House whose political opinions are not known to conform to the foregoing sentiment." '' 72 As Sherman, the Republican candidate, had with some other members signed an endorsement of Helper's book, these resolutions were aimed directly at him. The ball thus set rolling, the discussion of slavery began, bitter and passionate on one side, eager and vehement on the other. The state of the country was reflected in the struggle for Speaker. The House was the scene of a confusion and uproar which the Clerk could not control. Threats of disunion were freely made. The galleries were packed with friends of North and South, 70 Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. I Sess., 2. |