Page images
PDF
EPUB

"would merit encomium of a reëlection"; but having mentioned it, the delegates and every one else promptly forgot it. The editor of the Bradford Reporter, who followed every detail more closely than any one else, except possibly the candidate, declared in refutation of the North American's interpretation, "we do know that the California amendment was not once adverted to in the campaign. We have no hesitation in saying that it did not procure him a single vote." Not even his constituents had yet awakened to the significance of the issue that was destined to convulse the nation a few years later.

Wilmot's election in 1846, as most of the press and political observers generally correctly deduced, was due to the popularity of the low tariff of 1846 in the twelfth Pennsylvania district, and to the candidate's own strong hold on the confidence and affections of his supporters.

CHAPTER XI

THE SECOND SESSION AND THE REENTRY OF THE PROVISO

DAVID WILMOT's appearance at the short session of the Twenty-ninth Congress was a little delayed. He did not take his seat until December 18, 1846; and with one great exception, he did not take a prominent part in the proceedings. February 6, he presented resolutions from the legislature of Pennsylvania, requesting the senators and representatives from that State to vote against any measure whatever by which territory would accrue to the Union, unless slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, be forever prohibited therein. This was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. February 27, he moved an amendment to the bill creating additional revenue to aid in the prosecution of the war with Mexico, providing "that no person or persons be entitled to the benefit of the reduced prices of the public lands provided for in this act except the actual settlers upon the same. His amendment, however, was disagreed to; and the bill itself, which Wilmot supported steadily throughout, was carried in the Committee of the Whole by a very small majority and decisively lost in the House.

2

He took part, also, in a heated debate arising out of a resolution offered by Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, "that the reporters of the Union newspaper, published in this city, be expelled from the House." The Union was recognized as an Administration organ, and the point of Douglas's complaint

1 Cong. Globe, Twenty-ninth Congress, 2nd session, p. 343.

2 Cong. Globe, p. 538.

3 Polk's Diary has many entries showing the intimacy of the connection. April 24, 1846, he speaks of drafting an article for the Union, adding that "it is the second or third time since I have been President that I have sketched an article for the paper." November 28, 1845, he notes that he

was that the report of proceedings on the floor, February 6, while professing to be accurate and complete, was in fact so colored by suppressions and undue emphasis as to be "false, a gross calumny, and calculated to bring the House into disgrace and contempt." The charge related especially to the Union's account of a speech by John Wentworth, of Illinois, and its alleged contemptuous and derisive reception by the other members. Wilmot spoke on Douglas's resolution,* declaring with emphasis his denial that the House had lent itself to "cast indignity, contempt and insult upon an honorable member"; and condemning the editor of the Union for "seeking through his reporters to bring the whole moral influence of the House" to serve his own ends. He indicated his desire "to do something to vindicate what he believed to be the rights of the gentleman from Illinois, as well as his own, and those of every member of the House" and his ignorance of exactly the course to be pursued-"whether by reference to a committee or otherwise." He voted for Douglas's modified resolutions referring the matter to a select committee of five members, and was himself appointed on that committee;" but a week later the chairman reported that a thorough investigation would require the examination, under oath, of almost every one who had been present, with full record of the testimony, and that "the entire balance of the session would submitted a message to Ritchie, who suggested changes-minor and verbal, Polk hastens to add. Dec. 3, 1847, he mentions having shown Ritchie his message on the Mexican War, but not until everything was settled, as "the old gentleman's passion to put everything he learns into his paper is so great that I did not think it prudent to intrust its contents to him at an earlier period." Later he was very much dissatisfied because the contents of one of his messages had been foreshadowed in the Union. "It is the infirmity of Mr. Ritchie that he cannot keep a secret." (Nov. 29, 1848.) Polk makes more than one reference to his belief that Ritchie is too denunciatory in his attacks on opponents; more than one, also, to his suspicion of Buchanan's efforts to dominate the editorial course of the paper. Even as early as April 25, 1846, he declares that "the truth is, the desire to get control of the Union has reference to the next Presidential election."

4 Cong. Globe, p. 351. Cong. Globe, p. 359.

not afford sufficient time to examine one half of the witnesses.' His accompanying request for discharge was granted.

The general attitude revealed by Wilmot's votes during the session is one of cordial support of the party and the Administration, especially in the prosecution of the Mexican War, at that time the most conspicuous and most controversial result of Administration policies. His record fully sustains the protestation made in later speeches, that he believed the war was just and necessary, and that he had voted all the supplies of men and money asked for by the President. Thus he voted, January 11, for the bill to raise additional military forces (ten regiments, with a term of enlistment for the duration of the war); January 21, for the bill authorizing an issue of $23,000,000 of treasury notes, or an alternative loan against United States stock; February 27, for the additional revenue bill "to aid in the prosecution of the war with Mexico"-a measure which was largely an increase of duties, including not only iron and manufactures thereof-which was in accord with his preferences-but also manufactures of silk, wool, flax and cotton, sugar, spirits and cordials. He was, however, in a minority; the bill failed to pass the House. He supported, also, the bill providing bounty lands and other benefits for the Army, and the resolution of thanks to General Zachary Taylor and his officers and men for the storming of Monterey, granting a medal to the General "as a testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of his judicious and distinguished conduct on that memorable occasion."

On the other hand, on January 22, he opposed Stephen's resolution declaring that the war was not waged for conquest or the acquisition of any part of the Mexican territory—a declaration which, if adopted by Congress, would have been a condemnation of the great Administration project for the annexation of the southwest; January 23, he voted against Vinton's proposed amendment to the bill establishing post routes in Texas, which again would have antagonized the Administration's territorial and boundary claims, implicit in

the bill; and February 1, he voted against Ashmun's amendment of a resolution introduced by Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, implying a want of confidence in the Executive by a request for information concerning the agents of the Administration in Mexico, and its relations with or agency in the return of Santa Ana. He also opposed, for reasons which do not appear, the motion for the creation of a lieutenantgeneralcy; and, probably on constitutional grounds, a joint resolution from the Senate to provide "some relief for the suffering people of Ireland" by a Government grant of $500,ooo; but on none of these measures, pro or con, did he go further than the simple yea or nay.

The one great exception to his otherwise inconspicuous course, and to his support of Administration policies, during the session, was his reintroduction of the Provisoan activity which rapidly displaced his vote and speech in favor of "free trade" as a magnet for public attention and for the special attentions of the editors of the Union and of the machine party press. The tone of these latter, however, was greatly changed. Immediately after his vote for Polk's great domestic measure, the tariff of 1846, he had been lauded as "the bold and fearless, the truly able and eloquent Wilmot"; but now that his resistance to slavery extension embarrassed the scheme for a large and sudden increase in the number of slave States and senators, he became an idle schemer, a mischievous ally, a hurler of firebrands and a disrupter of the party.

The first sign of the reawakening of the Wilmot Proviso appeared, January 4, 1847, when Preston King asked the consent of the House to a postponement of the special order so that he might introduce a substitute for the Two Million Bill embodying the Proviso as one of its sections. Mr. King explained his measure briefly:

The bill embraces two principal features-one placing an amount of money at the discretion of the President, to be used in nego

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »