Page images
[graphic][merged small]

From "Reply to Mr. Goode," delivered in joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives, Jefferson City, Missouri, February 2, 1855.

Sir: I would ask this Assembly what are the claims of David R. Atchison upon the Whig party of Missouri ? Has he not for twenty-five years proved himself the untiring and unrelenting enemy of that party? Is he not the right-hand man of an administration that has struck down every Whig official in the State? Has not the most intolerant proscription characterized the conduct of that administration in this State? and has not its ear been open to the counsels of David R. Atchison, and are not its actions the fruit of his promptings? What principles, sir, does the Whig party hold in common with David R. Atchison? Did he not sustain the message of President Pierce, vetoing the River and Harbor bill, in which large appropriations were made for rivers passing through and bordering upon our State? And is he not sustaining an administration which, by the veto of another bill, that for the relief of the indigent insane, lost to the people of Missouri a grant of land which would have amounted to near 500,000 acres? — a munificent donation, intended by the Congressional majority who passed it for the most benevolent and charitable of all purposes: the relief of those upon whom the hand of affliction had fallen, whereby the light of reason and religion might again shine into the hearts of many who were now an incumbrance to their friends and to their country.

I ask if that administration has not been the steady foe of the interests of the West, and more particularly of Missouri? Has it not lent its whole influence to break down the greatest project which will ever be open to the ambition of this State?-I mean the Pacific Railroad on the Central Route. It has lent itself to the North and to the South to balk this great enterprise. And we find Atchison aiding and abetting that administration, sustaining its action, and indorsing its opinions. Mr. President, is this a time, when we are planting deep great principles of National and State policy, to root them up by sending David R. Atchison back to the Senate of the United States?

[blocks in formation]

His advocates identify him with the protection of one, and only one, institution. Is there only one institution to be protected? only one interest to be promoted? Even that institution is safer with Doniphan than with Atchison. The safety of that institution requires prudent and steady guardianship, more than of any other. It should not be intrusted to the hands of any zealot of any man of extreme views and excitable temperament. We do not want fanatics, North or South, in Congress. Sir, it is manifest that Doniphan, if elected,would represent all the interests of Missouri, and not one only. But even on that one, I would ask what are the differences between Doniphan and Atchison? The gentleman from St. Louis has spoken of a party in Missouri that designed the abolition of slavery. I know of no such party.

I know no member of such a party. The three candidates before the joint. session-Atchison, Benton, and Doniphan-occupy now precisely the same ground upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Each has declared against the repeal of that law, and in favor of admitting Kansas with or without slavery, as the people of that Territory may indicate in their Constitution when they come to form a State government. Why then, sir, I ask, are such accusations made by the gentleman from St. Louis?

Spargere voces

In vulgus ambiguas.

Yes, sir, the object is to scatter suspicions among the people-to keep them in a state of agitation and alarm, in order that reckless demagogues may pluck promotion from their terrors and wring that from their fears which would never be given by their love.

Mr. President, I was endeavoring to point out the distinction, wide and deep, between David R. Atchison and the Whig party. I dwelt briefly on the stern proscription of the Whig officials by that administration which is guided by Atchison in its action in Missouri. As an incident illustrating the character of that proscription, I shall refer to Thomas Moseley, a highminded, manly, and impetuous gentleman, well known in the State of Missouri, and esteemed wherever he was known, who held the office of an Indian agent; and yet this worthy citizen and high-minded gentleman (the father of my friend, the member from New Madrid) was proscribed because he was a Whig. His only offense was that of being a Whig who was always true to his party and his country. Neither age nor reputation could protect him, and he was guillotined to gratify the thirst for Whig blood and the ravenous appetite for spoils which burned in the breast of that party of which David R. Atchison is the leader.

The gentleman from St. Louis has made professions, loud and long, of his whiggery. He has threatened to expel from our party ranks men who have

« PreviousContinue »