receiving the largest number of votes is hereby declared Speaker, and on that motion I call the previous question." Mr. Winslow and Mr. Pryor objected. Then there was a protracted debate as to points of order, etc., which lasted. till February 1st, when a Speaker was elected by a majority vote. What became of the motion to elect by the plurality rule; whether it went on the table or under the table, or, like Mahom et's coffin, was suspended midway between heaven and earth, I do not know. For a number of days the only thing discussed was whether the motion was in order, in which the most experienced men in the House, on both sides, took part; but finally the discussion drifted into the old channel-the Helper book, the hostility of the North to slavery, and the right of a State to secede. Extracts were read from Northern papers, and letters from Northern men were also read, to show that operatives in Eastern factories were not as well off as the slaves of the South. So much was the right of a State to secede brought before the House by Southern men that Mr. Noell, of Missouri, and Mr. Bristow, of Kentucky, made speeches against it. Mr. Noell's speech, as a legal argument, was more able than the one quoted from early in the debate, and went more into detail as to the opinions of the framers of the Constitution on the subject. The following are the propositions which Mr. Noell discussed:

1. That the Federal Government is a compact between the States, not as organized State Governments, but in their

highest sovereign capacity as communities of people.

2. That the powers of the various departments of the Federal Government have been arranged with special reference to the reserved rights of the States and people, and means are thereby provided for the protection of both.

3. That in case of any attempt or actual infraction or violation of those rights, the protection and remedy are to be sought through the means provided by the Constitution, and not by secession or nullification.

4. That in case all these remedies are appealed to and fail, and our grievances shall become so enormous that revolution and the overthrow of the Government are preferable to further submission, then we may resort to the ultima ratio of all people under any form of government-to overthrow by force the existing, and establish a new government to secure our safety and happiness.

5. That it is against the true policy of the South to dissolve the Union or secede from it, and on the real question that divides parties the South always did hold, and will continue to hold, under this Government all the power necessary for her security, protection and equality.

The argument of Mr. Noell was one of the ablest I have read on the construction of the Constitution on this subject, except the great arguments of Daniel Webster in 1830, in reply to Mr. Hayne, and in 1833, in reply to John C. Calhoun. Two of Mr. Noell's propositions are framed with reference to the attitude of the South on the slavery.

question. During the debate on the plurality rule, Mr. Colfax had brought to light the fact that the Southern members had entered into a written agreement to resist to the last ditch the adoption of that rule.

Mr. Botiler, in a long speech, admitted that he had signed such a paper, and with frankness justified it in the following words: "I do not hesitate to say that I was one of those, after the discussion arose in the House the other day, that sought out the paper referred to by the gentleman from Indiana and placed my name to it, pledging myself to stand here day and night-aye, to eat here, to drink here, to live here, and, if necessary, to die here—before I would give my sanction, as a Representative from Virginia, to that rule, when I am satisfied that its adoption would result in the election of John Sherman as Speaker of this House."

January 30th, Mr. Sherman, on his own motion, had concluded that, perhaps, the House could be organized by withdrawing from the contest, and he realized the great importance of an organization. There was no caucus of Republicans called, to my knowledge, asking him to withdraw. I had no personal conversation with him on the subject. His supporters were willing to stand by him. In fact, Mr. Stevens, on the 25th of January, had stated in the House, in substance, that we had been told that, unless we yielded, this House should remain disorganized till 1861, and that discord should remain perpetual, and then added: "Now, I do not know whether our friends here will

follow my views.

We have fixed on

an honorable and worthy standardbearer for our candidate, and we shall stand by him if this House were not organized until the crack of doom." (Some cries of "Good" from Republican benches.)

On the thirty-ninth ballot the Democrats and the Americans voted for William N. H. Smith, an American, from North Carolina, the Republicans voting for Mr. Sherman. Mr. Smith received 112 votes necessary to a choice 115. Mr. Bocock, in casting his vote for Mr. Smith, took occasion to remark, in substance, that he did it to make one blow to repress the "irrepressible conflict," and he thought the announcement of his election would do much to remove the dark clouds which lowered over the House.

January 30th Mr. Sherman withdrew his name as a candidate, and gave his reasons in a brief speech, which is worthy of quoting here:

"Eight weeks ago I was honored by the votes of a large plurality of my fellow-members for the high office of Speaker of this House. Since that time they have adhered to their choice with a fidelity that has won my devotion and respect, and, as I believe, the approbation of their constituents. They have stood undismayed amidst threats of disunion and disorganization, conscious of the rectitude of their purpose, warm in their attachment to the Constitution and the Union and obedient to the rules of order and law, they have been silent, firm, manly. On the other hand, they have seen their ancient adver

They

sary, and their only natural adversary, reviving anew the fires of sectional discord, broken into fragments. have seen some of them shielding themselves behind a written combination to prevent the majority of the House from prescribing rules for its organization. They have heard openly pronounced threats of disunion; proclaimed that if a Republican be duly elected President of the United States, they would tear down this fair fabric of our rights and liberties, and break up the Union of the States. And now they have seen their ancient adversary, broken, dispersed and disorganized, unite in supporting a gentleman who was elected to Congress as an American, in open and avowed opposition to the Democratic organization.

"Mr. Clerk, I should regret exceedingly, and believe it would be a national calamity, to have any one who is a supporter, directly or indirectly, of this Administration, or who owes it any allegiance or favor or affection, occupying a position of importance or prominence in this House. I would regard it as a public calamity to have the power of this House placed, directly or indirectly, under the control of this Administration. It would be, it seems to me, a fatal policy to trust the power of this House to the control of gentlemen who have proclaimed that, under any circumstances or in any event, they would dissolve the Union of these States. For this reason we would be wanting in our duty to our God and our country if we did not avert such a result of this contest. I regard it as the highest

duty of patriotism to submerge personal feelings, to sacrifice all personal preferences and all private interests to the good of our common country.

"I said here a few days ago, and I have always stood in the position, that when I became convinced that any of my political friends or associates could receive further support outside of the Republican organization, I would retire from the field and yield to him the honor of the position that the partiality of friends assigned me. I believe that time has now arrived. I believe that a greater concentration can now be made on another gentleman who from the beginning has acted with me. Therefore, Mr. Clerk, I respectfully withdraw my name as candidate, and, in doing so, allow me to return my heartfelt thanks for the generous-hearted support of all my political friends, and especially to those gentlemen with whom I have not the tie of a party name, but the higher one of a common purpose and sympathy. And if I can ask one more favor, it would be that in an unbroken column, with an unfaltering front and unwavering line, each of them will cast his vote in favor of any one of our number who can command the highest vote and who can be elected Speaker of the House." (Suppressed applause.)

Until the withdrawal of Mr. Sherman not a single Republican had wavered. in his support.

The name of Mr. Pennington, of New Jersey, was then presented as a candidate, and three ballots were had, and on February 1st, on the forty-fourth ballot, Mr. Pennington received 117;

Mr. McClernand, 85; Mr. Gilmer, 16. Whole number of votes cast, 233.

During the taking of this vote, and before the official announcement was made, great confusion prevailed, and all sorts of remarks were made by Mr. Kieth and others from the South. Mr. Kieth indulged in much talk, and, among other things, said: "Let me ask some of these gentlemen over here whether they think in going for a man who is in favor of the Fugitive Slave Law-an old-time Whig, as he calls himself that they do not demoralize their party by affiliation. You could not get this floating body of opinion

that was ready adroitly to ally itself here and there, it may be for a recompense. It is so said and we will soon see. You could not get this floating body of opinion on a straight-out nominee of your party, so you took him down and put up a man who is in favor of the Fugitive Slave Law, and the successor of Mr. Giddings goes for him."

Several hours of this kind of talk were indulged in before the announcement of this vote, when Mr. Pennington was conducted to the chair by Mr. Bocock and Mr. Sherman.

WE leave London for Paris via Dover, Calais route. The English channel is two hours' ride by rail from London through an uninteresting part of England, but it is by far the shortest way across the much dreaded Channel, which is almost always rough; ladies often grow sick when they approach the water, and some are terribly sick when they get on board the steamer. stay in London was a delightful one, and we expect to return after our tour is over for another week. We cannot speak too highly of the hotels of London. At the Arundel, on the Thames embankment, we get nice accommodations, with excellent service and

Our

meals at nine shillings, or $2.25 per day and no "tipping."

Our ride across the Channel was delightful, and now we are on the soil of France again. Paris is 280 miles from London by Calais. We left London at 8:40 A. M., and arrived in Paris at 5:40 P. M., or nine hours. We find Paris as clean and beautiful as when we first saw it in 1878, when we attended the former exposition. We do not see the twin ship "Calais-Dover," in which we crossed the Channel on its first trip in 1878, which was going to revolutionize and do away with the dreadful rocking of the steamer in crossing the Channel; but other improvements have been

made, and she has been withdrawn as altogether too slow, and is now offered for sale to anyone who wants a floating hospital.

Paris is always attractive, clean and beautiful, and this is especially noticeable on coming from black, dismallooking London. We secured rooms at the St. Petersburg Hotel; the table de hôte dinner is served in eight courses, and it takes an hour to get through; the bill of fare was in Russian and French, and we could only tell what was coming when it was served, which was in the order named : soup, fish, roast beef, carrots and cabbage, crab salad, pigeons, cherry pudding, jelly and cake and strawberries. The French beat the world in the culinary art. In London we were surprised that scarcely any vegetables were served at meals.

We were delighted with beautiful Paris, as we walked from the Grand Opera House, one of the finest in the world, down the Avenue de la Opera and about the city. The New York Herald publishes a London and Paris edition of its paper, and its offices are conspicuous on the avenue, with four large front windows. We learn that it is a great success. It certainly is a great convenience for Americans sojourning here. We get the news in a compact, sprightly manner, not only from America, but from all over the world.

EXPOSITION.

The American section is closed on Sunday. Americans in Paris do not believe in doing as Parisians do, and in

this they show wisdom. The notable characteristic of this exhibition is the conspicuous part of it accorded to the United States. America is the only great country that has participated officially in the fair. Hence it is that the hearty co-operation of republican America, both official and private, has been so warmly appreciated, and this appreciation has been shown in many ways. Our visit to the exposition today was a rare opportunity; it is held on the same grounds (although considerably enlarged) as when we attended the exposition in 1878, and looks, as you enter the grounds, very much as it did then, only the buildings and grounds are much more elaborately and artistically decorated, and this is an art which the French possess to a higher degree than any other nation. The French government voted nine millions of dollars to aid the great exposition. This is, to my mind, the most magnificent world's exposition that has ever been held. We visited our own at Philadelphia, the one held at Vienna and at Amsterdam. Germany is the only country having no representation. This is, no doubt, owing to the bad feeling existing between the two countries. At the opening ceremonies no official representative of the European powers were present. This, of course, is due to the fact that the whole affair was planned by the French republic as a kind of a memorial of the revolution of 1789, as also of the republic of 1889. The governments of Europe, based on the "divine right of kings," could hardly be ex