10 FEEE DEBATE IN CONGRESS THREATENED— ABOLITION LEADERS AND THEIR REVOLUTIONARY SCHEMES UNMASKED. SPEECH OP SAMUEL S. COX, OF OHIO, DELIVEEED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 6, 1S64. The House having under consideration the reso- lution to expel Mr. Long, of Ohio — Mr. COX said: Mr. ^PEAKEB : I approach this matter with becoming seriousness. The extraordinary spectacle is presented of our Speaker descend- ing from the chair to make a motion to expel one of the members ©f this House for words spoken in debate. The occasion calls for more than the usual gravity of deliberation. I was not present when my colleague (Mr. Long^ made the remarks which have called out this reselutiou. I am told by members around me that his remarks do not bear the interpreta- tion given to them by the speech and resolu- tion of the honorable Speaker. Before a res- olution of this startling nature was introduced we should have had the official report of those remarks in the Globe. If action be demanded for the expulsion of a Representative of the people, for the exercise of his constitutional right of free debate, v^ should have the most authentic record of that debate. As I am in- formed, the languag6l of my colleague was so qualified as to make it far less objectionable than the statement of it in the resolution. Still, sir, it may be obnoxious, and yet there may be no just ground for this proceeding of expulsion. Had I been in my seat yesterday, with all due respect to my colleague, I should have promptly risen and disavowed, oh behalf of all the delegation from Ohio with whom I have conversed, any sentiments uttered by him or any one else, looking to the recognition of the confederate gover;ament as an independent Power. So far as I can learn, there is not a member acting with this side of the House, unless it be my colleague, who is not opposed in every conceivable view, directly or indi- rectly, to such recognition. I speak earnestly and consciously of this, because an attempt was made yesterday to make partisan capital for the other side out of the speech of my colleague. But it should be borne in mind that he said that he spoke only for himself, and not for his party. Ha was frank, true, and honest in that avowal. He did not speak, nor propose to speak, for his party. He did not speak for his Demo- cratic colleagues. Very recently we have had a convention of the Democratic people of Ohio, representing over one hundred and eighty-five thousand voters. In that convention, sir, no sentiments were uttered and none would have been tol- erated like those to which exception has been tak^n. On the contrary, the only person whose name was presented to that convention as a delegate to the Democratic national con- vention, who avowed sentiments looking to- ward the recognition of the confederate States and who printed a learned and able pamphlet to circulate among the members of the con- vention, in exposition of his views, received but a few votes among several hundred in that convention ; showing that the Democrats of Ohio, for whom I speak, are not prepared in any shape, however plausible, to accept the disintegrating doctrine to which this resolu- tion refers. On the contrary, the Democratic 'people of that State, when the war came, which they endeavored but failed to avert, rallied to the defence of this Government. They sustained it in every emergency. We, the members upon this side of the House, had and yet have our brothers and our friends in the army doing battle for the Republic, al- though they do not agree with the peculiar African policies pursued by this Administra- tion. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Abyssin^ ian. [Laughter.] Mr. COX. I think that idle pleasantry of my friend over the way is nearly worn ©at. It was very stale when it was started heife-by him, and it does not become the gravity of this occasion, however much it may accord with his instincts. It proceeds rather from the brains which were located by a. brother ' member in his knuckles, than from aajr other brains which he has. [Laughter.] Mr. WASHBURNE, of lUinoiaw Battear have brains in yoar knuckles tlian bo brains at all. [Cries of* 'Order!"] Mr. CuX. I do not wish to be disturbed any more by that gentleman. He has not any sense of decent debate, or he would not interrupt me in this manner, without rising or without my permission. I doubt whether he has any sense at all when he touches the negro question, or he would not drag in his old joke, so unseemly under circumstances as grave as the present. I referred to the position of the Ohio Democ- racy with pride, because of the imputations thrown upon them by my colleague on the other side, [Mr. Garfield.] He followed the speech of my colleague from the second dis- trict, [Mr. Long,] and strove to make politi- cal points for his party, not by misrepresent- ing him so much as by misrepresenting the Democracy. Now, I propose to show that if the senti- ments attributed to my colleague are unpa- triotic and treasonable, the prominent men of the Republican party are amenable, for simi- lar sentiments, to the same condemnation. There is scarcely a leading member of the opposite party, from the Executive down, who is not committed in doctrine if not in practice to the separation of these States. I shall show that members opposite deserve ex- pulsion by the same rule which they would mete out to my colleagi:^e. I pass over for the present the sacred, con- stitutional right to free debate in this Cham- ber of American Representatives, and proceed to show that this resolution comes with a bad grace from that quarter in which so much se- dition and revolution has been expressed and acted. And first, I desire to ask of the Speaker if he had forgotten when he penned this resolu- tion that in last Congress a most acute mem- ber of the Republican party, in good standing and sweet fellowship — Judge Conway, of Kan- sas — not only made a remarkable speech in favor of the recognition of the South, but of- fered solemn resolutions affirming the hein- ous doctrine 1 If the honorable Speaker has forgotten the fact, let him turn to the Journal of the House of December 15, 1862, page 69, and he will find the following resolutions of- fered by Mr. Conway. 1 quote such of them as bear on the points in discussion : " Resolved, That freedom and slavery cannot co- exist in the same Government without producing endless strife and civil war j that ' a house divided against itself cannot stand ;' and that * this nation must be all free or all slave.' "liesolved, That the American Undon consists of those States which are now loyal to the Federal Constitution. "Iteoolved, That the restoration of the Union as it existed prior to the rebellion would be a greater calamity than the rebellion itself, since it would give now life to tha * irrepressible conflict,' and en- tail upon the nation another cycle of bitter conten- tion and civil war. *' JieHolved, That the seceded States can only be put du^vvi, if At all, by being regarded oa out of ooa- stitutional relations wi*h the Union, and by bsing assailed upon principles of ordinary warfare as between separate nations. ''Resolved, That it is a matter for serious rcfles- tion whether another election of President must not supervene before the rightful authority of the na- tion can be established ; and whether in the mean- time it is not a flagrant waste of our energies to continue the war. "Resolved, That unless the army of the west shall have swept through the valley of the Mississippi to its mouth, and the army of the Potomac annihilate the legions of Lee and Jackson, thus subverting the military power of the rebellion within a reasonable time, the best interests of the country and humanity will require a cessation of hostilities. "Resolved, That the States of the North compos- ing the American nation, and wielding its power, must ever remain one and indivisible on the basis of freedom for all, without distinction of race, color or condition ; that their mission must ever be to ex- tend their own civilization over the entire conti- nent, and that whatever derangements, difficulties, checks, or defeats they may encounter, they must forever cherish and pursue the inspiring idea of nationality and continental dominion." From which it will appear that, after affirm- ing' the irrepressible confiict, it was resolved that the American Union consisted only of those States which are now loyal to the Federal Constitution ; that the restoration of the old Union would be a greater calamity than the rebellion itself; that the seceded States should be regarded as out of const itu- tioHal relations with the Union ; that until the election of another President it was a fla- grant waste of our energies to continue the war. Does the honorable Speaker remember that those resolutions recognized that only the States North composed the American Union ? If he did, why did not this sensi- tive gentleman, [Mr. Colfax J who was not then in the chair but upon the floor, come forward with a resolution for the expul- sion of his friend Mr. Conway ? I ask the Speaker to respond to that question. Why did you not do it, sir ? Is such a resolution fair toward a member on* this side and unfair toWard a member on the other ? You were for free speech and free resolution then ; I am for it now as then. Why do you pursue my colleague to disgrace him when you did not lisp a word about expelling one from your own ranks who was in favor of disparting the the old Union and recognizing the nationality of the Southern Confederacy ? The Speaker does not, for he cannot, answer. I will yield to him to respond. Mr. COLFAX. The gentleman from Indi- ana claims the floor whenever he sees fit to claim it, and declines speaking in the midst of the speech of the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. COX. The gentleman is distinguished as well for his prudence as for his sagacity. Mr. ALLISON. I desire to ask thn gentle- man from Ohio if he believes that Mr. Con- way ought to have been expelled from the last Congress under the circumstan-ces ? Several Members. Oh, that is not tho que*- tion. Mr. C(>X. When the gentleman on the other side answers my question I will answer him. I will do it anyhow. I do not think that he should have been expelled any more than we should expel the distinguished gen- tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] for his speech in favor of regarding the Confed- eracy as a de facto government, and that war should be carried on against it, according to the law of nations, as an independent Power established by its arms and recognized by the nations. Tiie member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens, ] if I remember his speech on that subject, quoted Vattel in favor of his policy, which he predicated upon the idea of the inde- pendence of the Southern Government. Ay, and my colleague, [Mr. Garfield,] who is a fair debater generally, has taken the same ground as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, holding that an insurrection as formidable as this requires the laws of war to be applied as between two distinct and independent sove- reignties. The men who hold that doctrine are not the men to expel another member who holds to the same doctrine. Mr. GARFIELD. Will my colleague yield to mo for a moment ? Mr. COX. With great pleasure. I would not do my colleague any injustice. Mr. GARFIELD. My colleague does do me injustice in what he has just uttered. If he will do me the honor to read my speech on confiscation, on this particular he will find that I take most decisive ground against the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and therein deny in toto the doctrine that these are a foreign people. On the contrary, I therein claim that they are in the Union, and that all the obligations of the Constitu- tion overhang them. But in putting down this jrebellion we have been told by the Supreme Court that we are to pursue them by the laws of war, the same as the laws between foreign nations, but not thereby ad- mitting that they are a foreign nation. Mr. COX. "VieU, I cannot understand that distinction, but I accept it, and then I ask my colleague, if he holds that the confederacy is not an independent nation, and if he thus antagonizes the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, why is he not in favor of expelling that gentlemail for holding that doctrine and avowing it openly? Did I un- derstand that my colleague does not follow the leader of his party in this House upon this doctrine ? I pause if my colleague will favor me with a reply. Mr. GARFIELD. I draw a most marked and broad distinction between the opinion of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsyl- vania and the opinions of my colleague from the second district, [Mr. Long.] The gentle- man from Pennsylvania is in favor of prose- cuting the war to the uttermost to bring back these revoltod Statss. The member from the second district of Ohio is opposed, in the first place, to all further prosecution of the war ; in the second place, he holds that all compromise is impossible ; and in third place, he declares openly in favor of throwing up the white flag and acknowledging that they have conquered us and are independent, and that we will call back our armies and make no attempt, either by conference or by war, to restore the Union. There is the difference. Mr. THAYER. I wish to make a state- ment. I am sure the gentleman from Ohio will not object. Mr. COX. I will yield to the gentleman one moment. Mr. THAYER. I simply wish to remind the gentleman from Ohio that my colleagne to whom he has referred [Mr. Stevens] is not in his seat, being detained therefrom by sickness. I think, therefore, it is better not to indulge in these remarks in regard to him in his absence. Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsyl- vania are as well known as his great capa- city. They are printed. I will do him no injustice, but quote them here : "Others hold that, having committed treason^ renounced their allegiance to the Union, discarded its Constitution and laws, organized a distinct and hostile government, and by force of arms having risen from the condition of insurgents to the posi- tion of an independent Power de facto, and having been acknowledged as a belligerent both by foreign nations and our own Government, the Constitulioni and laws of the Union are abrogated so far as they are concerned, and that, as between the two belligerents, they are under the laws of war and the laws of nations alone, and that whichever Power conquers may treat the vanquished as con- quered provinces, and may impose upon them such conditions and laws as it may deem best." Again he says : "Is the present contest to be regarded as- a. public loar, and t& be governed by the rules of civilized warfare, or only as a domestic insurrec- tion, to be suppressed by criminal prosecutions before the courts of the country ?" I need not tell the House how the member^ from Pennsylvania answered this question. He founded upon it his argument in favor of confiscation by the laws of nations and- of war. He quoted from Judge Grier to prove- the war a public war, and not a domestic in- surrection. He constructed an argument to show that this was not a contest with indi- viduals, but with States — known under the ' corporate name of the *' Confederate States.** He held it to be idle to regard individuals as- making war. •' War is made,'* said he, "by chartered or corporate communities, by na-» tions or States." " When an insurrection becomes sufficientlj.fclr- midable to entitle the party to belligerent rights, it • places the contending Powers on precisely the sama footing as foreign nations at war with each other .^^ * * » * * . "No one acquainted with the magnitude; of ; this ■ contest can deny to it the character cf a civil war. For nearly three years the Confederate States have maintained their declaration of independence^ by force of arms." * - * * *• What, then, is the effect of this publia /^ tween theso belHgorent, these foreign nations ? Befora this war the parties were bound together by a compact, by a treaty called a * Constitution.' They acknowledged the validity of municipal laws mu- tually binding on each. This war has cut asunder all these ligaments, abrogated all the obligations." " What then, is the effect of this public war between these belligerents, these foreign na- tions ?" Foreign nations I Foreign ? Why ? Because not under our Constitution, but alien from it by the maintenance of their indepen- dence by force of arms. Nations? Having all the autonomy and independence of a bel- ligerent Power in Europe. Yet, for these sentiments, who had the courage to question, censure, or propose to expel the gentleman from Pennsylvania ? Ah I he is a Republican, and* has a dispensation from the higher powers to recognize by his logic ("which my colleague unhappily followed^ the existence of the South as a separate nation. He is the leader of that side of the House, and may debate without question these momentous issues. My colleague [Mr. Long] followed him in bis premises, although he drew another conclu- sion. The only difference was between a Democrat and an Abolitionist. Now, I ask my colleague [Mr. Garfield] whether he did not vote for a gentleman in Ohio for Lieutenant Governor who held the same doctrine of recognizing the Southern Confederacy ? I refer to Lieutenant Governor Stanton, who announced that doctrine on this floor. He never was expelled for it. No one then sought to abridge his free debate. I heard his remarks. I will send them up to be read before my colleague answers the question. Mr. GARFIELD. If the gentleman will allow me, they can as well be read afterwards. Mr. COX. Let them be read now. The Clerk read as follows : "Seven or eight States now deny their allegi- ance to this Government, have organized a separate confederacy, and have declared thcir^ndepeniience of this Government. Whether that independence is to be maintained or not is with the future. If they shall maintain their position, and sustain the authorities there for a year or two to come, so as to show that nothing but a war of subjugation and conquest can bring them back, I, for one, am dis- posed to recognize that independenco." — Congres- sional Globe, February 23, 1861, page 1,285. Mr. COX. I will now yield to my colleague to say whether he did not vote for that man as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio after it was inown throughout the State that he thus fa- vored the independence of this confederacy. Mr. GARFIELD. I answer my colleague .that I did not vote for that gentleman nor for any candidate on the ticket that fall, for the simple reason that I was in the army. If I had been in Ohio I should have voted for that gentleman, and I do not excuse myself on any other ground than the simple lack of being present at the time of the election. Now, allow me to say that there was a large class of men on both sides of the political questions of that day who in the beginning of this war felt a doubt whether it was no:; better to let these people alone for a time, Lopinsr that reason might return them by delay"! There were others who said '' v/c cannot leave them alone;" and to that class belonged a number of distinguished gentlemen in the parties on both sides. That is one thing. But now, after that question has been adjudi- cated, after the great American people has determined on war and detdrmined on put- ting down the rebellion, after three years of war have passed, and when we are almost in the hour of daylight and victory, to arise now and throw up the contest is treason. Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I only asked the gentleman to answer my question, not to go off into a defiaition of what is treason in his judgment. I would rather take the constitu- tional definition of treason. I do not think my friend takes the Constitution as his author- ity, for he has said twice ou this floor that be would overleap that Constitution. When you talk of treason, and in the same breath talk of overleaping the Constitution, you are the traitor, if there be such a traitor in this House. Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman tell me what question it is that he desires I shall answer ? Mr. COX. I do not ask the gentleman any more questions. I am satisfied with his po- sition. It is enough that I have shown that he is not the man to vote for the expulsion of any member for expressing sentiments in favor of the recognition of this Southern Con- federacy. It is not for him who would hare voted for a man who was in favor, in advance of war, of the recognition of the Southern Confederacy — and who thus encouraged the rebels to proceed in their rebellion when it was in its bud — to reflect upon gentlemen on this side of the House who have voted* against secession, against recognition, and in favor of sustaining the war for the Union upon the proper policy. It is not far him to censure or expel my colleague, when he has declared that he himself would in some cases overleap the Constitution. Mr. GARFIELD. I only desire to say that my colleague misrepresents me, I presume unintentionally, when he says that I have on two distinct occasions declared my readiness to overleap the Constitution. That I may set myself and him right on that question, I will say, once for all, that I have never uttered such a sentiment. What I have uttered is this : when asked if I would, under any cir- cumstances, override the Constitution, 1 said this, and this only — premising, as I believed, that the Constitution was ample enough of itself to put down this rebellion, that its powers were most capacious, and there was no need to override it — that if sKch a lime ever should come that the powers of the Con- stitution were not suflicicnt to sustain the Union, if that impossible supposition should ever prove true, [laughter from the Demo- cratic side of the House,] then I would ear that we have a right to do our sole.un duty under God and go beyond tlie Constitution to save tbe creators of the Constitution. Mr. COX. I am informed by the members around me, and I think that the report of my colleague's remarks will show it in the Globe, that he put no condition like that he makes now. I ask gentlemen on both sides v/hether my colleague ever qualified his remarks by saying that it would be forever impossible in the future for the Constitution to be infringed "by making war. Why make the statement of overleaping the Constitution if it be forever impossible to do it in carrying on this war ? Mr. GAUFIELDo Will the gentleman allow me ? Mr. COX. Certainly. Mr. GARFIELD. I said so in answer to the question of my colleague now upon the floor. I said so, secondly, in answer to the gentleman from Illinois, and put the same question to him. I explained it in the same way. The gentleman is at liberty to look at the manuscript, which I have not yet seen, and nray quote from it. Mr. COX. I have only the Chronicle's re- port of the debate of yesterday. Perhaps it is good authority for the members on the other side. I will quote from its report : "Mr. GrARFiELD then controverted his col- league's position. The issue was now made up. We should use the common weapons of war. If with these we should not succeed, he would take means, as he would against the savage who attacked himself or family. .He would resort to any element of destruction, and, if necessary, he would fling all constitutional sanctions to the winds rather than lose his country." Is there anything about *' impossible^ ^ con- ditions there ? •If necessary;" there Mr. GARFIELD. is the condition. Mr. COX. There is nothing about the im- possibility of the Constitution proving insuffi- cient to put down the rebellion, and in which case alone he would overleap it. Overleap an impossibility 1 I would like to see the per- formance. Another question. I remember that my colleague, on the confiscatioa bill, said that he would under certain circumstances over- leap the Constitution. What did he mean then by that ? In that debate his language was precisely this : " I would not break the Constitution at all, un- less it should become necessary to overleap its bar- riers to save the Grovernment and the Union." Nothing about the impossibility of ever breaking the Constitution, not a word or syllable, for he contemplates its breach for certain purposes. My colleague cannot escape from the dilemma in which he is- placed. And yet he undertakes to make political capital out of the speech of my colleague from the second district after such declarations 1 If lie does not gentlemen on that side of the House do, They are, I learn, subscribing for that speech by hundreds and thousands to distribute it for partisan j^urposes ; and yet they have advocated the very heresies upon which they ground the present accusation, and give them circulation by sending out the speecli of my colleague. I want it understood that the Republican members who have favored recognition, and favored the men who favored it, are now striving to expel a meipaber for the same license of speech which they have in- dulged ; that at home they have favored for high offices a public character who took ground in favor of recognizing the rebellion if it should maintain itself " for a year or two." I might well ask my colleague, in view of his position, whether he did not know that those were the sentiments of Governor Stanton when he would have voted for him if he had been at home ? To come to the question ; was he not thus committed to the policy of dissolving the Union if the rebellion could sustain itself for a year or two ? Then I ask him, how much better is he than the mernberVhom he seeks to expel ? Wherein does he differ from that mem- ber upon this subject of recognizing lawless- ness ? More than that ; the gentleman's party in Ohio favored Benjamin Stanton for Lieu- tenant Governor, knowing his sentiments to be similar to those attributed to my colleague. More than that ; they elected a man Senator from Ohio who had uttered the same senti- ments as the sentiments of that party. He is the personal and political friend of my col- league. I mean Senator Wade. I will send his remarks to the Clerk's desk to be read, that we may know who are in favor of disso- lution and recognitiou. The Clerk read as follows, from the Con- gressional Globe of the third session of the Thirty- Fdurth Congress, page 25 : "But Southern gentlemen stand here, and, in almost all their speeches, speak of the dissolution of the Union as an element of every argument, as though it were a peculiar condescension on their part that they permitted the Union to stand at all. If they do not feel interested in upholding this Union, if it really trenches on their rights, if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they can- not feel secure under it, if their interests are vio- lently assailed by means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long con- tinue under it. / am not one of those who would ask them to continue in such a Union, It loould be doing violence to the 2jlc('tform of the ^jari^y to tohic'i I belong. We have adopted the old Decla- ration of Independence as the basis of our political movement, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from the true purposes of government as to oppress them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect on its ruins another more conducive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. * '■• * I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, that we of the North have. If they they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold 'men in this Union ; for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Gov- * ernment under which we live." Mr. COX. Now, there is the broadest doctrine laid down in favor of the right of revolution and against the right of coercion. **It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I bolong," says the Republican leader of Ohio, "to ask the South to continue in such a Union." " You cannot forcibly hold men in this Union — it would subvert the first principles of the Govern- ment." Ah! you re-elected him Senator ftfter those avowals, and now would you expel men for the same avowals ? If they are treason in a Representative what are they in a Senator ? I ask my colleague if he did not sustain tbat Senator ? Did he not vote for him for Senator, or would he not have voted for him? Mr. GARFIELD. I had not the pleasure of voting for the distinguished Senator from northern Ohio, but it would have given me great pleasure, and had I had that privilege I should have enjoyed it and acted upon it. Mr. COX, Does the gentleman approve of Senator Wade's doctrine ? Mr. GARFIED. Wiii the gentleman allow me a moment ? Mr. COX. With great pleasure. Mr. GARFIELD. I wish to send to the desk to be read [Cries of ''No!" "Nol"] Mr. COX. If it does not come out of my time I will not object. [Cries of "Weill" "Well!" and "No!" "No!"] Mr. GARFIELD. I recall the paper. Mi\ COX. Will the gentleman indicate wbat it is ? Mr. GARFIELD. I will only say in refer- eDCf- tr •^in,>,; colloquy that if I cannot make my pajt t of the colloquy as I choose, I v/ill make it when the gentleman has concluded his remarks. Mr. COX. The gentleman .can have the paper read if he pleases. I shrink from no responsibility in this debate. Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to have read an authority which the gentleman himself I think acknowledges. It is upon the same point that has just been in debate between us, and when it is read I have only a word to say. Mr. COX. Who is the authority f Mr. GARFIELD. Thomas Jefferson. The Clerk read as follows : Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to J. B. Colvin, September 20, 1810, says : *'Tho question you propose, whether cireum- etances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes cinbarrnssing in practice. A strict ob- £jrv u'cj of the wrictca liiws id doubtless one oftho highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the Jti'j/irfit. The laws of ucccs:>itj', of self-preservation, cf saving our country when in danger, are ol higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous ailhcrenco to written law would bo to lose the law iLboll", with lifo, liberty, property, and all those who I are enjoying them with us ; thus absolutely ( jcri- ficing the end to the means. — JcJ/erson's W.,ks, : vol. 5, p. 542. I Mr. GARFIELD. I have only to state that ' that paper states, more ably and more elo- quently than I can, the very doctrine which I have uttered, and for which the gend^man ' condemns me. i Mr. COX. Now, I do not know as to the authenticity of that quotation presented by the gentleman, but if the gentleman quotes it '' for the purpose of vindicating the lawlessness against the United States authorities which I has been rampant in that part of Ohio where he lives, just as it was prevalent in South j Carolina, I doubt if Jefferson would have sanc- I tioned such a pernicious and disorganizing [ practice* I know the gentleman and his party i are in favor of a higher law than the Consti- tution, or the laws made in pursuance there- of, when, in their opinion, those laws impinge upon their consciences. But I deny all such seditious and anarchical doctrine. Notwith- standing every authority, whether it be from Jefferson, Wade, or my colleague, I deny ut- terly the right of any one, secessionists or abolitionists, to infract or nullify any law of the United States or any clause of its Consti- tution, /ar an?/ purpose. I am in favo; of the enforcement of the laws everywhere equally upon every citizen of the United Statts. Bat my colleague takes the other grci.nd, and quotes Jefferson to sustain it. But v/lth such a lawless programme how can he vote for the expulsion of my friend from Ohio bt-3ause, as it is alleged, he maintained the sama princi- ple? How can a defender of law-br^tjakers ex- pel another for recognizing the breach of the very fundamental law of the Unioji ? But I asked my colleague a (Question to which he did not respond. It T^'as whether he was in fAvor cf the sentimenc*. oi Senator Wade in reference to the right ii-f revolution and against coercion. He said i-o would have voted for him. Where does tibat place my colleague ? In the category of uiy friend fconi CinciDuati, according to the allegation. How, then, can my colleague vote for the expulsion of a man who agrees with bii-Q and with his Senator j and wf.o agrees with another and the principal light of the ifcpubliean party f Horace Greelev in his papar states what I will send to the Clerk to hs read for the in- formation of the gentleman. The Clerk read the following from the New York Tribune of the 2d ol March, 1861 : "We hav'8 repeatedly saf.(5, and we once more in- sist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that govern- ments derive their just po'xrers from the consent of the governed, is sound and justj and that, if the ■slave States, the cotton S'.ates, or the Gulf States only, choose to form an ind^poadeut nation, theif have a moral rujlit to do ao I" Mr. COX. Now, I ask my colleague whether he favors that doctrine of Horace Greeley?' He has been hitherto ^ery prompt to answer. I have given him Qyeiy chanco. Ue has no excuse now, and I beg my friend of the Abys- i Binian joke [laughter] not to interrupt him. j I ask my friend if he agrees with Mr. Greely in the doctrirse which he laid down ? Mr. GARFIELD. I will say to the gentle- man that I did not attend to the readiag. Mr. COX. My colleague is generally very sharp in hearing everything that falls from this side of the House. Mr. GARFIELD. I hope my friend will not intimate in any way whatever that I am not perfectly willing to answer every question he sees fit to propound to me. Mr. COX. I will have it read again for the benefit of my colleague, for I have respect for the opinion of my colleague. The article was again read. Mr. COX. I ask my colleague whether he believes in that " moral right of the Gulf or cotton States to make an independent nation." Mr. GARFIELD. I am perfectly willing to answer the gentlemaUj if he will proceed with his own remarks, and I can then get the floor. I would prefer to answer him categorically then. Mr. COX. I will give the gentleman a chance to answer as I go along. It, is so much more interesting. I like that dramatic and vivacious form of debate. My colleague is so apt and ready in debate. Mr. GARFIELD. I prefer to wait until the gentleman is through. Mr. COX. I am afraid people will draw a wrong conclusion from my colleague's refusal to answer. He may not get a chance to answer to-day. But as he seems unwilling, I ask the piiviiyge of ]3rinting a few more extracts from the great editorial light of his party, Mr. Greeley, in reference to letting the Southern States go. Nobody ever attempted to expel him out o4the Republican party for such sen- timents : " If the cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on the letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless. * •:■ * We must ever re- sist the right of any State to remain in the Union and nullity or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter; whenever a consideritble section of our Union shall deliber- ately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to another by bayonets." — Tribune of November 9, 1860. " If the cotton States unitedly and earnestly wish to withdraw peacefully from the Union, we think they should and would be allowed to do so. Any attempt to compel them by force to remain would be contrary to the principles enunciated in the im- mortal Declaration of Independence — contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is based/^ — Tribune, November 26, 1860. " If it (the Declaration of Independence) justified 5ihe secession from the British Empire of three mil- lion colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five million southrons from the Union in 1861. — Tribune, December 17, 1860. *' Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of the Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views." — Tribane, F&bruary 23, 1861. Can it be possible that such opinions have been uttered and the paper not suppressed ? Can it be that members who read it approv- ingly, day by day, seek to expel a member of this House for copying its worst features ? Why was not the Constitution " overleaped'* to suppress that journal and exile its editor ? Gentlemen opposite take this journal and swear by it as the gospel of emancipation and the exponent of Republican policy. They cannot get along without it. Why, then, are they so sensitive when it is alleged that a Democrat is going in the direction pointed out by their own shining beacon ? Mr. Speaker, I need not ask my colleague whether he . voted for Abraham Lincoln for President. I know that he did. I do not know whether he favors Mr. Lincoln or Gen- eral Fremont for the next Presidency, but I know that so far as the past is concerned he is committed to Mr. Lincoln and to. his record and sentiments. I proprose to have read, for the information of my colleague, an extract from a speech made by Mr. Lincoln, of Illi- nois, on the 14th of February, 1848, and printed by Gideon & Co., especially for circu- lation among such gentlemen as my colleague. Here is the extract, and to it I solicit his attentiori,. I ask him if he approves of the doctrine ? If he does, he cannot consistently vote for the expulsion of my colleague. The Clerk will read from the original and genuine document. The Clerk read as follows, from the pam- phlet : "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and hav- ing the power, have a right to rise up and shake off the existing Government and form a «ei« one that suits them better." Mr. COX. I may be allowed, before the Clerk reads any further, to call the attention of the distinguished Speaker to that extract. He voted for Mr. Lincoln. Nobody knows whether he is for him or not now. [Laugh- ter. ] I want to ask him whether he approves of the doctrine- f The Clerk read, as follows : " This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any 2->oriioii.oi such people that can, may revolutionize and may make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, patting down a minority inter- mingled v:ith or near about them who may oppose their movements." — January 10, 1848. Mr. COX. I get no response from the Speaker. He must approve of the revolu- tionary sentiments of the President aad be disgusted with his own resolution of .expul- sion. Perhai^s he will move to lay his reso- 8 iTition upon tlie table, or else vote to impeacli Mr. Lincoln. Mr. COLFAX. Will the gentleman from Ohio yield to me ? Mr. COX. With the greatest pleasure. Mr. COLFAX. In reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, I have to re- peat that the gentleman from Indiana npon this side of the House does not speak in the midst of another gentleman's speech hy his courtesy, liable to be stopped by him as the gentleman stopped his colleague recently. He speaks when he obtains the floor, and has no secret about his opinions in regard to any subject. Mr. COX. Oh I Mr. Speaker, when the leading man of this House comes down from his high position to offer a resolution to ex- pel a member who comes here by the same right that he does, he cannot escape on ac- count of his peculiar dignity. When he de- scends to this floor, the common platform of ns all, and condescends to mingle with us in debate, he cannot and shall not escape. Is he or is he not in favor of the doctrine laid down by the President in the extracts which have been read? That is a very simple ques- tion. Yon will lose no dignity, sir, by an- swering it now. [Laughter.] We will look upon you with pride and pleasure as the Speaker of this House if you will conde- scend to delight us by evincing your opinion upon that subject. I pledge myself that you shall not be interrupted. Mr. COLFAX. In reply only to the per- sonal remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, I say this to him; that when I appear upon this floor I do not condescend from that chair. The position of a member upon this floor is as ex- alted and responsible as the position of him who sits in that chair to administer your rules. The gentleman brings a reproach upon himself and upon his fellow- members upon this floor when he snears at me and speaks of me, when I appear upon this floor as the representative of my constituents, per- forming my duty, as condescending. The highest position a man can hold in this House is that of a representative of one hundred and fifty thousand people, sent here by their willing votes, and not by a mere majority of votes elected here as the Presiding Officer of this body. Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I did not make any personal remarks in regard to my dis- tinguished friend. Far be it from me to throw any stain upon him for his condescen- sion. I admire him too much for his fairness and justice in presiding over our delibera- tions to reproach him. Never has he heard a word of that kind from me. But when he comes down from his exaltation to this floor and undertakes to engineer a resolution through this House for the expulsion of a brother member, he must take the conse- quences of the debate which he inaugurates. Mr. COLFAX. I am willing to do so, per- fectly willing. Mr. COX. My friend does not seem now to be willing to do it. He shall not be inter- rupted if he answer whether he stands by Mr. Lincoln or not in these traitorous senti- ments which I read from his speech. I am opposed to all such sentiments, opposed to secession, opposed to revolution, and opposed to any change of our Government, except in pursuance of the Constitution by the amend- ment thereof. That is the position of the members on this side. Bat Mr. Lincoln was elevated to the Presidency by that lawless party oa the other side, knowing his senti- ments to be in favor of secession and revolu- tion, in favor of "any portion of the people that can, revolutionizii^g and making their own so much of the territory as they inhabit.' I ask gentlemen, if my colleague deserves expulsion, does not the President deserve impeachment ? But if gentlemen say these questions are gone by, then I come to the condition of things since the war and press the question which was not answered, why did you not expel Mr. Conway last Congress ? I received no reply. I now ask, why not expel the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Julian,] the colleague of the Speaker, for his speech on the homestead law, wherein he expressed sentiments which, if carried out, wrjuld bring about in the North the very convulsion and anarchy which we now unhappily have in the South. The gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. JuUan,] on the 18th of March, 1864, hela these senti- ments : " Congress must repeal the joint resolution of last year, which protects the fee of rebel landholders The President, as I am well advised, now stand? ready to join us in such action. Should we fail to* do this, the courts must so interpret thejoint reso- iation as to make its repeal needless, ^culdbotb Congress and the courts stand in the way of the nation's life, then 'the red lightningof the people'? wrata' must consume the recreant men who refuse to execute the popular will. Our country, united and free, must be saved, at whatever hazard oi cost; and nothing, not even the Constitution, mus be allowed to hold hack the uplifted arm of th« Government in h'lasting the j^oioer of the rebels for- ever." Now, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, in our simplicity, were taught last session of (^ongress by a patriotic and learned member of the opposite party from Massa- chusetts, ("Judge Thomas,) that there could be no Union without the Constitution ; that there could be no war carried on except in pursuance of the Constitution ; thai in using the appliances for subduing the rebellion we are acting within the pale of the Constitution ; that we seek domestic tranquility alone by the sword the Constitution has placed in our hands ; that in the path of war, as of peace, the Constitution is our guide and o>ur light, the cloud by day, the pillar of tire by night , that in preserving the Union and the Consti- tution we vindicate in every part the indivisi- ble Republic in its supreme law ; that ia seek- Ing to ehaDge the Constitution, to break or overleap it, wa become tbe rebels we are striving to subdue ; tbat all our labors and sacrifices for the Uuion of our fathers are for tbe Constitution, which is its only bond ; that to make this a war, with the sword in the one haE.d to defend the Constitution, and a hammer in the other hand to break it to pieces, is no less treasonable than secession itself ; and that outside of the pale of the Constitution the whole struggle is revolution. If these sentiments be true, sir — and no one will question them — why was not the gentle- man trom Ind4aEa [Mr. Julian] espelled for the treasonable sentiments I have quoted I Why