^^ 
 
 
 °^ * • « 
 
 
 
 « AV ^ 
 
 V ^ > v*<$S&V .^ *«. v-WV . v 
 
 A 
 
 
 '^0 
 
 
 •V d»*OiSr.% „-> 4 \^.%V <**.ii&.*° 
 
 >•. **rtf 
 
 ^V I 
 
 '•, ^O 
 
 

 » ^ 
 
 
 /% 
 
 
 O 4 
 
 
 
 <? 
 
 * ^ 
 
 c ( 
 
 * 
 
 
 >* .•*'_•♦ +o 
 
 
 ^cF 
 
 
 
 \3 *o . . * A V> 
 
 V v ... 
 
 
 r oV 
 
 
CHARGE AGAINST GENERAL HARRISON FOR VOTING TO SELL WHITE 
 
 MEN FOR DEBT. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 MR. MASON, OF OHIO, 
 
 THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL. 
 
 Delivered in Committee of the Whole in the House of Representatives, 
 April 24, 1840. 
 
 Mr. Chairman: In the discussion of the bill now under consideration, I wish to 
 call the attention of the committee to that clause of the first section which relates 
 to the charge 
 
 " That General Harrison voted to sell white men for debt." ' 
 
 And, sir, if you should not, after examination, find the charge specifically pro- 
 vided for in the bill, you may see it, with all its variations, in the printed speeches 
 •of several gentlemen who have preceded me in the debate. It is, however, with 
 a feeling akin to that of humiliation, that I find myself engaged in defending a 
 distinguished statesman and virtuous citizen, against an oft-refuted and most wan- 
 ton calumny. Nor would I have consented now to notice it, but for the persever- 
 ing industry with which the enemies of that individual continue to urge the charge 
 in certain quarters of the Union, and especially in Maryland, Virginia, and North 
 Carolina. 
 
 In the manufacture of this story, its authors evidently desired to combine truth 
 and falsehood in such proportions as to secure for it some degree cf currency, with- 
 out, at the same time, subjecting themselves to the charge of wilful misrepresen- 
 tation. And it must be admitted, that their effort has not proved entirely unsuc- 
 cessful. But the inventors and propagators of the fraud, cannot escape the con- 
 demnation that awaits the guilty. This charge had its origin in a vote that Gen- 
 eral Harrison gave, as a member of the Senate of Ohio, in January, 1821. The 
 journal of that session is now before me. But, before proceeding further, allow 
 me to say that this charge was fabricated and thrown into circulation in 1836, 
 when General Harrison was first a candidate for the Presidency. It emanated 
 from the friends of Mr. Van Buren in that State, and from men, too, who had 
 doabtless searched the journal with patient diligence, in the patriotic hope that 
 its dusty pages might furnish them with materials for accusation against one of the 
 purest men of the age. And what did they find to reward their industry 1 They 
 did not find what they said they did— a vote authorizing the sale of white men 
 for debt; but they found a vote that was susceptible of misrepresentation, and, 
 therefore, well suited to their purpose. Now, sir, what opinion did these accusers 
 of General Harrison entertain in regard to his vote, as found recorded on the 
 journal? Did they honestly believe it was not justified by the circumstances 
 under which it was given 1 Did they believe it was indefensible, and that it would 
 render him justly obnoxious to censure ? If such had been their real conviction, 
 then why, with the journal before them, did they bring a false charge 1 Why, if 
 thev believed the vote was incontestably wrong in principle, or mischievous in 
 policy, did they not go before the public with a true statement of the case, and 
 rely on these objections ? Think you they would have resorted to garbling and 
 falsification, if they had believed that a trite statement could have been made as 
 

 :H 
 
 useful to their cause as a falsehood? Tim supposition would make them sin 
 without temptation, and practise wickedness without any motive. Few men can 
 be found, I imagine, depraved enough to utter a deliberate falsehood, in a case 
 where the truth would answer their purpose just as well, or even better. From 
 all which, I am brought to this practical conclusion, mimely, that people residing 
 out of thy State of Ohio may well believe that there is nothing very objection- 
 able in the vote of General Harrison, which his opponents, in the State, have ad- 
 mitted, by their resorting to acts of misrepresentation, that they could not success- 
 fully assail with the weapons of truth. 
 
 In regard to the estimation in which this charge is held by the people of Ohio, 
 consisting of men of all parties, and especially by those who have been most no- 
 torious for their zeal in propagating it, I shall have something to say hereafter. 
 
 Sir, I wish now to call your attention to the vote of General Harrison, and the 
 circumstances under which it was given. The attention of the Legislature of 
 Ohio, during its session of 1820-'21, was anxiously directed to the consideration 
 of some plan for the relief of the people, then suffering under a degree of distress 
 and embarrassment unexampled in the history of that State. With a currency 
 depreciated and deranged, the financial resources of the State crippled, and a 
 Treasury exhausted, the people loudly complained of the almost intolerable bur- 
 den of taxation; they demanded retrenchment and reform in the expenses inci- 
 dent to the administration of the criminal laws of the country. In this posture of 
 public affairs, with a gradually increasing expenditure for the prosecution and 
 punishment of offenders, and a penitentiary crowded with convicts, that had be- 
 come an annual charge on the Treasury, the Legislature assembled, and un- 
 dertook to provide a remedy for the grievances complained of, by instituting a 
 revision of the entire criminal code of the State. The task was one of great 
 difficulty and labor; but it was accomplished with as much success as was attain- 
 able in the then condition of the country. The great object in view was to di- 
 minish the public expenditures, in criminal cases, by reducing them to the lowest 
 point consistent with the ends proposed to be secured by the due and proper ad- 
 ministration of punitive justice. To effect this, the House of Representatives 
 passed a bill entitled, " An act supplementary to the act for the punish7ticnt of 
 certain offences therein named;'''' and sent it to the Senate for concurrence. 
 Several new provisions were introduced into this bill. By it, certain offences 
 which had before been punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary, were made 
 punishable by fine and imprisonment in the county jails. Jurisdiction of assaults 
 and batteries in certain specified cases, was conferred on justices of the peace, 
 with power to impose a fine if the accused should plead guilty ; and persons 
 committing assaults and batteries were authorized to do, what was an offer at 
 common law, namely, to " agree, compromise, or settle with the party injured ;" 
 and then all further proceedings were to cease. Also, grand juries were prohib- 
 ited from finding an indictment for an assault and battery, " unless the party ac- 
 cused had been duly recognised to appear in court and answer such prosecution." 
 And, in restraint of frivolous or vexatious prosecutions for offences below the 
 grade of felony, " the name of the prosecutor" was required to be endorsed on 
 the bill of indictment, and he was made "liable for the costs" in case the accused 
 should be acquitted, " unless the court should be of opinion that there was rea- 
 sonable ground for instituting the prosecution." 
 
 In addition to these various provisions, having the same object in view, the bill 
 from the House contained several sections intended to render more effectual the 
 means provided by existing laws for the collection of fines and the costs of con- 
 viction, and to relieve the counties from the onerous charge of supporting the 
 offenders in prison, by affording them an opportunity, if they desired it, but if 
 not, by compelling them to labor, like the rest of the community, for their own 
 maintenance. The 16th and 17th sections of the bill, as it passed the Senate, 
 are as follows : 
 
" Sec. 16. That every person adjudged or sentenced to pay a fine lor any offence specified in 
 this act, or the act to which this is supplementary, may discharge such fine by labor on the high- 
 ways of the township in which he resides; and every court or justice upon pronouncing judg- 
 ment for the payment of a fine, shall specify, and make an order setting out within what period 
 of time, and at what rate of daily wages, the fine may be thus discharged, and upon what road 
 or roads the labor shall be performed, and execution may be staid upon security, or otherwise, 
 to give time for the performance of such labor. The certificate of the supervisor of the proper 
 district shall be evidence, that the whole or any part of the labor has been performed, and if 
 the whole labor is not performed within the time prescribed, the party shall nevertheless have 
 credit for the amount of labor actually performed ; and it such labor shall not be performed with- 
 in the time limited, it shall be the duty of the clerk to issue an execution (without a precipe 
 filed) for the fine and costs. 
 
 "Sec. 17. That all persons convicted of any offences specified in this act, or in the act to 
 which this is supplementary, and sentenced to imprisonment, may, during such imprisonment, 
 be put at hard labor in such manner as any two judges of the court of common pleas may direct, 
 and, for the performance of such labor, may be taken from the jail, and so secured as to prevent 
 an escape, and the produce of such labor shall be paid into the county treasury." 
 
 Section 19 contained the proposition which lias acquired so much unmerited 
 notoriety in the party conflicts of the day, and concerning which there has been 
 so much malignant misrepresentation. Here it is, in all its terrifying and stupen- 
 dous proportions, as I find it recorded on the Journal that I hold in my hand. 
 Listen while I read from that Journal a short extract : 
 
 Mr. Fithiax then moved to strike out. the 19th section of said bill as follows: 
 
 " Be it further enacted, That when any person shall be imprisoned, either upon execution or 
 otherwise, for the non-payment of a fine or costs, or both, it shall be lawful for the sheriff of the 
 county to sell out such person as a servant to any person within this State, who will pay the 
 whole amount due, for the shortest period of service; of which sale public notice shall be given 
 at least ten days ; and upon such sale being effected the sheriff shall give to the purchaser a cer- 
 tificate thereof and deliver over the prisoner to him, from which time the relation between such 
 purchaser and the prisoner, shall be that of master and servant, until the time of service expires, 
 and for injuries done by either, remedy shall be had in the same manner as is or may be pro- 
 vided by law in case of master and apprentice. But nothing herein contained shall be construed 
 to prevent persons being discharged from imprisonment according to the provisions of the 37th 
 section of the act to which this is supplementary, if it shall be considered expedient to grant such 
 discharge: Provided, That the court, in pronouncing upon any person or persons convicted un- 
 der this act or the act to which this is supplementary, may direct such person or persons to be 
 detained in prison until the fine be paid, or the person or persons otherwise disposed of agreeably 
 to the provisions of this act. 
 
 " Which motion was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 20, nays 12. And the yeas and nays 
 being required, those who voted in the affirmative were — 
 
 " Messrs. Beasly, Brown, Fithian, Gass, He iton, Jennings, Lucas, Matthews, McLaughlin, 
 McMillan, Necomb, Robb, Russell, Scofield, Shelby, Spencer, Stone, Swearingeii, Thompson, 
 and Womeldorf— 20. 
 
 " Those who voted in the negative were — 
 
 "Messrs. Baldwin, Cole, Foos, Foster, Hakiusox, McLean, Ozwalt, Pollock, Kuggles, 
 Roberts, Wheeler, and Speaker — 12." 
 
 Sir, I have seen the words " master and servant," as employed in this section, 
 dressed out in staring capitals and placed in the foreground of the picture, that 
 they might attract all" eves by having assigned to them a sort of guilty prominency. 
 And what was the object of so shallow a device 1 It was doubtless to create an 
 impression that this provision was intended to reduce white men to the condition 
 of negro slaves; notwithstanding the section itself carries on its face an express 
 declaration that their condition was to be that of hundreds, not to say thousands, 
 of other white persons in the Slate, who had been or might be put to service ac- 
 cording to the provisions of existing law. 
 
 Who does not know that the relation of" master and servant," as proposed to 
 be established by this section, is a relation as ancient and as well regulated as 
 that of any other recognised in civil society? To go no further back, it was 
 known to, and regulated by the common law ; and it has been sanctioned and 
 auarded with anxious care by the legislation of every Slate in the Union, and 
 
by none with more parental solicitude for the rights of the servant, than in the 
 State of Ohio. 
 
 It will he observed that the section in question provides that " for injuries done 
 by either [master or servant] remedy shall be had in the same manner as is or 
 may be provided by law in case of master and apprentice." 
 
 What that remedy was may be seen by any one who will take the trouble to 
 consult Chase's Statutes vol. 1, pp. 535-'6, in the Library of Congress, where 
 they will find "An act concerning apprentices and servants," passed January 27, 
 1806, which continued in force till repealed by another act on the same subject, 
 in 1824. 
 
 Authority was given by the first section of this act, to " overseers of the poor, 
 by and with the consent of a justice of the peace, and, also, to" parents and guar- 
 dians," to put out any child as an apprentice or servant.'''' And as the second 
 section provides a remedy for the apprentice or servant in case of ill treatment, 
 and as it is the same remedy that a convict sold out by the sheriff would be en- 
 tilled to have against the purchaser of his services for any abuse, I beg leave to 
 read it as follows : 
 
 " Sec. 2. That if any master or mistress shall be guilty of any misusage, refusal of necessary 
 provision or clothing, cruelty, or other ill treatment, so that said apprentice or servant shall have 
 just cause to complain ,■ or the said apprentice or servant be guilty of any misdemeanor, or ill 
 behavior, or do not perform his or her duty to his or her master or mistress, then the said 
 mester or mistress, apprentice or servant, having just cause of complaint, may repair to any 
 justice of the peace in the township, who shall, upon the application by either, issue his warrant 
 or summons, for bringing the said master or mistress, apprentice or servant, before him, and 
 take such order or direction between the said master or mistress, apprentice or servant, as the 
 equity and justice of the case shall require." 
 
 A reference to the act just quoted seemed to be necessary to prove two things 
 very intimately connected with the charge against General Harrison. First, that 
 the terms " master and servant," which have been made to figure alternately in 
 italics and large capitals, by way of intimation that they concealed some mysteri- 
 ous or dangerous design, are at last very innocent words, and quite familiar to 
 the statutes of my State, from the earliest period of its legislation down to the 
 present time. And, secondly, that prisoners who might be sold by the sheriff, 
 were amply secured against ill treatment, by the humane provisions of that act. 
 
 But, sir, this is not all ; there was another provision in the 19th section of the 
 bill, by which the benefits secured to insolvent prisoners, by the 37th section of 
 the original act, were expressly reserved. 
 
 In the "act for the punishment of certain offences therein specified," passed 
 February 11, 1815, (See Chase's Statutes, 2 vol., pages 893-4-5-6-7,) you will 
 find the 37th section here referred to, and which is as follows : 
 
 "Sec. 37. That when any person shall be confined in jail for the payment of any fine and 
 costs that may be inflicted agreeably to the provisions of this act, the county commissioners may, 
 if it be made to appear to their satisfaction that the person so confined cannot pay such fine and 
 costs, order the sheriff or jailer of such county to discharge such person fiom imprisonment ; and 
 the sheriff or jailer, upon receiving such order in writing, shall discharge such person accordingly : 
 Provided, That the commissioners may at any time thereafter, order and cause to be issued an 
 execution against the body, lands, goods, or chattels of the person so discharged from imprison- 
 ment, for the amount of such fine and costs." 
 
 It will be observed by the curious student of our penal code, that the punish- 
 ment prescribed for the various offences, defined in the original and supplement- 
 ary acts, such as theft, burglary, bribery, malicious mischief, riots, assaults, bat- 
 teries, attempts to corrupt jurors, <fcc, was fine and imprisonment in the county 
 jail. And that the remedy for enforcing payment of the fines imposed, was by 
 process of "execution against the body, goods, chattels, lands, and tenements of 
 such offender, for the amount of such fine, and the costs of prosecution, which 
 might either be levied on the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, or body of 
 the offender." 
 
It appears, therefore, that any person convicted and fined for any one of the 
 offences specified in the original or supplementary act, could, under the 37th sec- 
 tion of the former, procure his discharge from imprisonment, by application to the 
 board of county commissioners, a permanent body, consisting of three members 
 elected by the people of the county, and satisfying them that he was unable "to 
 pay such fine and costs." From this review of the laws existing at the time the 
 supplementary bill for the punishment of minor offences, was before the Senate 
 of Ohio, it plainly and incontestably results, that the operation of the 19th section, 
 had it been adopted, must have been limited to a very small class of offenders, 
 and those of the most vicious and hardened kind. For it could not have operated 
 on any one of the following classes : 
 
 1. Those who had sufficient means to discharge the fine and costs of prosecu- 
 tion; for, as to such, they would of course relieve themselves at once, by making 
 payment. 
 
 2. Those who were poor and destitute ; for they could procure their discharge 
 from prison, by making it appear to the satisfaction of the board of county com- 
 missioners, that they were unable to pay, according to the 37th section. 
 
 3. Nor could it extend to those who might be willing to pay the fine by labor 
 on the highways, according to the provisions of the 16th section, already quoted. 
 
 4. Nor to those whom the court might sentence to " hard labor," under the 
 provisions of the 17th section, before referred to. 
 
 5. And, lastly, it could by no possibility reach the case of an honest man. 
 Then on whom would it operate, you will ask 1 Sir, 1 will tell you on whom 
 
 it would operate ; it would take effect, as it was intended it should, on that class 
 of sturdy offenders who, by a fradulent sale or concealment of their property, had 
 placed it beyond the reach of execution, thereby adding to their original offence 
 the perpetration of a fraud. Persons of this description having property, but re- 
 fusing to surrender it up, or apply it in payment of their fines, could not, and 
 ought not to be relieved as petsons unable to pay. No one can fail to see that 
 the 37th section is comprehensive enough, in its remedial provisions, to embrace 
 the case of every offender who does not by his own fraudulent act deprive him- 
 self of its proffered benefits. 
 
 To those only, then, who preferred fraud and evasion to probity and fair deal- 
 ing, in the application of their property to the discharge of a fine imposed for a 
 criminal offence, could the 19th section of the bill have been applied. 
 
 But it is said that assaults and batteries, though breaches of the law, do not, as 
 most other offences, imply any moral turpitude in those who commit them ; and 
 yet they are not exempted from the operation of that section. True, they are 
 not. But in regard to offences of that kind, I have already shown that they might 
 be disposed of under the provisions of the bill that contained the section objected 
 to, in two different ways: 1st. By a plea of guilty before a justice of the peace ; 
 2dly. By amicable agreement and compromise between the parties. Then, if these 
 methods of adjustment failed, a prosecution by indictment was discouraged by the 
 provisions that required the prosecutor to endorse the indictment for costs, and 
 the party accused to be recognised to appear before the court. 
 
 Under these various regulations, obviously intended, as indeed their effect was, 
 to discourage prosecutions for assault and battery, but few cases, and those only of 
 an aggravated kind, which the parties could not arrange before the magistrate, or 
 settle between themselves, were ever likely to be carried into court. 
 
 Suppose, however, a person imprisoned on account of a fine for assault and 
 lottery — an event that could never occur under the legal enactments to which I 
 have referred, without a more than ordinary degree of delinquency, he could, 
 nevertheless, procure his enlargement by any of the means before indicated. And 
 if he did not avail himself of them, but chose rather to be disposed of under the 
 19th section, it would clearly be his own fault. 
 
In conclusion of my remarks on this branch of the case, I would ask gentlemen 
 to compare the 19th with the 17th section, with a view to adjust their relative 
 claims upon our approbation. If I am not greatly deceived, the latter section 
 confers a power far more likely to prove dangerous and oppressive in its exercise 
 than the former, and yet it passed by a silent vote, and without opposition from 
 any one. 
 
 Finally, what is the offence of General Harriscn in the premises'? Why, sir, 
 in 1821, the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of Ohio, passed 
 a certain bill, by a vote of two to one, and sent it to the Senate, where a motion 
 was made to strike out a particular section ; and Genera! Hairison, with other 
 intelligent and patriotic gentlemen, voted against the motion. And this, if you 
 will believe me, is his offence ! ! A vote given nearly twenty years ago against 
 rejecting a proposition that had received the deliberate sanction of an immense 
 majority of the immediate representatives of the people, and on a question con- 
 cerning which different opinions were and might be very innocently entertained, 
 is now brought forward as a matter of grave accusation, and one that ought to 
 arouse the whole American people with apprehensions for the safety of their lib- 
 erties. On the contrary, I shall be greatly mistaken, if they do not, with me, re- 
 gard the whole affair as utterly paltry and insignificant. Although no discussion 
 was required to vindicate the vote General Harrison gave, yet some explanation 
 seemed to be necessary to correct the wanton misrepresentations propagated in 
 regard to it ; and that correction, it is believed, has been effectually applied by a 
 plain statement, showing what that vote was, and the circumstances under which 
 it was given. 
 
 I said, in an early part of my remarks, that I intended to say a few words in 
 regard to the estimation in which this charge was held by the people of Ohio. 
 How they have hitherto considered it will appear from a few historical facts. The 
 Hon. Thomas Morris, late Senator of the United States, and who was elected by 
 the Van Buren party in the Legislature of that State, is the author of the famous 
 19th section ; and I presume he has no cause to be ashamed of the paternity. He 
 was a member at the time of the popular branch, in which the bill originated ; and, 
 for the support he gave this section, neither he nor any one of the majority with 
 whom he acted was ever called in question. On the contrary, many of that num- 
 ber have since been honored, in various ways, with the confidence and approba- 
 tion of the people. 
 
 Among those who voted with General Harrison in the Senate, against the mo- 
 tion to strike out the section, was Eli Baldwin, whose name you will find in the 
 journal I have read. When General Harrison was a candidate, in 1836, for the 
 Presidency, this same Mr. Baldwin was the candidate of the Van Buren parly in 
 that State for the office of Governor. During the canvass, which was a very an- 
 imated one, the charge was made by the Van Buren party that General Harrison 
 had voted to sell white men for debt. But, when it was discovered that Mr. Bald- 
 win had given the same vote, the federal leaders changed their tactics, or rather 
 the scene for displaying them ; and they caused the charge, with ail its known 
 falsehood, to be put in travelling condition, and sent oft" to Maryland, in the hope 
 that it might receive there, from the hand of strangers, a more hospitable recep- 
 tion than it had met with at home, where it was better known. 
 
 Notwithstanding his vote, Mr. Baldwin received the zealous and undivided sup- 
 port of the federal locofoco party in Ohio ; and, by that support, we are furnished 
 with a test of their sincerity in making the charge they now use against General 
 Harrison. Did they believe in the truth of that charge when they rushed to the 
 polls to elect Mr. Baldwin to the first office in the State 1 
 
 [Here Mr. Duncan, of Ohio, rose and said, that he would give it as his delib- 
 erate opinion and belief, that Mr. Baldwin lost his election on account of the vote 
 he gave in the Senate of Ohio, in 1821.] 
 
Mr. Mason resumed and said : My colleague will find il a much easier task to 
 declare what his opinion is than to reconcile that opinion with the facts of the case. 
 It is true Mr. Baldwin was defeated by, I believe, about 6,000 votes, (I speak 
 from recollection, without pretending to be precisely accurate ;) but why was lie 
 defeated? Because (says my colleague in an under tone) the democrats would 
 not go to the polls and vote. Precisely so! And Mr. Van Buren will be de- 
 feated next November for the same satisfactory reason. But, then, why would 
 they not go to the polls and vote for Mr. Baldwin? Not, certainly, because he 
 had given, what my colleague, in a late speech against General Harrison, chose 
 to denounce as a very obnoxious vote. They were iniluenced by no such objec- 
 tion ; for, within the space of three weeks after the defeat of Mr. Baldwin, the real 
 democracy of my State; not only went to the polls, but they did more, they gave 
 General Harrison,, notwithstanding the pretended sin of that vote was on him, 
 fresh in their recollection, a majority over Mr. Van Buren of about 9,000 votes. 
 
 Now, sir, as my colleague took the tield, and employed all his energies to se- 
 cure the election of Mr. Baldwin, we know what his opinion then was respecting 
 the vary same charge he is willing now to use against General Harrison. We 
 know he then treated it as false and frivolous ; for it formed with him no objec- 
 jection against the claims of Mr. Baldwin to his confidence and support. And 
 we further know that nothing has since occurred to render the charge less false 
 and frivolous than it was at that time. 
 
 My colleague, (Mr. Duncan.) when making his speech the other day, read an 
 extract from the journal of the Senate of Ohio, which set forth the 19th section 
 of the bill, and the proceedings of that body in relation to it. At the same time, 
 lie sent to the Clerk's table a paper which he said contained the "remarks" of 
 General Lucas, delivered " at the time the measure was under discussion ;" and, 
 that the true character of the proposition then " under discussion" might be for- 
 ever fixed in the minds of the present and all coming generations, he desired that 
 these remarks might be read : and, to give greater force to the remarks of Gen- 
 eral Lucas, my colleague pronounced an extravagant eulogy on his character and 
 public services. With these praises, whether well or ill-deserved, I have nothing 
 to do. The whole speech, attributed to General Lucas, furnishes internal evi- 
 dence that it was not made " at the time the measure was under discussion," but 
 is the production of a later period, and the effusion of a heart cankered with the 
 accumulated venom of years ; and the last paragraph, unluckily for the author, 
 is perfectly conclusive on this point. It is in these words: " The question was 
 then taken on Mr. Fithian's motion, and carried in the affirmative — yeas 20, nays 
 12. So this obnoxious provision, voted for and defended by William H. Har- 
 rison, does not now disgrace the statute book of Ohio." 
 
 General Lucas, I incline to think, would have been less bitter in his denuncia- 
 tions had he not forgotten', at the late period when he wrote this speech, that he 
 had himself "voted for" the 17lh section, which in its operation on "one of the 
 patriots of the Revolution," who might have been " provoked to commit an assault 
 in defending the honor of his Government," is far more rigorous and deerading 
 than the section against which he has directed the thunder of his reprobation. 
 Before he ventures on writing another philippic against General Harrison, I would 
 call his attention to that section, and ask him why he allowed it to pass, and to 
 "disgrace the statute book of Ohio?" But, sir, as it is a thing unknown in par- 
 liamentary proceedings to debate a proposition after it has been decided, and 
 rather difficult to announce, pending the discussion, the precise result of the vote, 
 and to designate the name of a particular individual as having voted in the nega- 
 tive before the question was decided, I should be glad if my honorable colleague 
 would inform me how General Lucas was enabled, during the debate on a pend- 
 ing motion, to say that " the question was then taken;' 1 '' that it was " carried in 
 the affirmative — yeas 20, nays 12 ;" and to declare, exultingly, that, in conse- 
 
quence of this vote, the " obnoxious proposition, voted for and defended by Wil- 
 liam H. Harrison, does not now disgrace the statute book of Ohio !" Such a 
 speech, delivered " at the time the measure was under discussion" must hwc 
 sounded strangely in the ears of his brother Senators ! 
 
 Again, sir, is it not a little remarkable that the " now Governor of the Terri 
 tory of Iowa" should then have selected the name of General Harrison from tl't 
 twelve Senators who all voted the same way, and made it the special object of a 
 rude and malignant assault? And think you he would have committed this out- 
 rage in his presence ? Where was the motive, at that day, for singling out Gen- J 
 eral Harrison, and holding him up to the odium of the country, without one re-|jj 
 mark on the conduct of those who voted with him? No motive then existed, am 
 no such speech was made. 
 
 My colleague has been deceived. This pretended speech, like the charge i 
 is brought to support, has been trumped up to serve the party purposes of a day 
 and then to be consigned to oblivion forever. 
 
 I have now done with this stale calumny ; and nothing remains for me to d> 
 but to deliver it over to the indignant scorn and contempt of an honest and gen 
 erous people. 
 
 [The residue of Mr. Mason's speech, being on other topics, will hereafter b* 
 reported.] 
 
 •*< 
 
 14® 
 

 
 
 
 -o . * « A <* 
 
 .*..•.-■ '. 
 

 \» . * 
 
 
 
 • !••» * 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 «0 » « • •* V 
 
 ^1- 
 
 
 
 
 •. %../ .-isse*. %.*+ :l