THE PvESOLUTION TO EXPEL MR. I OF oni8. 1/ ^6> SPEECH HON. GEO. II. PENDLETON, OF OHIO, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 11, lS6t. The House having under consideration the reso- •'ution to expel Mr. Long, of Ohio — Mr. PENDLETON said : Mr. Spbakeb : I have purposely refrained till this moment from taking part in this dis- sussion. I desired to wait until gentlemen apo-a this side and upon the other srfle of the Chamber should have said all they thought proper to say by way of criticism on the sp^'echof my friend and colleague, [Mr. Long.] I desired that gentlemen upon the other side of the Chamber, the gentleman from Mary- land, [Mr. Davis,] my two colleagues from Ohio, [Mr.-ScHENCK and Mr. gpALDiNO,] and the gentlemen from Indiana, [Mr. Okth and Mr. Dumoxt,] should have poured out the vials of their wrath upon the Democratic party. I desired that the vocabulary of in- vective and vituperation should be entirely exhausted. I knew it was inevitable. I de- sired that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Smith] should have made his speech, in which, though it was an hour long, he did not once allude to the question which is pending. I desired that all the false issues should have been made, that every attempt to draw off attention from the only question before us should have been fully tried, and then I in- tended to ask the House to come back to the consideratjon of this resolution. I, sir, shall not follow those gentlemen. I shall reply to none of their partisan crimina- tions. They do not touch the marrow of this question. They are unworthy of the dignity of this debate. I shall not express my opin- ion as to the soundness or unsoundness of the of the views of my colleague. I will be led into no false issues ; I will be diverted in no respect from the question before us. Its so- lution depends in no degree upon the opinion of any gentleman as .to the soundness of the views of my colleague, or as to the wisdom or propriety of tlieir u^teranoe at tkis tiioe. This question rises to a higher dignity. It" is important to my colleague personally ; it is important to every member of this House in his personal relations ; bat it is far more important inasmuch as it touches the organi- zation of this House, the organization of the Government itself. I shall therefore neither participate in partisan discussion nor retort the partisan allusions which have been made. I shall confine myself, as nearly as I can, to the question involved in the resolution of the Speaker. I shall endeavor to rise to the height of this great subject, and if I shall not be able to do justice to the argument, I will at least do justice to myself and to my owa appreciation of the spirit in which it ought to be discussed. And as I shall not discuss th» soundness of the views of my colleague, so I desire to say that no person who has spoken had authority to do so for me. I shall not in this debate asseht to nor dissent from those views. I have attended no caucus called either to indorse or repudiate them. I do not know that any such has been held ; certainly none has been held with my concur- rence. Where are we ? In a deliberative assembly whose chief function is discussion. Why were we brought here ? Primarily that we might represent the views of our constituents; and next, that by comparison of opinions, by argument, by persuasion, by addressing the reason and consciences of each other, wa might bo brought into accord and devise a system of legislation which would contribute to the welfare of the people, and, by conse- quence, to the perpetuation and the glory of the Government. What questions are brought before us ? What qijestions are now pending upon your table ? Conscription, confiscation, taxation, recruiting, the reconstruction of State governments, and amendments of the Constitution, and underneath them all lies the great question of the further prosecntioo IS J fTHE RESOLUTION T r, OF oni(5. • SPEECH OP HON. GEO.II. PENDLETON, OF OHIO, DELIVERBD IN THE HOUSE OP RKPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 11, 1861. The House having under consideration the rcso- /utioQ to exi>el Mr. Long, of Ohio — Mr. PENDLETON said : Mr. Speaker: I have purposely refrained till this moment from taking part in this dis- cussion. I desired to wait until gentlemen apo-n this side and upon the other siTle of the Chamber should have said all they thought proper to say by way of criticism on the speech of my friend and colleague, [Mr. Long.] I desired that gentlemen upon the other side of the Chamber, the gentleman from Mary- land, [Mr. Davis,] my two colleagues from Ohio, [Mr.-ScHENCK and Mr. Spalding,] and the gentlemen from Indiana, [Mr. Orth and Mr. Dumost,] should have poured out the vials of their wrath upon the Democratic party. I desired that the vocabulary of in- vective and vituperation should be entirely exhausted. I knew it was inevitable. I de- sired that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Smith] should have made his speech, in which, though it was an hour long, he did not once allude to the question which is pending. I desired that all the false issues should have been made, that every attempt to draw off attention from the only question before us should have been fully tried, and then I in- tended to ask the House to come back to the consideratjon of this resolution. I, sir, shall not follow those gentlemen. I shall reply to none of their partisan crimina- tions. They do not touch the marrow of this question. They are unworthy of the dignity of this debate. I shall not express my opin- ion as to the soundness or unsoundness of the of the views of my colleague. I will be led into no false issues ; I will be diverted in no respect from the question before us. Its so- lution depends in no degree upon the opinion of any gentleman as .to the soundness of the views of my colleague, or as to the wisdom or propriety of their utterance at tkis tiioe. This question rises to a higher dignity. It" is important to my colleague personally ; it is important to every member of this House in his personal relations ; but it is far moro important inasmuch as it touches the organi- zation of this House, the organization of the Government itself. I shall therefore neither participate in partisan discussion nor retort the partisan allusions which have been made. I shall confine myself, as nearly as I can, to the question involved in the resolution of the Speaker. I shall endeavor to rise to the height of this great subject, and if I shall not be able to do justice to the argument, I will at least do justice to myself and to my owa appreciation of the spirit in which it ought to be discussed. And as I shall not discuss th* soundness of the views of my colleague, so 1 desire to say that no person who has spoken had authority to do so for me. I shall not in this debate ass^ht to nor dissent from those views. I have attended no caucus called either to indorse or repudiate them. I do not know that any such has been held ; certainly none has been held with my concur- rence. Where arc we ? In a deliberative assembly whose chief function is discussion. Why were we brought here ? Primarily that we might represent the views of our constituents; and next, that by comparison of opinions, by argument, by persuasion, by addressing the reason and consciences of each other, wa might be brought into accord and devise a system of legislation which would contribute to the welfare of the people, and, by conse- quence, to the perpetuation and the glory of the Government. What questions are brought before us ? What qijestioQS are now pending upon your table f Conscription, confiscation, taxation, recruiting, the reconstruction of State governments, and amendments of the Constitution, and underneath them all lies the great question of the further prosecutioa of this war. The President of the United States, in his message at the beginning of this scssioE, told us that he had issued a procla- mation of emancipRtion, and that so long as lie remained in his present position he would neither recall uor modify it. And yet we all know that proalamation is as worthless as the gentUmanfrom Maryland [Mr. Datis] de- clared it to be— as the paper on which it is written— unless enforced by the power of our ftrmies. The Tresidenttold us that he had issHed a proclamation of amnesty, that those who will take the oath of allegiance and swear obedience to his proclamations shall have au- thority to reorgRnizo the State governments, even though they be but one-tenth part of the population, and that he will maintain those State governments by all the power of our arms. Following immediately upon that message came a call for three hundred thousand men, and afterwards a call for two hundred thou- sand more. As a direct consequence, inevi- tably, we have had conscription bills, a defi- ciency bill of more than a hundred million dollars, and regular appropriation bills for the Army for $500,000,000, for the Navy $150,- 000,000, and for miscellaneous purposes $2|0,- OOo'oOo'more. Taxation is necessary to raise this money, and we have tax bills. Loans are necessary, and we have loan bills. Greed of gain must be satisfied, and we have confisca- tion bills. Those bills are pending. They are before the House. My colleague must consider them ; he must vote upon them. His duty and his oath require it. The solution of all these questions, the propriety and neces- sity of passing these bills, depend upon the Bingle question whether or not this war shall be further prosecuted, and if so, in what man- ner and for what purpose ? This lies at their very foundation. It is the base of the pyramid of legislation wbich is sought to be built up. My colleague [Mr. Long] at the time ap- propriated for debate, at the only time when by the rules he could do so, rose in this place and decorously, decently-violating none of the proprieties of debate-with calmness and moderation and dignity, with a sincerity which has not been questioned, appealing to God for the purity of his motives, and responsible to his constituents for the wisdom of his views- proceeded to discuss that question without the consideration of whiqh none of the meas- nres nowpending before you can be honfistly developed or fairly deaded. Ho said that he believes this war to ha' been begun unconstitutionally, to have be prosecuted in an unwise and improper man ner. He said that the experience of ihnsi^ .years has led his mind to the conclusion that it can never result in a restoration of the Union, but only in the destruction of our re- publican system at the North ; that it ought to cease immediately, even at the expense of recognising the independence of the confede- rate States ; and he enforced his views by ap- peals to your reasons, to your judgment, to the highest motives by which legislators can be governed ; he asked yon to weigh »hi3 ar- guments and if you could honestly agree with him to assent to his conclusions. Will any gentleman tell me that this is not legitimate debate? Will any gentleman tell me that these are not legitimate considerations and pertinent to the matter before the Hgipse ? Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be misunder- stood. The House has ample power to pre- serve decorum in debate. It has power to expel a member who, by reason of crime or personal turpitude, has rendered himself un- fit to perform the duties or enjoy the immuni- ties of membership ; but, it is not within the constitutional power of the House to expel a member for the expression of any opinion upon any political question, when such ex- pression of opinion is pertinent to the mea- sure before it. This doctrine is essential to the character of this House as a deliberative body. If it were not so, we of the minority would hold our opinions subject to the will of the majority. We would be compelled, at the risk of being expelled from this House, to express them in such delicate terms aa would not offend tho sensitive organization e) your loyalty. Sir, deliberation would bo t farce, discussion would be a sham, the pre- tense of debate ought to be done away with and this House assume its appropriate posi tion as a mere registry of the predeterminec purposes and preconceived opinions of a ma jority of its members. And yet gentlemen will say, as they hav repeatedly said, that while this freedom f debate ought to be allowed in time of peace when the country is in a state of profound m pose, it must be curtaUed when war existsi I take issue with them on that point. Tb time of war is the very time when we shoul consider these questions; then our highe; wisdom Should be invoked. When great dai gers threaten the Republic, the people, exas- perated hy the passions which war excites, or alarmed at the impending peril, are ready to parrf?nder power into the hands of their' rulers. They are embarrassed, anxious, lon"- Mg for peace, hoping success, fearing disaster. They cannot bear the uncertainties of their condition ; they desire more vigor, more ef- ficiency, more rapidity of action, and they he- liere they have attained them when they heap power on their favorites. Then this House should exercise the largest liberty of discussion ; then it should probe to the bot- tom the policies and motives of parties and of men. Were it not so the condition of war would perpetuate itself— it would be eternal. It would be treasonable in any man to rise in his place and say that he was in favor of peace upon ary other terms than those upon which peace might have been originally maintained. And why should there not bo this free dis- cnssion ? Wo have lost our true appreciation of the character of this body. We forget that arguments here are addressed to each other. We are so in the habit of magnifying our- selves that wo think every speech made in this Hall will reach the ear of the country. Tliat is a mist;: ke. Debate is for the members. It is for convincing the judgment and influenc- ing the vote of members. The speech made by my colleague [Mr. Long] was addressed to you. Are you afraid that his arguments will •onvince you ? Are you afraid that they will persuade you to vote with him ? Were they so cogent that you fear to trust yourselves ? Are you afraid that they will produce an ef- fect upon the people ? Are you afraid to trust the people ? Are you afraid to trust the pow- er which is behind you and which after two years will fill your places on this floor ? Why, 1 repeat, should this speech not be heard ? G^onflemeu have said if— and if, and if— some great harm might be done to the Government. But has great harm ever been done by the freedom of debate in this Uall f Have you really any fear of results injurious to the country ? Or is this only a pretense under which is veiled your determination to gather in and consolidate the opinion of the country and prevent its wandering, in the least de- gree, from the paths in which you intend, if possible, to conduct it i 1 have said, Mr. Speaker, that the expres- ion of an opinion in this House under the ircumstanccs which I have described, proper in time, pertinent to the subject of discussion, is not the subject of punishment. Over it the House has no power either of expulsion or of censure or of criticism. The history of tljis body, the history of all free deliberative as- semblies, with almost -absolute uniformity, shows that I ara correct. If there are excep- tions they are but milestones which mark the progress of free debate to its present perfection. They point a moral— I beg gentlemen not to forget it now. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] told us yesterday that it was not for the ex- pression of an opinion, not even for entertain- ing it, that he proposed to exercise the puni- tive powers of the House. He told us the ex- istence of that opinion and the evident inten- tion of carrying it into effect by his votes on pending questions showed that my colleague was unfit to be a member of the House. In- deed! is that true f I had supposed opinions were for constituents. I had supposed that constituents were to decide whether they were wise and sound. I had supposed that the Rep- resentative spoke their voice ; that his place 'ipon this floor was their place, his rights their rights, and that the immunities given to him were given for their benefit and protec- tion and not for his own. The entertaining of an opinion and being willing to express it here I it is that which makes my colleague an unworthy member of the House is it ? Sup- pose his constituents sendhim back, will you again expel him ? Will you enact again the farce of the British House of Commons in the case of Wilkes, and which after years ef trial it was obliged to give up : Entertaining opin- ions makes him an unworthy member I Why, sir, the opinions of one hundred thousand citizens are entitled to your respect ; they are entitled to be represented here whether you respect them or not; and the man who is chosen to represent them holds a seat hero as your peer. When you expel him you dis- franchise them. When you expel the Repre- • sentativeyou deprive the constituents of their voice. And are they to be denied representa- tion here until they elect a man whom yon may designate for them f This question is not to be evaded. We are not to be led from it by a false issue. We are not to bo told this party or that party is in the wrong, these con- clusions or those conclusions are not to be tol- erated. 1 say this House of Represnntatives must— I speak the word advisedly— must re- «eivc tho member whom any couslitucncy will elect to represent them. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] having announced hi3 opinion of the course of my colleague, and the reason why he should be punished, contented himself with citing two examples in which the Uouse had exercised this power. One was the case of the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Harris,] upon whom a vote of censure waa passed day before yesterday. This resolution was moved by tho gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Washbckne,] who at the time called the pre- vious question. The gentleman from Mary- land [Mr. Davis] is too much of a lawyer to think that a case is of much authority when it is decided without opportunity for argu- ment. The other case, and the only other case to which he alluded, was that of Mr. Giddings. In 1842 he introduced a resolution in reference to the mutiny on the Creole, whereupon a gentleman rose in his place and moved that ho be censured by the House, and be was censured. Does the gentleman think that was a fr.ir case in which to exercise this power? Does ho approve of the censure? Doas he believe the case was fairly within the jurisdiction of the House? If not, he will scarcely cite it as authority for the exer- cise of the same power in this case. The gentleman will pardon me if I say that he diminished very much the force of his argument when in conclusion he told us that this was Buch a case that with law or against law, under the Constitution or against the Constitution, he would expel my colleague. If that be the position on which the resolu- tion is placed, if that be the ground upoa which it is offered, if gentleman abandon all pretense that it is according to law, that it is according to the Constitution, we will meet them on that ground also. For the present we prefer to believe the House sits under the Constitution ; that it is organiied by the Constitution ; that it exercises func- tions which tho Constitution prescribes, and that its powers are limited by the Constitution. My colleague from the third district [Mr. ScHESCK] places his support of this resolu- tion upon another ground. He says that the Constitution of the United States provides that for sentiments uttered in this House no member shall bo called in question in any other place. Ay, it does; and then, as I would «l«w the conclusion, the expression of an opinion in this Ilouca upjn a subject of legislation is a fortiori, protected by the great- est sanctions. A member shall not be called in question for a libel uttered upon this floor, nor for any offense against private rights. He is not to be intimidated by fear of the law, whether invoked in the criminal or civil courts of the country ; and, a fortiori, he is not to be called in question here by the House itself for the free expression of opinion in fair debate. You may punish a man for disorderly con- duct in the presence of tho House. The Con- stitution expressly says so. There is the limit to your power. You must bring the offense fairly within ttat definition. The con- struction of those words is not to be too nar- row. Usage has given to them a very large scope ; necessity, perhaps, has compelled it ; precedent has confirmed it. Yet, after all, the offense, unless it be a crime, must be brought fairly within the meaning of those words. I take it upon myself to say that by no stretch of the imagination can the deco- rous, candid, honest expression of opinion upon a matter of legislation pending before the House be construed into disorderly conduct. Mr. BOUTWELL. If the gentleman will permit me to interrupt him, I desire to ask a single question for the purpose of ascertain- ing whether we understood him correctly. Did he say that the power under the Consti- tution to expel a member was limited to the cause of disorderly conduct f Mr. PENDLETON. Yes, sir, I said it was so limited. I 'said that every case in which the power of censure or expulriion could be invoked and exercised by the House for acts done in its presence must be brought by soma latitude of construction, whether mere or less broad, within a fair interpretation of the words "disorderly conduct." Now, sir, just here I am reminded that two gentlemen from Indiana and one gentleman from Maryland undertook yesterday to ask us what rights of free debite were enjoyed in tho Congri^s at Richmond. TUmi, sir, is en- tirely immaterial to me. 1 do not know. I do not propose to cite them a , authority for any purpose. I do not propose to limit or measure our rights of free debate by any rule which they may adopt. It, is nothing to me what their rules allow or iht-ir' practice tol- erates. They may be a.i i ;. j^.:: i.al as the gentleman from Mary hiu'i ■ ■■ gentleman ' from Indiana would ha\> ^e them to be. Tliey may be as tyrannical as either of those gentlemen would make this Iloase. Do you mean to follow their example f Do you mean to make^this House conform in its TvAea of order and debate to the practice of the Con- gress in Richmond ? I said a moment ago that the uniform prac- tice of deliberative bodies sustained the po- sition which I assumed, and that if there were exceptions they were so distinct, so well known, that they served only to mark the progress of legislative bodies toward the perfection of free deliberation. How was it when John Qaincy Adams pre- sented a petition in this House for a dissolu- tion of the Union ? I beg gentlemen to un- derstand that I do not introduce this example or others for the purpose of comparing: the views of my colleague with the views which were then expressed. I adduce it merely as a striking illustration. That proposition went to the very foundation of the Govern- ment. It struck at the very root of the whole govemmental system. Yet not in deference to the opinions either of Mr. Adams or the petitioners, but in deference to the right of freedom of debate, the House refused to censure him. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not know whether I understood the gentleman. I understood him to state that under the Con- stitution, in his judgment, this House had no power to expel a member except for disorder- ly conduct. Mr. PENDLETON. I. will tell the gentle- man exactly what I said. I said that to give this House jurisdiction to expel a member, the ofifense must, by a greater or less latitude of construction, be fairly brought within the meaning of the expression "disorderly con- duot." Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I believe that in the last Congress two gentlemen were expelled from this House. If I am not mis- taken the gentleman from Ohio voted for their expulsion. Was that for "disorderly con- duct" in the House? Mr. PENDLETON. Who were they ? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Bur- nett and M*. Reed. Mr. PENDLETON. I voted for their ex- pulsion because they left their places hero and went into the armies of the Confederates. Do you not call that disorderly conduct ? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is the gentleman's definition of disorderly conduct, and I accept it. Mr. GARFIELD, I dislike to interrupt the gentleman, but I wish to ask the gentleman a question, not to interfere with the course of his argument, but to draw him out upon this | subject. Suppose I, in a decorous manner, should rise in my place and introduce a reso- lution against the approaching campaign and plans of Grant about to bo adopted on the Potomac ; suppose I, having knowledge of those plans, in support of my argument should tell what his plans were in this House, should expose them, should state the number of men ; that one column was going in this direction and another in that ; suppose I, by my speech, made in the most becoming man- ner, as far as style is concerned, should tell the entire plans and operations of the cam- paign just about to commence, that would not be discourteous or indecorous ; yet I ask the gentleman if that would be an offense for which I could bo censured or expelled ? Mr. PENDLETON. I will answer my col- league. If these facts and details and plans were matter of public notoriety, it would be perfectly right to use them, and it would not be within the power of the House to expel him for their use ; if he went to the War De- partment and obtained the knowledge of the facts in confidence from those charged with their execution, if he obtained them surrep- titiously, if he obtained them as a member of Congress under the seal of confidence which exists between ofiScers of the 6am« Govern- ment, and coming here, having a right to ask this House to close its doors to receive a com- munication of that kind, he should not do that, but should make his speech the means of communicating information to the enemies of the country, it would be disorderly conduct in the highest possible degree. I was about to say that Mr. Adams in 1842 presented a petition for a dissolution of the Union. It was sent here from Haverhill, Massachusetts. Mr. Adams presented it, and asked its refereace to a select committee, and immediately Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, and subsequently Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, moved a resolution of censure. I recollect the scene. I remember where the old man stood in yonder Hall. I recollect he rose in his place all trembling with excitement, and in one of those historic speeches which wiU live as long as the history of the English language shall remain, vindicated the right of the people to petition for a redress of their grievances, and the right of Representatives to present their petitions on this floor. And he argued the question against all comers ; the lists were kept open day by day, until, ashamed of the efforts they had mado to re- press this freedom of debate in the American Congress, the majority, who had at first per- eistentlj refused, at last laid the resolntion on tbe table. Gentlemen will say to mo this proposition t-o dissolve the Uaion was made in time of peace. Thomas Gorwia in 1847 attacked the Administration upon the policy, the conduct, the origin, and the justness of the Mexican war. The majority did not agree with him ; they abhorred his views ; but in deference to this great right of free debate in a representa- tive body they permitted it to pass uncen- sured. Again, in 1856, a Senator from Ohio, Mr. Wade, in time of peace, speaking of this Union which you now aft'eet so much to revere, used this language : "But southern gentlemen stand here and in al- most all their speeches speak of the dissolution of the Uci'in as au clement 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 en- dangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it, it" their interests axe viulontly assailed by means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who would ask them to C'lntinue in such a Union. It would be doing vinlcnce to the platform of the party to which I belong. I see nothing at present which I think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen see it, I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, that we of the North have. If they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in this b'nion, for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Govern- ment under which we live." — Congressional Globe, third semiioa Tliirtj Fourth Congress, vol. 34, j). 25. Did Senators agree with him? Did they think he was correct ? Did they believe that there was no power of coercion, and that any attempt at coercion would destroy the princi- ples of the Government under which we live ? Yet the American Senate did not think itself called on to pass a vote of censure or expul- sion. Again, sir, my venerable colleague on the Committee of Ways and Means from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Stevens] said from his place in this Uouse, on the 9th of December, 1862, upon the question of the admission of West Virginia : "Now, these rebellious States being a power by the acknowlc'lgmcnt of European nations, and of our own nat.on, subject and entitled to belligerent rights, have become subject to all the rules of war. I hold the Cmatitution has no longer the least ef- fect upon t'.icin." * * * » " Hence I hold that none of the States now in rebellion are entitled to the protection of the Constitution, and I am grieved when I hear those high in authority sometimes talking of the constitutional difficulties of enforcing measures ngainst this belligerent pow- er, and th'o next moment disregardinj^ every ves- tige and semblance of the Constiluti m by acts which alone are arbitrary." * * * * " This talk of restoring tho ' Union as it%va3 un- der the Constitution as it is,' is one of the absurdi- ties which I have heard till I have become sick 9l it. This Union can never bo res'orcd as it was. There are many things which render such an event impossible. This Union shall never, with my con- sent, be restored under the Constitutiun as it is, with slavery protected by it." — Congressional O'lobe, vol. 47, part 1, p. 60. That was the language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I do not cite his lan- guage to criticise it. I will institute no com- parison between his views and those of my colleague. The gentleman knows that I ea- tertain for him the kindest personal feeling, and that I would say nothing offensive to his feelings. Did the House agree with him ? Did any one ever venture to offer a resolu- tion to expel him? lie believed it honestly, he said it legitimately, in the exercise of a constitutional right. Sir, I honor him for speaking it boldly, and I honor this House for not having presumed to violate his right to speak it. And yet I call the attention of my honorable friend from Ohio, [Mr. Gab- field,] who is so loud in his denunciations of our colleague [Mr. Long] for having uttered these sentiments in time of war, that even at the moment when tho gentleman from Penn- sylvania spoke, the hosts were marshaled for the fight at Fredericksburg, that even then the pause in the click of the telegraph wire which he told us was the certain signal that the dread contest of arms had begun, was so distinct that its very silence was heard all over this land. It was then, when you had sent your soldiers to that field under pretense of maintaining the Union and supporting the Constitution, that the gentleman from Pena- sylvania rose and told you and them and the country that the Union never could be re- stored, and that with his consent it never should be. On the 11th of February, 1861, Mr. Craige, of North Carolina, introduced a resolution in- to this House requesting the President to ac- knowledge the independence of the Southern Confederacy, to receive its embassadors, and to adjust terms of commercial intercourse. By the concurrence of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Colfax] it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Did we have any resolution of censure or expulsion • No member dreamed [that it was kis duty to offer one. Need I dwell longer upon this snbject f I had intended to go back to those splendid demonstrations of English liberty which oc- curred at the time of our Revolution. I had intended to recall to you the words of Lord Chatham uttered time and again in the Brit- ish Parliament against the then pending war in America. The in«xorabIe bonr rule bids me be brief. In January, 1776, he said: " The gentleman tolls us America is obstinate, America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three million people so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to f ubmit to bo slaves would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest." In November, 1777, eighteen moaths after the Declaration of Independencd, after two years of war,-he said : " As to conquest, my lords, I repeat, it is impos- eible. You may swell every expense and every efl'ort still more extravagantly — pile and accumulata every assistance which you can beg or borrow, traffic and barter with every little pititul German prince that soils and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign prince — your efforts are forever vain and impotent. If I were an American as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I would never lay down my arms, never, never, never. " But in such a war as this, unjust in its princi- ple, impracticable in its means, and ruinous in its consequences, I would not contribute a single effort nor a single shilling." And Mr. Burke, in 1781, after the sorrender of Yorktown had secured the defeat of the British in America, exclaimed : " The noble lord said the war was not disgrace- ful ; it was only unfortunate. For my part 1 must continue to call it disgraceful, not unfortunate. I consider them all alike, victories and defeats; towns taken and towns evacuated; new generals appointed and old generals recalled ; they are all alito calamities ; they all spur us on to this fatal business. Victories give ushepes; defeats make us desperate ; and both instigate us to go on." * » « * " Give us back our force nor pro- tract this burdensome, disgraceful, for it is not an unfortunate war." And yet, were they censured? Did the "first gentleman of England" leave the Speaker's chair to move a vote of censure or expulsion i But why go so far back ? Within this year, in the French Chamber, Thiers, returning after twelve years of exile from ofiBce and honors, raised his voice for the liberty of France: "Give us a free press ; give us free ballot ; give us free debate in these halls — these are the es- sentials of free government — and I will bo a grateftd and obedient snbject of the empire. If you will not, I warn you UxAt, as the dau- phin did not succeed Louis XVI, as the Duke of Reichstadt did not succeed the great Napoleon, as the sons of Louis Phillippe are now in ex- ile, 80 neither will this imperial prince suc- ceed to the throne of his father and perpetu- ate the dynasty of the second Napoleon." And when, in the samo debate, Count Momy, the President, rudely assailed a speaker who uttered like sentiments, aad a Councillor of State followed it up by the use of the word "traitor," the indignant members with one accord rose in their places and with irresisti- ble authority demanded that the insolent menial of despotic power should recall and apologize for the offensive word. And shall it be said that in the American Congress there is less freedom of debate than in England under the house of Hanover, or in France, when she lies a helpless victim^ scarce palpitating, in the grasp of a Bona- parte ? The eloquent gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] told us last night, that when Lord Chatham, aged, feeble, wrapped in flannel and suffering from disease, came resting upon the arm of his still greater son, to address for the last time the British House of Lords, and to die upon the floor, he came to speak against the dismemberment of'the British Empire. It is true, and what did he say f "I told you this war would be disastrous ; I predicted its consequences ; I told you you could net con- quer America; I begged you to conciliate America ; you would not heed my advice. You have exhausted the country ; you have sacrificed its men ; you have wasted its trea- sures ; you have driven these colonies to de- clare their independence ; you have driven them into the arms of our ancient and hated enemy, and now, without striking a blow, without firing a shot, cowardly under diffi- culties as you were truculent in success, yea propose to yield through fear to Franco what you have refused as justice to America." Did it not occur to the gentleman from Mary- land that possibly at a future day when the history of that civil strife shall have been re- produced in this land, another Chatham may come to this House and hurl against those who are now in power these bitter denuncia- tions because they will have shown themselves unable to make an honorable peace even as they were unable to make a victorious war ? The gentleman from Maryland besought the House never to be swerved from its fixed par 8 pose to prosecute the war '« with the last am • ' ^p ^°!*u5\r^ be needed. In November, 1781, after C waliis had surrendered Yorktown and the battle of the Revolution had been fought, House of Commens in its address to the thrc •*„ „,iia asrred his Majesty that it would vote all the and beauty gon« ; xts Pjlar^ fallen ; its waU Te ou ces of the empire to suppress rebellion thrown down; and amid ' th,s chaos of rum" nTm ca In Ma^ch of the next year, in those who accept this issue, brave, deter^ he e'rly spring, in less than six months, that mined, tearful, sorrowing, overwhelmed wxtb same Hon- of Commons voted those were it in a common fate He exhorted h.s fnend^ enTIies to the realm who advised the further in this House and in the country-he expressVr pToTecution of the war. And this House this excluded you, my fellow ^emocrats -d you morning voted down the Crittenden resolu- 1 constituents-to accept this alternative. Do ■d his friends to ( victory or ab- be painted that ® J?xa destroyed; its grace and symmetry it, he exclaimed, and let the world know that this age- has produced heroic children upon whom Heaven has visited the Bins of their fathers. Sir, I trust in God the catastrophe may never come. I trust that the ages, as they roll on, will not thus be called to pass judg- ment on the men of these days. But, if it must be so, my imagination pictures another scene. When your work shall be accom- plished, when your mission shall be executed, when our Constitution is dead, when our liberties are gone, when our Government is destroyed, when these States— no longer held secure in their proper position by the power of our matchless Constitution, so that they emulate in accordant action the stars, as by the divine decree they encircle In their mysterious courses the footstool of the eternal throne, and extract from the harmony of con- flicting elements the true music of the spheres— shall have given place to "States discordant, dissevered, belligerent, to a land rent with civil feuds and drenched in fraternal blood," history will hold its dread inquest, and in tho presence of appalled humanity will render judgment that base and degenerate children, deserting tho teachings of their fathers, deserting the teachings of the past, departing from the ways of pleasantness and peace, rebelling against the wisdom and bene- theever-romngsea. Nothing but the princi- ficence of the Almighty with hearts filled pis truth and right can stay the onward with pride and souls stamed wUh fanaticism progress of public opinion in this our coun- and passion, struck the matncidal blow and fil as it swells and sways and surges in this at the same moment indignant and outraged mad tempest of passioa and seeks to find a Heaven wreaked upon them the just retribu- secure resting place. 1 tion of their terrible and nameless crime. tion, which less than three years ago was passed with only two dissenting votes. The gentleman from Maryland paid a splen- did tribute to the power of public opinion. He compared it to the sea, whose tidal waves obey the fickle bidding of the moon, and roll and swell and sway with restless and resist- less force, and yet constitute the level from which all height is measured. '•But, like the ocean," said he, "it has depths whose eternal stillness is the condi- tion of its stability. Those depths of opinion are not free." Did he forget what horrors . _« woo'd the slimy bottom of the deep, And mocked the dead bones which lay scattered by. , » » » * » •\Vbat sights of ugly death within mine eyes! Mothought I saw a thousand fearful wrecks ! A thousand men that fishes knawed upon— All si^attercd in tho bottom of the sea." Sir, if thero be depths of public opinion where eternal stillness reigns, there gather, even as festering death lies in those ocean depths, the decaying forms of truth and right and freedom. Eternal motion is tho condition of their purity. Did he think this resolution would for one instant retard its progress ? Did he not know that the surging waves would wash away every trace of its existence ? Did he suppose this pony effort would avail him ? The ro-^ks of the eternal hills alone can stay the waves of LIBRARY OP CONGRESS ^006 774 402 / J