EH 5^ C%1 Hollinger pH 8.5 Mill Run F3-1719 E 458 )EBATE IN CONGRESS Til REATENED— ABOLITION .4 LEADERS .C87 Copy 1 SCHEMES UNMASKED. SPEECH ' u. HON. SAMUEL S. COX, OF OHIO, DELIVERED IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 6, 1S64. Tbo TTouso having under consideration the reso- lution to expel Mr. Leng, of Ohio — Mr. COX said: Mr. Speaker : 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 ef 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. LongJ made the remarks which have called out this resolution. 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 ares olntion of this startling nature was introduced we should have had the offici 1 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, we should have the most authentic record of that debate. As I am in- formed, the language 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 government 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 oj: 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. He 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 taken. 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 Governpient. They sustained it in every emergency. We, the memhers 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 out. It was very stale when it was started here 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 any other brains which he has. [Laughter.] Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Better tween these belligerent, these foreign nations? Before 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 ! 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 i3 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 his 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 their independence of this Government. Whether that independence is to be maintained or not i^ 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, 1S61, page 1,235. 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 known 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 bad 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 mc to say that th^re 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, hoping that reason might return them by delay. There were others who said " wo 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 beeu adjudi- cated, after the great American people' has determined on war and determined 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 i3 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 on this floor that he 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 be desires I shall answer ? Mr. COX. I do not ask the gentleman any more questions. I am satisfied with bis 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 have 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 for him to censure or expel my colleague, when he has declared that be 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 sweh a time ever should come that the powers of the Con- stitution were not sufficient to sustain the Union, if that impossible supposition ever prove true, [laughter from the Demo- cratic side of the House,] then I would say that we have a right to do our solemn duty under God and go beyond the Constitution to save the 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 whether my colleague ever qualified his remarks by Baying that it would bo forever impossible in tha 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. GARFIELD. 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 may 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. Garfield 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, ho would tako 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 rling all constitutional sanctions to the winds ra'her than lose his country." Is there anything about "impossible" con- ditions there ? Mr. GARFIELD. "If necessary;" there 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 I I would like to see the per- formance. Another question. I remember that my colleague, en the confiscatioa bill, said that he would under certain circumstances over- leap tke Constitution. What did he mean then by that r 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 Government and the Union." Nothing about the impossibility of ever breaking the Constitution, not a word or syllaMe, for he contemplates its breach for cert; in purposes. My colleague cannot escape from thj 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 I If he does not gentlemen on that side of the House i'o. They are, I learn, subscribing for that speem by hundreds and thousands to distribute it fcr partisan purposes ; and yet they have advocated the very heresies upon which th*y ground the present accusation, and give them circulation by sending out the speech 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 member for the same license of speech which they have in- dulged ; that at home they have favored for t high offices a public character who took ground in favor of rocognizing 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 1 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 f Then I ask him, how much better is he than the member whom 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- Fourth Congress, page 25 : "Cut 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 ail. If they do not feel interested in upholding this Union, if it really trenches on their rights, if it endangers their institutions to suoh an extent that they can- not feel securo 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. / ant not one of those who would ask them to continue in such a Union. It would be doing violence to the platform, of the party to which I belong. AVo have adopted the old Decla- ration of Independence as tho basis of oar political movement, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from tho truo purposes of government as to oppress them, have tho right to reeur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they lire, 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 fn* exercising it, whenever they think the continn .>cy has come. * * * I say again th . eiiey havo the same interest in- maintaining cuis Union, in my judgment, that we of i le North have. If they they think they havo not, be it so. Yon cannot forcibly hold men in tins Union j for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first prinofpleB of the Gov- ernment under which we live." t) Mr. COX. Now, there is the broadest doctrine laid down in favor of the right of rev )lution and against the right of coercion. "It would be doing violence to the platform of the p:;rty to which I belong," says the Repub.ican 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 I you re-elected him Senator after those avowals, and now would you expel men for the same avowals ? If they are treason in a Representative what are they in a Senai or ? I ark my colleague if he did not sustain that Senator ? Did he not vote for him for Senpfor, 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 bad that privilege I should have enjoyed it and acted upon it. Mr. COX. Does the gentleman approve of Senator Wade's doctrine? Mr. GARbTED. Will 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 !" "No!"] Mr. COX. If it does not come out of my time I will not object. [Cries of "Well!" "Well!" and "No!" "No!"] Mr. GARFIELD. I recall the paper. Mr. COX. Will the gentleman indicate what it is ? Mr. GARFIELD. I will only say in refer- ence to this colloquy that if I cannot make my part of the colloquy as I choose, I will 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 ? Mr. GARFIELD. Thomas Jefferson. The Clerk read as follows : Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to J. B. Colvin, September 20, 1810, says : " Tbo question you propose, whether circum- stances 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, hut sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict ob- servance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the h iglu it.. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are ol higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itseit, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us ; thus absolutely sacri- ficing the end to the means. — Jefferson's Works, vol. 5, p. 512. 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 gentleman condemns me. 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 has been rampant in that part of Ohio where he lives, just as it was prevalent in South Carolina, I doubt if Jefferson would have sanc- tioned such a pernicious and disorganizing practice. I know the gentleman and his party 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 ail 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, for any purpose. I am in favor of the enforcement of the laws everywhere equally upon every citizen of the United States. But my colleague takes the other ground, and quotes Jefferson to sustain it. But with such a lawless programme how can he vote for the expulsion of my friend from Ohio because, as it is alleged, he maintained the same princi- ple? How can a defender of law-breakers ex- pel another for recognizing the breach of the very fundamental law of the Union? But I asked my colleague a question to which he did not respond. It was whether he was in favor of the sentiments of Senator Wade in reference to the right of revolution and against coercion. He said he would have voted for him. Where does that place my colleague ? In the category of my friend from Cincinnati, according to the allegation. How, then, can my colleague vote for the expulsion of a man who agrees with him and with his Senator ; and who agrees with another and the principal light of the Republican party? Horace Greeley in his paper states what I will send to the Clerk to be read for the in- formation of the gentleman. The Clerk read the following from the New York Tribune of the 2d of March, 1861 : "We ha^e repeatedly said, and we once more in- sist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that govern- ments derive their just powers from the consent of tho governed, is sound and just; and that, if the slave States, the cotton States, or tho Gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a moral right to do so !" Mr. COX. Now, I ask my colleague whether he favors that doctrine of Horace Greeley? He has been hitherto very prompt to answer. I have given him every chance. He has no excuse now, and I beg my friend of the Abys- sinian joke [laughter] not to interrupt him. I ask my friend if he agrees with Air. Greely in the doctrine which he laid down ? Mr. GARFIELD. I will say to the gentle- man that I did not attend to the reading. 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 nnswe r the gentleman, if he will proceed with his own remarks, and I can then get the floor. I would prefer to answer him categorically theD. 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 11 nd ready in debate. Mr. G ARFIELD. I prefer to wait until the gentleman is through. Sir- COX. I am afraid people will draw a wrong conclusion Irom my colleague's refusal to answer. He may not get a chance to answer to-day. But as he seems unwilling, I ask the privilege of printing 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 of the 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 tbem go in peace. Tho right to sccedo may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless. * Wo must ever re- sist the right of any State to remain in the Union and nullity or defy tho laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter ; whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliber- ately resolve to go out, wo 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, 1S60. '• If it (the Declaration of Independence) justified the secession from the Uritish Empire of three mil- lion colonist* in 1776, we do not seo why it would not justify (he 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 line beoone c alienated from tho Union, and anxious to from it, we will do our best '" forward their — Tribune, February 23, 1861. Can it be possible that such opinions have been uttered and tho paper not suppn Can it be that members who read it approv- ingly, day by day, seek to txpel a metnb t of this House for copying its worst features ? Why was not the Constitution " overlesp->d" 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, than, 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 attention. I ask him if he approves of the doctrine ? If he dees, 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 ncio o»iethat 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- The Clerk read, as follows : " This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate tho world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portioM of such people that can, may revolutionize and may make their own so much of the territory at the;/ inhabit. More than this, a tuajftrity of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority inter- mingled with or near about them who may oppose their movements." — January 10, 184S. 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. Perhaps he will move to lay his reso- 8 lution upon the table, or else vote to impeach. 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 upon this side of the Heuse does not speak in the midst of another gentleman's speech by 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! 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 us all, and condescends to mingle with us in debate, he cannot and shall not escape. 1^ 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. You 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 aDd 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- qnences 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. But Mr. Lincoln was elevated to the Presidency by that lawless party on 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, revolutionizing 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 r 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, would bring about in the North the very convulsion and anarchy which we now unhappily have in the South. The gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Julian,] on the 18th of March, 1864, held 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 stands ready to join us in such action. Should we fail to do this, the courts must so interpret the joint reso- lution as to make its repeal needless. Should both Congress and the courts stand in the way of the nation's life, then 'the red lightning of the people's wrath' must consume the recreant men who refusa to execute the popular will. Our country, united and free, must be saved, at whatever hazard or cost; and nothing, not even the Constitution, must be allowed to hold back the uplifted arm of the Government in blasting the 2)owcr of the rebels for- ever." Now, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, in our simplicity, were taught last session of Congress 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 iu pursuance of the Constitution ; that 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 ; t v at in the path of war, as of peace, the Constitution is our guide and our light, the cloud by day, the pillar of fire 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 in seek- ing to change the Constitution, to break or overleap it, wa become the rebels we are striving to subdue ; that all our labors and sacrifices for the Union of our fathers are for the Constitution, which is its only bond ; that to make this a war, with the sword In the one ha*.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 i« revolution. If theso sentiments be true, sir — and no one will question them — why was not tho gentle- man from Indiana [Mr. Julian] expelled lor the treasonable sentiments I have quoted! Why was not a similar resolution to this moved in relation to him ? We on this side do not do it. Wo are in favor of tho largest liberty of debate by the papular Representatives. We understand that the Constitution guarantees such debate We did not disturb your Judge Conway last session for his resolutions. We did not vote for his resolutions ; but you are »esponsible for his continuance in his position till the end of the last Congress. If it were a reproach to the country, as our distinguished Speaker has stated, that a man should express himself here in favor of the re- tognition of the Southern Confederacy ; if it dishonors and weakens us abroad and impairs ear energies and discourages our efforts at nome ; if it were equivalent to allowing mem- bers of the Richmond Congress to eome here and take part in our deliberations, (as the Speaker has alleged, ) why was not the expul- sion of the member from Kansas proposed by him ? Ah ! his case was of a different hue then. It was of a darker shade then. Now you are in favor of expelling a man from our midst who was sent here by the- people, be- cause he utters the same sentiments which this oide repudiates, and which one of your own Bide uttered last session, and which you never sought to repudiate by the grave pro- cess of expulsion. But the Speaker did not resume his seat until he had made a fling at the Democracy of my State for supporting Mr. Vallundigham. Mr. Speaker, I took some part in the last con- test for the Governorship of Ohio. I did not fully agree with the gentleman who is now in exile, as members know, in his votes on this floor, nor in regard to his peculiar views of policy or peace. I upheld sadly but flrczfy the sword, after it had been unsheathed, lest a worse alternative should ensue — the dis- union of our beloved country. Mr. JULIAN. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment ? Mr. COX. Certainly. Mr. JULIAN. The gentleman from Ohio read only a portion of a paragraph from the speech which I delivered in this Honse) and 1 wish ho would allow me to have rend at the desk the entire paragraph which I have marked. Mr. COX. If the members on the other side of the House will agree to extend my time I will yield for that purpose. I will in- sert it in my speech when it comes to be printed I cannot yield now, as I have very little time left. Mr. JULIAN. It is only a brief paragraph. Mr. COX. As I have said, I will yield if my time is extended. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I object to the extension of tho gentleman's time. Mr. COX. I will insert in my speech what the gentleman desires, but as the extension of my time is objected to, I cannot yield to him. The gentleman does not devy that I have quoted him fairly so far as I have gone. Did not the gentleman say that he was in favor of breaking down the Constitution te save tho country ? Mr. JULIAN. It is a perversion of what I did say. Mr. COX. I would rather hava it from your own lips than from any report. Are you iu favor of breaking down the Constitu- tion? Mr. JULIAN. I will answer ths gentleman from Ohio. I said explicitly in the paragraph of my speech which I have asked the gentle- man to allow to be read, that there was no necessity in the world for breaking down the Constitution in any of its parts to put down the present rebellion in tho South. That is my position. I said the Constitution was made for the people, not the people for the Constitution ; and that our fathers were not fools but wiso men, who armed the nation with the power to crush its foes as well as to protect its friends. Mr. COX. If that necessity existed? Mr. JULIAN. If it were necessary to save the. life of the nation to depart from the let- ter of the Constitution I would, as I said in my speech, blast the power of the rebellion forever by the strong hand of war. Mr. COX. I, too, would blast the power of the rebels by the strong hand of war; but I regard the life of tho nation as bound up with the Constitution, and that to blast the Constitution you blast the Government. And by destroying the Constitution you do not put an end to this war nor suppress the rebellion. Mr. JULIAN. Let me ask the gentleman a question. Mr. COX. Certainly. Mr. JULIAN. I ask the gentleman whether, if the salvation of the nation's life required the violation of the letter of the Constitution, the gentleman would be willing to save the life of the nation at that cost? Mr. COX. I regard it as utterly impossible, under God, ever to save the life of the nation by tearing out its vitals — its heart and brain. Tijc Constitution is the frame in whioh the 9 'V. rament is enshrined. I know t o other Government except that embodied intl stitution. This 1* the" Government whii ort ; not sworn I fir, in n certain emergency ; not sworn stroy, if necessary to save the life of 10 the country, but unconditionally to support at ail times and in all places, as if that hie were bound up with it forever. You have taken upon your soul the oath to sustain that Constitution. Now you say on certain condi- tionn ycu would break your oath t What is moral treason ? What is moral perjury ? I do Lot charge these upon the gentleman ; but I beg him to reconsider and call back his words. Mr. JULIAN. Will the gentleman yield to cue right here ? - Mi. COX. I will, if the gentleman thinks f have done him injustice. Mr. JULIAN. I have taken that oath, and I have asserted publicly that there is no ne- cessity in the world for violating it. But the gentleman has not answered the interrogatory which I propounded to him. I wish him to state explicitly whether, if the life of the na- tion could only be saved by a violation of the Constitution, he would be willing to save it in that way. [Laughter on the Republican side of the House.] Mr. COX. I will answer the question. I am used to laughter from that side of the House. It does not distract me, for laughter is not logic. What is the life of the nation, sir, of which we hear so much? I know no other life of the nation except that incarnate in the writ- ten Constitution, which protects property, person, home, conscience, liberty, and life. Take away these, and there is no nation. {Society is stagoant and dead. The gentle- man regards liberty as the life of the nation — a sort of ill- defined liberty for black and white, I suppose. I regard the Constitution as the embodiment of constitutional freedom in this country, the very body, life, and soul of the Union. That is the Constitution of the United States. When you strike that down you i-trike down the life of the nation. Therefore we, on this side, have determined, in order to save the lite of the Government, to save the Constitution from destruction. Mr. JULIAN. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him another question ? Mr. COX. If the gentleman is not fully an- swered I will say this, that dnder no circum STANCES CONCEIVABLE BY THE HUMAN WIND WOULD I EVEE VIOLAE THAT CONSTITUTION FOE ANY purpose. [Cries of "That's it!" "That's itl" Lorn the Democratic side of the House.] As Judge Thomas has said, " I would cling to it as the bond of unity in the past, as the only practical bond of union in the future ; the only land lilted above the waters, on which the ark of the Union can be moored. From that aik alone will go out the dove, blessed of the Spirit, which shall return bringing in its mouth the olive-branch of peace." To compass its destruction as a probable or possible necessity, is the very "gospel of anarchy, the philosophy of dis- solution." Mr. JULIAN. I want to ask the gentleman a question. Several Members on the Democratic side objected. Mr. COX. If there be any man in this Chamber who holds or utters any other senti- ment in reference to the Constitution and his oath than this which I have expressed, I say to him that language has no term of reproach, and the mind no idea of detestation, adequate to express the moral leprosy and treason couched in his language and clinging to his soul. I will not designate such utterance by any harsher language in a parliamentary body. When interrupted by the member frcm In- diana I was about to go a little further in answer to what the Speaker said in reference to the Democracy of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I took a part in the campaign of last year, as I said, not because I approved of the peculiar peace notions of my former colleague. It was well known in Ohio that my votes here did not always coincide with his, and that my sentiments did not agree with his altogether ; but when by an arbitrary arrest, without war- rant, without a fair trial, in defiance of the Constitution, in defiance of a law passed by ourselves, in defiance of English and Ameri- can traditions, petitions and bills of right, he was arrested and exiled, the Democracy of Ohio raised an issue in favor of fair trial, free speech, the immunities of personal freedom, and an honest and lawful administration of public affairs. That was our only issue. I took ground everywhere in favor of the lib- erty of the citizen and the integrity of the Constitution. Disagreeing always with the peculiar tenets held by him in relation to co- ercion, I held that he had the same right to speak for peace as the soldier to fight for it. But I will say this for him, that nowhere, here or at home did he ever utter a sentiment or do an act looking to the recognition of the Southern Confederacy. He said in his place in this House, again and again, and quoted Mr. Calhoun's opinions on the Mexican war in his justification, that he would not oppose the voting of men and money to carry on this war, the responsibility for which he did not covet nor bear. But, sir, he never would consent to a peace based upon recognition. He so said in the North, and he said the same in his exile in the South. We were defeated in Ohio on account of the issue made on the peace sentiment. I bowed to that decision. But, sir, while there are some in our party opposed to coercion and in favor of a peace indiscriminately, without regard to consequences, the great body of the Democratic people in our State and in the North have never gone beyond one con- clusion; and that is, they are forever opposed to curtailing the limits of our empire by the recognition of a new nation carved out of our territory and made up of our States and people. Come war, come peace, come any- thing, we would bring about a restoration of the old Government, with the old order. Our determination is to follow the line of duty 11 laid down by the distinguished Governor of New York, Horatio Seymour, to superadd to force the policy of conciliation; not to with- draw our forces from the field and yield to the South independence, but to superadd one other element of Union — kindness and Chris- tianity. If gentlemen cannot understand how two such ideas are compatible in the same mind with each other and with patriot- ism, I cannot teach them. While we have been ever ready to sustain our gallant sol- diers in the field by our money and our raeo, we have been also ready at every hour of our triumph and at every opportunity for com- promise to extend an honorable amnesty to the erring; not the jugglery of the executive amnesty, based upon a proclamation of aboli- tion which is a lie, but an amnasty which shall bring hack the great body of the people South — if it be yet possible — to their old al- legiance. We desire to make onr victories consequential by the rehabilitation of the States as they were, and to make out of them and not out of illegitimate States — the offspring of a corrupt Executive — the old Union, one and indivisible ! This is the policy of the northern Democ- racy. Upon that platform we intend to con- tend in the November election. Whoever may be our candidate, that, will be our doc- trine, and you cannot fas the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Washbukne] tried to do yester- day,^ give it a different interpretation, be- cause of the speech of my colleague, [Mr. Long,] or because of the partisan attempt to expel him for the sentiments he has uttered. We accept as our platform the integrity of the Union. Upon that platform we will never, in any emergeney of this Republic, yield up this country and its Constitution to secession, and to its baleful counterpart, abolition. "Amid all the darkness, the thick darkness around us, we will cling to the single, simple, sublime issue — the Constitution, and tho Union of which it is the bond ; the old Union. God bless the old Union, and the wrath of the Lamb of God shrivel to their very sock- ets the arms lifted to destroy it ; not in ven- geance, but in mercy to them and to all man- kind." Mr. DAWSON. I wish to say, right here, that the gentleman from Ohio was candid enough to declare in the speech referred to that he spoke for himself, and himself alone, and not for the Democratic party. That ought to be a sufficient reply to my colleague, and I trust that it is satisfactory. While I am up I have one further romark to make. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gar- field] yesterday, in speaking of tlie order known as the " Knights of the Golden Circle," declared that "it was under the protection and fraternity o f the Democratic party. " Now, there may be such n society as tho " Knights of the Golden Circle." For myself, as a Dem- ocrat, I declare I have no knowledge of any such order. Mr. COX. Nor has anybody else on this side of the House. Mr. DAWSON. In ray intercourse with the Democratic party 4n Pennsylvania and everywhere else, and jj in my intercourse with Democratic members in this House, I have scarcely ever heard any reference made to that order. I know nothing of its being under the care and protection of the Democratic party, and I repudiate the charge in the roundest terms. 3.0SPECTUS FOR THE NEW YEAR. THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNION, A Daily and Weekly Democratic Conservative Union Newspaper. The Bold and Fearless Defender of Constitutional Liberty I Devoted earnestly to the maintenance of the Constitution as it is, and the restoration of the Union as it was. The " Constitutional Union" has won, since its establishment, the heartiest approval of all national and conservative men, for its able and fearless advocacy of Constitutional Liberty, Constitutional Eights, and Constitutional Principles. As the Publisher desires to enlarge the field of its operations by an increase in its subscription list and a more extended circulation, he is encouraged in the belief that it may be made a means of vast and greater usefulness in the important work of the Preservation of the Union, which, in His inscrutable wisdom, Providence has committed to the National Conservative De- mocracy ; and in which, if our free form of Constitutional Government is to be preserved, there mustbe neither hesitation, timidity, or delay. The " Constitutional Union" will continue to exercise, as fearlessly as it has heretofore done, its constitutional right of the Freedom of the Press, while it w'ill earnestly contend r or the entire Freedom of Speech, and a free and untrammeled ballot for the people, uaa^ed and undismayejj! by the in- vention of bands of armed men at the polls, so as to secure a constitutional victory through the ballot-box, a restoration of law and order in the administration of the Government, and the election in the autumn of 18G4 of a President of the United States who will faithfully and constitutionally administer the duties of his great office. THE D