The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1855-09-15
From the Ohio Columbian.
Gov, NediII and AntisSlaVery.

of the recent speech OF Gov, Medll IN one
of the North Western counties, in which it
is alleged that he said: My oppOSitiOn to
Slauery is 1Oeu hlo1Dn," &c. If Gov. Me-
dill meant merely to say, that his position on
that subject, whatever it was, is we'll under
stood by the public, have no objection to
it but if he meant to be understood as claim
ing that his " record in any wise shows him
to b. an opponent Of Slavery enter my
protest against the dissemination of any such
notion, by the governor or any fhis friends.
presume that Gov. Medill is too high-min-
ded man to wish to shine in borrowed feath-
ers, and that therefore he will be the last to
object to a brief examination of his g record,
which propose to make and exhibit to your
readers.
NV impression, on reading the statement
referred to- was, that Mr.. Medill, during his
entire service of four years in Congress, was
an unmitigated pro-slavery man, so far as
his acts and votes could show his feelings
and principles The result of my examina-
ton fully justifcs that impression.
Mr.. Medill entered Congress a the period
when the great contest for the right of petit
ton was at its height, in which the venera
BILE John Quincy Adams so long, and so stern
ly, and at last so triumphantly asserted the
right of the people to petition their Repre-
scntatiUe8. He first took his seat at the open
ing of the 26th Congress, December, 1889.
On the 29th of that month, Mr.. Wise, of Va,
moved a suspension of the rules to enable
him to Offer resolution that the question of
the reception of all petitions in relation to
Slavery, should be laid on the table without
any debate or action whatever. This was
the strongest possible method of denying
the right of patition--it being not only de-
NAL Of the thing petitioned for, but q refusal
TO receive the petition nay, worse than that
1T was refusal to consider the question OF
the reception Of such petitions of the people.
Utter contempt for the prayers of the peo-
pie could 80 no further The vote on MI.
Wise's motion stood, ayes 100, noes 77-uot
wo-thirds, and was therefore lost. The Ohio
members who voted in the affirmative were
Mcssrs. Duncan, MedlI, Taylor, Sweeney
and Weller. See Congressional Globe Of
that year, page SO.
Two days afterwards, Dec. 3lst, Mr.. Coles,
Of Va, moved to suspend the rules, for the
purpose of adopting resolution that ell pc
titions i'll relation to Slavery should be " laid
on the table without remark, printing or ref
erence." Medill, Taylor and Sweeney were
the only Ohio members who voted for the
moton-even Weller went against it. See
Globe page SO.
January loth, MT. thompson, OF y. y. MADE
a motion to suspend the rules for the same
purpose. Lost, 1873 to 77-not two-t thirds.
Leadbetter, Medill, Starkweather, Sweeney
and Weller, of Ohio, voted for the motion
[GIobe page l2l.I
Mr.. Coles of Va, renewed the motion,
Jan. 18th, with the same result-Medill, as
usual, voting in the affirmative.--[G Globe
page l28.
January 2Sth, Mr.. Johnson, Of Md, offer
ed the following resolution, as a substitute
for a somewhat similar one then pending
That no petition, memorial, resolution,
or other paper, praying for the abolition OF
slavery in the District of Columbia, or any
State or Territory, or of the Slave Trade be-
tween the States and Territories of the Uni
ted States, in which it now exists, shall be
received by this House, or entertained in any