Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1858-01-22

! understand that the Joint resolution in
troduccd into the Senate, important TO the
interests Of the State important to the poo
pie Of Kansas, were this morning thrust
through the Senate, without debate, under
n gag law called tho previous question. |
trust no such proceeding viii be allowed in
this House. II is an unjust and tyranical
use Of power, for which there can bo no
apology or excuse; and trust we shall not
be called upon to submit TO such arbitrary
gag laws here, for the purpose of sitting
discussion so important and interesting to
to the people of the State of Ohio.
| trust the honorable gentleman from
Hamilton will think better of this matter,
aud Withdraw this bill. Such an act should
not originate from the gentlemen, in whose
veins pulsates the blood of youth, and health,
and chvalrous emotions. he should be
found on the side Of humanity. If it must
come, let it be offered by some skinny, dried
and withercd member, whose blood has long
since ceased to flow from heart alive to
generous emotions, and one insensible TO
honor and humanity.
In THE SENATE.-In committee Of the
whole, the bill introduced by Langdon,-
another nigger locofoco, from the southwest
corner Of the state--to repeal the act to
prevent slavoholding and kidnapping in the
state Of Ohio, passed April Z, 1s57-was
taken up. Mr. Garfield, of Medina, moved
to strike out all after the enacting clause.
Mr.. Phelps, democrat from Auglaizc, was in
favor of retaining so much of tho act as per-
tanned to Kidnapping Mr.. Langdon then
said, he objected to the law, as its sole effect
was TO harrass and annoy citizens of other
states passing through Ohio with their slave
property. Such annoyanccs had occurred
at Columbus and in many parts of Ohio
A model democrat, like Mr.. Langdon, could
delight in seeing southern gentlemen pass
through our state attended by thoir slaves,
but it made his righteous heart bleed to see
them confronted by abolitionists, and com
PEELED to let the onslaved go freee.
Mr.. BUcKLAND, of Sandusky county, said
that the law was designed to prevent men
from decoiving others still more ignorant,
whose state of bondage is presumed to keep
them without knowledge Of the laws of
the country, and to prevent them from de-
ceiying those who may be brought into the
state against the laws of Ohio where all arc
free and none are slaves. If Ohio is to be
free state, let it be a free state, but is was
idle to think of being opposed to slavery,
and permit the Shareholder to drive around
in his carriage on free soil with his slaves,
and take them back to slavery. 1t was an
insult to Ohio.
He understood that the gentlemen of the
other side took the broad ground that the
people of the South had tho right of transit
with their slave property through this state.
They much mistake the sentiment of the
people of Ohio, if they imagine that it will
be tolerated. A portion of the Supreme
Court has so decided, but even had the de-
eision been unanimous, it might be reversed.
He was opposed to aiding Shareholders in
any circumstances. Our own courts had
ruled that when slaves were brought hero
they could not be held as such,, and could
not be made slaves again. 1t was left to
the democratic party to held different con-
struction. No respectable court could be
found to ignore tho doctrine, "once free
man, always freeman, and IL had been
SO decided by the Kentucky courts.