American Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1855-1860, 1859-10-06
of degraded Administration. But what
did Senator Puph?

~ SnOAht hhtou6h wv VOASi "hu OsnCiS' 4
He wanted I'm re light" shed upon them.
when to all the rest OF The worlS, they
were as clear as any object ooull be in the
brightest MONDAY The Democratic mem.
bers Of the Legislature Of this State, ap.
parently 10 disgust at the shilly ,shal!y con-
duct Of Mr.. Pugh, finally united 10 sup-i
port Of resolutions instructibg him to
vote against the Lecomptonli fraud. He
at length began to have some sense Of the
disgrace Of his weak position. and, armed
with his instructions, proceeded TO make a
valid Lecompton speech, virtually in end.
ed to demonstrate the folly or wickedness
-of those who thus instructed him, and
gave his vote as required, since the result
could not be affected by so doing, The
English bill he voted for. and sustained
with energy, all the Ukils insisting that Il
did not submit the LecomptoR Consultation
TO vots of The people Of Kansas, and ex
pressly says be WOULD NOT HAVE DONE so,
had:: ::sueh teen its intent. This, in brief
outline, is Mr.. Pugh's record on tie lie,
compton question. Let us now see his
position as declared in bis words. ir 4
The discussion Of this Kansas question
commenced in the Senate on the second
day Of the first session Of the last Congress
Dec. 8, 1857 Nearly two months later
fJan. 81, 1850 the instructions Of the
Ohio Legislature were presented in the
Senate by Mr.. Wade. With promise to
express his views al length, Mr.. Pugh
failed to do SO for nearly two months
longer, when he at last found courage to
break silence, and to come out squarely
in favor Of the Lecompton iriquity. In
his speech of March l6, 1858, on that
subject, Mr.. Pugh said:
Congressional Globe, 1st session 3Sth Congress, p
H3ss l..l l,l40.l . So
'"T1e vote should otAerwise haze given
in accordance with my own opinion, has
been taken from under my control by the
instructions Of the General Assembly Of
Ohio, which that political party TO which
belong has decided majority" gg,l
After sustaining Mr.. Buchanan and the
Lecomptonites in an elaborate specimen Of
special pleading, extending through, sew.
eral 'quarto pages Of the Globe, Mr.! Pugh
proposed an unmeaning and puerile amend
ment TO the bill, saying :s.4 f.l.rss.1t.
II offer the amendmen ut TO silenre false
elamor-for no other purpose in the world
As to my own judgment. individually l
should be perfectly satisfied to vote for the
bill without it." etc.. { Globe. psi ,l44.)
The whole drift Of this speech IS "a win /,
dication Of the positions assumed in the
extracts we have quoted. :.
A week later, March %. Mr.. Crittenden
offered his well-known substitute for the
Lecompton bill. in substance submitting
the question of submission under the ,bo !
gus constitution. directly to The people ol
Kansas. Mr., Pugh on the same day yo.
ted against the substitute, and took occa'
sion, as the vote was just to be taken on
the original bill, again to state very ex-
lpliciily his view Of the question, in the
following words
ga few months ago. in obediencs to the
instructions of the Ohio Legislature, 1 yo.
ted against the amendment of the Senator
from Kentucky; and in obedience 10 their
instructions furthermore, / shall be com.
pelled, reluctantly, against my own opin.
ion OF what the justice Of the case is, tC
vote against this bill on its final passage
/ wish it TO be understood that do it in
accordance with instructions, My in
strnotions. are to vote against the admis
sion Of Kansas with the constitution.
shall 50 vote against her admission simply
in my representative character jn behsl
Of the General Assembly Of obio."---
| Globe, p. 1894 ,s.a5.4. ..f,,, ,
| The plea Of instructions 10 vote agains
/ the Crittenden amendment was Of cours,
a mere prelext. '4't " 2A'
On the ed of April the famous Crit
tenden Montgomery bill, from the House
| (embodying the Popular Sovereignty
doctrine, was taken up in the Senate
Mr.. Pugh, on that day tGlobe ,. f443-4
denounced that bill 10 an extended
speech, in the course of which he re
marked = q. tr ,vds ge.1
"Theb, on what ground is it that W
are asked 10, remand the Constitution o
Kansas to vote of the people? Whenc
comes Che suggestion that the Convention
which met In Kansas was not as legal q
the Convention which metin Ohio, or il
! illinois, OF in Missouri. or in any other Q
the States which have already been cd
J mitied into. the Union, and none OF whicl
submitted their first Constitution to a vot
ofthe people? On what pretextis found
ed the argument that we must not rsceiv
this Constitution? 1t is said there was
vote taken on the 4th Of January, 1855
in which ten thousand majority was give
against the Constitution. Very well, sir
but was that legal or an illegal vote
think il was an illegal votej think
} has no legal consequence whatever,
: think it was simply a Specification Of s
many people, il they were duly qualified
i that they wanted change Of the Const
\ tuition. but they did not express itin th
proper form, and those who were oppose
r to change being under no obligation
speak on that day, we cannot even arriy
l at any moral result, much less legal one
Q from that yote.' e s,eror q
]. And again (p. 1859 easrss ie
. ''For the reasons which I'have statet