The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1859-10-07

. WhNh hFRAA NAANAAF NANA W all knN
rest Of the world, they we're as clear a.
any object could be in tho brightest noon.
day. The Democratic members Of The
Legislature Of this State, apparently il
disgust at the shilly-shally conduct of Mr.
PUoH, finally united in support Of resolu.
tons instruoting him to vote against the
LOcompton fraud. He at length began C
have some sense Of the disgrace Of nj,
weak position, and, armed with his instruc.
tons proceeded 10 make a valid Leeomp.
ton speech, virtually intended 70 demon.
strate the folly or wickednoss Of those
who thus instructed him, and then gave
his vote 90 required, since the result could
not be affected by 30 doing The Eng.
lish bill, he voted for, and sustained with
energy, all the pAtie iHsiSfiRg Aaf Il dia
not submit ne LseomptOH Consultation d
a vote Of The people ofKansas, ard express.
y saying he WOULD NOT HAVE DONE so
hadsuch been lie intent This, in briei
outline, 10 Mr.. PUGH's record on tho I,e.
compton question. Let us now see his
position as declared in his words.
The discussion Of this Kansas auction
commenced In the Senate on the second
day Of the fret session Of the last Con-
gress-Dec. 8, 1857. Nearly two months
later Jan. "a, 1859 the instructions Of
tho Ohio Legislature were presented In
the Senate by Mr.. WADE. With prom.
lse to express bis views at 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 fniquity. In
his speech Of March IS, 1868, on that sub
ject, Mr.. Pugh said:
Congressional Globe, Let session s5th
Congress, p. l0A0.l
"Ihe OOte should OfherlpiSs haze oiUeR
IN aoeordanoe WiA nv Oaon opinions, has
been taken from under my control by the
instruction Of the General Assembly Of
Ohio,in which the political party tO,Whieh
Ibelong has decided majority"
After sustaining Mr.. BUoHANAH and the
Leoomptoniteu IN an eiabornts specimen
of special pleading, extending through
several qusrto pages Of the Globe, Mr..
PueH proposed an unmeOning and puerile
amendment 70 the bill, saying:
81 offer the amendment TO silence q
false clomOr--for no other purpose in the
world. Az to my own Judgment, indiyid-
ually, I should BE- perfectly SatiSfed 10 ovOts
for ihe bM tOithoUi e." etc. (Globe, p.
ll44.)
The whole drift ofthis speech is a vim
dieston Of the positions assumed in the
extracts We have quoted.
A week lator March 23. Mr.. CRIrrEH-
DIN offered his well-known substitute for
the Lecompton bill, In substance submit
ninm tho NuaaatnVa g.F als.t.ag... Al
bogus constitution. directly TO the people
OF Kansas. Mr.. PUGH on tho same day
voted against the substitute, and took oc-
easion, as the vote was just TO be taken
on the original bill, again to state very ex-
Plioitly his view Of the question, in the fol-
lowing words:
"a flew moments ago, in obedience TO
the instructions Of the Ohio Legislature,
l voted against the amendment ofthe SEN
Htor from Kentucky; and in obediSnoe TO
their instructions furthermore, shall Be
compelled, reluctantly, against Nv ol0h
opsRiOn Of iOhdt tRe iustiS Of ns case is,
to pOte against Ass biR on 10 fnsl pdss-
age. wish 1t to be understood that do
i in accordance with instructions. nv
instructions are TO vote against the admii-
sion Of Kansas with this constitution.
shall 30 vote against her admission aim
ply In my representative character in be-
half Of the General Assembly Of Ohio. -
Globe, p. 1864.
The plea Of instructions to vote against
the Crittenden amendment was Of eourse
a mere pretext.
On the I'd Of April, the famous CaTT-
FRNnpN- -Hfouqrsonfpp nm e.,,,., a = ~ .
(embodying the Popular Sovereignty"
doetrine,) was taken up In the Senate
Mr.. PUsH on that day (Globe, p, l4A9-4)
denounced that bill In an extended speech
in the course Of which he remarked:
"Then, on what ground is Il thatwe are
asked 10 remand the Constitution ofKan-
sas to vote Of the peoplei Whence
comes the suggestion that the Convention
which met in Kansas was not as leqal as
the CORueEtiOn tohieA met IN OAie, or IN
IHtRois, or IN Missouri, or in aaV other
ot the Staies toAfeA Adu6 already 6seR n6-
Mltted fat0 Ae URiOa, and none OfWhich
submitted their frat Constitutions 10 q
vote Of the people! On what protext is
founded the argument that we must not
receive this Constitution Il 10 said there
was vote taken on tho Ath OF January,
1858, in which ten thousand majority was
given against the Constitution. Very
well, siri but was that legal og an illS-
gal yotel ! think il was an illegal vote;
] think L has no legal consequences what.
everi think i was simply Gsignifioation
Of 90 many people, ifthey were duly quail
ihed, that they wanted a change OF the
Constitution, but they did not Sxpress i
In the proper form, and those who were
opposed to change being underno obli-
CATION to speak on that day, we cannot
even arrive at any moral result, much leus
a legal one, from that vote"
And again Up. 1880
"For the reasons which l have stated,
| am opposed TO this hybrid. | am op-
posed to il In every shape and FORM"
He cast his vote accordingly, in this
case, as in ell subsequent test votes. ssp-
ardfing from Douglas, and obse9uiously
sustaining the Leeompton policy Of the
Administration. This was seen eonspic-
uously on nearly every test vote during
all the long struggles subsequent, and
particularly on the passage Of che English