The Yazoo Democrat., 1860-03-03

er lying on the New York side of the North
river, with his servant, without being treated
as felon, and fined and imprisoned in the
penitentiary.
Mr.. KING. If the senator will excuse
me, I ask him if he will give me the date
of the passage Of the law?
Mr.. TOOMBS. l have already said 1t
did not become law; it gives me great
pleasure to answer any question which may
be asked in good faith, and with the honest
intent to get at fact or opinion; but court
esy is entitled to good faith. The bill pass,
ed the house of representatives of New York
81 to %. 1t did not pass the senate; do
not find final action on it in that house; |
have heard outside of the record that the
black republican majority was small in that
bouse-probably not more than two or three
and that two of them refused to vote for
a bill so clearly and palpably violative Of
the Constitution of the United States. But
it answers the purpose for which l want it
as we'll, as it now stands,as it would have done
had it become law. am showing the prin-
ciples and policy of this party. l am try
ing them by the votes they have given un.
der oath, in their own legislature. They
are representative men. As far as | have
been able to ascertain the party position Of
the names on the record, the bill was voted
for by theIepublicans in body in the House,
and voted against by every democrat on the
record. This, l again repeat, does not ap'
pear on the record and, if lam misinformed,
| would like to be corrected.
Mr. KING. The manner in which the
gentleman speaks of the disposition had
is strange My disposition was simply to
ascertain the fact. He states now that the
bill passed one house and did not pass the
other
Mr., TOOMBS. l said SO at first. The
senator might not have heard me.
Mr.. KING. l thought you spoke of it
as a law
Mr.. T0OMBS No; | spoke of it as
having passed one house by vote of S4 to %.
I spoke from memory on that point. AS to
the party position of the voters, l of course
learn that from outside sources but | have
no doubt of its substantial correctness. l
understand that of the admirative vote, all
belonged to one party-the republican party.
They voted to annul both laws, that of 1893
aud that of 1850, by name. The bill failed
in the Senate the party was not quite
strong enough there to consummate this in.
iquity. 1t may be that the very able report
of Mr.. Diven againsti it may have caused even
some republicans to pause in their career of
faithIessness and perfdy.
Now, sir, have shown you what has been
done on this question by these nine States
under republican, rule what Ohio has done,
and what she promises to do again-what her
senator Mr.. WADE says she will do.
have shown you what The republican party of
New York voted to do and on this evidence
| demand judgment of the country, whether
[ have not fully sustained the first charge l
have made against them. l have proved
their utter disregard of their constitutional
obligations, and that it is their fixed policy
MS a party, TO defeat that clause of the Com
stitution which requires the rendition of fu.
gitives from labor. l do not say even that
all persons belonging to that organization
have actively participated in these high
crimes and misdemeanors. Some persons
may be among them and not Of them. Even
to such as these | would not be unjust
Let them come out from among them, and
enlist under the banner of the Constitution
This organization protests against being tried
by the declarations of individual men, by
unauthorized persons, even in political un,
ion with it. l admit the force of the plea,
and l sought and find their policy in their
united action, as indicated by the great ma
jority of the party acting in high official po>
sitioRs and the sanction of oaths.
| have not sought to bind them by
the cry of the mob; | have not gone to their
pulpts, and brought up against them the
wild rawlings and revilings of their spiritual
teachers, who every Sabbath desecrato the
temples erected to the living God. 1 have
tried and convicted them by the record. 1t
has lately become the fashion with official
members of this party at the national cap-
tai to disavow those who are imprudent in
proc laiming plainly their policy as radical
abolitonists. They seek to discard this
branch of the family. | must expose their
ingratitude as we'll as their injustice to these
sappers and miners, the advance guard of
the republican armies. There is difference
between the republicans and this radical
school of ofGarrison and Phillips abolitionists;
but the difference is in favor of the latter,
The Garrison and Phillips school say our
Constitution is pro-slayery, that it does re,
quire the surrender of fugitives from labor,
therefore we can take no oath to support
it and can vote for no man who will take
such oaths, either to keep or break them
This advance guard of the army boldly as
'aults the Constitution itself. Their con-
duct in this respect stands out in honorable
contrast with their allies who take oaths to
support the Constitution, and then break
hem
Sir, have said this was not q new prin,
,iple introduced in our Constitution. The
Constitution but affirmed great principle
which civilized society had for more than
twenty centuries found necessary to its peace
md security. / have shown that it was in
serted in the ordinance Of 1887, before the