The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1861-02-08


man on the requisition of the Governor of
| Virginia Who, then, is amenablevto the
charge he is making against the South ?
Mr. Sherman will answer the gentle
man from Virginia; and trust then he will
not further interrupt me. Ohio is true to all
| her constitutional obligations. 1t is said
that Ohio has personal liberty bill, as you
call it, 1t is not true. There is no such
| law upon her statute book. Her law against
| kidnapping is similar to the law of Virgin
| ia, and she has no other. Her Legislature
| is now carefully examining all our laws, to
see if there is, by possibility, any clause or
section which invades the constitutional
right of any State.
The gentleman says Ohio has refused to
surrender up fugitives from justice. am
/ here to defend my native State. / say it is
not so. On the contrary, Governor Denni-
son refused to respond to the requisition in
the case alluded to simply because the pa
pers showed on their face that the alleged
| criminal never was in Virginia. They were
based upon a mere constructive presence,
doctrine under which citizen of Ohio, in
Ohio, may be dragged to Virginia for trial
for an act lawful in Ohio Governor Den
nisou gave the same decision that has been
sanctioned by the Courts of the Southern
States; and in strict accordance with the
common-law principle, that an accused party
shall be tried where the offehse is committee
Neither in the case alluded to of the diff
fculty between Ohio and Kentucky, has any
right of Kentucky been violated, Govern
or Dennison followed the decision of the
Governor of Kentucky, who held that no
man could be taken from Kentucky into
Ohio and delivered up on q charge of steal
ing or kidnapping negroes, or other offenses
not recognized as criminal by the laws OF
Kentucky Governor Dennison followed
the recorded opinion of a distinguished At
torney General of Ohio now a citizen of
kentucky. I now and here fully justify
him in the course he pursued. But, sir,
do not propose to argue this question.
have merely alluded to it for the purpose of
showing that Ohio is true to all her consti-
tutional obligations; and that her example
cannot be invoked to justify notification or
treason.
Mr. Stevenson.-If the gentleman from
Ohio will permit me, desire his authority
for stating that any Governor of Kentucky
ever refused to surrender fugitive, on the
ground that stealing negroes was not
crime.
Mr. Sherman-I understand that in the
case l refer to he decided that unless the
olfense charged in the requisition is an Of
fense at common law, it is not covered by
the Constitution.
Mr.. Stevensun-I beg leave to differ
with the gentleman, aud | must ask bis au-
thority even for that statement. The
official records of my State will show no
such case.
Mr. Sberman.-Mr. Chairman, the Gov
ernor of Ohio has himself spoken in his re-
cent message, and can only refer to that
EIo boc ft4II info IaA
and defended his action in this matter.
Now, trust, as so much of my time has al
ready been taken up by these Interruptions,
that l shall be permitted to go on without
giving way to any gentleman further.
Mr.. Branch propose that, by unani-
nous consent, the gentleman's time shall'be
extended 1t is due to him, on account of
these interruptions, that it should be.
Mr.. Leake.-I move that the gentleman's
time be extended.
The Chairman.-If there be no objection,
the time of the gentleman will be extended
beyond his hour.
Mr.. Vallandig igham.-Before that is done,
inasmuch as the Chairman of the Ways and
Means has, as l am informed, made an allu-
sion to myself which did not hear ask a
moment first to reply, and then will make
no objection, under the circumstances, to
the proposed extension of time.
Mr.. eSherman.-I am perfectly willing to
yield to my colleague if my time may be
extended.
Mr.. Farnsworth.-I object.
Mr.. Vallandigham.- wish only to make
a single remark I said I did not hear the
allusion my colleague made to me.
Mr. Sherman.-Tf the objection to extend
ing my time is Withdrawn, will repeat
what 1 said, and my colleague can reply to
it. | simply said I regretted that Ohio was
not unanimous upon the subject of the reso-
luton indorsing Major Anderson's conduct;
and that one of my colleagues, the gentle
man from the Dayton district, Mr. Val
landigham,) voted against it, and that an
other colleague was not present to vote.
Mr.. Vallandigham.-I voted against that
resolution in the form in which it stands
upon your Journal-an Endorsement in
blank of the then present and future policy
of the Administration. | should so vote
again but if the resolution had been di-
vided, and if had known what / am now
informed to be true-that the Executive of
the Federal Government did not disclose
to Major Anderson, as he ought to have
done, the agreement or understanding be-
tween him and the authorities of South
Carolina, or with members of Congress
from that State-I would have most cheer
fully voted to indorse the wise act of Major
Anderson wise and prudent, certainly,
viewing il from a military point of view,
and acting as he did act without knowledge
of the agreement to which have referred.
He violated no faith in the act
One thing further. 1t is true that Ohio
has no Personal Liberty Bill; but she did
have three. years ago, and enacted by Re
publican Legislature-what is equivalent to
Personal Liberty Bill-an act of personal
replevin, under which, in 1857, actual arm
ed resistance to Federal authority in a flu
gitive slave case occurred, which bill, along
with others of similar character and in
tent, was repealed two years ago by a
unanimous vote of the Democratic members
of the Legislature of that State, then
Democratic, against the unanimous vote of
the Republican members in both the Senate
and the House. The thunder is not Re-
publican thunder, and the gentleman cannot
be allowed to steal it.
ITO BE CoNTINUED.)