The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1864-05-11
nett and Mr.. Reed

puislon because they left their places here
and went into the armies OF the Confederates
Do you not call that disorderly conduct?
! Mr.. WASHBURNE, of Illinois That is
the genteman's definition of discrdsrly con-
duct, and | accept it.
Mr.. G GARFIELD l dislike to interrupt
the gentleman, but I wish to ask the gem
tieman question, not to interfere with
the course of his argument, but to draw him
out upon this subject. Suppose I, in deco
rous manner, should rise in my place and in
troduce resolution against the approaching
campaign and plans of Grant about to be
adopted on the Potomac; suppose [, having
knowledge of those plans, in support of my
argument should tell what bis plans were in
this House, should expose them, should state
the number of mem that one column vas
going in this direction and another in that;
suppose l, by my speech, made in the most
becoming manner, as far as style is concerned,
should tell the entire plans and operations Of
the campaign just about to commence, that
would not(be Giscourteous or indecorous; vet
1 ask the gentleman if that would be an of
fense for which ] could be censured or eEpel-
led?
Mr.. PENDLETON will answer my col
league II these facts and details and plans
were matter of Tublic notoriety, it would be
perfectly right to use them, and it would not
him for their use if he went to the War De-
partmcnt and obtained the knowledge of the
facts in confidence from those charged with
their execution, if he obtained them surrept-
tiously, if he obtained them as member of
Congress under the seal of confidence which
exists between officers of the same Govern
ment. and coming here, having a right to ask
this House to close It's doors to receive a COM
niunicaton of that kind, he should not do
that, but should make his speech the means
of communicating information to the enemies
o. the country, it would be disorderly conduct
in the highest possible degree.
was about to say that Mr.. Adams in 1912
presented petition for dissolution of the
Union. It was sent here from Haverhill,
Massachusetts, Mr.. Adams presented it, and
asked its reference to select committee, and
Immediately Mr.. Gilmer, of Virginia and sub
sequcntly Mr.. Marshall, of Kentucky, moved
4 resolution OF censure. [ recollect the scene
[ remember where the old man stood in yon-
der Hall. l recollect he rose in his place all
trembling with excitement, and in one of
those historic speeches which will live as long
as the history of the English language shall
remain, viudicated the right of the people to
petition for redress of grievances, and the
right Of Representatives to present their peti-
tions on this floor. And he argued the ques-
ton against all comcrs the lists were kept
open day by day, until, ashamed of the efforts
they had made to repress this freedom of
debate in the American Congress, who had at
first persistently refused ot last laid the reso-
luton the table.
Gentlemen will say to me this proposition
to- dissolve the Union was made in time Of
peace Thomas Corwin in 1917 attacked the
Administration upon the policy, the conduct,
the origin, and the justness Of the Mexican
war. The majority did not agree with him !;
they abhorred his views; but in Difference 20
to this great right Of free debate in represen-
tative body they permitted it to pass uncen-
surcd.
Again, in 1856, Senator from Ohio, Mr..
Wade, in time of peace, speaking of this
Unicn which you now affect SO much to revere :,
used this language:
' But southern gentlemen stand here and in
almost all their speeches speak of the dissolu-
tion of the Union as an element of every ar
gument, rs though it were a peculiar conda-
scension on their part that they permitted the
Union to stand at all. If they do not feel in
terested in upholding this Uuon, if it really
trenches on their rights, if it endangers their
institutions to such an extent that they can
not feel secure under it, if their interests are
violently assailed by means of this Union, l
am not one of those who expect that they will
long continue under it. L am not one of those
who would ask them to continue in such
Union. 1t would be doing violence to the
pla, form of the party to which l belong. [
see nothing at present which think should
dissolve it !; but if other gentlemen see it, /
say again that they have the same interest in
maintaining this Union, in my judgment, that
we of the North have. IF they think we have
not, be it so. You cannot torcibly hold men
in this Union, for the attempt to do so, it seems
to me, would subvert the first principles of the
Government under which we live. Congress
sionat Globe, hird session Thirty Fourth
Congress, rot. 81, p, 25.
Did Senators agree with him Did they
think he was correct? Did they believe that
there was no power of coercion, and that any
atte mpt at coercion would destroy the princi
pies of the Government under which we live?
Yet the American Senate did not think itself
called on to pass q vote of censure or expul-
sion.
Again, sir, my venerable colleague on the
Committee Of Ways and Means, from Penn
sylvania Mr.. Stevens said from his place in
this House, on the 9th CT December, 1862,
upon the question of the admission of West
Virginia
" Now, these rebelious States being pow.
er by the acknowledgment Of European ma
tions, and of our own nation, subject and en-
titled to belligerent rights, have become sub
iect to all the rules of war l hold the Con-
stitution has longer the least effect upon
them" "Hence
hold that none OF the States now in rebel
lion are cntitled to the protection of the Con
stitution, and 1 am grieyed when hear those
high in authority sometimes taking of the con-
stitutional difficulties of enforcing measures
against this belligerent power, and the next
Il aDH
blance of the Constitution by acts which alone
are arbitrary" -
'' This talk OF restoring the Union as it was
under the Constitution as it Isl is one of the
absurditics which have heard till have be-
conc sick of It. This Union can never be re.