Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-01-24

\ most in my mind--the object which DAME
Webster held to be first with free peopl
THE preservation of their liberty by main
i tanning constitutional restraints and jus
divisions of power.
Mr.. Orth-Before the gentleman from
Ohio takes his seat, would like to ask hin
| one or two questions, and l have no doub
he will answer them without hesitation
] My first question is, whether he Is in favo
| OF Furnishing the traitors who have beer
guilty of bringing on this rebellion? e.
MIR. Cox-Yes, sir. am in favor of pun.
ishing traitors according to the Constitu'
tion, by trial, by conviction, and by all the
modes pointed out for the punishment o.
, treason.
| Mr.. Orth-I have no doubt of that. My
next question is whether he Is In favor
Of Furnishing traitors by the death PEN
atty?
MIR. Cox-Yes, sir; and almost every day
have been voting money and men to in
fict that penalty. n -
Mr.. Orth--I would ask him whether TAX
ing from innocent children the life of the
father who sustains them is not visiting
the sins of the parent on the childrenp
Mr.. Cox-Yes, sir; that is one of the
Incidents which, perhaps, might have
now avoid, but for which am not respons-
ible. e'e
Now, wish to ask the gentleman whether
he Is in favor ofpunishing innocent persona
for the guilt of their parents? 90 ri
Mr.. Orth--No, sir. ASA
Mr.. Cox-Well, sir, then you must be
against this bill. ~
Mr.. Orth-I contend that we punish those
who are guilty during their lifetimes.
Mr.. Cox-I would be very glad to well
come the gentleman within the pale Of
humanity. Ed
Mr.. Garfield wish to ask my colleague
a question, not with any factious purpose,
nor with any design to prevent calm dis
cussion of so important question as this.
am sorry that this discussion has assumed
a somewhat partisan character. 1t ought
not to have that character at all, and so far
as am concerned 1t shall not. / wish to
ask my colleague practical rather than a
legal question. | wish to know whether
the objection he raises to this bill is not
itself obnoxious to this objection we pun
ish men for civil and for criminal offenses,
great and small, in all the higher and lower
courts of the country, by taking their prop
erty from them, SO that their children can
never have the benefit of it after the parents
death. Now, while we do this constantly
In our courts, by civil and criminal process,
does not my colleague propose to make an
exception in favor of the crime of treason
Why should not the children of traitors
suffer the same kind of loss and inconve-
nience as the children of thieves and of 9TH
er felons do? / ask the gentleman whether
his position does not involve this great alb
surdity and injustice?
Mr.. Cox-I will say to my colleague that,
No HI.n wvnn Il
cedures we do not at once by execution
reach the real estate. But my colleague
can not withdraw me from my constitu-
tional position as to this bill. All propose
to do in opposing this bill is to stand by the
Constitution, and to stand by it all the time,
regardless of consequences, and will ask
my distinguished colleague how he reads
that clause of the Constitution under de-
bate. Does he believe in the construction
which has been given to it by the gentle
man from Indiana? Mr.. Orth.] Does he
believe that he can constitutionally take a
traitors property forever, or only during
his life? Does he read the Constitution in
opposition to Judge Story and to Judge
Curtis? Would he set aside the construction
given to it by the law of 1880? Or would
he, dare he, with his oath, upon him, now
break the Constitution by voting for this
HicttSuTt, Ill OTueT W SeU dUSOluUc JlUle 10 uIlc
lands of those in revolt? Would he, to ag-
gravate the punishment of the traitor. or
to punish the innocent children of the
rebels, break the Constitution? ~
Mr.. Garfeld-I would not break the Con-
stitution for any such purpose. 7a 10
Mr.. Cox-I am very glad to hear that.
Mr.. Garfeld--Iw would not break the Con-
stitution at all unless it should become
necessary to oyerleap its barriers to save
the Government and the Union. But do
not see that in this bill we do break the
Constitution. If the gentleman can show
me that 1t violates the Constitution, ] will
vote against it with him, even though every
member of my party Votes forit; that makes
no difference to me. Twill say, however,
that had supposed that the intention of
that clause of the Constitution was to pre-
vent the punishment of treason when an
individual was declared guilty of it after
his death. / had supposed that that was
the purpose Of it, and if so, 1t seems to me
that this bill is not obnoxious to the objec-
tion which the gentleman raises to it.
q Mr.. Cox-If the gentleman will examine
that other clause of the Constitution which
Ipointed out, he will find, as Judge Story
found, that it provided for the outrage of
trial and Furnishing treason after the death
of the person, by prohibiting all bills of at
tainder.' The other clause of the ConstitH-
, ton is so exceedingly plain that the way
faring man-4even Mr.. Lincoln himself-did
not err in constituting it. IVY '-
! Z. -