Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-07-02
BLOWS AGAINST ABOLITION REvoLUTIONIsTs.
EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECH
Of
HON. s. S. COX,
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law.
WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE REPEAL.

WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE REPEAL.
If the gentleman means anything, he
means to say that the patriotic, and faithful
shareholders Of Missouri, Kentucky, Tennes-
see, and other States, shall not have their
guarantee for the return oftheir slaves un-
der the Constitution of the United States,
to which they have never wayered in their
allegiance. He means to say to them, "You
shall 90 where these revolted shareholders
have already gone. We place the penalties
of their treason on your innocent heads
We add to your calamities the ingratitude
and treachery Of the Government to which
you have adhered. We do not want your
aid. You shall not have the privilege of
having your slaves returned to you, because
you have been BETTER truer, nobler men
tlIan eomo OF yunr hrnther slavcholders.
WHO MADE THE LAW.
Mr.. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. | said
that, in my Judgement, tie aCners never
would have enacted the law of 1893 had
slavery been in rebellion against us. That
was my statement.
MIR. COX. That is a curious argument.
If the fathers had lived till to-day, cannot
tell what they would have done. But the
fathers have gone. We can only Judge of
what they would do, by what they actually
did for Confederacy like ours. They put
this clause in the Constitution. They made
an injunction on Congress to carry out the
provision of rendering back those who
should escape from service or labor. They
/ eijOined it in the same breath and with the
same sanction by which they commanded
us their descendants to return fugitives
from Justice. They did these things to keep
peace, friendship, and faith between the
States forever. They were honest men,
During their generation and the one sue
ceeding, faith was kept. The men who
made the law of 1903, some of them helped
to create the Constitution, and the rest were
their contemporaries. They were men
whose patriotism the gentleman will not
dispute. They were men whose names he
reverences. But would he reverence them
if he believed that to-day they would vote
to deprive the shareholders who are faithful
to the Government which they made in wis
dom and amid tribulation, of the very rem
edies and rights which were promised as
the reward of fidelity? Would it not be
monstrous to revere men who could so
break their own faith? They would be
worse than their graceless and degenerate
children who propose to do the same thing.
But the very idea is an aspersion on their
noble fame. Who are these ''fathers?"-
Such men as Fisher Ames, Abraham Bald
win IAN ancestor, / suppose, of my friend
from Massachusetts,, who has changed very
much from his ancestor), Jonathan Dayton,
Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Macon, Freder-
ick A. Muhlenburg, and Theodore SeIg-
wick voted for the act of 1893. In the same
Congress the names of Langdon, Ellsworth,
Sherman, King, Dickinson, Morris, and
Monroe, are found in the Senate. Itpassed
the Senate without a division, and almost
unanimously in the House.
MASSACHUSETTS COMES IN AND CATCHES 1T.
Mr.. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts. Let
me ask the gentleman from Ohio whether
the Supreme Court did not decide, in the
Prigg case, that the feature of the law re-
quiring State officials to execute it was un-
constitutional?
Mr.. cox. 1 say to the gentleman that
the Supreme Court has decided 10 such
thing; but the majority of the court decided
that this power was exclusively in the
United States, while the minority held the
power to be concurrent both in the State
and the General Government, and that in
the absence of congressional action the
States might carry out this clause of the
Constitution in aid of the claim of an owner
of slave. Its execution having been COM
mitted to the Federal Government by the
law of 1850, the laws of the United States
in that respect are the paramount lawso the
land. Will the gentleman from Massachu-
sets abide by the decision of the Supreme
Court thus interpreting the law?
Mr.. DAWES. Will the gentleman yield
to me for q moment?
Mr.. cox. No, sir. Ihope the gentleman
from Massachusetts will not come in to help
his colleague. [Laughter]
Mr.. DAWES. | want to know whether
Understand the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr.. cox. Oh yes; / think the gentle
man did understand me perfectly, and l
object to his coming to the assistance of his
colleague, who Is large enough to take
care of himself. [Laughter.] 1t is as much
as | can do to see through him. baldwin
is the largest man in the House,
Mr.,BALDWIN,o of Massachusetts,. Then
/ hope the gentleman will answer my ques-
tion. Dlfa.e. rsqs
MIR. COX. Now, Mr.. Speaker, / want
further to tell the gentleman what the
Supreme Court did decide in the case of
Prigg. Hewill find it reported in l6 Peters,
page 543. 1t is there decided ''that the act
Of the 18th of February, 1893, is clearly con-
stitutional in all its leading provisions, and |
indeed, with the exception of that part |
which confers authority upon State magis-
trates, is free from reasonable doubt or
difficulty" In every other respect they |
decide It is free from all doubt and difficult |
ty. Now, want the gentleman from |
Massachusetts, not to turn his back upon me |
and the subject, but to answer me whether
he will abide by the law of 1850, made in |
correspondence with the decision OF the |
Supreme Court? f1A
am calling the attention of my friend |
to the whole decision of the Supreme Court |
on this law. And when the gentleman says |
he will vote to repeal the fugitive slave law |
because it is Unconstitutional, / want him |
to understand, as / have shown him, that |
the Supreme Court has decided that, in all |
their leading features, both the law Of 1898 |
and the amendment of 1850 are constitu- |
tional. "a -.s s... f.,te r,
Mr.. BALDWIN, of Massachusetts. / re-
peat that the Supreme Court has decided |
one portion of that law to, be unconstitu
tional, and as an additional reason for it l |
will state that the gentleman refuses to an
swer my question. Laughter. -
Mr.. cox. I.have answered the gentle
man as fully as was able. / referred him
to this decision of the Supreme Court, and
read from 1t to the point; now / want to
indulge him further by reading what Judge
Mclean says upon the same subject: