Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1865-08-02
why AanRstOn 1'boaRiii ne knew
his Mana Page of COx's Rec
ord.

his MAMA Pase of COx's Rec
ord.
When Langstou, the colofed leader of
0berlip, urged the nomination Of General Cox
either with or without Platform, he seemed
TO know bis man. He not only knew that
General Cox had been educated at Oberlin,
where education is dealt out to Whites and
Blacks without discrimination but he knew
that as Senator in the State Senate, be bad
made record that was altogether satisfactory
to him. That record shows General Cox as
having opposed the inaicton Of punishment
on John Brown raiders it shows him to have
been the opponent OF the bill denying suffrage
70 persons having visible admixiure Of
African blood; il shows him reporting against
the repeal OF the law known as the Kidnap-
ping law, law that was designed to nullilv
the Fugitive Slave law; and Il shows him as
having resisted, at every step, the passage of
the bill prohibiting marriage or illicit inter.
course between the White aud Black races in
! Ohio. On this bill General Cox record is as
/ follows:
! In the Senate, January 81, 1861 forenoon
SESSION., Mr.. Schleich moved to take up the
Amalgamation bill (the object Of the bill
being to prevent amalgamation in Ohio The
motion was agreed to.
| Mr. Cuppy moved to postpone the bill until
the last Monday in February, The motion
was lost--yeas ! l, nays 23--Mr Cox voting
in favor Of postponement Mr.. Cox said be
thought such a law unnecessary and i'm.
proper, and ,oas wholly opposed TO it,
! The bill was then tabled for the purpose of
considering more pressing business.
In the Senate. January 81, 1861, (afternoon
| sesslon), the AmalgAmatlon bill was taken
from the table, when
Mr. Garfield moved the indefinite postpone.
ment Of the bill. The motion was disagreed
to. Mr. Cox voted in favor Of its indefinite
postponement Mr.. Cox then moved 10
strike out the second section OF the bill, which
was disagreed TO- The bill was finally order
ed to third reading, and then put on its
passage, when the bill passed by the follow.
ing vote
YEAs-Messra Brewer, Bonar, Collins,
Eason, Ferguson, Foster, Glass, Harrison,
Harsh, Holmes, Jones, Key, Mccall, Moore,
Newman, Orr, Perrill, PotWin, Ready,
Sprague, Stanley-2l
NAYs-Messrs Breck COX, Garfield,
Monroe, Morse, Parish, Potts, Smith--s.
Can any voter doubt that candidate for
Governor who has such record unrepented
of, and in consideration OF which he received
the support Of ofthe Reserve in the State
Convention, is not in favor of comforting
suffrage upon Negroes He has shown hs
hand be showed his hand on the subject at
a time when Negro Suffrage was less popular
than 1t is now. Inaexibly was he opposed to
Withholding from persons having visible ad-
mixture of African blood the privilege of
suffrage and with as much tenaci,y did he
oppose the enactment of the enactment of
the law by which ANA lgsmstion between the
White and Black races is prohibited in this
State. Langston, therefore, had right to be.
ieve that he, above all other White men in
the State, coulo be trusted, as being true to
the doctrine of Negro Equality--not only po
litieally, but socially. Hence he did not
feel it necessary to interrogate him touching
this matter, as he has felt constrained to in
terrogate Mr.. Warner who is candidate for
State Treasurer on the same Ticket.
In the face Of these undeuiable facts, who
wants further evidence that General Cox is in
favor of puttng Negroes on an equality with
White men. Will any letter from General
Cox now disavowing the doctrine OF Negro
Equality, when he is urged thereto by an ap.
prehension that he would otherwise be defeat.
ed, convince men that he is not In reality in
favor OF Negro Suffrage -Statesman.