Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-02-23
THURSDAY MORNING, FEB. %
Hon. q. q. Cox. Extraordinary
IleYelopmenf.',

liz
Developments"
The Crisis of the 22d inst. gathered to-
gether, under the headline of "Extraor-
dinary Development" and sandwitched be-
tween editorial remarks, Washington cor
respondence of The Ne,o York Daily Ne,c'
February A, Washington correspondence o.
The Cincinnati Gazette (Abolition), February
z, Washington correspondence of The Gin
.cinnati Commercial (Abolition), February o
in relation to the passage of the Constitu-
:tional amendment, the chief object Of
.xuhiah appears tn no tn fix unon Hon. s. s
Cox the charge of having acted with base
duplicity in relation to that amendment
The Crisis entertains none but the most
friendly feeling for Mr.. Cox, and it aspub-
lished these gossiping letters from Wash
ington out of pure love for him. 1t appears
to think that there is something in them
that they place Mr.. Cox in an unenviable
position, and it is, therefore, solicitous to
furnish him an opportunity to under-write
an emphatic denial of the insinuated and
direct charge of these correspondents that
he beguiled Democratic Congressman, and
especially Mr.. ENGLISH, of Connecticut
into voting for the amendment, under the
most positive assurance that he would do
likewise. Doubtless, novice in journal
ism may be excused for thinking so. BY
RON has said that "a man must serve time
to every trade" and we know Of no trade
that requires severer apprenticeship than
journalism. Evidently, the young man
who does up the editorial for The Crisis has
much to learn, among which is, that the
Democracy of Ohio will not accept his
Endorsement of The Ne,o York Daily
.Neps as "a reliable Democratic jour
nal"--a journal that advocates the rec
ognition of the Southern Confederacy. The
Democracy of Ohio are opposed to such a
recognition. For the preservation of the
Union, in which State rights and civil lib
erty shall be maintained with the same vig-
or that they were maintained by the found
ersof the Republic, they are willing to pay
any prize, and the journalist who under
takes, in their name, to indorse the doctrine
of recognition, either knowingly or unwit-
tingly, lends helping hand to the party in
power.
Neither the Washington correspondent of
The Ne,o York Neps nor the Washington
correspondent of The Cinncinnati CONNER
cial alleges that they state on the authority
of Mr.. ENGLISH that Mr.. Cox practiced bad
faith toward him on the subject of the Con-
stitutional Amendment. They furnish as
their authority that notorious anG shame
less creature, Washington ''rumor." The
Ne,cs correspondent puts it into this shape:
"There is a story afioat' that Mr.. Cox did
so and so. This statement strikes the nov
ice OF The Crisis as an "extraordinary de-
yelopment." The correspondent OF The
Commercial writes: 'The member from the
Columbus District is accused of bad faith in
the matter of the Constitutional Amend
ment." Accused of bad faith"-by whom?
BY Washington 'rumor." This, at The
Crisis office, is looked upon as an ''extraor-
dinary development"
The correspondent Of The Cincinnati Ga
zette, however, makes the charge somewhat
specific. He puts it in this form: ~ have
the authority of Mr.. ENGLISH himself for
saying that Mr.. Cox volunteered to him the
statement that he intended to vote for the
Constitutional amendment; that while the
debate on it was in progress on the morn
ing OF its final passage, Cox called him
[ENGLIsH] into the cloak room to read to
him speech that he had written and in
tended making, in which he explained his
reasons for going over and voting for the
amendment; that subsequently Cox came
to his seat, tohile the roll ,ods actually being
called, and said: Now, ENGLISH, am going
to vote for this, and you must stand by
me;' and that ,oithin less than minute after
he had volunteered this final promise, the
name OF SAMUEL S. Cox was called, and he
answered MOI So much, / repeat, have
on the direct personal authority of Mr..
ENGLISH himself"
To casual reader--to a journalist like
him of The Crisis, who seemingly does not
understand the trick oflanguage--this looks
like an assertion based on information Civ
en- to the correspondent of The Gazette by
Mr.. ENGLISH himself. Such is not the fair
construction. 1t was retailed to the CORES
pondent Of The Gazette by other parties, and
this Is the only fair construction the Ian
guage viii admit Of. Having put this con-
struction on it, and knowing Mr.. Cox so
well as to know that he could not be guilty
Of base, dishonorable act, and further
more knowing that he had his vote record
ed before Mr.. ENGLISH was called onto vote
--being the eighth Democrat who voted
we feel justified in saying that there is not
particle Of truth in the story. 1t does
not come within the range Of probability
to suppose that II Mr.. Cox had gone to Mr..
ENGLrsH's seat, as Is asserted, swhile the
rollwas actually being called, /" and told him
fNfr. ExGLrsHl Il am going tovote for this,
and yon must stand by me, /" and shat then
within less than a miImfe after he had volun-
teered this final promise, he voted "Nor
that Mr.. ESaLrsH would not, when his
name was called, have risen in his seat and
exposed him TO the ridicule and contempt
OF the House. To suppose that Mr.. ENGLISH
would not have done this, had Mr.. Cox ac-
ted SO dishonorably with him, is to suppose
him wanting in all the elements Of true man
hood. 2liJ7ft8lJ g sFss8lfls
The Crisis Is mistaken in Its deduction