Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-08-01
why Langston Thought he Knew
hirr pIan--A Page OF Cox'sl Rec

ord t9iis0G9h .eisN61h it ~ $40 noiHno
wnen LAHasToN,s n the colored leader Of
Oberlin, urged the nomination Of General
Cox, either with or without a Platform, he
seemed to know his 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 ASA Senator in the State
Senate, he had made record that was alto
gether satisfactory to him. That record
shows General Cox as having opposed the
iDtiiction of punishment on JOHN Brown
raiders; 1t shows him to have been the op-
ponent Of the bill denying suffrage to per-
sons having visible admixture of African
blood; 1t shows him mreporting against the
repeal of the law known as the Kidnapping
law, law that was designed to nullify the
Fugitive Slave law; and it shows him as
having resisted, at every step, the passage
of the bill prohibiting marriage or Illicit
intercourse between the White and Black
races In Ohio. On this bill General Cox's
record is as follows: a s5f3, -9ffa'ai q
In the Senate, January 81, 1861 forenoon
SESSION., Mr.. ScHLEIoH moved to take up
the Amalgamation bill (the object of the
bill being to prevent amalgamation in Ohio.)
The motion was agreed to.
Mr.. Curry moved to postpone the bill
until the last Monday In February. The
motion was lost--yeas IL, nays 23-Mr.
Cox voting in favor of postponement. Mr..
Cox, said he thought such law 'funneces-
sary- and improper, and soas acholly opposed to
IT, .s13 foY li'
The bill was then tabled for the purpose
of considering more pressing business.
In the Senate, January 81, 1861 (atternoon
SESSION., the Amalgamation bill was taken
from the table, when |
Mr.. GARFIELD moved the Indefinite post
ponement of the bill. The motion was dis
agreed to- Mr.. Cox voted in favor of Its
indefinite postponement. Mr.. Cox then
moved to strikeout the second section of
the bill, which was disagreed to. The bill
was finally ordered to a third reading, and
then put on its passage, when the bill pass
ed blythe following vote: -
YEAs-Messrs. Brewer, Bonar, Collins,
,Eason, Ferguson, Foster, Glass, Harrison,
Harsh, Holmes, Jones. Key, Mccall, Moore,
Newman, Orr, PerriIl, Potwin, Ready,
SpIague, Stanley-2.
NiYs- Messrs. Breck, cox, Garfield,
Monroe, Morse, Parish, Potts, Smiths.
Can any voter doubt that a candidate for
Governor who has such record unrepented
Of and In consideration of which he re-
ceiyedl the support of the Reserve in the
State Convention, is not in favor of confer
ringsuffrageupon Negroes? He has shown
his hand; he showed his hand on the sub
ject at time when Negro Suffrage was less
popular than it is now.l Infexibly was he
opposed to withholding from persons hay-
ing a visible admixture of African blood
the privilege of suffrage; and with as much
tenacity did he oppose the enactment Of
the law by which amalgamation between
the White and Black races is prohibited in
this sState. LANGsToN, therefore, had a
right to believe. that he, above all other
White men IN the State, could be trusted,
as being true to the doctrine of Negro
Equality-not only politically, but socially.
Hence he did not feel it necessary to inter-
rogate him touching this matter, as he has
felt constrained to interrogate Mr.. WAR
NER, whoisa candidate for State Treasurer
on the same Ticket. 's..A ,,,...s. ,..,.
In the face of these undeniable facts, who
wants further evidence that General Cox is
in favor Of putting Negroes on an equality
with White men. VIII any letter from
General Cox now disavowing the doctrine
of Negro Equality, when he is urged thereto
> by an.apprehension that he would other
wisebe defeated, convince men that he is
not In reality in favor of Negro Suffrage?