Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1896-02-10
PINE BLUFF, ARK. FEB. 10. 1896.
LARGEST DAILY CITY CIRCULATION,
HISTORY REPEATED.

tam VdrlablOnS OI uebdll, III tHS House of Representatives Friday. Mr. Talbert of South Carolina hay ing declared that he believed in the doctrine of secession, Mr. Barrett, of Massachusetts angrily called him to order and wanted the House to decide whether a member could be thus allowed to thus violate his oath The incident closed by Q reference of the whole matter to the judiciary committee, the general desire seem- ing to be to decorously put the ques- tion to bed and get rid of it. It was eighty-five years ago, in the year 1911, that similar ineicent occurred in the House of Representatives. The statesman who on that occasion figured in the role played yesterday by Talbert of South Carolina was Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts. It was during the debate on the bill for the admission of Louisiana as 8 State into the Union. The New England statesmen of that day were bitterly hostile to this project or to any acquisition of new territory, and their opposition went to the extent of threatening secession. It was on this bill that Josiah Quincy of Mas sachusetts rose in his place in the House of Representative and ut tered these words: "It is my delib- crate opinion that if this bill passes the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligation and that, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for sep. aration, amicably if they can, forci- bly, if they must.
 The Hon. Josiah Quincy of Massa chusetts was promptly called to or der, but the House of Representa- tives by vote of 56 to B, the New England representatives votingwith the majority, decided that a Con- gressman from Massachusetts had 8 right to preach the doctrine of se- cession on the floor of the House, whatever limitation might be put on a Congressman from South Car olina. In the case of MT. Quincy it was not mere expression of theO- retical and abstract opinion, as in the case of MT Talbert, but threat made to affect pending legislation.
 We may add that it was no idle threat. Massachusetts and New England generally at that time were ripe for secession. The Massa- chusetts Legislature had already re- solved in 1903 on the acquisition of Louisiana that it's annexation formed new confederacv to which the States united by the for mer compact were not bound to ad- here. 1t was only three years after Josiah Quincy uttered the sentiment we have quoted that the New Eng land States in the celebrated Hart ford Convention threatened to with draw from the Union, their griev- ance being that they were required to furnish troops to fight for their country, then at war with England. Again in 1914 the Massachusetts Legislature adopted a resolution de- claring that the annexation of Texas unless arrested con the threshold, may drive these States into a dis solution of the Union; and the year following the same threat was re- peated. 1t will be seen, therefore, that Massachusetts began very early to preach the doctrine of secession, though it usually chose time when the country was at war to make it's threats and lay it's plots for the de- struction of the Union.
 Perhaps it was an apprehension that Talbert might quote precedents that induced the Republicans to wash their hands of the whole business as quickly as possible. .-C Commercial. Ap- peal.