ing to personal liberty, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. Is not this the Republican doctrine? Hence Governor Chase is logical when he says that Congress may prohibit slavery, but that it has no power to establish it. He would be logical, if he said that the people of a Territory, by majority, might prohibit slavery, but have no power to establish it. That is the legitimate consequence of this individual sovereignty preached by your Wendell Phillipses. If it has not been avowed by my honorable friend, at least he has indorsed the indorser of it. He says: "Never!" Why, in Columbus one year ago-I have the paper hereyou paid your attention to my district. There you shook hands with Governor Chase, on Goodale Park platform-did you not? You said that you had voted for him, and had stood by him. Do you not remember how facetiously you remarked on your own countenance? You had furnished your complexion to the party, and he the colored principle. [Great laughter.] I remember. Don't you remember how cordially you embraced? You shake your head again. Pardon me. I do not mean a bodily embrace-no, by no manner of means; but you had a most affectionate political hug before the people of Ohio! [Renewed laughter.] What, then, did the gentleman indorse in Governor Chase? He indorsed the individual sovereignty of Wendell Phillips, as applied by Governor Chase to civil society and the institution of slavery in the Territories. It is the same doctrine that these fanatics have. They have a great family of isms. You can tell them all by their hereditary marks of insanity. [Laughter.] Read in the Tribune the enunciation of free-love. Stephen Pearl Andrews comes out-and mark how his logic suits Mr. Wendell Phillips, Governor Chase, and the whole Republican party. Stephen Pearl Andrews says that he is for individual sovereignty, not in reference to slavery in the Territories, but in reference to the affectional nature. [Laughter.] He is opposed to any affinity with any man or woman who does not come up squarely to the idea of free-love, unrestrained by the marriage relation or civil authority. He says: "What! Bring your law to bear upon me; enact that I shall live in a state of marriage under the civil law, against my passional attractions? What! Compel my sister to keep, against her will, with her old husband? No, I am for liberty, God and liberty!"-which means the Devil and free lust. So they go on, and so these individual sovereigns run through the catalogue, from one end to the other. They are all tied together by the same string of isms which our friend here has so eloquently and inconsistently denounced.

Now, Mr. Clerk, the time for the Republican party to have denounced these dangerous doctrines, was not after the Harper's Ferry affair had occasioned so much dissatisfaction, anxiety, apprehension, and dismay in the South. The time to have denounced them was when Mr. Giddings made his speech here in favor of servile insurrection. The time to have denounced them was when Helper came along with his book; when Governor Seward said that there was a higher law than the Constitution which required the extermination of slavery, and "that you and I must do it." Then was the time for denunciation, and not after John Brown, wrought upon by the everlasting rub-a-dub of the abolition drum, got together his recruits, crept into the valley of the Blue Ridge, collected his

$10,000 worth of rifles and pikes, and in the night, when no premonition had been given, when all was hushed

Mr. MILES. On Sabbath.

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir, when there was no sound to disturb the quiet but the church-going bell, took possession of an armory with one hundred thousand stand of arms, imprisoned inoffensive citizens, and killed others. Why did you not denounce these doctrines in the bud? Why did you not stop the bloody instructions of which this is the fruit? Why were they not denounced from the pulpit, forum, and rostrum? Why not denounced from these seats in Congress? You come up at this late day and say, "Oh! we do not approve of this thing. The people of the free States do not approve of it." Neither do they. My friend [Mr. CORWIN] was right when he said that the people of Ohio, outside of the Western Reserve, are not in favor of insurrection and dissolution. I think that the Reserve ought to be cut off and slid over to Canada, for which it has more affinity than for the United States. [Laughter.]

Mr. HUTCHINS. Why, then, cut off a part of the Union?

Mr. Cox. I am sure that our people would be glad to change those counties of the Western Reserve for Cuba and cheap sugar and molasses. [Great applause and laughter.] My friend is a correct exponent of the sentiment in Ohio in reference to this insurrection. I am glad he has referred to it in the way he has. I will add my testimony-feeble as it is -to the testimony of the gentleman, to convince the South that these marauders and murderers have no sympathy with the mass of the people of that State, from which most of them seem to have come, and within whose borders they concocted their fell designs. It is due to the gentlemen of the South who have shown so much apprehension on this subject, to say that at least one hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and sixtysix Democratic voters of Ohio put their seal of disapprobation on all the men connected either by sentiment or act with this matter. [Applause in the galleries.] That was the vote last year; and if it were properly represented in this Hall, instead of six Democratic members only, we would now have ten. From the sentiment of this year, four of these Republican gentlemen would be compelled to bid adieu to this scene of congressional life.

But the distinguished gentleman who preceded me [Mr. CORWIN] says, and says truly, that there is no sentiment in the southern part of our State, at least in that part of the State which he and I represent, which would not disapprove, in toto, of the men who have preached and acted out this servile insurrection. There is no sentiment in that part of Ohio which does not at once and forever protest against that horrible spectre of history -a servile insurrection. I may go further and do justice to the Republican vote of Ohio this year. It was one hundred and eighty-four thousand five hundred and two; more than half that number, sir, in my judgment, thoroughly condemn this raid upon Virginia. While I admit the sentiment is different in the Reserve and at Cleveland; while I admit that the noisy leaders and blatant journalists who undertake to manage and do control the Republican party in its platform and candidates, are not blessed with the same genuine spirit, I freely and willingly bear my testimony to the public execration which in Ohio has followed the insurgents at Harper's Ferry, their aiders and abettors. Let me go further.

When you come to the great Northwest you find one million one hundred and sixty-two thousand voters in her seven States. This is a hundred thousand more than all the voters in the South, one-third of the whole Union, and three times as many as New England. I believe, sir, that more than one-half of these votes will be cast in 1860 for the Democratic party, for the rights of the States and the permanence of Federal concord. You will find these voters warm in favor of the Union, and the Constitution, which is the only ligament which holds that Union together. You will find this attachment not merely in our party, but among the very men who voted for my friend [Mr. CORWIN] and many of the Republicans upon this floor. Look to the great Northwest, and to its power as it is now, and as it will be. She has a lake and river tonnage of four hundred thousand tons, and five thousand miles of river and lake coast. She has, and must have ever, the Mississippi River as her outlet. Has she nothing at stake? She will be able to protect herself and the Union besides. In 1860 she will have as many Representatives upon this floor as the whole South will then have, and three members to one from New England. You will find in her a conservative element which will say to the North, with its extremists, and to the South, with its extremists, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further; here shall the waves of disunion be stayed!" You will find in the Northwest a conservative element, which, if we have the Cincinnati platform unaltered, will rise up to the support of the Democratic party, as the only safe repository of that constitutional power by which this Government is to be carried on.

It is said by men of science that the least disturbance of the law of gravitation in the universe will not only disturb the stars in their courses, but that it will change the position of the lightest flower upon the face of the earth. So it is with respect to that political gravitation by which the States are held in their spheres as they revolve around the Federal centre. Not only will the disturbance of our Confederation and Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance of it, in the least particular, whether by resistance to law or by riotous insurrection, disturb the relation of the various States, but it will disturb that concord of feeling in each individual citizen which is the flower of our patriotism-without which the Constitution and the Union cannot be preserved. Without fraternity of feeling that Constitution is a dead letter-a mere wisp of straw-a rope of sand. There is a sentiment in the Northwest which cannot and will not listen to a disunion sentiment.

se."

I regret to hear upon this side of the Chamber the dissolution of the Union spoken of as a contingency. I wish to say in behalf of the national Democrats of Ohio, that with them there is no such word as that rung in our ears by Southern gentlemen-" dissolution of the Union per We know of no dissolution per se. We have no dead or living language to phrase such sentiments. We are for the Constitution and for the Union. We have no language to express any thing with respect to breaking those ties, so eloquently depicted by my friend [Mr. CORWIN], which bind us together. Those ties are as old as the Constitution. I am prepared, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. JOHN COCHRANE] said the other day, to sail over many a stormy sea in the protection of that Union and Constitution. If I have read aright the history of the formation of

the Constitution, its framers had troubles and trials far more vexatious and arduous than those we have undergone in preserving it. It was as long as from March to September, 1787, before they could agree upon an instrument, and before it could go out to the States for their ratification. They quarrelled about the slave trade; they quarrelled about the three-fifths representation of slaves in making up this body; and it was not until such patriotic appeals were made as we have heard here by gentlemen upon this side of the Chamber, that they could come together and agree upon this common Constitution. Too many of their descendants are too quick to listen to the cry of disunion. We of the Northwest have no affinity with any one who utters that cry, whether from the North or South.

I remember an incident that occurred in the late Sepoy rebellion in India-a servile insurrection, which might have found more than its counterpart, if the late affair at Harper's Ferry had been consummated as it was designed. You remember that Lucknow was besieged for months by those fiends in human shape, who did what Brown would have had the negroes of Virginia do. Death stared the beleaguered garrison in the face. The engineers even gave up hope. A day, and all would be lost! A fever-stricken Scotch lassie, overcome with fatigue, lay upon the ground, wrapped in her plaid and slumber. Suddenly she gave a cry of joy. Her delirium passed away. She exclaimed: "Dinna ye hear it? Dinna ye hear it? Ay, I am no dreamin'. It's the slogan of the Highlanders. We're saved! We're saved!" The young girl had a keen ear for her national music. She was from the Highlands-the home of the MacGregors and the Douglas! The duller ear of the Lowlanders did not catch the inspiring strain. I think, sir, I may be pardoned for saying that we of the Northwest have a quicker ear for the music of the Union. Through the noise of strife and the cannonade of insurrection, and while other sections have dulled their sense by too frequent allusions and reflections upon disunion, there remains in the Northwest the ready love, the unselfish devotion, and the patriotic zeal which is quick to hail the music of the Union as the harbinger of our safety and repose! [Applause from the galleries.]

NORTHERN DISUNIONISTS AGAIN.

EXPULSION OF A MEMBER.-THE REPUBLICANS ARRAIGNED FOR THEIR INCIVISM.

On the 9th of April, 1864, the Speaker, COLFAX, offered a resolution to expel Mr. LONG, of Ohio. Without any knowledge or expectation of such a movement, Mr. Cox took the floor after the Speaker, and said:

I approach this matter with becoming seriousness. The extraordinary spectacle is presented of our Speaker descending from the chair to make a motion to expel one of the members of this House for words spoken in debate. The occasion calls for more than the usual gravity of deliberation. I was not present when my colleague [Mr. LONG] made the re

marks which have called out this resolution. I am told by members around me that his remarks do not bear the interpretation given to them by the speech and resolution of the honorable Speaker. Before a resolu

tion of this startling nature was introduced, we should have had the official report of those remarks in the Globe. If action be demanded for the expulsion of a Representative of the people, for the exercise of his constitutional right of free debate, we should have the most authentic record of that debate. As I am informed, the language of my colleague was so qualified as to make it far less objectionable than the statement of it in the resolution. Still, sir, it may be obnoxious, and yet there may be no just ground for this proceeding of expulsion.

Had I been in my seat yesterday, with all due respect to my colleague, I should have promptly risen and disavowed, on behalf of all the delegation from Ohio with whom I have conversed, any sentiments uttered by him or any one else, looking to the recognition of the Confederate Government as an independent Power. So far as I can learn, there is not a member acting with this side of the House, unless it be my colleague, who is not opposed in every conceivable view, directly or indirectly, to such recognition.*

I speak earnestly and consciously of this, because an attempt was made yesterday to make partisan capital for the other side out of the speech of my colleague. But it should be borne in mind that he said that he spoke only for himself, and not for his party. He was frank, true, and honest in that avowal. He did not speak, nor propose to speak, for his party. He did not speak for his Democratic colleagues.

Very recently we have had a convention of the Democratic people of Ohio, representing over one hundred and eighty-five thousand voters. In that convention, sir, no sentiments were uttered, and none would have been tolerated, like those to which exception has been taken. On the contrary, the only person whose name was presented to that convention as a delegate to the Democratic national convention, who avowed sentiments looking toward the recognition of the Confederate States, and who printed a learned and able pamphlet to circulate among the members of the convention, in exposition of his views, received but a few votes among several hundred in that convention; showing that the Democrats of Ohio, for

* As Mr. PENDLETON afterwards called this remark in question, I republish the following card: "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 20.

"On the evening after Mr. LONG delivered his speech, the undersigned members of the Democratic delegation in Congress from Ohio, consulted with such of their colleagues as they could meet, in reference to the propriety of protesting against the sentiments expressed by Mr. LONG, 'that the alternative was now presented between subjugation and annihilation, or recognition.' The following named persons concurred in protesting against the doctrine of recognition, viz.: Messrs. BLISS, NOBLE, HUTCHINS, JOHNSTON, LE BLOND, J. W. WHITE, MORRIS, FINCK, O'NEIL, Cox, and MCKINNEY. The other members were not seen. Those who were not consulted, agreed to meet in caucus next morning before the meeting of Congress, to agree upon the form of protest. Seven met, and be fore the others came to the place of meeting or any action was had, the ywere notified that a resolution was introduced to expel Mr. LONG, whereupon they repaired to the House, and Mr. MCKINNEY informed Mr. Cox (who was not at the meeting) of the agree ment of the eleven members above mentioned. J. F. MCKINNEY, GEO. BLISS."