whom I speak, are not prepared in any shape, however plausible, to accept the disintegrating doctrine to which this resolution refers. On the contrary, the Democratic people of that State, when the war came, which they endeavored but failed to avert, rallied to the defence of this Government. They sustained it in every emergency. We, the members upon this side of the House, had and yet have our brothers and our friends in the Army doing battle for the Republic, although they do not agree with the peculiar African policies pursued by this Administration.

I refer to the position of the Ohio Democracy with pride, because of the imputations thrown upon them by my colleague [Mr. GARFIELD]. He followed the speech of my colleague from the second district [Mr. LONG], and strove to make political points for his party, not by misrepresenting him so much as by misrepresenting the Democracy.

Now, I propose to show that if the sentiments attributed to my colleague are unpatriotic and treasonable, the prominent men of the Republican party are amenable, for similar sentiments, to the same condemnation. There

is scarcely a leading member of the opposite party, from the Executive down, who is not committed in doctrine, if not in practice, to the separation of these States. I shall show that members opposite deserve expulsion by the same rule which they would mete out to my colleague.

I pass over for the present the sacred, constitutional right of free debate in this Chamber of American Representatives, and proceed to show that this resolution comes with a bad grace from that quarter in which so much sedition and revolution have been expressed and acted.

And first, I desire to ask of the Speaker if he had forgotten when he penned this resolution, that in the last Congress a most acute member of the Republican party, in good standing and sweet fellowship Judge Conway, of Kansas-not only made a remarkable speech in favor of the recognition of the South, but offered solemn resolutions affirming the heinous doctrine. If the honorable Speaker has forgotten the fact, let him turn to the Journal of the House of December 15, 1862, page 69, and he will find the following resolutions offered by Mr. Conway. I quote such of them as bear on the points in discussion:

"Resolved, That freedom and slavery cannot coexist in the same Government without producing endless strife and civil war; that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand;' and that this nation must be all free or all slave.'

"Resolved, That the American Union consists of those States which are now loyal to the Federal Constitution.

"Resolved, That the restoration of the Union as it existed prior to the rebellion would be a greater calamity than the rebellion itself, since it would give new life to the 'irrepres sible conflict,' and entail upon the nation another cycle of bitter contention and civil war. "Resolved, That the seceded States can only be put down, if at all, by being regarded as out of constitutional relations with the Union, and by being assailed upon principles of ordinary warfare as between separate nations.

"Resolved, That it is a matter for serious reflection whether another election of President must not supervene before the rightful authority of the nation can be established; and whether in the mean time it is not a flagrant waste of our energies to continue the war.

"Resolved, That unless the Army of the West shall have swept through the valley of the Mississippi to its mouth, and the Army of the Potomac annihilated the legions of Lee and Jackson, thus subverting the military power of the rebellion within a reasonable time, the best interests of the country and humanity will require a cessation of hostilities.

"Resolved, That the States of the North composing the American nation, and wielding its power, must ever remain one and indivisible on the basis of freedom for all, without

distinction of race, color, or condition; that their mission must ever be to extend their own civilization over the entire continent; and that whatever derangements, difficulties, checks, or defeats they may encounter, they must forever cherish and pursue the inspiring idea of nationality and continental dominion."

From which it will appear that, after affirming the irrepressible conflict, it was resolved that the American Union consisted only of those States which are now loyal to the Federal Constitution; that the restoration of the old Union would be a greater calamity than the rebellion itself; that the seceded States should be regarded as out of constitutional relations with the Union; that until the election of another President it was a flagrant waste of our energies to continue the war. Does the honorable Speaker remember that those resolutions recognized that only the States North composed the American Union? If he did, why did not this sensitive gentleman [Mr. COLFAX], who was not then in the chair but upon the floor, come forward with a resolution for the expulsion of his friend Mr. Conway? I ask the Speaker to respond to that question. Why did you not do it, sir? Is such a resolution fair toward a member on this side and unfair toward a member on the other? You were for free speech and free resolution then; I am for it now as then. Why do you pursue my colleague to disgrace him, when you did not lisp a word about expelling one from your own ranks who was in favor of disparting the old Union and recognizing the nationality of the Southern confederacy? The Speaker does not, for he cannot, answer. I will yield to him to respond. Mr. COLFAX. The gentleman from Indiana claims the floor whenever he sees fit to claim it, and declines speaking in the midst of the speech of the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Cox. The gentleman is distinguished as well for his prudence as for his sagacity.

Mr. ALLISON. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio if he believes that Mr. Conway ought to have been expelled from the last Congress under the circumstances.

Several MEMBERS. Oh, that is not the question.

Mr. Cox. When the gentleman on the other side answers my question, I will answer him. I will do it any how. I do not think that he should have been expelled any more than we should expel the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] for his speech in favor of regarding the Confederacy as a de facto government, and that war should be carried on against it, according to the law of nations, as an independent Power established by its arms and recognized by the nations. The member from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS], if I remember his speech on that subject, quoted Vattel in favor of his policy, which he predicated upon the idea of the independence of the southern government. Ay, and my colleague [Mr. GARFIELD], who is a fair debater generally, has taken the same ground as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, holding that an insurrection as formidable as this requires the laws of war to be applied as between two distinct and independent sovereignties. The men who hold that doctrine are not the men to expel another member who holds to the same doctrine.

Mr. GARFIELD. Will my colleague yield to me for a moment? Mr. Cox. With great pleasure. I would not do my colleague any injustice.

Mr. GARFIELD. My colleague does do me injustice in what he has just uttered. If he will do me the honor to read my speech on confiscation, on this particular he will find that I take most decisive ground against the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and therein deny in toto the doctrine that these are a foreign people. On the contrary, I therein claim that they are in the Union, and that all the obligations of the Constitution overhang them. But in putting down this rebellion we have been told by the Supreme Court that we are to pursue them by the laws of war, the same as the laws between foreign nations, but not thereby admitting that they are a foreign nation.

Mr. Cox. Well, I cannot understand that distinction, but I accept it; and then I ask my colleague, if he holds that the Confederacy is not an independent nation, and if he thus antagonizes the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, why he is not in favor of expelling that gentleman for holding that doctrine and avowing it openly? Did I understand that my colleague does not follow the leader of his party in this House upon this doctrine? I pause if my colleague will favor me with a reply. Mr. GARFIELD. I draw a most marked and broad distinction between the opinion of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania and the opinions of my colleague from the second district [Mr. LONG]. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is in favor of prosecuting the war to the uttermost to bring back these revolted States. The member from the second district of Ohio is opposed, in the first place, to all further prosecution of the war; in the second place, he holds that all compromise is impossible; and in the third place, he declares openly in favor of throwing up the white flag and acknowledging that they have conquered us and are independent, and that we will call back our armies and make no attempt, either by conference or by war, to restore the Union. There is the difference.

Mr. THAYER. I wish to make a statement. I am sure the gentleman from Ohio will not object.

Mr. Cox. I will yield to the gentleman one moment.

Mr. THAYER. I simply wish to remind the gentleman from Ohio that my colleague to whom he has referred [Mr. STEVENS] is not in his seat, being detained therefrom by sickness. I think, therefore, it is better not to indulge in these remarks in regard to him in his absence.

Mr. Cox. Oh! Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania are as well known as his great capacity. They are printed. I will do him no injustice, but quote them here:

"It is, however, essential to ascertain what relation the seceded States bear to the United States, that we may know how to deal with them in reëstablishing the national Government. There seems to be great confusion of ideas and diversity of opinion on that subject. Some think that those States are still in the Union and entitled to the protection of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that they, notwithstanding all they have done, may at any time, without any legislation, come back, send Senators and Repre sentatives to Congress, and enjoy all the privileges and immunities of loyal members of the United States. That whenever those wayward sisters' choose to abandon their frivolities and present themselves at the door of the Union and demand admission, we must receive them with open arms, and throw over them the protecting shield of the Union, of which it is said they had never ceased to be members. Others hold that, having committed treason, renounced their allegiance to the Union, discarded its Constitution and laws, organized a distinct and hostile Government, and by force of arms having risen from

the condition of insurgents to the position of an independent Power de facto, and having been acknowledged as a belligerent both by foreign nations and our own Government, the Constitution and laws of the Union are abrogated so far as they are concerned, and that, as between the two belligerents, they are under the laws of war and the laws of nations alone, and that whichever Power conquers may treat the vanquished as conquered provinces, and may impose upon them such conditions and laws as it may deem best."

Again he says:

"Is the present contest to be regarded as a public war, and to be governed by the rules of civilized warfare, or only as a domestic insurrection, to be suppressed by criminal prosecutions before the courts of the country?”

I need not tell the House how the member from Pennsylvania answered this question. He founded upon it his argument in favor of confiscation by the laws of nations and of war. He quoted from Judge Grier to prove the war a public war, and not a domestic insurrection. He constructed an argument to show that this was not a contest with individuals, but with States, known under the name of the "Confederate States." He held it to be idle to regard individuals as making war. "War is made," said he, "by chartered or corporate communities, by nations or States."

"When an insurrection becomes sufficiently formidable to entitle the party to belligerent rights, it places the contending Powers on precisely the same footing as foreign nations at war with each other." "No one acquainted with the magnitude of this contest can deny to it the character of a civil war. For nearly three years the Confederate States have maintained their declaration of independence by force of arms." * "What, then, is the effect of this public war between these belligerent, these foreign nalions? Before this war the parties were bound together by a compact, by a treaty called a 'Constitution.' They acknowledged the validity of municipal laws mutually binding on each. This war has cut asunder all these ligaments, abrogated all the obligations."

"What, then, is the effect of this public war, between these belligerent, these foreign nations?" Foreign nations! Foreign? Why? Because not under our Constitution, but alien from it by the maintenance of their independence by force of arms. Nations? Having all the autonomy and independence of a belligerent Power in Europe. Yet for these sentiments, who had the courage to question, censure, or propose to expel the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Ah! he is a Republican, and has a dispensation from the higher powers to recognize by his logic (which my colleague unhappily followed) the existence of the South as a separate nation. He is the leader of that side of the House, and may debate without question these momentous issues. My colleague followed him in his premises, although he drew another conclusion.

Now, I ask my colleague [Mr. GARFIELD] whether he did not vote for a gentleman in Ohio for Lieutenant-Governor who held the same doctrine of recognizing the southern confederacy? I refer to LieutenantGovernor Stanton, who announced that doctrine on this floor. He never was expelled for it. No one sought then to abridge his free debate. I heard his remarks. I will send them up to be read before my colleague answers the question.

Mr. GARFIELD. If the gentleman will allow me, they can as well be read afterwards.

Mr. Cox. Let them be read now.

The Clerk read as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, when there were fifteen slaveholding States acknowledging allegiance to the Federal Government, and therefore, having in their hands the power to protect themselves against any invasion of their rights on the part of the Federal Government, it was a matter of very little consequence whether such an amendment as that was incorporated in the Constitution or not. But the state of the country is now radically and essentially changed. Seven or eight States now deny their allegiance to this Government, have organized a separate confederacy, and have declared their independence of this Government. Whether that independence is to be maintained or not is with the future. If they shall maintain their position, and sustain the authorities there for a year or two to come, so as to show that nothing but a war of subjugation and conquest can bring them back, I, for one, am disposed to recognize that independence."-Congressional Globe, February 23, 1861, page 1285.

Mr. Cox. I will now yield to my colleague to say whether he did not vote for that man as Lieutenant-Governor of Ohio, after it was known throughout the State that he thus favored the independence of this confederacy?

Mr. GARFIELD. I answer my colleague that I did not vote for that gentleman nor for any candidate on the ticket that fall, for the simple reason that I was in the army. If I had been in Ohio, I should have voted for that gentleman, and I do not excuse myself on any other ground than the simple lack of being present at the time of the election.

Now, allow me to say that there was a large class of men on both sides of the political questions of that day who in the beginning of this war felt a doubt whether it was not better to let these people alone for a time, hoping that reason might return to them by delay. There were others who said "we cannot leave them alone;" and to that class belonged a number of distinguished gentlemen in the parties on both sides. That is one thing. But now, after that question has been adjudicated, after the great American people have determined on war and determined on putting down the rebellion, after three years of war have passed, and when wę are almost in the hour of daylight and victory, to arise now and throw up the contest is treason.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Speaker, I only asked the gentleman to answer my question, not to go off into a definition of what is treason in his judgment. I would rather take the constitutional definition of treason. I do not think my friend takes the Constitution as his authority, for he has said twice on this floor that he would overleap that Constitution. When you talk of treason, and in the same breath talk of overleaping the Constitution, you are the traitor, if there be such a traitor in this House.

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman tell me what question it is that he desires I shall answer?

Mr. Cox. I do not ask the gentleman any more questions. I am satisfied with his position. It is enough that I have shown that he is not the man to vote for the expulsion of any member for expressing sentiments in favor of the recognition of this southern confederacy. It is not for him who would have voted for a man who was in favor, in advance of war, of the recognition of the southern confederacy, and who thus encouraged the rebels to proceed in their rebellion when it was in its bud, to reflect upon gentlemen on this side of the House who have voted against secession, against recognition, and in favor of sustaining the war for the Union upon the proper policy. It is not for him to censure or expel my colleague, when he has declared that he himself would in some cases overleap the Constitution.