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 resolution 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. J

"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."

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 'irrepressible 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.

The mem

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. ber 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