5 ing, and declared that if any attempt was made to inarch troops through his district, for the purpose of coercing the South, they would have to march over his dead body before they could go through the district Yours Truly, T. C. THEAKER. We, the undersigned members of the 36th and 37th Congress, were present at the meeting alluded to by the Son. T. C. Theaker, in the foregoing letter of the date of June 2d,y 1862, and we hereby endorse the statement therein made concerning the declaration of the Hon. C. L. Vallandigham, at that meeting. SIDNEDY EDGERTON, JOHN A. GURLEY. I remember the statement, substantially, as made by Hon. Mr. Theaker. J. M. ASHLEY. I remember that Mr. Vallandigham at the meeting referred to, declared his hostility to 'and his purpose to resist any attempt to . march troops through Ohio to coerce the people of seceding States, to submit to the authority of the Federal Government JNO. A. BINGHAM. I concur in the statement of Mr. Bingham. JOHN HUTCHING Mr. Vallandigham. Now, Mr. Speaker, one moinent about this., I have already explained this subject long ago, and shown how this, idea came into the mind of anybody. Here are my colleagues, [Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Cox,] who heard every word I said, and have repeatedly joined me in the denial that I ever uttered such a sentiment. The manner in which it originated was this: The very evening after that on which that caucus was held, after this House adjourned,, Mr. Theaker, the member before me, [Mr. Blake,] my colleague, [Mr., Cox,] myself and others, went into the Senate just as Mr. Johhson, of Tennessee had concluded his speech. The Senator froth Oregon, General Joseph Lane, rose and, during his reply, used that language,, as follows : “ If it (civil war) should come unfortunately upon this country, inaugurated by a tyrant who would like to hold American citizens as vassals, then I will say to that coward who would do'it, ‘you will walk over your humble servant’s body first.’ ”—Cong. Globe, 1860—’61, p. 144. We had met the evening before, as I have said, in the rooms occupied by my colleagues [Mr. Pugh, Mr. Martin and Mr. Pendleton] and myself. Some four or five months afterward, and not before—it was after the war broke out—it was asserted that it was I who had used that language. I happen to have hostile record evidence, made at the time, of what I said, and it has been republished. The report in the Cincinnati Commercial (a Republican paper) next morning, sent by telegraph by its correspondent, Mr. Bickham, contained whht I did say, and it was the very reverse of that. More than that, Mr. Bickham, in his letter transmitted by mail the next day, and published about the 22d December, 1860, in that same Commercial, repeats the language more at length. It is that Mr. Vallandigham said that “if any army undertook to march down South from the northern part of the State, they should have a free passage through the Miami valley, provided they did not disturb anybody.” Now, that is the fact; and the member,’instead of discussing the great questions of the hour, has no right to undertake to single me out for his dirty personal attacks. Mr. Bnake. Mr. Speaker, I should not pursue this policy with my colleague, if his conduct was not consistent entirely with that lan
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=