Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, the honor able Senfrom Maryland, [ML J onivsos] in his remarks esterday, made some statements which, while did not wish to controvert them at the time, I felt to be unjust to Uistinguished citizen of my State, but as I had no documents before me, no papers to which I could refer, I did not feel at liberty to correct him while he was speaking or after he spoke. The remarks to which I allude I will read from the re ported speech as contained in the Globe of this morning: "I find in one of the papersof the day a resolution otioredat a meetingin the State of Ohio some 7 years ago, in which the doctrine almostin the words of Calhoun was announced. said to have been re gorted by a committee ofwhjch one of the honorable SenatorsfromOhio not nowin his place.[Mr. Wann] was a member, and to have beensupported by him in a speech and to have also been supported by a speech of the present Chief Justice of the U.S. ” Then the Senfrom Maryland proceeded to quote a resolution adopted at a meeting at Cl“eveland in 1859; and after readingit, he said: and that resolution. it is said, was supported not only by my friendfrom Ohio Mr. Wlinafi] utby the presentChiofJustice of the U.S.; and that was in 1859;literally a transcript from someof the resolutions offeredby John C. Calhoun." I knew very well at the time these words were uttered that the Chief Justice had never supported and sustained the doctrine of such aresolution; but I was not then pre ared to state, as I am now, the part he too in the meeting referred to. He was suddenly called to Cleveland, when Governor of the State of Ohio, by events which at the time caused great excitement. Certain persons had by force and fraud combined enticed a resident of Ohio from his ordinary avocations at Oberlin into the country, then gagged him and bound him and endeavored to take him away out of the It was a gross and palpable outrage wSthaitceh. would have created excitement in any community. The man was a colored man. The citizens arose, without much regard to party, and rescued him, and man of them were arrested and bound over byt e U.S. district court. A meeting was called at Cleveland to denounce the act and there was a large attendance, m uch excitement and some fear of an armed resistance to the U.S. authorities. The present Chief Justice was then Governor of the State of Ohio, and he was invited from Columbus to Cleveland to address this meeting. He declined to do so; but on the morning of the day of the meeting he received a telegram from Cleveland to the effect that trouble was feared, and he took the cars and arrived in the midst of the meeting. I regret that I cannot find a full report of what he said. I have been trying to get the report ofhis speech, but there being no files of Ohio pa are here, the only reportI can find is a brie one contained in the NewYork Times of a day or 2 afterward, and that I will read so that the senator may see how unjust he was in the statement he has already made: " A meetingofsome 6,000 persons was held at Cleveland on the 24thinstant. to enouncethe fu gitive slave law, in view of its enforcement against the Oberlin prisoners. The published call invited all foes of slavery and despotism and stigmatized the proceedingsof the district court as a despotic usur pation of power. Joshua It. Giddings resided. Among the prominent personsgrcsentwns governor Chase, who, upon invitation. adressed the concourse. Hisromarks Werebriefnnd sensible. Concurring with those who heard him in dislike of the fugitive slave law, he yet counseledno forcible resistance. On the contrary, his advice was to oppose it through the bal lot box alone.byelecting men to Congress and to the Presidency who would re eal it. He did not even as sail its constitutionality, at left. that question to the proper tribunals, State and Federal." That was the position taken by Governor Chase at the time. I know that his remarks on the occasion were received With dissent by the excited audience, and he was not applaude during the whole of his brief remarks. He counseled moderation and strict obedience to law, and took no part in framing, advocating, or passing the resolutions. It is due to the Chief Justice to make this statement and the honorable Senator made another remark, which, I think, was also. very unjust, if I understand the meaning of it. He said: “ Mr. President, if the Chief Justice of the U.S. has not changed the opinion which he entertained in 1859, he is not the man to sit in judgment upon Mr. JeffersonDavis, or anybody else standing in the like position. Ho might pronounce him. an I suppose O would, to have been guilty of treason acloing to the letter of the law: but, with this resolution in his hand, he would anyto the Dept of the Government in which the power of mercy is lodged, For Gods sake, as you value me and my character, pardon, for he did only to a greater extent whntlsaid [would havedono orthat myStateshould have done ifthe contingency had nrison.” This, I suppose, was based upon the allegation that the Chief Justice had approved the resolution which the Senator read. Now, sir, you may look through all the writings and all the speeches of that distinguished citizen, and you will find nothing in them that would sanction secession or nullification or any of those outrageous doctrines which emanated from John C. Calhoun and JeffersonDavis. While he has resisted, in the sense in which we use the word among lawyers, the execution of the fugitive slave aw; while he has uniforml denounced it and held it to be unconstitutiona, he never has advised any armed resistance to that law or advised anyone to seek any redress against its barbarous revisions except the redress of the courts of justice and an apeal to the people through the ballot box. certainly he never counseled armed resistance to the law as announced by the courts to be made either under State or individual authority, and is as free from such a reproach as any citizen of the U.S. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything more. I make this correction in justice to a istinguished citizen of my State, and in justice to myself as his representative.