ihb ...... . . i , " . . ; : ' ;
I'LEIRFIELD EEPBBLICAM," '
" wmA. iir -1171 a -mnTinT TTW ,k TTK TT7, TVTT T TTK "IT IT n A TT
BMTAULIIHBD III lBt.
Tbe largea! cirelatloa r aay newspaper
U North Central Pennsylvania.
Terma of Suouoription,
II mid la advance, " wllkln I months.... MI
1 odd after d brr ' """" - SO
j( p.U tfler the eiplrotloa of month.... S UO
Bates ot Advertising.
T,Bill edvartltemeati, par tquare of 10 line, or
i,.., I timet or lew -....$1 M
voreab lobieqnentineertloa.. ft
iJmlDiitraW"' ad Kaeoutort' Bolieee....... I at
A.iiwn' aotleei I M
Cetleotand Kitrey - 1 la
Duttlatlou uoUoet 1 10
ProttMlonal Oardi, a Uaaa ar letl,l Jiw. i tt
lottlnctloel, per line ........ la
TEARLT ADVBRTISKMKNT8.
Mn,re. tt 00 1 i eolumn ....$51 00
1 1,... ...oil .i.. rt aa
lI!amZ!l...J M I 1 aolama lla 00
Pabllibcr.
Jon pmnTino or kvkrt disomp
lloa neatly executed at tkii oBoe.
TT W. SMITH,
ATTOBNEY-AT-LAW,
tl:I:TS ' Clearfield, Pa.
T J. LIXGLE,
AITOBNII -AT - LAW,
1:11 Phtllpeburt;, Centre Co., Pa. y:pd
TOLANDD.SWOOPE,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Curw.oirllle, Clartld county, Pa.
oct , 78lf.
0
SCAB MITCHELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
CLEARFIELD, PA.
Ir-OBca la tbe Opera Hoate. ootil, '7811.
Q R. & W. BARKETT,
Attorneys and Counselors at Law,
olbarfibld. pa.
January SO, 1876.
TSRAEL test,
ATTOKNKY AT LAW,
Clearfield, Pa.
a-OBoe la tha Court Hoaia. t'yll.'tf
HENRY BRETH,
(OHTRRD r. 0.)
JUSTICE OF THE I'EACE
poa aaLL Towninir-.
M.J 1, Wl-Ie
yjl. Jf. JicCULLOUGFT,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
CLKARFIKLD, PA.
Oft.1, la Moronic buildlag. Second otreet, op
po.ite th. Court Houia. JJ6, 78-tf.
C. ARNOLD,
LAW & COLLECTION OFFICE,
CURWKN8VILLB,
.ta Clcerftold Couaty, Penn'e. T6y
s.
T. BROCK BANK,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
' OLBARFIBLD, PA.
Oflloa In Opera Houta.
JAMES MITCHELL,
ap JS.fMy
aaiLia ta
Square Timber & Timber Lands,
JoU'71 CLBARFIKLD, PA.
J.
F. SNYDER,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
CLKARFIBLD, PA.
OIBee in PU'l Opera Houta.
June 20, 'TStf.
WILLIAM a. wai-lacb.
a. oar r. wallaub.
batio L. aaaaa.
joaa w. WBISL.BT.
WALLACE & KREBS,
(Suxeeiori ta Wallaoa fltldlBg.)
ATTORNKYS-AT-LAW,
J.aHT ' Clearfield, Pa.
p. o'l. area. , . a. a. baiaii.
BUUli dkliRAH
All
It AH AM.
ITOkNIl'S AT LAW,
. olbaboiblb, pa.
All l.fal auilaooa promptly attended to. Office
la Or.hem't Row reotaa formerly oeeapied ay
II. B. owoopo. Jal7', '78-tr.
frank Fielding.. W. D. Biglei....S. V. Wllfoa.
jielding.bTgler. WILSON,
ATTORNEYS AT . LA V,
OLIARFIKLD, PA.
ar-Offiea la Ple'a Optra Hou.e.
mot, a. bubbat.
ereoe obbob.
JJXRRAY k GORDON,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
OLBARFIBLD, PA.
Bt-mce Ib Ple'a Opera Heaee, aaaood loor.
:!l'7
juoapB a. a aaALLT.
DaaiBi. v. a'aoBDr.
jpENALLY i. McCUKDY
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW,
Claarllold. Pa.
FfLfil bejaiaee. attaaded ta promptly with)
J.litj. OCee ob Saooad Itreat, aboro tbe Flrit
Mltonal Bank. jaa:l:ra
(i. KtUMBR,
ill
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW,
Real Batata aad CollaetloB Afaat,
CLBARFIBLD, PA.,
Will prompll7 attend to all lefal bailneii aa
trotted to hit aare.
Sr-Offiee la Ple't Opera Hoata. JaaHO.
J P, McKENRICK.,
. ATTORNEY AT LAW,
OLBARFIBLD, PA
All legal bnalBett eatraited to kit oara Bill ra
eetra aromat attealloa.
Oloe appeilu CoarlJIe,le Maeoaia Belldief,
aeeona auot. - -j
JJR. B. M. SCHEURER,
IIOIKBOPATHIO PHYSICIAN,
Oaaa la reeldraee oa FirH at.
April H, 1ST. ClearSeld, Pa.
TH W. A. MEANS,
PHYSICIAN SURGEON,
' . LTJTIIERSMJRQ, TA.
, WIUatUadBrolaoalaaalaallapreaiptir. aaglt'70
yjn. T. J. BOTEK,
tUYSICIAK ANDSDROKON,
Olea aa Market Street, Clearleld. Pa.
(-0ea koant to l a. bl, aad I U I p. at.
JR. J. KAY WRIGLEY,
BOMfRPATHlO PHYSICIArT,
afOira adjalalai Ike reetdeaee e( Jaa.ee
a r.jley, tea., aa eVeooad at, UMarava, ra.
ial,ll,';a-at.
JJR. H. B. VAN VALZAH,
CLEARPIEI.D, PEN H A.
OFFICII IN KBRIDBNCI, CORNRR OP FIRST
AND PINK 0TRKICTB.
M Oloe Boara-Froa 11 u I P. M.
Mar II, 107e
D
,R J. P. BURCH FIELD,
, AS
Ian kU frfa.MUul ttrTiMt W IkttttlwM
i-arBiCaBtJ,
k
at U
ITARKY HNYDKR.
A BARBtl AMD BAfRPRBJtSER
r aa Market St, appeal! Oon Baw.
A aleaa bowel (at area BaXoam.
I
H KkUa at AltaoU
Clearleld, Pa.
PUlr.
a-atLl.
LLJjiAttJVJLjjjjjl) mSS ItM'UBJLlLA.V
GEO. B. QOODLAUDEE, Editor & Proprietor, PRINCIPLES, NOT : MEN. TERMS-$2 par UMun in Adraetj.
VOL. 53-WHOLE NO. 2,619. CLEARFIELD, PA., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1879. NEW, SERIES-VOL. 20, NO. 17.
SPEECH
OF
Hon. William A. Wallace,
OF PENNSYLVANIA.
ON
THE ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL,
IN THE
Senate of the United Slates,
MOJ'DAV, April 111 A, 18T9.
Control of Electlona by Federal Gov
ernment la;Prpelualion of WarPow
r.Th SUtna Alona Vetted with
their Control.-The Leglalatlve Power
Cannot be Coerced by the Executive.
No President ever vetoed a bill re
storing rights to the People.
Tli Benete, i It Commlllee of the Whole,
h.rlnn andor aontldaratlon tbe bill (U. R. No.
II uekinf eppreprlatloua lor Ibe tupport of the
Armr for tbe natal year ending June SU, 1SSU,
and for other parpoioj
Mr. WALLACE said ;
Mr. President: This bill comes from
the Committee on Appropriations ol
this body, It does not come, as bus
been asserted in this Chamber, lrom a
secret conclave or caucus. It comes
from the authorized organization of
mis tnamuor, the Honato Committee
on Appropriations; and X rise now to
speak simply because I am one of its
members charged with that duty. As
one of that committee, I rise to Bpoak
to the purposes, tho causes, tho reasons
that piompted that committee toafrree
to the insertion ol the clause which is
contested, by tho Sonator from Maine.
This bill came through tbe Senate door
by the usual channel of communication
with the House of Representatives, in
tbe bands ot its Clerk, to this bod v.
It went to the President's desk, and
thence to the Committco on Appro
priations, and it came back to this
Chamber lrom that committee in the
usual manner. Nay, more, slr.His the
bill almost in word and lotter that was
adopted by the committees ol confer
ence at the last session of Congress,
agreed upon by tho committees ol con
ference of the two House, and which
but lor tbo disagreement between those
committees upon this single section
would tiBVo been paused liy that Con
gress, litis bill, so tnr lrom having
been treated as measures that como
from' a committee of conference usu-l
ally are, baa been debated and contest
ed again and again in committee, in
the Uouso, and in the Senate Chamber.
Tbe declaration that it is tho edict of
caucus is more idle wind ; such a ttlato-
ment bas nothing whatever to base it.
This is tho bill upon which tho two
Houses disagreed in the last Congress ;
it is the bill that came from tbe House,
that went to the committee, that came
back to turn Chamber turouirh tbe
regular committees ol this body, and
it is now put upon its passage with the
torma and In tbo customary mode
adopted in such cases.
ihis bill contains but a single dis
puted section. To that the Senator
from Maine addressed himsulf ; to that
we address ourselves. There is but a
single issue presented by this bill, to
that I shall try to con6ne myself. All
that hear ma and the country know
that tho convulsive throes of a great
people in a tremendous oivil war have
caused many departures from those
vital principles that lie at the base of
all civil liberty. Tho history ol our
race and tbe precedents of the past
point them out as essential elements
n the preservation ol our own iree-
dom, and its most earnest struggles
ever have been and ever will be made
tor tbeirsaloty. The nocossitiec ot the
hour may cause a tree peoplo to bear
for a time tbe subjection ot the civil to
the military power, the suspension of
habeas corput or the presence ol armed
troops at election polls, but these must
pass away with tbe neooasity that gave
them birth. They can never be crys
tallised upon the nocks of Anglo-
Saxons.
This tingle issua involved In tint
bill is, shall tbe executive arm of the
Government longer possess tbe power
to placo troops at the election polls ?
Their presence there or the power to
place them there is equally a menace
to tne people ana a aepariure irom tue
right of tree elections. That is the
issue, the sole, tbe only issue that is in
this bill. We make no other: we will
be diverted not from this.
The mere presence of armed troop
at the polls is a menace to individual
liberty, inesnaaow 01 toe power 01
armed men is in itself a threat, and
no free peoplo will bear it. It
was one of the struggles between
Charles I and his tlixt three Parlia
ments that he hould yield to them
tbe nubt be claimed to quarter troops
upon the people. Parliament refused
to give him money and he was accus
tomed to send troops into tbo country
uitlriuts and oompel them to be quar
tered and supported by the people
without authority ol law. I ho Lorn
mons placed it in their bills; they for
mulated and orystallicod it in the pe
tition of right, and they mado the
king yield to their just demands in
behalf of the people. This right and
privilege is registered in the bill ol
rights of Dearly every constitution in
all this land, Tbe power to quarter
troops upon the people was wrung
from the kingly power of Great Britain
by placing it upon bills under which
he was voted supplies to carry on a
war for tbe Palatinate with Spain.
Before they would yield him those
supplies they compelled him to agree
to a conretmon 01 in is great rignt, ana
tbe right to be free from such intrusion
became fixed and certain. Tbe cor
relative right in regard to tree election
and the absence oi troops from the
polls is found still larlher back in En
glish bitlory. The menace ot armed
troops at tne pons wat pronioiiea dv
a statute in the reign of George II,
and it recites the existence of the
riirht to be free from this menace as
old as the. time of Edward I. In the
thirteenth century, nearly six hundred
years ago, the race from whom we
obtain our liberty and law, from whose
loins we mainly sprang, aseerteu vne
doctrine that this right ol free election
belonged to tbe people and ought not
to be jeopardised. It was a right
wrung, absolutely wrung, from the
hand of nowor in the time of Edward
I. It was resurrected in ths time of
Goorge II, and then enacted into law
in 1735. Let ns nee what was done.
I shall not read tbe statute. A law
was passed in 1735 which forbade tbe
presence of armed troops wHbin two
miles of the election polls. Subse
quently, In 1741, tbe executive power
. . . .1 . t . i. : -
lurgetalOg 111 exiaivill'v Ul wa mmw
ate)
DarlBf tbe serrupt adalaiitrallea tt Sir
Robert Walpola, at aa eieoUee kaid far Ike el(T
of Weataiiaelet, aadar aa ardor etgaed k, laree
...l.miH ef tka aoaatp. a Bodf 4 Braaed eel.
dlere waa Banked Bp aad ettUoaad la Ikoakarek
? ard of ealar real, ueveM uaees w ue. tie.
It.eltaeH'l " akB ia la.
u mi 'BBaaa. tkav aaaaad a reeelalle.
atlralai "thai tka prat.aee M teaiakar a4f tt
-a ulllMi aa aa eAMUaft ad aaaakora la
wra la PetHaaaaal k a ka tolrlaajeeaaat .af
lat IlkartiaJ at tea BBtjaet, a aMalleet aieiauoo)
of tba freedom of election!, aad an onea lUftanoo
of the lawi and eomtltatioa of tola kingdom."
Tbe high bailiff wae takea lata autlodr by order
of the Jlouaa, and tbe three maiatretea who
algned tbe eriler were brought to tha bar and
reprimanded by tha Speaker, apon their kneet,
at tka Houta bad d I reeled i and alter thlt tha
Houta paoed a vole of tbanka to tbe Speaker
lor nit reprimanq or tne delinquent., and dirett.
edlha eame to be printed. BriM, Lnfi't
(.ant ea AVMioat, OKI, tot.
Sir, this right, thus vindicated, is a
part ol our system. These privileges
me pme ui uur own i roe iioertiea.
Ihoy come to us with tho system of
laws under which we live. Thov be
long to us as an integral part ot our
system oi tree elections, and wo would
bo falso to our hiifhost duty if we
should fail to protect them and assert
tneir existence. 1 now quote Irom
McCrary on Elections, section 418.
Ho says :
There ean. however, be no doubt but thAt tha
law lookt witb greal ditravorapoB enylkiog Ilka
aa inierierenoo ay. toe military wtta the freedom
of aa eleetioa. Aa armed foroa la the aeighbor
bood of tbe poll. It almottlof aeeeuily a meoaoa
to tho volert, aad aa taterferonee with their free
dom and Independence, and if aueb armed foroa
be lo tbe haoda of ar under tbe ooatrol of tbo
pertitan friendt of any partioular oandidate or
Ml of eetididatet, ibe probability of Improper
lonueooe oeoomea aim ttrouger.
This proposition does not stand
alone on the thought ot taking out of
this section tbe authority for the
prcsenco of armed troops at the polls
under Federal law, but it goes beyond
this and finds its reasons and its root
in the right of the Statos to control
this subject ontirely. Tbe control of
froe elections, tho guarantee for their
existence, doos not belong to the Feder
al Government ; it belongs to tbe Slates
themselves and always bas belonged
there. The constitution ol almost every
State in this country contains in its
bill of rights a guarantee of froe elec
tion. The States controlled the fran
chise. With tbom, both before and
tince tbe formation of the Constitu
tion, was vested the power and the
right to guard the purity and the free
dom of elections.
Lot the Senators from New England,
and the Senators from the great West,
and tho Senators from the Middle
States and tho South take up the bills
of rights of their respective States
and Bee what is guaranteed. In nearly
all of thorn tbe guarantee is that all
elections shall bo froe. Here is the
crystallisation of tho doctrine that
comes to us from the time of Edward 1,
which found voice in the time of Charles
I and George II, and is now one
of the privileges and rights of this
paoplo. In r ennsylvania, as long as
1HU3, its rulers enacted this statuto :
No body of Iroont. being regularly employed
la tbe Army of Ibe tailed State! or of thlt Htatt.
thall appear and be pretent, either armed or aa
armed, at any ptaoe of election within tbll State,
duriog tne time or .aid election.
This wholesome provision was re-
enacted in 1839, and it is now a part
of the law of that Commonwealth.
The euactmont of this law followed
the time of the alien and sedition law.
The necessity had come for the people
to enact it Jcllorson was in power
here, his nartv web in control in that
State, and public sentiment found vent
in tba statute that protected at tbe
noils the citizen from armed interfer
ence or control in any way by Fedoral
or other troops, New York crys
tallized this right in her statutes
as early as 1818, and prohibited the
military Horn appearing or exorcising
on election day, or during ten days
preceding it; and the same is the Law
1 1 tyiBcuuBUl. juuesaeuuBUbia, maine,
New Jersey, and Rhode Island forbid
their militia from parading on eloo
tion day, and imposed penalties for its
violation. Virginia, by bor constitu
tion, exempted tbe voter from military
service on election day, and denied tbe
franchise to every non-commissioned
officer and private in the United States
Army or seaman or marine in the
Unitod States JXavy, while JIarylana
prescribed that no oflloer should mutter
or march any troops within viow of
the polls on election day.
I take the constitution of Pennsyl
vania of 1873 and 1 read from the bill
of rights :
Bleetlont aball be fraa aad aqaal t aad bo
power, eirll or military, ehall at aoy time later
fere to prevoot tbe froe exerelta of tho right, of
tuffrage.
This is embodied, too, in the consti
tutions of Colorado and Missouri,
enacted since, almost In word and lot
ter. , ' ; I
But, air, the Fedoral Constitution
has not a syllablo on this subject.
Neither in its main provisions nor in
the original amendments which se
cured the liberties of the peoplo is
there on word upon the subject ot
free elections. The Fedoral Govern
ment bad no control over tbo subjoct ;
and they did not attempt to assert any
riirht in reference to it. The control
of elections and the guarantee for
them belonged to the States ; there it
was vested and there it is to remain.
Prior to 1HG4 tho only attempt at its
control here was when John Marshall,
in the House of Representatives, in
the year 1800, under tbe older Adams,
reported a statute giving to the Fed
eral Government control of elections
bo lar as to prevent armed interfer
ence at tb polls ; but when tne meas
nre cam to the Scnato it waa detested
It failed because the Federal Govern.
ment had no control over it. There
was no dream, do thought, of exercis
ing this right by tbe federal Govern
ment until it was done under tho pow
er in the bordor States in 1802 ti3
64. Traons wore then plaoed at tbe
polls lor the alleged protection of what
waa claimed to be the rights of so-
called loyal men thero. Ibe first ex
ercise of this right by tho federal
Government was under tbo war powor.
It did not come from any giant from
the oeoiile or the States, but solely and
oxclutivoly lrom what was claimed as
a war power, and like many othors of
the same character, luroe wat its i
sential element To escape from this
and to restore to tbe people that which
they had novor parted from witb their
own consent, the act oi ioo was in
troduced at th close oi tne war oy
Senator Powell, of Kentucky, la its
original form it gave security from in
trusion and re-enacted wnat was in
undoubted law of tvery State. Itwas
not permitted to pas until it Was
amendod by Republican Senators by
tbe insertion of the word that ar bow
proposed to be taken oot and tb
guaiantce of fro elections claimed
from tne federal uovernmeot auun
became a means for intruding Its nail
ed hand at the polls. Nothing but the
abnormal oondition of tb country in
1865 and line eoald bar produced
the xerosceoc that w oow propose
to remove.
The bill aa originally introduced (I
have it bolore m) had do words au
thorising, troops to be present either
to repel th armed enemios ef th
United Slate or to keep the peace at
the polls. . A introduced th bill waa
a ruaranle oi th right that existed
ta th State, and a restriction ob tb
power of th Federal Government,
Brkioh waa then bainc Itad wramrfullr
and oppretwlvely apon tb peopl of
the border Blalet. . Th biU was seat
to th Commit! on th Jadieiarr of
this body, a Republican committee.
It slumbered there for a number ot
months, and then came back with a
report by Mr. Howard with a negative
recommendation. He holds that the
right to exerciso the war power in
letiO to prevent mon who were not
loyal from voting was a Just and pro
per exercise ot power, senator rowoii
desiring to relievo his people trom
wrongful oppression, pressed the bill
again and again, nntil in June, 1864, it
was pnt upon its passage, and then be
agreed to the amendment that troop
might be used to repel the armed ene
mies of tha United Statos. This was
adopted without dissent.
Then Mr. Pomeroy, ot Kansas,
Republican Senator moved to add tbe
words " or to keep tbe peace at the
polls." Upon that amendment tbe
yeas and nays were called. Every
" yea " vote was given by a Republican
and every Democrat voted "nay."
Keverdy Johnson, John r. It ale, and
Senator Hicks, of Maryland, voted
with tho Democrats. This provision
which Is now proposed to be eliminated,
"or to keep the peace at the polls,"
was adopted by a vote ot sixteen tie
publicans against fifteen Democrats
and others. Then the question came
upon the passage of the bill as thus
amended, and tbe Senator from Ken
tucky, desiring to protect bis peoplo,
was willing to take anything to save
thorn trom the pressure that was upon
thorn, and acceptod the bill in tbat
lorm ; but oven then they were scarce
ly willing to pass it No whore else
in all the hintory of this Government
bad this claim ot power appeared.
Here, and here alono, Is tha only in-
stance ot the iron clad arm of the
Federal power appearing at the ballot
box. Mr. BLAINE. Will the Senator
permit mo to Interrupt bim just at tbat
point r
Mr. HALliALli. xes, sir.
Mr. BLAINK. Does the Senator
present the idea that tbe amendmont
mt on that bill by the Kcpubiican
Senators was to control voting at tho
elections in Kontuclty by Democrats
who bad a right to vote; or will tbe
Senator accept tbe suggestion tbat it
was to koep tbo rebel army tbat bad
gojie from Kentucky to tight in tbe
confederate ranks from coming back
and controlling elections T In other
words, tbey nero confederate soldiers
when the lighting was going on, and
they voted in a Union State when
elections were bold. That was the
wboloiot' the provision.
Mr. jiuak. They were jjomocratic
votors.
Mr. BLAINE. They wore Domo-
cratio voters who were fightig against
the Union under Jen. Davis and who
came back to control the elections ot
the Slate of Kentucky. '
Mr. WALLACE. The Senator from
Maine has interjeoted a spoeoh into
the body of what I waa saying. He
bas not asked a question, but in his
usual manner ho has injoctod his
thought into the midst of my argu
ment, lit may nave that opinion or
ol, just as he please. - Mr assertion
waa, and it it, tbat the ns of this
power, and tbat Senators, including
himself, who undertake to sustain it
follow legitimately to its conclusion
tb argument that the war power
mloen years alter tue end ol tue war
ought atill to control tbe rights and
liberties of this people. That is my
answer to the Senators Injected speech.
Manifestations or applause in tbe
galleries.
i he v uxjiiuuxyj ur riuji.it, mr.
McMlLLlAN in tho chair.') Will th
Senator from Pennsylvania suspend a
momont ? The galleries must not ap-
glaud under any oircu instances. The
ergeant-at-Arms will see that the
rules of tbe Senate are enforced.
Mr. WALLACE. Wearedooewith
the abnormal condition tbat oame from
the war. This people ask to be re
stored to their normal rights, whether
it be in the South or tbe North. Just
here 1 will tell tb Senator from Maine
tbat at the election in 18G9 for Gov
ernor of Pennsylvania, in the third
precinct of tba filth ward of the city
of Philadelphia, an armed body of ma-
nnos wero brought to the polls ; that
they took possession thereof and closed
and kept them closed for an hour until
they saw bt to open tbom and permit
those to vote whom they thought
ought to vote Sir, the mail clad arm
of the Federal Government has shown
itsolt In Broad atroet, Philadelphia,
within three year. The peoplo of our
State want no mors of this. 1 speak
for my own peoplo. They want fre
elections, without either tocshadow or
the substance of military power, either
State or Federal. They want the very
essence of tb provisions of our Con
stitution recognized in practice aait is
in truth aa tbe law of the land. I am
bora representing so far as I can that
peoplo in asking at tbe bands of the
Senate of tbe United States that this
monane. this threat this assumption
of right that does not belong to tbe
Federal Government may be elimina
ted from bor statutes and that the
Statos and the -people ot tho States
may control ibis question as tnoy
outrht and of riirht ar entitled to do.
In Mexico, even in poor down-trodden
Mexico, whon our troops were at the
the oity of Mexico is tbe war of 1816-
47, because there was a provision la
their laws that troops should not be
present at tb election polls tbe red
eral Army was withdrawn therefrom
in order that then might em to be
no meoac or control, and Penay Pons
was elected in tbe room ot Santa Anna
The Fedoral troops obeyed the jaw of
Moxico because it was part oi tne
Mexican guarantee of civil liberty ,and
because our Army, it officeft and
soldiers, in those days recognized. the
doctrine which w contend lor new,
that the menace of armed mon at lb
polls i utterly incompatible with free
lections. - I
W nroooa to tak oot tb words
"or to keep tbe peaos Bt th polls," aad
th statute will then stand as is the
law of Pennsylvania today. Of the
stceasitv for Ibis action, arising from
practical experience, l aball not now
. .....
speak. I contont myself with the as
sertion ot the Droad principle tnai ire
elections with troops at tb polls ar
impossible. The right and tb power
in tbe executive arm of either Stale or
Federal covernment to place troops at
tbe polls on election day is an otter
denial or what it vital to toe ire exer
cise of th elective franchise. I ear
not whether ther b bat on soldier
to ten thousand square mile or ob
soldier to every acre in tbis broad
country. Behind th power of ooe
soldier acting under th authority of
the executive command ol military
power at tb porta stand forty million
peopl. It to th obdieno of this peo
pl to law, it is th recognition tbat
taw I mighty and th aaaa with bis
hlna coat and hie kavnnet ia a rerjrev
sentatir of forty millioa people tbat
nre potency anil majeany to an pras
asKBi. . Whan foat plan bha ther as
that reprwatouuv tb uae at a it
was In tho precinct I have named In
our own Stat in iob. Then all men
bowed their boads in forced obedience.
for the Fedoral power waa there to in
timidate and control them ; they dare
not attack it ; they must acquiesce
law unlawfully asserted coerced obedi-
euee.
Tbis sentiment of obedience to law
actuates all of our people, and it is be
cause law and the power of law brings
troops to tbe polls without necessity
and In derogation of ono of our greut
rights that we seek to repeal this stat
ute, la my own experience 1 have
bad to send an unarmed Sheriff to ar
rest a crowd of men noting in vipla-
tion oi law. When it was suggestod
that we should have troops to aid th
officer, I said no, a true and brave man
acting in tbe performance of bis duty
under tbe oommand ot law is worth a
thousand Lroop.-nd so it proved.
The teeble assertion that there is no
danger of intimidation because there is
only one soldier to a thousand square
milos is simply begging the question.
Behind tbat one soldier stands the
power of a great people. At the polls
Lo is under tbe control of bis officer
and he may be directed to do what
partisan aims or malignity may find
lor bim to do. Such a possible use of
powor is tbe deprivation ot that great
right that finds its existence in every
bill of riif.hu in this country, that be
longs to the people, is a part of their
ancient liberties, and to be protected
and preserved even at the sacrifice of
the blood ot Anglo-Saxons.
lhere bos been in tbe past nothing
of tbe kind, and its enforcement now
takes away one of tbe greatest and
dearest rights that belongs to this
people.
e propose to take away this power.
We propose to stand by the American
system of froe elections. That is our
doctrine in this till. We propose to
stand by the American system aa it
exists in the bills ot rights of the Slates
and as it was found all over this coun
try until this exercise of war power in
ibuz, ihoj, and iU4. IV e propose to
separate tbe ballot from the bayonet
V e propose to restore to the civil power
it absolute control over all the ma
chinery of government. A free system
ot laws cannot tolerato even tbe possi
ble use of force at the fountain-head ot
power. It is a standing menace, a per
potual throat. In the interost of the
people, in the light of the plainest
principle of civil liborty, in the per
formance of a plain duty, in the exor
cise of the legislative power of this
peoplo, we propose to restore to th
American people their own system of
free elections.
The Congress of the United States
makes appropriations for but two
years. 1 be I resident of th United
States cannot enlist a man or pay a
dollar without an appropriation by
Congress. Congress makes rules lor
the government of th land and naval
forces, and these short appropriations
and this limited authority ot the Ex
ecutive over tbem are th very basis of
our system. We proposo, as I hat
said, in th execution of a plain pur
pose, following precedents and practice
and law and organio law to their legit
imate results, to restore by tbis bill to
the American people their own system
of free elections. Why should we not
do this 1 Who denies the right to free
elections? Has the Senator from Maine
donied this right? Will any Senator
deny this right? Will any gentleman
attempt to argue that tbe right to fre
elections does net bolong to tbis peo
plo as one of their great cardinal
rights 1 If so, why not restore it ? Tbe
answer is much narrower than the
concealed bat real argument Are the
people not entitled to free eleotionsf
Why is it tbat Senators do not riso in
their places and assert that the people
bave not a right to be tree lrom ex
ecutive interference? Th argument
of tha Senator from Main is tbat you
will oot be interiered wilb, no troops
will interfere with you ; thoro are only
so many troops bore and so many
there; you are not being interfered
witb. But tbe Sonator forgets tbat
upon the statute-books of this country
there stands a law which gives to tbe
Executivo tho power, the right to do
this thing, and that in partisan bitter
ness, in the control of elections by one
party or tbe other, a standing menace
may become an aotual, a terrible fact
in the future as it has been in the past.
Aie we met with a frank denial ot
the value of tbis right or of the right
of this peoplo to be freed at the polls
from tha monac ol armed force? I
venture to say that no Senator
will put his argument upon tbat
ground. None so bold as to assort
that in tbe beated partisan contests
that occur in the elections of this
country the presence ot armed troops,
controlled by tbe ono or the other po
litical party, conduces to tree elections.
Either the substance or tho shadow of
military power at the polls it dostruo
tive of the essential element contem
plated by almost every State constitu
tion in this country in its express guar
antee ol tree elections.
! Another argument is used. Lot us
see wbat it is. First, we are denied
the powor to mold legislation. Tbat
is the first argument The two Houses
of Congress, tbe legislative power, is
denied the right to mold legislation in
its own way. Second, It Is said to be
a revolutionary practice and coercive
of the Executive ; and third, that our
intent is (that is tha drill or tbe argu
ment made by the Senator from Maine)
to break down tha Goveinment. My
colleague in tbe House, the oldest In
sen-vice there, who trains with tbs
other sid, who does not belong to the
Democratic party, treated this talk
about revolution and coercion very
well when he said itwas "revolutionary
in a Pickwickian sense." There Is ao
revolution nor coercion here. This is
an attempt to play upon words and
upon passion in order to get a response
from the peoplo in antagonism to th
assertion 01 tbe pcople't plain right.
Tbe form of legislation i (ustained
by precedents without number. The
prooessos that we pursue are the modes
ol tb tjonstitntioB. vt e neitnnreea
to coerce, tbe Exeobtiv nor submit to
b coerced by him. We follow th line
of precedent and the mode pointed
ontliy the Constution in very partio
ular; there ta no departure, ine la
bored argimsnt of the Senator from
Main tbat tbi is th dictat of a Dtro
oc ratio caucus is aa entire error. No
Democratic caucus ever saw tbis bill,
no agency but tbat ot the Senate and
House and tbe committee of tb Ben
ate and the House ever saw this bill
and passed upon It It is her a a re
sult ot th right ot tha representative
ot tbi people to mold legislation tnro
th recognised constitutional bodies.
Mr. BLAINK. 1 said, if tb Sena
tor will permit me, that the Senator
trom Kentucky ltr. uocaj aiataxi oa
tb floor tbat a oommilt ol tb uem
no ratio canrnt Waa preparing! the
measure. That ia what I said. If
ther ataa MM of Aast 4t isbtw4
th Senator from Panacylvaaia aad
th Senator from Kentucky, not be-
twoen the Senator from Pennsylvania
and mytclt. I have it here:
Mr. BICK. At ko la ehalrmaa of a commit
tea-
Thai is, the Senator from Ohio, Mr.
TburmanJ
that la con.idarlng all tboee quo.tioaa, and at wo
oeii.ro ma uemooraue party win aal wisely, e
Then follows:
Mr. CONKLINll. Will the H.n.tor allow mo
ta anderttand him t To wkat committee doea ka
refer at oaa of wbloh tka Deflator from Ohio Le
ohairmaa f
Mr. BKCK. A Demooratlo oommlttee bow ooe
ttdorlng bow It It beet for thlt tide of the lloueo,
wka kara tha retpoaaibillty, ta act ta detemtBe
hew wo oaa beat preeent tba maaturet fairly and
properly.
And then, before any IIoqbo com
mittee was appointed, before thor
wat any instrumentality ot a parlia
mentary character through which tbey
could be launched, these measures came
out full-fledged from- a Democratic
caucus.
Mr. WALLACE. Mr. President, I
repeat my statement. The Sonator
from Maine and the Sonator trom Kon
lucky will settle that issuo botween
themselves. I repeat that these bills
came through constitutional processes
in tbe mode and through the channels
tbat ths Constitution and the prece
dents point out and tbat no Demo
cratio caucus or committee of a Demo
cratic caucus ever considered this bill
or ever agreed that it should be re
ported. It is said tbat we are trying to co
erce the executive. There is no at
tempt bore at coercion. Where do
you find it in tbis bill ? It exists only
in tbe lively imagination ot tbe gen
tlemen who assert Sir, we will not
coerce, nor will we submit to coercion,
notwithstanding the finely-rounded
periods with which the Sonator from
Maine concluded his remarks a tow
minutes ago in tbe effort to produce
coercion.
We bave our rights under the Con
ititution, and we propose to follow
tbem to their legitimate conclusions.
The Executive has bis rights, and our
performance ot our duty will not be
by one jot or tittle in the way of bis
perluruiaace of bis duty as he thinks
right to perlorm it under bis oalb and
tho Constitution. In tho exerciso of a
plain duty imposed upon the legisla
tive power, which Is vested with the
power to rait armios, to make rules
for their government, and to enact all
laws necossary to carry into execution
tho powers granted to it, those bodies
are about to pass tbis bill in accord
ance with law and precedent. There
is no provision of the bill violating the
Constitution, and no pretense will be
made that any does. Its disputed clause
relatos to the employment of tbe troops
whose pay we vote. We have no issue
with any other branch of tbe Govern
ment We seek to make none. In
tho exercise of the rule of th majori
ty we follow practice, precedent, law,
and organic law to their legitimate re
sult, as we judge our duty calls us.
We will not be driven into any issue with
any other power. Each of these bodies
mutt portorm lor itseil, under tb oath
that it bas taken to support tb Con
stitution, its clear and plain duty.
When tbe Bon a tor taunts us witb the
exorcise of the negative of the Execu
tive he undertake to coerce th rep
resentatives ot tba poopl and oi tbe
Statos, the bodies vested by tbe Con
stitution with the legislative power.
rt. i 1 . . , : l.l ...
1 ue rigtii, vu place- jcgisiauua upuu
money bill belongs to tbe legislative
power. It la nowhere denied in the
Constitution. Th proprioty of the
exeroise ot this right is to be judgod of
by the two Houses, and by them alone.
No other branch of the government
can object to the bill for this reason.
We are tbe sole and exclusive judges
of this question, and when we aot our
judgment cannot be impugned by either
the executive or tbe judiciary, ibe
subjoct-mattcr of tbe legislation may
be criticised, but the torm ol lis enact
ment is solely within our own discre
tion. Th bill ot last year conoedod all
that is asked by this bill. In conced
ing the posse comitatut clause every
thing that is in this bill was conceded,
and yet wa have tbis "tempest ia a
teapot about nothing, so lar aa the
powor goes, at least It is the removal
cf a monaco, a threat upon the people,
and the ohjoction lo lis lorra was utter
ly and absolutely conceded away in
the legislation of last year.
I affirm theu, first, tbat th right to
place legislation on money hills for the
protection of the civil liberties of the
people belongs to tbe legislative power
and cannot bo donied to it by any
other branch of the government ; sec
ond, that the exorcise of this right is
sanctioned by practice ; third, that it it
sustained by precedents as old as the
time of Cbarloa 1; and, fourth, that
thia legislation is constitutional and
necessary and violates no provision of
tbe federal uonsiitulion. Xiet us see.
This powor has been very frequently
exorcised by Congress, and the prece
dents are numerous and well-known.
In ordei to ascertain wbat propor
tion of legislation concerning tbe Army
of a general and permanent nature bad
been enacted previous to 1874 upon ap
propriation bills 1 made an examina
tion ol the uevisM statute oi to uni
ted Slates, passed at the first session
of the Forty-third Congress 1873-74
which "embrace the Statutes of the
TTnliMf Rlales. froneral and permanent
in their nature, in foro on the 1st day
ef December, 1873, as revised and oon
solidated by commissioner appointed
under an act ot Congress, l bese laws
are lound under title 14, "1 be Army,'
and include section 1094 to 1361, both
inclusive, of the Revised Statutes. The
number of soctiont under th title of
"Army" is two hundred and sixty
eight Of these ainety-two were da
rived directly from appropriation acts,
including act appropriating for th
support ol tb Army, sundry civil, con
sular and diplomatic, Military Acade
my, and fortifications, Thus it ap-
pears tbat more than one-third of tbe
general aud permanent provision of
law regarding uae Army were enaoieu
upon appropriation billt prior to 1874.
But. in fact, th proportion was much
mora than one hair, because many
other sections were derived from aot
consolidating th ttatulet In relation
to tha Army, irataed lrom time to time,
beginning at an early day in oar legis
lation, which statutes were derived in
great part from provisions attached to
previous appropriation bills, l nese
Crrmanent and- general provision of
w derived frooa appropriation bills
were passed npoa such in tbe years
1832,1840,1844,1846, 1851, 1852, 1853,
1856, 1857,1858, 1B59, I860, 1861, 1862,
mii loci lopd or?9 ion tana 1fi7A
1DOJ, lOOtf, 1000,1001,1000, tOMB, .u,v,
1872. and 1873. and the greater part of
such legislation on appropriation bills
ooBcernmt- tb Army wa naeiea
daring tb ml of th Republican
party.
Second. I assert that this doclrlb
I (attained by precedent as old a
tbe time of Charles I. Tb difflciltiea,
a I have already said, between ths
Bra Vara larUaaMM 0J kia reign
and the King grew out of efforts on
his part to obtain supplies tor the war
lor recovering tbe palatinate lrom
Spain without concessions of any part
oi what he regarded as bit preroga
tives, and on th part of the Commona
to make tb supplies the conditions of
concessions in lavor ol civil liberty.
Now I take from English history tbo
following:
The Commons House of Parliament
in tb year 1511 (third year of Honry
Ylli of sanguinary memory) lacked
several aot ot attainder aa "amend
ments" to simple bills. These, of course,
were leveled at certain Lords. The
Commons never knew any limitation
in that regard except such as they de
liberately passed upon in tbeir own
right and these assertions ot tbe peti
tion of right were a mere enforcement
of their ancient privileges.
Charles I. levied ship-money because
rarnament . included in "money bifia
tbe guarantee - ot political right.
Everybody knows tbat tho resistance
of the King was not against the asso
ciation of tne items. The puerility of
separation or tba Items was not
thought of even by a Stuart I It wa
great cardinal principles upon which
tbe Commons stood, and It was tboso
the King resisted. He was compelled
to yield, and bis subsequent fatuity
lost him bis bead.
William III., soon after bis acces
sion, made large grants to his favor
ites. These were under the law, and
made with the consent of the council.
In Parliament they were doemed ex
orbitant and prejudicial to the publio
good. Hence tb House of Lord made
the mater a subject ol mild official re
buke by resolution in the year 1700,
but tbe Commons went further and
tacked to a "money bill" (for the sup
port of the army and navy) an
amendment called tb "resumption
act," whicb annulled all the grants,
knowing at the lime tbat tome ol tbem
had been told by the grantees. The
Lords resitted long ; tbe King at first
resolved to stand by them, but he final
ly yielded, and the "money bill" pass
ed with tho unpalatable amendment
let the Uommons ol that day were
particularly scrupulous In regard to
"amendments" and precedents. In the
year 1702 tbe Commona passed an act
ot attainder against tho Pretender
(just then recognized by Louis XIV.)
when was war imminent, arising out ot
tbe Spanish succession. The I.ords put
on an "amondment" including the name
of the Pretender' mother, (Mary of
bate, widow ot James 11., who bod re
cently died after declaring Mary as re
gent,) but tbo Uommons would not al
low it, declaring that any amendment
was improper on a bill of such import
ance. 1 hey were reminded of prece
dent! in the time ot Henry VI if., but
the Commons would not yield.
As tbo right ot tbe Uommons to put
amendments on "money bills" was un
questionable, the Lords would also ex
eroise tbeir right! so a short time be
fore tbe death ot the King tbe .Lords
Araofeee', Nerer ta pat. a money biff with aclauee
tacked that wat fereign to Ike body of tka kill.
This Is the case to which th Sena
tor from Massachusetts Mr. Hoar re
ferred in his argument of tb 20th of
March, in reference to legislation on
appropriation bills. Hut see tbe re
sult Only a tew months earlier for
eignors had boon disqualified by act of
f arliament lrom holding high omoe.
William III. died ; Anne succeeded,
and in the same year, 1702, the Tory
Commons voted her aa annual allow
ance ol 100,000, tbat is, tacking to
the bill an "amondment" providing for
tho retention of Prince George of Den
mark, (the Queen's husband,) in his
omoe Lord Admiral and Generalissmo
of tbe torces, the aotual commander
being Marlborough. Tb Lords they
wero Tories too made a stand, but in
the end gave way, notwithstanding
their solemn "resolvo" whtcn was
hardly six months old, and that seems
to bave been th last attempt to limit
tbe Commons in shaping bills.
Air. UUAtl. rt in the sonator irom
Pennsylvania etato what he means by
the Commons of England making an
amendment to a money bill?.
Mr. WALLACE. Tbey placed upon
that bill a provision that was foreign
to the body ol tbe bill ana which had
nothing Whatever to do with it it
was an amendment relating to succes
sion on a money bill far th support of
tb Army and Navy. Tb Lords re
sisted it for a time, but finally gave
way. This is in fact the law of tbo
realm to-day. The Commons are ab
solutely masters of every subject of
tbis kind, in their oaaraoier as tne
representatives of the poopl they have
entorccd tbis and other groat rights at
the expense even of the blood ol kings
and the forfeiture of their thrones. The
safety of tb oivil liberties of th peo
ple la above all price. JSo leaser mo
tive should causo or ever, has caused
them to us this great power, uor
should nor does any lesser on prompt
us to use It now.'
But it is asserted that this is revolu
tionary and oooroiva. - Th first an
swer to th argument upon this subjoct
is tbat wa have no right to assume in
regard to thia bill that any feature in
this bill will meet disapproval any.
here. Why should such an assertion
bemads? Coercion is not asserted in
the bill itself; it ia not asserted by th
oommlttee ; and why should th legis
lative branch of th Government, th
immediate representative of tb peo
ple and of the States, b charged with
coercion and told that their measure
are revolutionary ?
Tbe practice or twnty years apon
appropriation bills and tb precedents
thai 1 nave civea aomomiraie idm una
ia aot a revolutionary measure, but
tbat the processes are constitutional
methods and In accordance with pre
cedent It at amid wa deny suppiMt lo
coerce agreement with us. Ther it
no such threat in thia bill. . W grant
supplies, but we connect tb grant with
a provision that th troops who ar t
o supplied snail obey tba law mat wa
enact. According 'ta thia. argument
our sole bower is to vol snnpho aad
to tax the people tor those supplies, but
we are denied th power to say now
tbe Army shall be used. W ar de
niod any control as to what shall bo
done with the money w vote, or if w
seek to do o w are accused or boiag
eoerc ana revolutionary. Tb ar
gument ia that wa deay supplies and
tbreaten Coercion. - . . - . i
Sir, let a look at this sabieot . Con
s-res bas lore branches, uacn one
independent in It sphere. Each branch
of Conrrem hat a aeg-ativ on the
other, and that tact la a vital ntot in
ta preservation of tb liberties mis
people. Tb English tystem of sepa
rate branches Is our system, and It ia
vital In it that th Senate thall have
a absolut negativ upon th vrowed.
tag of tb Hon, and th Hons shall
bar as abaoluW nagativ upon tha
proceeding of la Senate, , But be
cause th Senate refute to but a bill
thst ha Wiatter In it thai the SebataJ.
will aot agree) ta whan H stmrn ftoat
th Uoom, aad rem i paa.iu
because of that matter, i tbe Senate
revolutionary ? Does that follow ? It
is tbe plainest proposition in the world
that this is a constitutional right and
invaluable a a check. It cannot be
dispensed with as a part of the govern-
mental theory of tbi country that
each House is to havo an absolute neg
ative upon the other. And tho nega
tive of the Executive is a check upon
th legislative branch, limited by the
two-third provision.
The txercise by either House of it
right to retuss to pass a bill because ot
denied matter in the bill is the exer
cise of a plain, clear, constitutional
right Tbe txercise of tbis right by
tbe Senate is by no means revolution.
A 1'resident bat tbe right to veto a
bill. It is by no means revolutionary
that be should veto a bill ; yet be un
dertakes by the exercise of his qualified
negative to require ns to do wbat be
wishes. That is the part of hi clear
right ; it DelongB to him under consti
tutional authority, and I would be tb
last to attempt to take it away from
bim. It is vital here as it is in the leg
islative branch. But when the Execu
tive vetoes a bill and wo pass the bill
by two-thirds, we are practically cooro-
ing the Executive. That is the inevi
table conclusion, bnt this Is constitu
tional coercion. The Executive, in
pursuance of hi qualified negative
given to him by th Constitulion, re
turns us the bill with bis objections,
and two-thirds of tbe legislative branch
es pas the bill over hi veto. We are
coercing tbe executive powor, but are
we revolutionary ? Wo are exercising
tbe legislative power of this Republic,
and it is neither revolutionary nor co-
oreive.
But suppose the bill comes here and
we have not the necessary two-thirds
to pass it over bis veto, what follows?
We undcrtako to pass the bill, we put
it upon reconsideration in accordance
with the Constitution and it fails for
want of two-thirds, wbat then ? Are
we lo be coerced in regard to our leg
islative right ? Are we to say that we
must pass the bill in tbe form no wishes
because tbe Executivo has vetoed it?
The right of non-action, the right to
decline to act under such circumstances,
is as much the right of tbis House and
of t he other Uoute and of the two
Houses acting in their legislative ca
pacity aa it the right of the President
to veto a bill. We may decline to act
and go no further ; we need not initiate
the legislation anew. If we could bt
compelled to do this, then the independ
ence of each branch and tho independ
ence of the legislative powor it abso
lutely gone, and yon have no longer a
majority rule tor President, and the
minority can coerce legislation and
thus the minority becomo tbe majority,
and with an unscrupulous Executive
cohering the power of the minority
patronage ana place yon have your
Government revolutionized by with
th minority usurping and controlling
the power of the majority, in which,
under our system, it is vested by the
Constitution and the laws. This is the
inevitable result There ia no such
power anywhere. It belongs to the
legislative bnujcla tw wuo u. to Jwelino
to act When it doos decline to act, it
is exercising a plain, clear, constitu
tional right, and it must act, as most
tb Executive act, in full view of its re
sponsibilities lo the people. That is
where tbe responsibility comes at last.
The power to do this is with us, but
wo must act in the view that it is ulti
mately to be Judged of by the lost trib-
nal in this country, the tribunal ol
the people, and it we are not standing
by doctrine and measure which the
people will approve, if we are not main
taining the rights and the liberties and
th ancient freedom of thia people,
tbey will not sustain us, and they
ought not; but it; on tha contrary, we
decline to act, in obedience to our clear
constitutional right, in defense ot the
rights and liberties and privileges of a
froe people, they will sustain ns, and
this Congress will write upon the bis
tory ot this poople an ineffaceable rec
ord that their representatives in the
Forty-sixth Congress wore true to the
liberties of th American people.
Sir, each must be responsible lor iu
conclusions and its actions, to tb peo-
le tbomseivos, and each must act In
'nil view ol that ultimate tribunal. Tbe
power of tbe legislative branch to raise
armies ana vol supplies is to D oxer
cisod as that legislative branch judges j
wise, i bora is no power to control, to
direct, or to coerce it If tbe Execu
tive differs, his negative controls un
less two thirds overrulo it. If not, the
bill falls, but his negative does not com
pel us lo act
air, that mode of coercion never wo
intended lo be used upon Ibe .legisla
tive branch. There is nothing in the
Constitution or in Ibo history of this
people that can be construed to mean
that the legislative branch shall aot at
th dictation of th Executive; it is
not found in our system anywhere, and
it cannot be cited to deter us trom that
which is a plain, clear duty.
The independence or the legislative
branch and the rights of tbe people are
often to bo preserved best by this de
fensive power of nonaclion. Tbe Sen
ator from Maine read from Mr. Clay.,
Let mo read wbat he said In 1819, up
on a qnestion ot constitutional inter
pretation upon an Army-bill, an issue
between tbe 1 resident aud bim as to
wbat should be put upon that bill in
regard to internal improvements. Mr.
Trimble bad moved an amendment al
lowing troop to be need to mk a
road and appropriating money for that
Durpoee. , This involved lb question
of internal improvement. Mr. Clay,
bo wa then speaker, when lb
House waa in Committee of the Whole,
aid tbi i !t '
Mr. Clay koped lb. I tkil Button would sat kt
'u.hHed oa. aad. ifiasiated oa, would not areralt
The ebveet la vtow erae ta prmat tka atmpla, aa
mlied propetiliaa whether Ihe Iteeatiee bea tha
power le employ tbe ajoaey af the aoaatry ia
eoeilraettog iwade I If eeeeoWled wilk Ike Bona-
Beay propotod, (the amendment.) II weoiu mate
tho tenet of tkeaommiltaaoo,airaal aa aba tnj.
Bortaat aaettioB aroetaltd k Ibe motioa af Mr.
Trimble. For tbol motioa, Mr. Clay laid, ka
eaooet la tola. It woald deelere By a loraaal act
tbat It waa ttmpeleat, hp la graate ef power, far
ingre.t to aeiBortio each worse. Mr. uay rata
ko tbwgbl Oougfoo. Bad Bees waanag IB It. da-
op doleytor aa leua le legielele B BhU e aaieel.
II wet proper to pate a bill aad preeent it ta the
PratUeaL aad If ka roraeed to eaaMlaa av Ibe
Mr. Cloy deelarad, ka kad aa keoitattoa aa avew
laa he should bo ready la araoeod to boatlliUet
wiik Ika Pteeidee aa Obit aotat, aud wllee.ld
every epproprleuefl aaui Be oaneeao Ike petal
That was in January, 1819. Anoth-
er argument baa been made use of in
regard to tha exarciae of tb negative
ol tb rresidout, wbnb it teems to tat
m without foundation : that it, tbat be
bat the right to judge at all time and
under all circumalanco or th Charac
ter of the legislation that he shall veto.
Where this power ta mm apon a pi u
that he jade to be uaoonatitattonal,
or it hasty, nwi, or improper legnv
latton, than It I vary clear tUBA a baa
this right, aad h ought to bav it.
But when in the history of this Gov
emment was he ever called upon to er
did any President ever veto a repeal
ing ttU? Whea, where, analer
what arcmUnoaa, an tvtiat ooadiltoaj
of affairs, did th PreauUotof th Vni-
ted Stale over veto a Mil that repeal,
ed a law whloh olothed bim with pow
er and took it front the people f When
and where did any President of the
United State ever veto a bill to repeal
a law that gave him control to send
troops to the place ot election with
tbe power to coerce the people and
tak from them tholr right ? When
and where ha the President aver ve
toed a bill giving lb peopl ot this
country any of their liberties, or re
pealing a statute which took trom tbem
their right ? There are none such,
and tbe people will never sustain such
aotioo.
The Executive negative practically
refers th question to th people, and
to them we and he mutt appeal. Tbi
power nover wa intended to be used
to keep a yoke on tbe people or to de
stroy a repealing atatula. Ordinarily
the poople auatain vetoes. Why ? Be
cause or the refusal by the Executive
to accept power wrung trom th peo
ple; but suppose you revere this and
by your repealing statuto give to tb
Executivo more power, which power
is wrung trom the Stale and tb peo
ple, then thore-oomes an entirely dif
ferent question; and I tell Senators
that wo can face tbe ultimate tribunal
of the people in denying lujiplie to th
Kxoculive power on a Bill which give
back to them a great cardinal right.
In such a case we will bav th old
quostion of kingly prerogative against
popular right : ana upon that Issue we
can go to tha peopl witb perfect con
fidence ana safety.
But is it not a strange argument that
the legislative power which controls
the purse, and through that the sword,
baa no right to say how troops are to
be used ; that the legislative power is '
not to have any control over tbis sub
ject ? It seem to me this is a very
singular argument 1 be pane was
given to the legislative powor to con
trol the sword, and they go together,
aud the right and th liberties of tbis
peopl are to b taken care of by their
immediate representative and th rep
resentative of the State in this Cham
ber as the legislative power of the
country, and when an attempt ia mad
to coerce them from an effort to restore
to the people their plain, clear right,
a new issue is mad up, and one that
we can very well plac ourselves upon.
air, in veto power never was in
tended and never ha been used to de
prive the people of fre elections or to
strike down any other of the cardinal
rights or a free people. When it is
used for such a purpose we may witb
implicit trust await th verdict of a
betrayed and outraged people. If it
be to such a result in such a cause the
American people are invited, the legis
lative majority in Congress will aid in
writing upon the pages of our history
a now ana startling proof of the proud
dotermination of American freeman lo
deleud and maintain their own system
of free elections.
Sir, we were never called to a plain
er or more imperative duty, and we
should bo faithless it we faltered in its
fierformance. The restoration of the
iberties of tho people, of the landmarks
ot civil liberty ; the removal of tbe
burdens that bave come to this people
from the changed condition whicb tour
years of oivil war brought upon them ;
a restoration to them of tbe rights that
that changed condition doprived them
of, is our sole purpose in tbis bill. We
bave no other. We should not bo true
to tho people if we had any other. No
department of thit Government baa the
right to resist cur constitutional de
mand for the repeal ot tbi menace to
free government, which it is, as it
stands upon tbe statute-book to-day.
Sir, some writer has said our liberties
aro traceable through one thousand
years' of English and American history.
Tbey are the possessions of those who
ever advanoe, not by senseless clinging
to the present, bnt by holding, repair
ing, improving, grasping the good ot
the present, remodeling the political
fahrin when decay 1 prMent and im
proving at every step of essential progress-Many
of the best change of later
times have been made in costing asid
innovations, removing tbe debris tbat
time and tyranny bave fastened upon
the sturdy base, and in advancing by
falling back upon original principles.
The greatcharter, the petition of right,
the bill of right, and tbe Declaration
ot Independence contained nothing
new in either. Tbey were but the re
assertion of tbe old, the resuscitation
of Ui right of tbe people.. In all
f;rcat political struggles it is not new
aws or new principles tbat prevail
and give form, force, and coherence to
the victorious party, bnt better redress
of grievances, more faithful observance
ol laws, and a restoration of th rights
and privileges of tbe masses which by
neglect or from oppression or mis
rule have become lost, obscured, or
donied. Tbis great right of free elec
tions hat been menaced, obscured, and
donied. '
The disputed section of tbis bill ia
an effort by the legislative power of
thia Congress to return to original
principles. ' ....
Tbis great right raenaood by these
statutes, tba control of which never
belonged to tbo Federal Government
but always bos belonged to the people
and the States, has been menaced, ob
scured, and denied, and tbe disputed
section in this bill is simply an effort
by the legislative power of this Con
gross to return to original principle;
its purpose is to restore the military to
strict subordination to the civil power,
to permit a fro system of laws to be
based again upon a free ballot every
where, and to expunge from the statute
book a menace to free institutions.
"Baby, Comi Koani." A little child
was takon once to a funeral of ono of
his young companions. He had nevor
seen a dead body bofore. He looked
long and earnestly on the beautiful
form of his little friend, at it lay, like
apiece ot wax-work, or of polished
marblo, In the dark colli n, with flowers
all around it. He did not go to th
graveyard. His mother took, bim
borne, and let bun stand at tbe win
dow where be coald see the funeral
procession of bis play mat go by, He
looked at it with fixed attention for
awhile ; thon he turned to hi mother,
and hi face all brightened up witb
gladness, as be said: "Ub, mammal
how beautiful It will be wben Jesus
ays "Baby, com forth I" Tb little
feilow was thinking, eo doubt, of what
b bad beard about Josas manaing by
the grave of II is frleni In Bethany,
when He said, "Lazarus, com forth r"
Tht dear child wa making th right -use
of wbat tb Bibi teaches ns about
Jesus and the resurrection. In th
orning of th reswrrecUo Juu will
peak in that way to all th dead
children, and to all Hit peopl who
died Believing in Him and it will, in
deed, "be beautiful when tbey com
forth." Dr. Artclim.
Tb toune woman- who aaada bar-
tell an object of curiosity la London
by carrying about a Mexican beetle
harnessed by a gold Chain la aotxxiy
now. Tb bag crawled Inside her hind
lo rest and was (revoked by ta antha-
iastio greeting of on of tier impulslv
mnas.
Th Frwtoh pettautry act nat yet
tired of shuffling about in . wooden
shoes, and Franc produce about four
millioa pair yearly :Tby atw ry
economical and keep th feet dry. Th
best at mad of maple, and, in pro
vincial towaa, ladies often wear them.
Tber waa an ingeniu amonnt of de
votion Implied In ths remark of a lev
tick BailboriaVtaa whan tfcemretaaf hi
affection became acstatae over th
beaaty of tb vnlng stai "Oh, do
not--V not praise) U Itk tbatt".
cried: "I cannot gat it tot oa."